Unraveling Yields Inefficient Matchings: Evidence from ...

[Pages:6]Online Supplementary Material for

Unraveling Yields Inefficient Matchings:

Evidence from Post-Season College Football Bowls

by

Guillaume Frechette

Alvin E. Roth

M. Utku ?nver

Appendix 1 Table 6. End-of-Regular-Season AP Rankings of Teams that Participated in the Bowls

Year

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Rose Bowl Fiesta Bowl Orange Bowl Sugar Bowl Cotton Bowl

Winner Loser Winner Loser Winner Loser Winner Loser Winner Loser

13 4

8

15

6

2

3

9

5

1

3

5

8

15

4

6

2

1

10

9

3

1

10 26

5

4

2

6

8

7

5 16 10 11

4

2

1

7

9

6

12 13 7

8

1

4

10

2

6

3

5 19 11 12

3

13

2

1

4

6

26 4

14 15

5

1

3

8

7

2

18 6

14 13

4

2

5

11

8

26

13 4

5

7

3

1

8

2

11 16

7

4

2

1

3

9

6

5

11

8

8 16

3

5

2

1

4

6

13 12

11 5

1

3

2

6

4

7

9

8

12 3

5

6

4

1

2

7

8

10

8 17 18 25

1

5

10 26

4

3

2

4

6

10

1

11

18

3

5

9

7

9

6

10

3

11

2

1

5

4

9 14 16 10

1

2

8

3

4

7

2 12

4

26

1

3

7

5

21 26

17 3

1

2

8

6

13

9

7

12

4

2

7

20

6

10

3

1

5

14

1

9

8

21

2

7

3

12

5

20

9

6

1

2

7 18

3

8

20 25

4 22

3

6

8

5

1

2

24 14

4 14

5

10

1

3

2

7

11 21

1

4

2

3

5

6

12

7

10 26

8

7

2

1

5

3

4

16

9

26

1

4

7

8

10

9

2

3

16 21

6 13

5

19

1

2

3

9

15 22

2

1

4

5

3

22

11

8

13 18

1

Table 7. Nielsen Ratings of College Bowls and Super Bowl (%)

Year

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Rose Bowl 22.7 17.7 16.5 10.8 14.6 11.9 15.4 14.3 11.3 18.2 19.2 16.5 17.6 13.3 14.1

14 13.8 11.3 14.3 12.4 21.7

Fiesta Bowl 14.7 24.9 8.7

17 8.8 6.2 7 6.2 7.9 6 18.8 10 5.8 17.2 9.6 10.7 11.3 17.2 8.5 7.4 12.9

Orange Bowl 21.3 16 20.8 12.9 18.5 18.3 11 4 17.8 11.4 12.5 7.8 13.3 8.4 11.4 17.8 9.5 9.7 9.1 13.7 12.3

Sugar Bowl 6.8 8.6 7.9 8.1 7.4 4.9 10.8 18.2 5.2 14.9 6.3 17.9 11.2 11.5 17.5

13 8.6 9.2 14.8 9.5 9

Cotton Bowl 12.7 13.6

10 9.8 7.5 9.4 10.3 10.2 11.3 4.6 5.6 5.6 6.2 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.3 3.4 4.3 2.6 3.7

Super Bowl 48.3 45.8 41.9 43.5

39 41.9 40.3 45.1 45.5 41.3 46.0 43.3 44.5 40.2 43.3 40.4 40.4 40.7 41.4 41.1 41.6

2

Table 8: Possibility of creating a match-up between the number 1 and number 2 teams in the AP Sports Writers' Poll rankings in a bowl game:

Regime

Precoalition

Era

Years 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

1984 1985 1986

AP Ranked

No. 1

Texas

Penn State

Ohio State

Georgia Clemson Georgia

Nebraska

BYU

Penn State Miami

Conference

Southwest

independent (at-large)

Big Ten

Southeastern ACC

Southeastern

Big Eight

Western

independent (at-large)

independent (at-large)

AP Ranked No.

2

Oklahoma

Alabama

Alabama Florida State Georgia Penn State

Texas

Oklahoma

Miami Penn State

Conference

Possible to

match?

Actually matched?

Big Eight

NO

-

YES, at

Southeastern Sugar

YES

Bowl

Southeastern NO

-

YES, at

ACC1

Sugar

NO

Bowl

YES, at

Southeastern Sugar

NO

Bowl

independent (at-large)

YES, at Sugar Bowl

YES

Southwest

NO

-

Big Eight

NO

-

independent (at-large)

YES, at Fiesta Bowl

NO

independent (at-large)

YES, at Fiesta Bowl

YES

Why not possible to match / Why not matched? Southwest Conf. champion was pre-

committed to Cotton Bowl and Big Eight champion was precommitted to Orange

Bowl

-

Big Ten champion was pre-committed to Rose Bowl, which was a closed bowl and Southeastern Conf. champion was precommitted to Sugar Bowl

In-season unraveling

In-season unraveling

-

Big Eight champion was pre-committed to Orange

Bowl and Southwest Conf. champion was pre-

committed to Cotton Bowl

Western Conf. champion was pre-committed to Holiday Bowl and Big

Eight champion was precommitted to Orange Bowl

In-season unraveling

-

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 Bowl made it possible that the ACC champion could play at a different bowl when it had a shot at the national championship.

