A reminder: S&P+ is intended to be predictive and forward
looking.Good predictive ratings are not rsum ratings
Andy Levitre Jersey , 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 rsum
ranking of sorts, 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
Authentic Devonta Freeman Jersey , 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, 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
Youth Ricardo Allen Jersey , from 37th to 48th)Toledo (down 10 spots, from 62nd to 72nd)Baylor (down 10 spots, 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
http://www.falconsauthorizedshops.com/authentic-grady-jarrett-jersey , that was when a game ceased to be within 27 points in the first quarter, 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.The Falcoholic Crossfire
Podcast: 2018 Week 3 The inaugural episode of our new Crossfire podcast is here!
This podcast features two combatants as they make their case over several topics
revolving around the Falcons and the NFL in general. The first episode features
two of our editors in Jeanna Thomas and Matt Chambers and things get a bit
feisty.Here’s where you come in: After listening to the podcast, we want you to
vote on who you believe won the debate. Give us your reasons in the comments and
feel free to provide feedback and ideas for future debate topics as well.The
topics discussed:Has Steve Sarkisian turned the corner as an NFL
coordinator?Which NFC team will finish this season with the best record?Who
finishes with more rushing yards: Tevin Coleman or Devonta Freeman?Will Matt
Ryan surpass 4700 passing yards in 2018?Can Vic Beasley finish 2018 with 8 or
more sacks?Let us know who won the debate:
