Here are the ratings for last week, with game 4 of the NBA finals coming in 2nd, and game 3 coming in 5th:
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272|||weekly,00.html
Falling well behind America's Got Talent, but, otherwise, basically both games did better than all other network programming last week.
Some would argue "Man, the ratings have fallen so far from the Jordan era!", without really taking into account that all TV ratings are down.
To make that point, here is the similar week in 1994:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_frm/thread/bfaf0dae49140288/64e65e4bfe7c4f88?lnk=st&q=&rnum=4&hl=en#64e65e4bfe7c4f88
Now, granted, this was the year of the Houston/NY finals, so, no Jordan led Bulls, but, it did have NY in the finals, which is supposedly the market every league wants in the finals.
One thing you'll notice right away is the lofty ratings EVERYTHING was getting. Reruns of sitcoms getting ratings (16-17's) in June that CSI and even American idol don't get now during sweeps months. FIFTY shows got a better nielsen rating than the higher rated program in the same week in 2007.
And where did the NBA finals games finish... 9th, 16th and 46th.
Their is no doubt, NBA ratings are down, and less people "seem to care". But, really, I think it has to do more with people not caring about watching TV in general, even cable, because of the internet.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
New League Proposed By Mark Cuban
http://www.nbcsports.com/sports/1569872/detail.html
Looking at the top "MSA"s without an NFL team:
Metro area populations on Wikipedia
Your top candidates are:
2. Los Angeles
21. Orlando
23. Sacramento
26. Portland
29. Columbus
30. San Antonio
31. Las Vegas
32. Milwaukee
33. Virginia Beach/Norfolk
34. Salt Lake City
35. Raleigh-Durham
37. Greensboro
38. Austin
39. Louisville
40. Grand Rapids
41. Hartford
43. Memphis
44. Oklahoma City
About a third of those cities though are probably too college football focused to get a team (Columbus, Austin, Louisville, etc). But, add in Mexico City and possibly Toronto (where there's been speculation they'd want an NFL team eventually as opposed to just the CFL), and you've got at least 10-14 viable markets to start out with, although you are locked out of most of the Top 20 markets other than Los Angeles, which is what will really hurt this league for TV marketability purposes. And deciding to compete with "pro" football in NFL markets in the fall seems like suicide.
If I was speculating on what the "UFL" would look like if it comes to fruition in 2008:
East - Orlando, Milwaukee, Virginia, Canada (Toronto or Ottawa), Carolina (either Raliegh or Greensboro)
West - Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Portland, Mexico City
As far as TV networks, I can't see any major players being too interested, despite the people involved. I think you are looking at probably a "Versus" on cable, and possibly if they wanted to try to get on network TV, maybe "MyNetworkTV".
Looking at the top "MSA"s without an NFL team:
Metro area populations on Wikipedia
Your top candidates are:
2. Los Angeles
21. Orlando
23. Sacramento
26. Portland
29. Columbus
30. San Antonio
31. Las Vegas
32. Milwaukee
33. Virginia Beach/Norfolk
34. Salt Lake City
35. Raleigh-Durham
37. Greensboro
38. Austin
39. Louisville
40. Grand Rapids
41. Hartford
43. Memphis
44. Oklahoma City
About a third of those cities though are probably too college football focused to get a team (Columbus, Austin, Louisville, etc). But, add in Mexico City and possibly Toronto (where there's been speculation they'd want an NFL team eventually as opposed to just the CFL), and you've got at least 10-14 viable markets to start out with, although you are locked out of most of the Top 20 markets other than Los Angeles, which is what will really hurt this league for TV marketability purposes. And deciding to compete with "pro" football in NFL markets in the fall seems like suicide.
If I was speculating on what the "UFL" would look like if it comes to fruition in 2008:
East - Orlando, Milwaukee, Virginia, Canada (Toronto or Ottawa), Carolina (either Raliegh or Greensboro)
West - Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Portland, Mexico City
As far as TV networks, I can't see any major players being too interested, despite the people involved. I think you are looking at probably a "Versus" on cable, and possibly if they wanted to try to get on network TV, maybe "MyNetworkTV".
