So the Blue Bombers are 141/2-point underdogs, eh?Yowsa. Haven't seen a line like that since the Spartans, at home, were 20-point dogs against the Persian Empire at the Battle of Thermopylae. At least, those were the odds posted by Caesar's Palace which -- in what turned out to be quite the irony -- had a sports book in 480 B.C.

Heck, Custer, was only a 91/2-point dog in the Battle of Little Bighorn. And, trust us, he didn't even come close to covering. (Although, it should be noted here for the sake of posterity that Custer's men, contrary to earlier reports, weren't wearing Argonaut uniforms that fateful day in Montana. But we digress...)

What this does tell us is that the Las Vegas gaming industry, for one, isn't convinced that the Bombers, now 2-3, have turned the corner on the 2009 season. However, it's worth recalling that the Bombers were also around seven-point dogs when they faced the same Calgary Stampeders on July 10 in Winnipeg. Result: Winnipeg 42, Calgary 30.

In fact, the CFL has been rife with falling favourites so far this season. After all, it takes a while for anybody to get their heads around the fact that the Hamilton Tiger-Cats don't suck. Go figure.

Then there's the matter of the B.C. Lions, who are a disappointing 1-4 -- Where's Wally? -- despite being one of the few teams deemed to have two decent quarterbacks.

This is all about perception. Clearly, the oddsmakers believe: a) the Bombers defence, which was instrumental in the July 10 victory, can't be expected to come to the team's rescue in tights and a cape every week; and b) the Winnipeg offence still hasn't proven that, even with newcomer Michael Bishop injecting an early spark in last week's 13-12 win in Toronto, they are not an overall detriment to the team.

After all, it's not like the defending champs are some unstoppable juggernaut. The Stamps are also 2-3 and coming off a 24-23 last-minute loss to the Saskatchewan Roughriders on home turf.

So what gives, Vegas? We know the Bombers haven't won in Cowtown for seven long years, but does the fact the 2004 team lost to Calgary mean anything today?

Vegas is big on trends, though; what teams have a track record of covering on the road, which teams have a history of playing tough against league powerhouses, etc.

It's all quite clinical and calculated. There's no emotion in the numbers, only in the betting. And this is the curious part, that the perception of the Bombers is so unflattering that bookies with no horse in the race have to give such long odds against just to get some action.

That's right; the Winnipeg Blue Bombers are viewed as such sad sacks that gamblers have to be almost goaded into betting on them or against them. Vegas bookie: "What, 10 points isn't enough? Have you seen these guys play offence?! OK, how about 12?" And so on and so forth.

Of course, Bombers head coach Mike Kelly wears the underdog status well. He wallows in the stuff, smiling. And Kelly's troops have every right to scoff at a line out of a Vegas casino. That's all fair.

But perhaps there's a better alternative. Like actually being considered a solid, dependable football team, for example. You know, a football team that will enter the den of even the most formidable opponent and still be given at least a push. That's the type of team long-suffering Bombers fans deserve, even if they might not recognize it anymore.

So, fine, an unfavourable line might be a dog's best friend. But only for a while. Because that tune will get old real fast.

For what it's worth, we're guessing the vast majority of Bombers faithful long for the day when their home team is favoured and carries that status with aplomb. Actually, we're also convinced that Kelly would revel much more as a front-runner. Cocky fits his personality better than humble, although he can do both.

But, again, this isn't about bookies or bettors or even the head coach, frankly. They're not called the Blue Bombers, after all, they're called the "Winnipeg" Blue Bombers. They're a calling card for this city and province.

And according to the entire outside world they're expected to lose in Calgary by more than two converted touchdowns.

Really? It's that bad?

Personally, I'd take the Bombers and the points.

Besides, the only way to change perception is action. Would covering an embarrassing spread, at the very least, be a decent start?

You bet.

randy.turner@freepress.mb.ca

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition August 8, 2009 D1