Yes - the perceptive among you will indeed notice that my description of how the line is set doesn't support either side.
It's purposefully placed exactly at the dividing line of where most bettors think it should be - with half going one way and half going the other.
So while most Patsfans will think with their heart and scoff at a platry 16.5 point line, half the bettors out there are picking the Pats to beat the spread and half are expecting them not to.
Everything else is academic, from whether an unknown QB can breath some life into an offense (would that REALLY be the first time that has happened in the NFL?) to whether the Dolphins defensive players can play at a level they have in the past - there's a reason why Las Vegas has picked a 16.5 pointspread - and it's because that's where they can count on dividing the bettors for and against as equally as possible so that the "House" doesn't lose. If the Pats don't cover will it be for the reasons I outlined above? Or completely different ones? Who knows... I'm just throwing out some reasons why half the betting public out there don't think the Pats will cover.
Now maybe those half of the bettors NOT picking the Pats to cover have their own reasons for thinking we won't win by nearly 3 touchdowns - but as far as the original poster's question - the opinion of those outside of New England is that it's an even call.
I don't think that can really be argued.
You came off initially as arguing the line supported betting on Miami. You are of course correct that the line is set by rule so that its a toss up argument. Half the people (well half the money at least) feels the Pats will cover and half feels they wont.
In this PARTICULAR case though, I think there is potential that it is skewed.
Whenever anything is highest or lowest there is a built in factor that tends to limit it back toward the middle.
When a line is 16.5, there certainly can be a dynamic where people look at that line and will take the points regardless of the matchup, (esp with road team favored) because they simply see it as too high of a line no matter how they feel about the teams.
In other words, teams covering 16.5 point spreads on the road is not a common occurence. That will tend to push money to the underdog side. (Sort of like bettors saying "I dont care who the teams are I cant give 16.5 on the road) But the historic levels of spreads has really nothing to do with this game. These 2 teams are however far apart they are. The line is saying its one of the biggest gaps you will see in an NFL game.
When you reach unusual territory the difference tends to be understated.
Just my opinion of course.
I do have one fact to support this though. I have won a lot with a betting strategy of OVER the HIGHEST over/under and UNDER the lowest OVER/UNDER.
In other words, when you are at extreme ends, perception tends to drift back toward the middle.
Betting on the NFL and winning requires 'knowing' more than the average knowledge of the combined betting public. IMO, the combined betting public is averse to giving any large # of points, so the line is probably set a little bit less than it would be without that factor.
Over the years, teams that win by blowouts, and have huge spreads (SF in the 80s and 90s, the Rams in the late 90s, the Colts of hte last few years, etc) have always done very well against the spread.
Quite frankly, I think Vegas could have this line at 20 and it would still split the betting evenly, however, it would probably also reduce the volume of bets on the game. Anyone betting on the Pats giving 16.5 is probably also taking them at 20. Anyone unwilling ot take Miami plus 16.5 probably wouldn't be pulled in at 20. However, that large of a spread would probably have more bettors just decide to look elsewhwere.
