This postseason did not net MLB and their broadcast partners the ratings they were probably hoping for overall. Some series
Youth Keanu Neal Jersey , like the Astros-Red Sox ALCS did well, but the World Series between eventual champion Boston and the Dodgers didn’t do
gangbusters ratings either despite one big market and one decent sized market
that loves baseball. Ratings for the five games played were down slightly in
total viewers, rating, and share. But on Thursday, during the second day of
Owners Meetings, the league reportedly extended their deal with FOX to air both
regular season and postseason games, as well as expanded streaming and social
rights. According to Forbes’ Maury Brown and Sports Business Journal’s Eric
Fisher, the new deal is reportedly for seven seasons from 2022-2028. Over those
seven years, FOX will reportedly pay MLB $5.1 billion for the rights. That’s so
much money, even without context, but the context makes it even more shocking.
That price tag breaks down to approximately $715 million a year — up from the
$550 million a year figure in the current deal. That’s about a 30% increase.
With this deal, FOX will also get more postseason games at one point — although
whether those games will come out of Turner’s current allotment or MLB Network’s
pair of games is unclear right now. An extension between FOX and MLB was always
going to happen, but with the handwringing over the down ratings this postseason
there was concern that the money wouldn’t be there like before. But a 50% bump
and more than five billion bucks should put that to rest. Because 13 million
people watching a baseball game isn’t 18 million people watching a baseball
game, but it’s still 13 million people watching a live broadcast on one network.
Appointment viewing that’s worth the money to secure. Who knows what the
streaming or digital landscape will look like it five or six years but FOX
making sure that they are the ones who will have to adapt to the changing
landscape of live sports watching is the only move they could have made. With
all that guaranteed TV money continuing to flow in, owners should feel more than
comfortable putting that money back into their organizations. Maybe in the form
of paying top players? Nah, probably not. But the TV situation for baseball is
now secure for the next decade, no matter what ratings look like. Below are the
new S&P+ rankings after college football’s Week 11.A reminder: S&P+ is
intended to be predictive and forward looking.Good predictive ratings are not
r?sum? ratings, and they don’t give you bonus points for wins and losses. They
simply compare expected output to actual output and adjust accordingly. That’s
how a given team can win but plummet or lose and move up.Through 11 weeks, the
S&P+ rankings are performing well, hitting 54 percent against the spread and
52 percent on the over/under point totals for the year.As you would hope, the
absolute error — the average size of miss between projection and reality — has
settled into a healthy area as well. Week 11 was S&P+’s best week yet in
that regard.If you’re interested in a decent r?sum? ranking of sorts
http://www.authenticsatlantafalcons.com/cheap-desmond-trufant-jersey , I encourage you to visit this post on strength of schedule. I created a Resume
S&P+ ranking and will be updating it on Mondays throughout the rest of the
season.Below, however, are the predictive ratings, the actual S&P+.(You can
find full unit rankings, plus a yearly archive, at Football Outsiders. The
offense and defense pages are updated by Monday at the latest.)2018 S&P+
rankings after 11 weeksTeamRec.S&P+ RatingS&P+ RankLast
WkChangeTeamRec.S&P+ RatingS&P+ RankLast WkChangeHello, GeorgiaIt has
felt inevitable in recent weeks, but the “Alabama and Clemson separate
themselves from everyone else” narrative that is quickly defining the 2018
season is a pretty new thing. Among other things, Georgia was part of that
dominant class until about a month ago.Kirby Smart’s Dawgs fell from third to
sixth in S&P+ following their 36-16 loss at LSU on October 13 — not a
horrible drop, but enough to fall behind not only Bama and rising Clemson, but
also Oklahoma and Michigan.Since the LSU loss, however, they’ve beaten Florida
(currently 22nd in S&P+) by 17, Kentucky(top-30 at the time) by 17, and now
Auburn (currently 20th) by 17. They are keeping strong teams at arm’s length,
and they have been rewarded by a return to No. 3 in this week’s rankings.The