Monday, January 08, 2007
Thoughts on what they should do for the next NFL TV rights bidding
I'd like the see the following happen:
1. Let the SNF network (assuming it stays network) have 2 weeks of playoff games on Sunday Night, instead of two Saturday Wild-card games.
It just seems like a better case for continuity. Right now, NBC gets 2 Saturday Wild Cards, and CBS/FOX split the Sunday games, and each have 2 Divisional games.
If my proposal, the schedule would go (assuming all networks stay the same):
Wild Card: Sat 4:30pm AFC/CBS, 8pm NFC/FOX Sun 4:30pm NFC/FOX, 8pm AFC/NBC
Divisional Playoffs: Sat 4:30pm NFC/FOX, 8pm AFC/CBS Sun 4:30pm AFC/CBS, 8pm NFC/NBC
NBC gets their games on Sunday night, plus a divisional instead of a 2nd wild card. That should make the SNF package increase even more than a nominal amount. The AFC & NFC packages would rotate every other year who gets the two Divisional playoffs vs who gets the 2 Wild Card and only 1 divisional. This is only a decrese of 1 divisional game every other year (and they pick up another wild card), so, doesn't seem like something that should really make the contract dip too much.
2. Let the MNF Cable contract also get to rotate in the Super Bowl rotation (assuming it stays ESPN, I doubt any other network would get it). ESPN would show the Super Bowl as "ESPN on ABC" (no Super Bowl on cable) obviously, but, would still be interesting to see the Super Bowl with ESPN branding, I think.
1. Let the SNF network (assuming it stays network) have 2 weeks of playoff games on Sunday Night, instead of two Saturday Wild-card games.
It just seems like a better case for continuity. Right now, NBC gets 2 Saturday Wild Cards, and CBS/FOX split the Sunday games, and each have 2 Divisional games.
If my proposal, the schedule would go (assuming all networks stay the same):
Wild Card: Sat 4:30pm AFC/CBS, 8pm NFC/FOX Sun 4:30pm NFC/FOX, 8pm AFC/NBC
Divisional Playoffs: Sat 4:30pm NFC/FOX, 8pm AFC/CBS Sun 4:30pm AFC/CBS, 8pm NFC/NBC
NBC gets their games on Sunday night, plus a divisional instead of a 2nd wild card. That should make the SNF package increase even more than a nominal amount. The AFC & NFC packages would rotate every other year who gets the two Divisional playoffs vs who gets the 2 Wild Card and only 1 divisional. This is only a decrese of 1 divisional game every other year (and they pick up another wild card), so, doesn't seem like something that should really make the contract dip too much.
2. Let the MNF Cable contract also get to rotate in the Super Bowl rotation (assuming it stays ESPN, I doubt any other network would get it). ESPN would show the Super Bowl as "ESPN on ABC" (no Super Bowl on cable) obviously, but, would still be interesting to see the Super Bowl with ESPN branding, I think.
Friday, December 22, 2006
7-9 Playoff team in the NFC?
Here is what needs to happen for the 6 seed in the NFC to be 7-9:
Giants lose at home to New Orleans and at Washington.
Atlanta lose at home to Carolina and at Philadelphia.
St. Louis loses to either Washington or Minnesota.
San Francisco loses to either Arizona or Denver.
Carolina must beat Atlanta, and lose to New Orleans.
Green Bay loses to Chicago.
Probably the most unlikely of these is Washington over the Giants, although it will be in D.C... Carolina beating Atlanta is probably the 2nd least likely, although Atlanta's been known to shoot itself in the foot. All of the other things that need to happen seem pretty good, especially if Philly beats Dallas on Christmas, they'll be able to win the NFC East with a win over Atlanta in week 17.
Giants lose at home to New Orleans and at Washington.
Atlanta lose at home to Carolina and at Philadelphia.
St. Louis loses to either Washington or Minnesota.
San Francisco loses to either Arizona or Denver.
Carolina must beat Atlanta, and lose to New Orleans.
Green Bay loses to Chicago.
