IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/13596.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Whoa, Nellie! Empirical Tests of College Football's Conventional Wisdom

Author

Listed:
  • Trevon D. Logan

Abstract

College football fans, coaches, and observers have adopted a set of beliefs about how college football poll voters behave. I document three pieces of conventional wisdom in college football regarding the timing of wins and losses, the value of playing strong opponents, and the value of winning by wide margins. Using a unique data set with 25 years of AP poll results, I test college football's conventional wisdom. In particular, I test (1) whether it is better to lose early or late in the season, (2) whether teams benefit from playing stronger opponents, and (3) whether teams are rewarded for winning by large margins. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I find that (1) it is better to lose later in the season than earlier, (2) AP voters do not pay attention to the strength of a defeated opponent, and (3) the benefit of winning by a large margin is negligible. I conclude by noting how these results inform debates about a potential playoff in college football.

Suggested Citation

  • Trevon D. Logan, 2007. "Whoa, Nellie! Empirical Tests of College Football's Conventional Wisdom," NBER Working Papers 13596, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:13596
    Note: DAE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w13596.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Buchanan & Yong Yoon, 2006. "All voting is strategic," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 129(1), pages 159-167, October.
    2. Noel D. Campbell & Tammy M. Rogers & R. Zachary Finney, 2007. "Evidence of Television Exposure Effects in AP Top 25 College Football Rankings," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 8(4), pages 425-434, August.
    3. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248.
    4. Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 775-816.
    5. Guillaume R. Fréchette & Alvin E. Roth & M. Utku Ünver, 2007. "Unraveling yields inefficient matchings: evidence from post-season college football bowls," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(4), pages 967-982, December.
    6. Lebovic, James H. & Sigelman, Lee, 2001. "The forecasting accuracy and determinants of football rankings," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 105-120.
    7. Rodney J. Paul & Andrew P. Weinbach & Patrick Coate, 2007. "Expectations and Voting in the NCAA Football Polls," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 8(4), pages 412-424, August.
    8. Ray C. Fair & John F. Oster, 2002. "College Football Rankings and Market Efficiency," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1381, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Mar 2005.
    9. Ray Fair & John Oster, 2002. "College Football Rankings and Market Efficiency," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2377, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Aug 2007.
    10. George Langelett, 2003. "The Relationship between Recruiting and Team Performance in Division 1A College Football," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 4(3), pages 240-245, August.
    11. Ray C. Fair & John F. Oster, 2007. "College Football Rankings and Market Efficiency," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 8(1), pages 3-18, February.
    12. Matthew Rabin & Joel L. Schrag, 1999. "First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 37-82.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Trevon Logan, 2011. "Econometric tests of American college football's conventional wisdom," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(20), pages 2493-2518.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trevon Logan, 2011. "Econometric tests of American college football's conventional wisdom," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(20), pages 2493-2518.
    2. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Potoski, Matthew, 2014. "Conflicts of interest distort public evaluations: Evidence from NCAA football coaches," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 51-63.
    3. B. Jay Coleman & Andres Gallo & Paul M. Mason & Jeffrey W. Steagall, 2010. "Voter Bias in the Associated Press College Football Poll," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 11(4), pages 397-417, August.
    4. Justin M. Ross & Sarah E. Larson & Chad Wall, 2012. "Are Surveys Of Experts Unbiased? Evidence From College Football Rankings," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(4), pages 502-522, October.
    5. Stracca, Livio, 2004. "Behavioral finance and asset prices: Where do we stand?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 373-405, June.
    6. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    7. Randall W. Bennett, 2019. "Holdover Bias in the College Football Betting Market," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 47(1), pages 103-110, March.
    8. Drew Fudenberg, 2006. "Advancing Beyond Advances in Behavioral Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 694-711, September.
    9. Akin, Zafer, 2009. "Imperfect information processing in sequential bargaining games with present biased preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 642-650, August.
    10. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    11. Trandel Gregory A & Maxcy Joel G, 2011. "Adjusting Winning-Percentage Standard Deviations and a Measure of Competitive Balance for Home Advantage," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Sachiko Kuroda & Isamu Yamamoto, 2019. "Why Do People Overwork at the Risk of Impairing Mental Health?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 1519-1538, June.
    13. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Dickinson, David L. & Oxoby, Robert J., 2011. "Cognitive dissonance, pessimism, and behavioral spillover effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 295-306, June.
    15. Zimper, Alexander, 2023. "Unrealized arbitrage opportunities in naive equilibria with non-Bayesian belief processes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 27-41.
    16. J. Aislinn Bohren & Daniel N. Hauser, 2023. "Behavioral Foundations of Model Misspecification," PIER Working Paper Archive 23-007, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    17. Niklas Karlsson & George Loewenstein & Duane Seppi, 2009. "The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 95-115, April.
    18. Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "What Comes to Mind," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(4), pages 1399-1433.
    19. Iain P. Embrey, 2020. "States of nature and states of mind: a generalized theory of decision-making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 5-35, February.
    20. Markus M. Möbius & Muriel Niederle & Paul Niehaus & Tanya S. Rosenblat, 2022. "Managing Self-Confidence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7793-7817, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C8 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:13596. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.