Mojo picks, and why to bet against the Bungles

Mojo, who's been doing well in our pick 'em pool (30-24 YTD), offers this advice:

I've never picked or bet on football games before. And even though I'm not a stathead, I realized that after a rocky early week I needed a system. I also needed it to be simple since I can't even begin to follow 15 different rules about certian quarterbacks on the road or staying away from coaches named "Mike."

So far my system has served me well, but the sample size is still very small.

Basically, I look for close lines and always choose the home team. I will occasionally choose teams with big lines if I think they're capable of scoring the points-- for Instance I chose Indy over St Louis last week because even with 14.5 points, I figured St. Louis would be outclassed in a shoot-out.

But even though Washington looks much better than San Fran this week, I'm staying away because I'm not convinced The Skins can beat anyone by 12.5 points.

I always choose the home team. If I'm not confident in the home team (like Arizona and Seattle this week), I don't pick the game. I'm selective enough that I never choose more than 8-9 games.

This week:

MIA over kc
STL over no
PHI over sdg
CLE over det
CHI over bal
OAK over buf
NYG over den
ATL over nyj

Years ago I experimented with a number of systems. One favorite was taking the team with the worse turnover differential. Teams who generate a lot of turnovers get cocky and think it's more than luck. Then they tend to stop getting so many. Teams that turn the ball over a ton have only one thing to practice each week. They tend to cut down the turnovers with effort. There are exceptions - it's not a perfect system - but when I tracked it in the past, it worked real well. Here are the current numbers. In tonight's game, the system would like Miami, who at -4, is more likely or "due" for a good game (turnover-wise) than KC (plus three).

I don't know the all-time NFL record for turnover differential, but we almost never see a team doing better than plus or minus 20. In 2002, the Packers and the Bucs led the league with a +17 turnover margin for the whole year. Other leaders: 2003, Chiefs +19; 2004, Colts +19.

Why the Bengals 5-1? In addition to playing an incredibly weak slate (Cleveland, Minnesota, Chicago, Houston, J'ville, Tennessee), they have gone +16 in the turnover. The Bengals, I'm sure, think this is the result of hard work and good defensive strategy.

Do you believe that? I don't. I think it's 50-60% luck. They are on pace to finish the year +42 in the turnover department. Do you think that will happen? I don't. Odds are they finish in the +10 to +20 range. Are they a 5-1 team - an .833 winner - with more neutral turnover numbers?

Everyone loves to say that you win and lose the game with turnovers. My little turnover system suggests we could do well betting against Cincinnati so long as they continue to impress while on this gaudy plus-43 turnover tear.

Of course, that's not the only reason to bet against Cincinnati this week. And I'm not playing the turnover system this year -- though my lousy YTD record suggests I should do something, anything, differently.

Anyone else playing a system, or a know a system worth sharing?