Probably the most unlikely of these is Washington over the Giants, although it will be in D.C... Carolina beating Atlanta is probably the 2nd least likely, although Atlanta's been known to shoot itself in the foot. All of the other things that need to happen seem pretty good, especially if Philly beats Dallas on Christmas, they'll be able to win the NFC East with a win over Atlanta in week 17.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Case for the "San Jose 49ers"
It seems to me that for all the talk about the San Francisco 49ers possible move to Santa Clara, that many things have been bantered about for the teams name. The team seems pretty insistant that they want to keep "San Francisco". Others have said "Why not Santa Clara", and I've seen suggestions for "Bay Area 49ers" and other "non-city" names. The one thing that strangely has gotten what seems like the least play is the "San Jose 49ers", which is surprising, since if you look at how sports teams are generally named, "San Jose 49ers" are the most appropriate name.
First off, lets talk about the case against "San Francisco", if they build the new stadium in Santa Clara. Go to Google Maps and type in "Santa Clara, CA". If you are not familiar with the area, you will see that Santa Clara is right next to San Jose. They are kissing each other really. San Francisco is 45 miles away, with at least a dozen other cities between them and Santa Clara. So, really, the 49ers would in effect be playing in the shadow of San Jose, not San Francisco.
But, people will say: San Francisco is the major city of the area. But, people would be wrong. In fact, San Jose has 944,857 people to San Francisco's 799,263. Santa Clara has around 100,000, so, they aren't even in the equation. Santa Clara is like the Auburn Hills to Detroit's Pistons, or the Orchard Park to Buffalo's Bills. It isn't a major market, and the team has every right to take the name of the major city nearby.
But, that is where it gets tricky. San Jose, by all rights, IS the "Major City" nearby. Not San Francisco. In fact, given the above fact that San Jose is bigger than San Francisco, consider this: If they kept the name "San Francisco 49ers", they would be the first team, in ANY sport, at ANY level that I am aware of, that has taken the city name of a city FURTHER away than a closer city with a HIGHER population.
That is the crux of what makes the "San Fransico 49ers" in Santa Clara "wrong". Not because of the team not being in the city it's named after. Not even being so far away from San Francisco. It's the fact that another city has MORE of a right to have the name than they do.
Unfortunately, San Jose seems to have a case of "Columbus-itis" to most people. That's the case where a city doesn't have the cachet of other cities nearby, to the extent where people actually think they are smaller than those cities. If you ask most people what the largest city in Ohio is, they'd probably say Cincinatti or Cleveland. But, Columbus has and still is the largest city in Ohio. The reasons why people think that mainly come back to the issue at hand: sports. Until the Blue Jackets came along, Columbus had no teams even approaching pro level, while Cincinatti and Cleveland each had baseball and NFL teams. That gives an "aura" to a city that few other things can nationally to people outside the area. That is what San Jose "deserves" if the team locates so close to them.
Maybe there is the old "East Coast" bias, so, consider this theoretical sitation: Baltimore never get the Ravens in the NFL. The Washington Redskins then decide they want to move and build a stadium in Halethorpe, Maryland, which is right next to Baltimore, and about 35 miles from Washington, and still be called the "Washington Redskins". You don't think Baltimore would be having a hissyfit, having a population almost 100,000 more than Washington D.C., and not being able to have the name of the team RIGHT next door be "Baltimore"?
Any comparison you make to other situations would not be the same:
Auburn Hills Pistons? Orchard Park Bills? I've already stated, those are not "major cities" (no offense to the cities, I'm sure they are fine places to live and work). They are only 20-30% of the size of the city the teams are named after, so, this situation is certainly not applicable to those.
The "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" Yes, I am still one of the ones who thinks this is silly, but, it's still not applicable to the 49ers situation because Los Angeles is bigger than Anaheim. It's not as if Anaheim poached the Lakers name while still playing in downtown L.A.
Tampa Bay Lightning playing in St. Petersburg? First of all, St. Petersburg is smaller than Tampa. Secondly, contrary to many people's belief, there is NO city called "Tampa Bay". It's "Tampa, Florida". Tampa Bay simply refers to the "area", so, it's really a team name more like the "New England" Patriots or the "Golden State" Warriors.
