dobs32

As far as handicapping services rate.. overall I would give NorthCoast a 6 rating out of 10. This year they are not even a 1.. but overall for the amount of years I followed them I would give them a 6.. To be quite honest I won a ton of money off their 5 stars in earlier years.Obviously not so much lately. Also if you look at newsletter info in power plays it really gives you a good idea of teams strengths and weaknesses. The past 2 seasons have been terrible for them.. but consider this.. when they put out a 5* game of the year type selection.. look at what the line does.. EVERYWHERE.. I currently use 4 diff't sportsbooks and the line moves 2 to 3 points in some cases. That tells me some heavy hitters do respect their big plays. Thats just my opinion.

bdragon

1-10
I rate his service a 3
I don't have a lot of respect for Steele and his operation NC. I don't doubt that he unerstands his job, I don't doubt he wins a game here and there. I don't, however believe he is an honest business man. He's been caught lying about his releases. He just doesn't win as often as he claims. In this business, honesty and creditbility and of winning is what seperates the losers from the respectable cappers trying to make a business of this.

B

savage1

Ok-lets be more specific and just give a rating for this year and/or your PRESENT overall perception.

beachboy

I'd say presently a 5. I used to be in the "Phil Is God" category, based mostly on his Power Sweep and College Footbal mag, which I still believe are both the best in the business. However, over the last few years his handicapping prowess has been spotty at best, occasionally even horrible.
I'm not fond of the multiple clubs he offers or the way he highlights his record to present it in the most favorable light possible (although all businesses, ANY business, will market the same way--trying to highlight the good while minimizing/failing to mention the bad. Is this deceptive? Yeah, but it's business.) I would feel better about the way he markets if his service would provide, upon request, a complete (and accurate) season-to-date record of all his various clubs. I would also feel better about it if there was only one set of selections rather than "Exec Club", "Totals Club", "Private Plays", etc.

Overall I give him a 10/10 on his magazine, a 9/10 on his newsletters, and (currently) a 3/10 on his handicapping. One would think that with so much information at Phil's fingertips, he could pick winners at least 55-58% of the time...and there's no reason his Top Plays shouldn't be hitting at better than 60%, if they truly are the "best play of the weekend".

heleanth

Four or Five years ago, I would have given NC a very high rating, maybe a 9. However, Phil has dragged his service into the same abyss that other scammers are mired in by adding different clubs and using misleading statistics to make people spend money on what he knows is an inferior product. I rate him a 6 still, because at least he does seem to feel bad when he loses and generally does try to give something back (through the debit card or free\discounted plays) if he does lose, and because of his publications, which are the best of any service as far as content and format (not necessarily selections...).

savage1

I guess I should give my rating as I am the one who started the thread.
Inasmuch as I put a lot of emphasis on honesty and truth of advertising as well the picks themselves, at this juncture, I would give the service a 3 out of 10 at this juncture. If Phil didn't mislead and misrepresent the overall record for THIS season as much as he does, I might give him a 4 or 4 1/2-no more.
The only reason I don't give it a 1 or a 2 for THIS season is because I respect other's opinions about the good information contained in his publications, which I don't read on a regular basis.

dobs32

I wish I could find out why half my posts get deleted. I don't say anything that would warrant being censored.. strange stuff

TrapBuster

I have never posted here before and usually don't post but I had to get in on this entertaining topic. Phil's entire service gets a 3 rating from me and if you single out this year only it has to be a 1 or less. The main problem I have with Phil Steele over the last 10 years is the way he insults our intelligence week in and week out. I know he's in it to make money and he's a salesman but you have to admit that that is what annoys you most about him. That stupid voice on the comp line spinning losing weekends into long term winning percentages. You just want to talk to him yourself and say nice pick yesterday loser. If you guys want a real laugh, try and get your hands on that short book he used to sell, I think it is called '10 Keys to a Winning Season' or something like that. He should dig that up himself and see if it helps him. Good job savage1. I enjoy reading the Northcoast Comp thread every day, especially when Steele is losing, which is every week.

