Saturday night's 24-17 loss to the Michigan Wolverines by the Michigan State Spartans looks like a lost opportunity.

If you would have told me prior to the game that the Spartans would out-gain the Wolverines by 87 yards, that the Michigan State running backs room would out-produce the Michigan running backs room 204 yards to just 59 yards, and that the Spartans would only commit one turnover, I would have picked Michigan State to have won the game by more than two touchdowns.

But that is not how it played out.

Instead, the Wolverines eliminated many of the errors that have plagued their season so far, found a surprisingly competent passing game, and took advantage of some opportunistic trick plays to generate just enough offense to score 24 points.

On the other side of the ball, the Spartans failed to capitalize on the opportunities that they created for themselves in a dominant first quarter. This was typified by the empty first drive where they lacked the brawn to punch the ball into the end zone.

One could also argue that the brains on the Spartan coaching staff failed to utilize quarterback Aidan Chiles' legs or arm as much as they could have. I am not the one who makes a lot of money coaching football, but that also feels like a missed opportunity.

This is a game that Michigan State could have, and perhaps should have won. If the two teams were to play each other 100 times. I believe the Spartans win more than half of them. But that is not how college football works.

For MSU head coach Jonathan Smith, it was a lost opportunity to beat Michigan in his first attempt. It was a chance to plant a flag for everyone to see about the different paths the two schools now appear to be on. However, in defeat, it may be an opportunity for Smith to fully understand the nature and subtleties of his new in-state rivalry. This may prove to be the most valuable lesson of all.

At the end of the day, whether they want to admit it or not, this game was more important for the Wolverines than it was for the Spartans. Had Michigan State won, Michigan would have very likely finished under .500 and would have watched their in-state rivals play in a bowl game from the comforts of their own homes.

Rivalry Week is over and it is time to move on. I, for one, have had enough of scheming and messing around with jerks. For Michigan State, the season remains on track to exceed expectations. The goal remains to accumulate enough wins to qualify for the postseason for the first time since 2021.

Based on what we have seen so far in Year One of the Jonathan Smith era, there will be plenty of opportunities for the Spartans to beat the Wolverines in the years to come. I think he knows how to take them.

Now let's take the opportunity to take a look at the picks that I made in last week's Bad Betting Advice article, 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.

In Week Nine, 11 teams overachieved by beating the spread by more than 14 points, including Notre Dame, Alabama, California, Arkansas, Pittsburgh and Minnesota. In contrast, both Ohio State and Texas failed to cover by more than 14 points and yet still won.

Only 11 teams won in upset fashion. This was the first time since Week Three that the upset total was significantly lower than expected (by 3.5 games, according to my pre-week simulation). Table 1 below summarizes those upsets and compares them to the picks made last week.

This week's biggest upset was Kennesaw State's win over Liberty (-24.5), which also marked the first win by the Owls as an FBS program. Other notable upset winners include North Carolina over Virginia (-5.5), Auburn over Kentucky (-3), and West Virginia over Arizona (-2.5).

My computer's brain went just 2-5 (29%) for upset picks this week, bringing the year-to-date performance to 27-40 (40%). The FPI did even worse, only going 1-3 (25%) and bringing its year-to-date record to 17-21 (45%).Table 2 below gives the results of the computers' picks against the opening spread.

In this case, the two computers showed more brawn. My computer went 1-1 (50%) in suggested bets and 29-27 (52%) overall. This brings the year-to-date performances to 27-24 (53%) and 241-219 (52.4%), respectively.

My curated set of FPI picks flexed some muscles, going a perfect 3-0 (100%), while the full set of FPI picks went 27-29 (48%). This brings the year-to-date performance for the FPI to 20-16 (55.6%) and 238-222 (51.7%), respectively. Hopefully some of these picks allowed someone out there to make lots of money.

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

My lock picks were 0-2 (0%), while the full collection of suggested bets went 4-4 (50%). This brings the year-to-date totals to an ironic 14-17 (45%) for the locks, but 85-60 (58.6%) for the suggested bets.

Following the results of Week Nine, I have re-run the full season Monte Carlo simulation using the updated power rankings, including the current uncertainty in those rankings, which provides the opportunity 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.