Which, might be the 49ers solution to the whole situation: the "San Francisco BAY 49ers". That way, the team basically keeps the "San Francisco" name, but, by namesaking after the "Bay" and not the city, it encompasses the entire area.
But, San Jose, at least as of yet, doesn't seem to have risen to complain yet. Maybe they are waiting for it to become more official. Maybe they don't have the civic pride of a Baltimore or another city that shares a close metro area with another city. Maybe they should. Maybe they need to wake up and flex their wings and get what is rightfully theirs.
First off, lets talk about the case against "San Francisco", if they build the new stadium in Santa Clara. Go to Google Maps and type in "Santa Clara, CA". If you are not familiar with the area, you will see that Santa Clara is right next to San Jose. They are kissing each other really. San Francisco is 45 miles away, with at least a dozen other cities between them and Santa Clara. So, really, the 49ers would in effect be playing in the shadow of San Jose, not San Francisco.
But, people will say: San Francisco is the major city of the area. But, people would be wrong. In fact, San Jose has 944,857 people to San Francisco's 799,263. Santa Clara has around 100,000, so, they aren't even in the equation. Santa Clara is like the Auburn Hills to Detroit's Pistons, or the Orchard Park to Buffalo's Bills. It isn't a major market, and the team has every right to take the name of the major city nearby.
But, that is where it gets tricky. San Jose, by all rights, IS the "Major City" nearby. Not San Francisco. In fact, given the above fact that San Jose is bigger than San Francisco, consider this: If they kept the name "San Francisco 49ers", they would be the first team, in ANY sport, at ANY level that I am aware of, that has taken the city name of a city FURTHER away than a closer city with a HIGHER population.
That is the crux of what makes the "San Fransico 49ers" in Santa Clara "wrong". Not because of the team not being in the city it's named after. Not even being so far away from San Francisco. It's the fact that another city has MORE of a right to have the name than they do.
Unfortunately, San Jose seems to have a case of "Columbus-itis" to most people. That's the case where a city doesn't have the cachet of other cities nearby, to the extent where people actually think they are smaller than those cities. If you ask most people what the largest city in Ohio is, they'd probably say Cincinatti or Cleveland. But, Columbus has and still is the largest city in Ohio. The reasons why people think that mainly come back to the issue at hand: sports. Until the Blue Jackets came along, Columbus had no teams even approaching pro level, while Cincinatti and Cleveland each had baseball and NFL teams. That gives an "aura" to a city that few other things can nationally to people outside the area. That is what San Jose "deserves" if the team locates so close to them.
Maybe there is the old "East Coast" bias, so, consider this theoretical sitation: Baltimore never get the Ravens in the NFL. The Washington Redskins then decide they want to move and build a stadium in Halethorpe, Maryland, which is right next to Baltimore, and about 35 miles from Washington, and still be called the "Washington Redskins". You don't think Baltimore would be having a hissyfit, having a population almost 100,000 more than Washington D.C., and not being able to have the name of the team RIGHT next door be "Baltimore"?
Any comparison you make to other situations would not be the same:
Which, might be the 49ers solution to the whole situation: the "San Francisco BAY 49ers". That way, the team basically keeps the "San Francisco" name, but, by namesaking after the "Bay" and not the city, it encompasses the entire area.
But, San Jose, at least as of yet, doesn't seem to have risen to complain yet. Maybe they are waiting for it to become more official. Maybe they don't have the civic pride of a Baltimore or another city that shares a close metro area with another city. Maybe they should. Maybe they need to wake up and flex their wings and get what is rightfully theirs.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Week 6 Power Rankings
Based on my NFL ratings system: http://sportsandstats.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-nfl-ratings-system.html
Week 6 Top 10:
The Chicago Bears lost a few points by falling behind San Diego in Points For, but, otherwise, even despite their near loss to Arizona, they still outpace the crowd. The cream is rising to the top though, as San Diego passes up Indianpolis to be the number 2 team. Indy on a bye falls to 3. New Orleans jumps from 7 to 4, and New England held on to 5th.
