In last week's Bad Betting Advice preview, I opened the article with a definition. Here is another one:

A Rorschach test is a psychological exercise in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed, an example of which is shown below. They are meant to be open to interoperation and different people can have vastly different opinions about what they see.

Is that a Spartan helmet, a cartoon caricature of one of the officials from Saturday night with devil horns, or is it Jim Harbaugh with a long wooden nose? Who's to say?

Coming into Saturday night's game between the Michigan State Spartans and the Ohio State Buckeyes, I thought that there was the potential for the game to be a defining moment in the early history of the Jonathan Smith era. My data suggested that the game would be much closer than the opening 24-point spread.

Instead, the Buckeyes blew out the Spartans, 38-7. But if we squint at the image and use our imagination, the overall picture is not as grim as the final score would indicate.

Michigan State did a lot of things right to open the game. Spartan quarterback Aidan Chiles was efficient for the most part, and the designed run plays were working early (netting over six yards per carry in the first half).

The Spartans had the ball in the Buckeye red zone on four consecutive drives. Yes, Michigan State only got seven points out of those drives, but that was due in large part to some bad turnover luck and a missed facemask penalty.

On the defensive side of the ball, the Spartans gave up 17 points in the first 28 minutes. But the Green and White forced a field goal on the first Buckeye possession, intercepted the ball on the third possession, and dropped an easy interception on the second possession. Instead of a turnover, the Buckeyes were able to score essentially on a rare "fifth-and-goal" play because the referees allowed Ohio State to run a play despite time expiring for the first quarter on the game clock that the officials did not blow dead. That play was then negated and OSU was awarded another first-and-goal at the start of the second quarter. The Buckeyes eventually scored on "fourth-and-goal."

With two minutes remaining in the first half, Michigan State had the ball and was trailing only 17-7. The score could easily have been MSU leading by as much as 24-10 with the Spartans getting the ball after the break, but a few calls and play did not go their way. The wheels came off the bus after that, as the Buckeyes dominated the second half, but I saw a lot of encouraging things in those 28 (mostly) good minutes of football.

Just to put some of the data into perspective, I went back to the box scores of the last seven games between the Spartans and Buckeyes and plotted Michigan State's total yardage on the first four drives and the number of points scored by Ohio State in the first half of each game. That comparison is shown below in Figure 1.

The Spartans put up significantly more yards in those first four drives on Saturday night than in any of the previous seven games between the two opponents. Michigan State also held the Buckeye offense to the second lowest point total in that span.

One could argue that the data above is cherry picked. To some extent, that is true. One could argue that if ifs and buts were candy and (buckeye)nuts, the Spartans would be perennial Big Ten contenders. That is true as well.

Spartan fans are free to see what they want to see from Saturday night's loss. Some might conclude that they are seeing the Same Old Spartans. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. As the old saying goes, opinions are like Wolverine-fan neighbors. Almost every Spartan fan has one.

But I still choose to be optimist. When I look at the big picture and the data, what I see is progress. Someday soon, I believe the Big Ten and the rest of the college football nation will start to see it as well.

Now it's time to review the results of last week's Bad Betting Advice, starting with the overview summary shown below in Figure 1. More information about how to read this figure can be found in Week One's edition of Against All Odds.

Eight teams overachieved this week by beating the spread by more than 14 points, including Tulane, Army, Southern Methodist, Navy, Kansas State and Boise State. The only team to underachieved by failing to cover by more than 14 points in a victory was Miami of Ohio.

There were a total of 13 upsets in Week Five, which was very much in line with my prediction of 12.2. Table 1 below summarizes those upsets and compares them to the picks made last week.

Based on the opening spread, Kentucky's (+17) upset of Mississippi was the biggest, but Colorado (+11), and Arizona (+11) both scored upsets as double-digit underdogs over fellow Big 12 opponents UCF and Utah, respectively. All three results have implications for the conference title races.

Although the spreads were much smaller, Alabama's thrilling win over Georgia (-1.5) and BYU's win over Baylor (-3) will also both have significant impact in the SEC and Big 12 races.

When I looked at the results from my computer this week, it generally looked like roses. My computer went 5-3 (62.5%) for upsets bringing the year-to-date performance up to a respectable 15-20 (43%). The FPI also had a rosy week, going 3-3 (50%), bringing its year-to-date record 12-9 (57%).

Table 2 below gives the results of the computers' picks against the opening spread.

My computer went 4-2 (67%) in suggested bets and 35-17 (67%) overall against the spread. This brings the year-to-date performances to 18-12 (60%) and 138-106 (56%), respectively. That looks like winning.

My curated set of FPI picks went 1-2 (33%), while the full set of FPI picks went 28-24 (54%). This brings the year-to-date performance for the FPI to a solid 28-24 (54%) and 130-114 (53%), respectively.

Table 3 below gives the results of the point-total (over/under) bets for Week Five.

The performance of these suggestions paints a slightly less desirable picture. My "lock" picks went 1-1 (50%) once again this week, while the full collection of suggested bets did a little better at 7-5 (58%). This brings the year-to-date totals to 7-13 (35%) for the locks and 60-44 (58%) for the suggested bets.

Following the results of Week Four, I have re-run the full season Monte Carlo simulation using the updated power rankings, including the current uncertainty in those rankings, to update the season odds for each team. Table 4 below gives the update for the Big Ten conference and Table 5 shows the updated Big Ten win distribution matrix.

Note that all the rankings listed next to each team refer to my computer's power rankings and not the national polls.