beachboy

As I stated in the above post, with all of the info at Phil's fingertips, it's really surprising his record (esp. on late phone selections) has gotten so shaky in recent years (his "Private" NFL picks last season notwithstanding). One possibility is the formula he uses to grade his picks is no longer applicable.
He states that he uses fundamental handicapping (i.e. relative talent level, matchups, etc.) as 50% of his handicapping, with 25% going to the situational (let-down/look-ahead games, revenge, etc.) and 25% going to angles and trends. Well, it's my belief that the relative talent levels in recent years have "closed the gap", so to speak, due to improved training methods/nutrition, etc. so that the gap between, say the best running back in the country and the 100th best back isn't as large as it was, say 15-20 years ago. And it's certainly true that the gap between the Oklahomas and the Baylors of the world is much narrower than it was 20 years ago. If that's true, then maybe fundamental handicapping isn't quite as important in the overall picture as it was in the past. I wonder if Phil changed his formula to maybe giving equal weight to all three methods of handicapping (33% to fundamental/matchups, 33% to situational, and 33% to angles and trends), if he couldn't improve his record. Well, that's just my theory/opinion anyway. I know I've started placing more emphasis on the situational/psychological aspect in the last few years and have certainly improved my own win percentage--maybe Phil should give it a try.

Lyle Langley

Beachboy,
Good post. I agree with what you say regarding how the gap has narrowed between the haves and have-nots. It would be interesting to see how the margin of scores has changed over the years. I would think that would be the best way to determine to what extent that gap has narrowed.

If one subscribes to that belief, then angle and trends that are over 10, 15 years old would have much less credibility than they would today. It does amuse me when I see a tout saying "team A is 82-17 since 1983 when they stay at a Holiday Inn Express" or something to that effect.

However, one of the largest reasons why it is harder to beat the books in college sports is the change in the world over the past ten to fifteen years.

With the Internet there is an immediate and inexhaustable supply of information. In the 80' and 90's you had touts talking about their "scouts" and "inside information". You did need help across the country to get info on teams.

This was a two-edged sword. The lines on teams were not nearly as sharp as they are today. Somebody who did the work and was able to get the data and info on teams could be far ahead of Vegas. Thus, they could beat the books on a more frequent basis.

Today, if the second string quarterback on the Louisiana Tech team sprains an ankle in practice, you can find that info easily over the web.

Also, with the internet, lines can now adjust immediately due to any situation. Stale or out-of-whack numbers are more difficult to find. Also, as we have seen, the grading of a tout's picks is vital to their "record". Without the internet and the ease of checking lines, old touts could claim a much higher success rate than they probably had.

Lyle

savage1

Beachboy and Lyle-great and insightful posts today.
My only comment and this is for Lyle is that before the advent of the internet, I believe by and large Vegas and especially local bookies had a huge advantage over the average bettor;I am not talking about the person who you describe who made it his profession to do all the legwork regarding injuries, etc.
For the most part the average bettor was stuck with whatever line his bookie gave him on Saturday and Sunday without ability to buy 1/2 points and certainly unless he lived in or had a contact in Vegas, he could not bet earlier in week to get a more fair line or at least a different line from the one he got on the weekend.
Today of course internet besides providing great information to even the more casual better also offers the bettor a number of offshores (this obviously has changed a bit since the feds efforts to make it more difficult to bet) which allow someone to bet whenever he wishes and with a variety of lines and perks,which only help.
Of course, Vegas has access to the same information and adjusts lines accordingly.
Still though, I would argue that with the great free information on the internet, the great FREE and sometimes paid picks(I mean paid picks in that the cappers are professional but bettors don't have to pay for them as they are posted for free on this forum and others) posted by those who do the legwork and/or successful for whatever reason, the average bettor has a better chance of winning and even more so considering that he doesn't have to pay for picks any more unless he so chooses.
That being said, I stil think the average bettor loses over time, but he will lose it more slowly.
As a corollary to all this and which was already alluded to by Lyle, the sports services like Feiner and a ton of other scamdicappers can no longer get away with their lies about their records as they did years ago before people were
able to communicate freely on sports forums about the REAL truth about their records.
I myself was sucked in a number of times by watching some of those saturday morninng shows, believing those 24-3 records touted by some of the touts and calling a 900 number and then going 1-4 and then seeing the next week on the show the capper didn't mention how he did or in some instances had the audacity to say he actually won the week before(remember many of the old 900 numbers had multiple extensions for receiving different sets of picks from the same capper, knowing full well that no one would use all of the extensions as that would be quite expensive;thus if questioned, they could always say they won overall even though a particular bettor had picked the "wrong" extension).
Ok-anyways I just wanted to give my 2 cents worth and again thanks for the interesting and informative posts today.