Week 16 NFL BCS

What if the NFL used a ranking system like the NCAA, and next to each team name you saw their ranking just like college?  That's the scenario I've been trying to present the past two weeks, and here is the updated version.

This week the CPA rankings weren't up-to-date when I was calculating the BCS so I used the computer rankings from SportsNutz.com instead.

For a detailed explanation on how these BCS rankings are created please read the Week 14 article which also has a link to how the actual NCAA BCS rankings are calculated.  These are intended to replicate that calculation as closely as possible.

For the second straight week I have added a new column to the rankings which will show each teams result from the prior week.  This might help justify, or cause you to question, why a team moved so much or so little.

BCS Rank	Team	BCS Score	Up/Down	Week 16 Result
1		1.0000	0	W @ #29 Buf 34-3
2		2.6667	0	L vs. #6 NO 17-14
3		3.6667	+2	W vs. #32 Car 27-3
4		3.6667	0	W @ #25 Clev 20-10
5		5.6667	+2	W vs. #9 NYJ 38-34
6		5.8889	0	W @ #2 Atl 17-14
7		7.2222	-4	L vs. #24 Minn 24-14
8		8.3333	+3	W vs. #12 NYG 45-17
9		8.4444	-1	L @ #5 Chi 38-34
10		10.4444	+2	W vs. #18 Tenn 34-14
11		10.8889	+2	W @ #17 Oak 31-26
12		11.5556	-2	L @ GB 45-17
13		12.2222	-4	L @ #27 Cinc 34-20
14		13.6667	+1	W vs. #26 Sea 38-15
15		16.5556	-1	L vs. #21 Wash 20-17
16		16.6667	0	L vs. #22 Det 34-27
17		17.2222	+1	L vs. #11 Indy 31-26
18		18.8889	-1	L @ #10 KC 34-14
19		19.5556	+2	W vs. #28 SF 25-17
20		22.0000	0	L @ #30 Den 24-23
21		22.3333	+3	W @ #15 Jax 20-17
22		22.4444	+5	W @ #16 Mia 34-27
23		23.1111	-4	L @ #31 AZ 27-26
24		23.1111	+1	W @ #7 Phil 24-14
25		25.4444	-2	L vs. #4 Balt 20-10
26		26.1111	0	L @ #14 TB 38-15
27		26.6667	+2	W vs. #13 SD 34-20
28		27.1111	-6	L @ #19 Stl 25-17
29		27.2222	-1	L vs. #1 NE 34-3
30		27.3333	+1	W vs. #20 Hou 24-23
31		28.0000	-1	W vs. #23 Dal 27-26
32		32.0000	0	L @ #3 Pitt 27-3

No surprise that New England is still ranked #1, but I can honestly say that I am surprised that the #2 Atlanta Falcons didn't move at all after their home loss to #6 New Orleans Saints.  Then, on the flip side, I'm also very surprised New Orleans ranking didn't change.

Anyway, let's have a look at this week biggest movers:

#22 Detroit Lions (+5): After back-to-back road victories over #14 Tampa Bay Buccaneers and #16 Miami Dolphins the Lions move up FIVE spots.  They deserve it.

#28 San Francisco 49ers (-6): In my opinion it was only a matter of time before they dropped this low.  When a team with no definite starting QB, and it's star RB is on injured reserve loses to #19 St. Louis Rams this move can only be expected.

#23 Dallas Cowboys(-4): Just when everybody started to think they were turning it around under new Head Coach Jason Garrett they go and lose to #31 Arizona Cardinals.

#13 San Diego Chargers (-4): Wow. I am definitely guilty of thinking the Chargers would win the AFC West because they were more talented than #10 Kansas City Chiefs.  Then they go an lose to #27 Cincinnati Bengals...I guess they just aren't that good this year.

#7 Philadelphia Eagles (-4): I don't know whether to blame it on the extra two day waiting period, or whether the #24 Minnesota Vikings were just a bad match-up, but for the Eagles to lose at home to Minnesota stands as the biggest surprise of the week.

Look forward to a preview of each Week 17 match-up in the coming days!

San Antonio Spurs...are they this good?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=301228024

The above link takes you to a recap of the San Antonio Spurs victory over the defending champion Los Angeles Lakers last night.

SportsReaction

27-4!  That’s the San Antonio Spurs record after last night’s victory which included horrible nights from their stars Tim Duncan (2 points, 4 rebounds, 1-7 from the field), and Manu Ginobli (9 points, 4 rebounds, 6 assists, 4 turnovers, 3-12 from the field). 

How good are the Spurs?  I’m starting to think very good but I want to see if it can last.  To do this I want to take a look at which players are their biggest contributors, and whether their respective paces are sustainable:

Player	Age	MP	FG%	RB	AST	PTS	PER	Career PER	Over/Under
Manu Ginobili	33	31.8	0.450	3.5	4.8	19.1	23.4	21.8	1.07
Tony Parker	28	33.3	0.519	3.2	7.1	17.9	21.2	18.4	1.15
Richard Jefferson	30	32.0	0.487	4.5	1.5	13.8	15.9	16.2	0.98
Tim Duncan	34	28.9	0.487	9.4	3.2	13.2	21.7	24.9	0.87
George Hill	24	27.2	0.467	2.7	2.3	11.3	16.2	14.0	1.16
Gary Neal	26	17.9	0.420	2.5	1.0	8.1	13.1	N/A	N/A
Matt Bonner	30	22.5	0.478	3.6	0.8	7.4	13.8	14.4	0.96
DeJuan Blair	21	20.5	0.462	6.6	1.0	7.2	15.7	17.1	0.92
James Anderson	21	17.7	0.424	1.0	1.5	7.0	12.8	N/A	N/A
Antonio McDyess	36	16.5	0.470	4.8	0.9	4.5	11.6	17.3	0.67
Tiago Splitter	26	11.5	0.519	2.5	0.6	4.5	15.4	N/A	N/A

The part of that table to focus on are the last three columns which represents a player current PER (Player Efficiency Rating as per Basketball-Reference.com), career PER, and the Over/Under column represents how much better or worse a player is performing this year as compared to his career level (PER/Career PER).  A number over one here means the player is performing better than could be expected this season based on his career numbers, and a number under one means the opposite.

Let’s focus on the players high-lighted in orange, all of who are significantly over or under-performing this season.  

Expecting George Hill to continue to perform this well seems highly unreasonable; unless he’s some “star –in-the-making” that I don’t know about.  Manu Ginobli can be expected to regress back towards his career norm, and possibly get worse being that he’s 33 years old.  Tim Duncan seems to have reached the point where it’s not an “automatic” that he will rebound from that 21.7 PER he’s posting now.  He may improve a bit, but not to his former All-Star level.

The only player highlighted that can be expected to keep performing at his current level—which is much better than his career rate—is Tony Parker since he’s only 28 years old. 

Basically, the Spurs are getting outstanding performances from Manu Ginobli, Tony Parker, and George Hill to offset the decline of Tim Duncan.  Two of these players are due for a downfall, while Duncan is only due for a slight improvement.  This doesn’t mean the Spurs will implode and end up with 42 wins, it just means they won’t win 71 games as their current pace suggest.  

But, this historic start can’t be overlooked.  Even if the Spurs play .500 basketball for the remainder of the season they would end up with 52 wins—a total that assures they’ll finish in the top half of the Western Conference playoff field.  But, as the season wears on and the playoffs start, don’t be surprised if the Spurs older players really start to fade and they make an early exit from the tournament.  Maybe they should consider taking the approach the Boston Celtics took last season, and start to rest their older players in the season’s second half.