Michigan State's 23-19 loss to Boston College on Saturday night is certain to stir several different emotions in the hearts of Spartan fans. In other words, there are different strokes for different folks.

Some Spartans fans are livid over the missed opportunity. Michigan State dominated the Eagles in almost every box score category. The Spartans played well enough for most of the game to be 4-0 and knocking on the door of a top-25 ranking. But turnovers, red zone failures, missed throws and other bad decisions eventually caught up to Green and White.

Sophomore quarterback Aidan Chiles was certainly not perfect. His three interceptions and other inaccurate throws played a oversized role in the loss. But he is also just turned 19 years old and was playing on the road, at night, in the rain against a Power Four opponent hosting their most emotional event of their season. On some level, it's a small wonder that things didn't go worse. He should be given a bit of a break.

Chiles' ability to create on offense with both his legs and his arm is like nothing we have seen in East Lansing for quite some time. At times, he displays out-of-this-world talent. But at this point in his career, he is currently a high risk and high reward player.

But I recall a time when Spartan sophomore quarterback Kirk Cousins threw a bad interception on a potentially game-winning drive at Notre Dame. That guy wound up turning out OK, and I have a feeling that by the time Chiles' career with the Spartans is over, everyone will know his name as well.

Other fans took a few positives from Saturday's nights game. Despite the mistakes, the Spartans were consistently in the correct position to make plays. The failures that we observed were correctable errors of execution or poor luck and not faulty schemes or a lack of athleticism. For the first time in while, Michigan State appears well-coached and that feels like a different world.

What we are currently witnessing are simply the growing pains of a young quarterback and of a new era of Spartan football. Despite the setback on the scoreboard, this team and program is headed in the right direction.

It's now 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.

Fifteen teams overachieved this week by beating the spread by more than 14 points, including Iowa State, Kentucky, Miami, Cincinnati, Duke, Army, Virginia and Iowa. Meanwhile only Texas A&M and Missouri underachieved by failing to cover by more than 14 points in a victory.

Week Four also produced a total of 14 upsets. Table 1 below summarizes those upsets and compares them to the picks made last week.

The three biggest upsets on the board all impact the battle for the top team in the Group of Five and therefore the college football playoff field. Northern Illinois (-15) and Memphis (-11) felt the pain of defeat with losses to Buffalo and Navy. In contrast, James Madison saw their odds of post-season glory grow after the Dukes put up 70 points on North Carolina (-10.5).

Other notable upsets in Week Four include Illinois over Nebraska (-9), Rutgers over Virginia Tech (-7.5), BYU over Kansas State (-7), Michigan over USC (-6), and Utah over Oklahoma State (-2.5).

My computer had a painful week on the upset front, going just 2-8 (20%) which brings the year-to-date performance down to 10-17 (37%). The FPI, however, went 2-1 (67%) and as a result saw its year-to-date record grow to 9-6 (60%). So far in this arena, the FPI is really showing my algorithm who's the boss.

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

The computers together had only three suggested bets in Week Four and two of those picks were correct. My computer was 1-1 (50%) in suggested bets, but 26-28 (58%) overall against the spread. This brings the year-to-date performances to 14-10 (58%) and 103-89 (54%), respectively.

My analysis of FPI picks went 1-0 (100%), while the full set of FPI picks went 32-22 (59%). This brings the year-to-date tallies for the FPI to 14-9 (61%) and 102-90 (53%), respectively.

Table 3 below gives the results of the point total bets for Week Four.

The performance of my point-total (over/under) suggested bets is the very definition of average. My "lock" pics went 1-1 (50%), while the full collection of suggested bets went 8-8 (50%). This brings the year-to-date totals to 6-13 (32%) for the locks and 46-35 (57%) 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.