3

Regime

BC BA BCS

Years 1987 1988 1989 1990

1991

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

AP Ranked

No. 1 Oklahoma

Notre Dame

Colorado

Colorado

Miami

Miami

Florida State Nebraska

Nebraska Florida State Michigan

Tennessee

Florida State Oklahoma Miami

Miami

USC

USC

Conference

Big Eight

independent (at-large)

Big Eight

Big Eight

Big East (atlarge)

Big East (BC)

ACC (BC)

Big Eight (BC)

Big Eight (BA)

ACC (BA)

Big Ten

Southeastern (BCS)

ACC (BCS)

Big Twelve (BCS) Big East (BCS) Big East (BCS)

Pacific Ten (BCS)

Pacific Ten (BCS)

AP Ranked No.

2 Miami

Miami

Miami

Georgia Tech

Washington

Alabama

Nebraska

Penn State

Florida Arizona

State Nebraska Florida

State Virginia

Tech Miami Oregon

Ohio State

LSU

Oklahoma

Conference

independent (at-large)

independent (at-large)

independent (at-large)

ACC

Pacific Ten

Southeastern (BC)

Big Eight (BC)

Big Ten

Southeastern (BA)

Pacific Ten Big Twelve

(BA)

ACC (BCS)

Big East (BCS) Big East (BCS) Pacific Ten (BCS) Big Ten (BCS) Southeastern (BCS) Big Twelve (BCS)

Possible to

match? YES, at Orange Bowl YES, at Fiesta Bowl YES, at Orange Bowl YES, at Orange Bowl

NO

YES, at Sugar Bowl YES, at Orange Bowl

NO

YES, at Fiesta Bowl

NO

NO

YES, at Fiesta Bowl YES, at Sugar Bowl

NO

NO

YES, at Fiesta Bowl

NO

YES, at Orange Bowl

Actually matched?

YES NO NO NO

-

YES YES

YES

YES YES YES YES

Why not possible to match / Why not matched?

-

In-season unraveling

In-season unraveling

In-season unraveling

Pacific Ten champion was pre-committed to Rose

Bowl, which was a closed bowl

-

-

Big Ten was not part of Bowl Coalition

-

Pacific Ten was not part of Bowl Alliance

Big Ten was not part of Bowl Alliance

-

-

AP and BCS rankings differ.

AP and BCS rankings differ.

-

AP and BCS rankings differ.

-

4

Regime Years 2005

AP Ranked

No. 1

USC

Conference

Pacific Ten (BCS)

AP Ranked No.

2

Texas

Conference

Big Twelve (BCS)

Possible to

match?

YES, at Rose Bowl

Actually matched?

YES

Why not possible to match / Why not matched?

-

5

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 1992). 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 5.2. Estimates of the Determinants of Nielsen Rating of a Bowl: Pre-Coalition

Era

Nielsen Rating of a Bowl

Regressors:

Spec. (5.2) Spec. (6.2)

Spec. (7.2)

Championship (No. 1 vs. No. 2)

4.703* (2.169)

5.028* (2.286)

4.359 (2.562)

No. 1 Ranked Team

5.271** (1.756)

5.239** (1.726)

5.288** (1.906)

Average Rank (if unranked Team Is not playing)

-0.243* (0.121)

-0.196 (0.115)

-0.272 (0.192)

Difference in Rank (if unranked Team is not playing)

0.254** (0.096)

0.154 (0.114)

0.275 (0.247)

Regular Season College Football

1.338

2.233

Average Nielsen Rating

(1.122)

(1.318)

Super Bowl's Nielsen Rating

0.187 (0.135)

0.386 (0.206)

Fiesta Bowl

3.281 (1.825)

2.906 (2.023)

3.313* (1.779)

Orange Bowl

4.306* (1.947)

4.260* (2.072)

4.200** (1.876)

Rose Bowl

7.960*** (2.046)

7.954** (2.149)

7.900*** (1.504)

Cotton Bowl

4.053** (1.332)

3.586* (1.601)

4.108** (1.878)

Year

-0.455***

(0.112)

1986-1988

0.377 (0.771)

1989-1991

0.635 (1.223)

Constant

-6.647 (5.375)

-22.812** (7.748)

8.210*** (1.535)

Team Dummies

No

No

No

Time Fixed Effects

No

No

Yes

Observations

105

105

105

Robust standard errors in parentheses

* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%

6

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download