Week 6 Top 10:
The Chicago Bears lost a few points by falling behind San Diego in Points For, but, otherwise, even despite their near loss to Arizona, they still outpace the crowd. The cream is rising to the top though, as San Diego passes up Indianpolis to be the number 2 team. Indy on a bye falls to 3. New Orleans jumps from 7 to 4, and New England held on to 5th.
Rank Team Points (100 point system)
1. Chicago Bears 97.5 (LW: 1st, 99.5)
2. San Diego Chargers 85.5 (LW: 3rd, 72)
3. Indianapolis Colts 74.5 (LW: 2nd, 74)
4. New Orleans Saints 70 (LW: 7th, 58)
5. New England Patriots 69.5 (LW: 5th, 68.5)
6. Denver Broncos 62.5 (LW: 8th, 57)
7. Philadelphia Eagles 61.5 (LW: 4th, 71)
8. Jacksonville Jaguars 59 (LW: 9th, 56)
9. Dallas Cowboys 56 (LW: 15th, 35.5)
10. Baltimore Ravens 55.5 (LW: 6th, 66.5)
Dropped out of top 10: Atlanta Falcons (16th, rating from 52 to 38.5)
The teams they didn't register any points list loses Tampa Bay this week:
Texans, Packers, Browns, Raiders and Titans.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Week 5 NFL Ratings
Based on my NFL ratings system: http://sportsandstats.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-nfl-ratings-system.html
Week 5 Top 10:
The Chicago Bears are about as perfect as you can be considering there is still another undefeated team (so, Chicago has to share the winning pct point with the Colts). Otherwise, they are first in every category. After that the Colts are 2nd, but, they are ranked very closely with the Chargers and Eagles.
Week 5 Top 10:
The Chicago Bears are about as perfect as you can be considering there is still another undefeated team (so, Chicago has to share the winning pct point with the Colts). Otherwise, they are first in every category. After that the Colts are 2nd, but, they are ranked very closely with the Chargers and Eagles.
Rank Team Points (100 point system)
1. Chicago Bears 99.5
2. Indianapolis Colts 74
3. San Diego Chargers 72
4. Philadelphia Eagles 71
5. New England Patriots 68.5
6. Baltimore Ravens 66.5
7. New Orleans Saints 58
8. Denver Broncos 57
9. Jacksonville Jaguars 56
10. Atlanta Falcons 52
The teams they didn't register any points:
Texans, Packers, Browns, Raiders, Titans and Buccaneers.
Yes, the Lions are not a "bottom of the barrel" team in our rankings, thanks to tieing for 20th in points for. I wouldn't get used to that though Lions fans.
My NFL Ratings System
My NFL team rating system is based on a somewhat simple ranking formula I use, but, I think it looks at the key factors (wins, offensive and defensive points, and some strength of schedule):
I rank the teams 1-20th place in 5 categories:
1. Winning Pct.
2. Points for per game
3. Points against per game
4. PF-PA per game
5. "Weighted Winning Pct." (Teams get the wins of the teams they beat added to their wins column, and the losses of the teams they lost to in their losses column, to determine this pct.)
In each category, the top team gets 20 pts, 2nd gets 19, etc. The bottom 12 get 0 points. Tie's split all points for the places they take up (e.g., a 3-way tie at 3rd, each team would get 17 points - splitting the 18,17,and 16 point positions equally).
I rank the teams 1-20th place in 5 categories:
1. Winning Pct.
2. Points for per game
3. Points against per game
4. PF-PA per game
5. "Weighted Winning Pct." (Teams get the wins of the teams they beat added to their wins column, and the losses of the teams they lost to in their losses column, to determine this pct.)
In each category, the top team gets 20 pts, 2nd gets 19, etc. The bottom 12 get 0 points. Tie's split all points for the places they take up (e.g., a 3-way tie at 3rd, each team would get 17 points - splitting the 18,17,and 16 point positions equally).
Welcome
Welcome to "Sports and stats" blog.
I'll be blogging some of my thoughts on sports, in addition to some interesting statistical "mash ups" I've come up with over the years.
I'll be blogging some of my thoughts on sports, in addition to some interesting statistical "mash ups" I've come up with over the years.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)