I never claimed anything about half point errors, that is a strawman.

You claimed that there could be no systematic errors because professional bettors would fix it. Vegas adjusts based on half points. In order for your claim to be right, professional bettors would have to be right down to the half point or else there could still be a systematic error. Not sure how that is a strawman. I really didn't mean to strawman you there.

You say half the time and then disclaim the need for statistical significance. Are you sure that 52.4% since 2003 is statistically insignficant compared to the null hypothesis that BYU wins more than 50% of the time? In order for what you posted to mean anything, that has to be true. Not sure why you are dodging statistical significance.

Good points re EMH. My idea on that was just that you said that there would be no systematic error on any team because of professional bettors. But I guess my point is that there are often systematic errors even in very competitive markets. But I take your point that you don't have to take a position on EMH to conclude that there is no systematic error wrt BYU.

If 52.4% is statistically insignificant controlling for the relevant variables, then I'm happy to acknowledge that BYU fans' lack of betting doesn't affect the line. To be clear, I don't think affirmatively that it does. I just don't think I can say there is no effect in the abstract just because professional bettors are involved. In fact, given that there are higher transaction costs in the betting market than in the stock market, for example, a systematic error could persist longer as long as it is small enough.

Appreciate the apology re the comment.