I’ve always wanted to start a post out with this:
N B,Y = a+d1C B,Y+d2One B,Y+b1Average B,Y+ b2Difference B,Y+ b3Best*UR B,Y+ …
d3UR B,Y+b4RSN Y+b5SBN Y+d4Rose B,Y+ d5Orange B,Y+ d6Fiesta B,Y+ e B,Y
That’s a formula that comes from a paper entitled “Unraveling yields inefficient matchings: evidence from post-season college football bowls”.
You can stop rolling your eyes now.
The gist of the article is that since 1992, D-1 football has been engaged in a series of moves that have made the postseason more efficient in the sense that the matchups are better and the TV revenue has increased.
… Efficient matching, it turns out, is especially sensitive to the presence of a “championship” game matching the two teams that are highest ranked at the end of the regular season.
The present paper provides, as far as we know, the first direct evidence and measurement of the inefficiency due to early transaction times in a naturally occurring market. When the bowl games have matched later, the quality of the teams matched to bowls has improved, the likelihood of a championship game has increased, and the total viewership of all the bowls in the latematching consortia has increased.
You knew that, right?
In essence, the later in the season bowl participants are selected, the more likely things turn out better for the fans. And the more revenue created for the schools.
The authors conclude thusly:
The evidence suggests that further changes in market organization, if they increase the likelihood of producing a “national champion,” might achieve further gains…
What further changes, exactly? “Plus-One”? Sixteen team playoff with conference champs automatically eligible? March Madness? They don’t say.