Unraveling Yields Inefficient Matchings: Evidence from Post-Season College Football Bowls by Guillaume Frechette Alvin E. Roth M.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Unraveling Yields Inefficient Matchings: Evidence from Post-Season College Football Bowls by Guillaume Frechette Alvin E. Roth M."

Emory Heath
6 years ago
Views:

1 Online Supplementary Material for Unraveling Yields Inefficient Matchings: Evidence from Post-Season College Football s by Guillaume Frechette Alvin E. Roth M. Utku Ünver Appendix 1 Table 6. End-of-Regular-Season AP Rankings of Teams that Participated in the s Year Rose Cotton Winner Loser Winner Loser Winner Loser Winner Loser Winner Loser

2 Table 7. Nielsen Ratings of College s and Super (%) Year Rose Cotton Super

3 Table 8: Possibility of creating a match-up between the number 1 and number teams in the AP Sports Writers Poll rankings in a bowl game: Regime Precoalition Era Years Ranked No. 1 Ranked No. Possible to match? Actually 1977 Texas Southwest Oklahoma Big Eight Penn Ohio 1980 Georgia Alabama Big Ten Alabama - ACC Clemson ACC Georgia 198 Georgia Penn 1983 Nebraska Big Eight Texas Southwest BYU Western Oklahoma Big Eight Penn 1986 Miami Miami Penn Why not possible to match / Why not Southwest Conf. champion was precommitted to Cotton and Big Eight champion was precommitted to Big Ten champion was pre-committed to Rose, which was a closed bowl and Conf. champion was precommitted to Big Eight champion was pre-committed to and Southwest Conf. champion was precommitted to Cotton Western Conf. champion was pre-committed to Holiday and Big Eight champion was precommitted to 1 In the pre-coalitions era, although the ACC champion was not an at-large team, escape clauses in the agreement of ACC with the Citrus made it possible that the ACC champion could play at a different bowl when it had a shot at the national championship. 3

4 Regime BC BA BCS Years Ranked No. 1 Ranked No Oklahoma Big Eight Miami 1988 Notre Dame Miami 1989 Colorado Big Eight Miami 1990 Colorado Big Eight 1991 Miami 199 Miami Nebraska 1995 Nebraska 1996 (atlarge) ACC Big Eight Big Eight (BA) ACC (BA) Georgia Tech ACC Possible to match? Actually Washington - Alabama Nebraska Big Eight Penn Big Ten - Arizona 1997 Michigan Big Ten Nebraska 1998 Tennessee Oklahoma 001 Miami 00 Miami 003 USC 004 USC ACC Virginia Tech Miami Oregon Ohio LSU Oklahoma (BA) Why not possible to match / Why not - (BA) ACC Big Ten champion was pre-committed to Rose, which was a closed bowl Big Ten was not part of Coalition was not part of Alliance Big Ten was not part of Alliance AP and BCS rankings differ. AP and BCS rankings differ. AP and BCS rankings differ. 4

5 Regime Years Ranked No USC Ranked No. Texas Possible to match? Rose Actually Why not possible to match / Why not 5

6 Appendix 3 Table 5.1 replicates the specifications 5, 6, and 7 of Table 5 (in the text) using only the data prior to the formation of the first coalition (in 199). Over that period, only one bowl for which we have the Nielsen rating had an unranked team playing, hence that bowl is dropped as well as the associated regressors from specifications 5, 6, and 7. Table 5.. Estimates of the Determinants of Nielsen Rating of a : Pre-Coalition Era Nielsen Rating of a Regressors: Spec. (5.) Spec. (6.) Spec. (7.) Championship (No. 1 vs. No. ) 4.703* 5.08* (.169) (.86) (.56) No. 1 Ranked Team 5.71** 5.39** 5.88** (1.756) (1.76) (1.906) Average Rank (if unranked -0.43* Team Is not playing) (0.11) (0.115) (0.19) Difference in Rank (if unranked 0.54** Team is not playing) (0.096) (0.114) (0.47) Regular Season College Football Average Nielsen Rating (1.1) (1.318) Super s Nielsen Rating (0.135) (0.06) * (1.85) (.03) (1.779) 4.306* 4.60* 4.00** (1.947) (.07) (1.876) Rose 7.960*** 7.954** 7.900*** (.046) (.149) (1.504) Cotton 4.053** 3.586* 4.108** (1.33) (1.601) (1.878) Year *** (0.11) (0.771) (1.3) Constant ** 8.10*** (5.375) (7.748) (1.535) Team Dummies No No No Time Fixed Effects No No Yes Observations Robust standard errors in parentheses * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1% 6

Unraveling Yields Inefficient Matchings: Evidence from Post-Season College Football Bowls

Unraveling Yields Inefficient Matchings: Evidence from Post-Season College Football Bowls The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story