Dawgs’ run game is brilliant (outside of the red zone, at least), and while the
defense is a little less efficient than it was last year, no one makes big plays
on the Dawgs. Granted, UGA is still closer to Michigan and Oklahoma than
Clemson. But consider this a reminder that Alabama’s path to the College
Football Playoff is not bump-free ... and, perhaps more importantly
Robert Alford Jersey , that Michigan’s spot in the current CFP top four is not guaranteed.The week’s top movers (good)Jesse Johnson-USA TODAY
SportsMinnesota (up 23 spots, from 76th to 53rd)Syracuse (up 19 spots, from 58th
to 39th)Tennessee (up 12 spots, from 82nd to 70th)Florida International (up 11
spots, from 97th to 86th)Nevada (up 11 spots, from 84th to 73rd)Memphis (up 11
spots, from 39th to 28th)Maryland (up 10 spots, from 65th to 55th)Stanford (up
10 spots, from 35th to 25th)Air Force (up nine spots, from 89th to 80th)Pitt (up
nine spots, from 71st to 62nd)Good god, Minnesota. Here’s what I wrote last
week, when Minnesota pulled off the week’s biggest drop.Make that seven times
rising or falling by at least 10 spots. Don’t bet on Minnesota this year,
kids.Top movers (bad)Ben Queen-USA TODAY SportsTCU (down 19 spots, from 48th to
67th)Purdue (down 15 spots, from 25th to 40th)Ole Miss (down 14 spots, from 46th
to 60th)Virginia Tech (down 14 spots, from 61st to 75th)Florida State (down 12
spots, from 75th to 87th)Kentucky (down 11 spots, from 37th to 48th)Toledo (down
10 spots, from 62nd to 72nd)Baylor (down 10 spots
Authentic Matt Bosher Jersey , from 81st to 91st)Four teams down nine spotsTCU was projected 22nd in the preseason and rose to 16th in week two. They
were 25th by week four, 46th by week eight, and now, following a humbling 47-10
loss to WVU, they have fallen into the bottom half of FBS.FBS conferences,
ranked by average S&P+ rating:SEC (plus-10.0 adjusted points per game, down
0.3 points)Big Ten (plus-5.6, same)Big 12 (plus-5.4, down 0.4)Pac-12 (plus-4.2,
up 0.2)ACC (plus-3.8, down 0.1)AAC (minus-0.4, up 0.3)Mountain West (minus-2.1,
up 0.1)Sun Belt (minus-4.4, up 0.3)Conference USA (minus-5.9, up 0.5)MAC
(minus-6.7, down 0.4)Changes from last week: the Big Ten has eked by the Big 12
for the No. 2 spot, and the MAC has landed with a thud in the bottom spot
despite having six teams ranked in the top 75. (The main reason: four teams in
the bottom 14.)Another reminder: I have made a few philosophical changes in this
year’s S&P+ rankings. When I get the chance (so, maybe in the offseason), I
will update previous years of S&P+ rankings to reflect these formula
changes, too.I changed the garbage time definition. S&P+ stops counting the
major stats once the game has entered garbage time. Previously, that was when a
game ceased to be within 27 points in the first quarter
Youth Matt Bryant Jersey , 24 in the second, 21 in the third, and 16 in the fourth. Now I have expanded it: garbage time adjustments don’t begin until a
game is outside of 43 points in the first quarter, 37 in the second, 27 in the
third, and 21 in the fourth. That change came because of a piece I wrote about
game states at Football Study Hall.Preseason projections will remain in the
formulas all season. Fans hate this — it’s the biggest complaint I’ve heard
regarding ESPN’s FPI formulas. Instinctively, I hate it, too. But here’s the
thing: it makes projections more accurate. Our sample size for determining
quality in a given season is tiny, and incorporating projection factors found in
the preseason rankings decreases the overall error in projections. So I’m doing
it.To counteract this conservative change, I’m also making S&P+ more
reactive to results, especially early in the season. If I’m admitting that
S&P+ needs previous-year performances to make it better, I’m also going to
admit that S&P+ doesn’t know everything it needs to early in a season, and
it’s going to react a bit more to actual results.Basically, I’ve added a step to
the the rankings process: after the rankings are determined, I go back and
project previous games based on those ratings, and I adjust the ratings based on
how much the ratings fit (or don’t fit) those results.The adjustment isn’t
enormous, and it diminishes dramatically as the season unfolds.Testing this
process for past seasons improved performance against the spread a little and,
more importantly, decreased absolute error (the difference between projections
and reality) quite a bit. I wouldn’t have made the move if it didn’t appear to
improve performance.
