The SEC and Incentive Compatability

[Salty Dog @ Work]

I was thinking today (and maybe this has already been discussed to death) that the SEC has gone the wrong way in its quest for dollars. Here's what I am thinking:

The SEC has 12 teams, each of which plays 12 games per year. Of those 12 games, 8 are SEC games, while 4 are OOC games. Each team needs 6 wins to become bowl eligible. Further, the SEC has 8 bowl tie-ins. To maximize the number of bowl-eligible SEC teams, one would need all 12 SEC teams to achieve the 12-win mark. At a minimum, the SEC needs 8 teams with 6 wins so that it can fulfill all of its bowl obligations. In short, the SEC is best off if it has 1 really good team (for the BCS bowl) and 7 average or above teams to round out the slots.

My point is that the SEC (the conference office) has a set of incentives that do not line up with the incentives of individual schools. Alabama has an incentive to beat everybody and go 12-0. However, what if Alabama going 12-0 means that Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy, S Carolina, Arkansas, etc., will not get 6 wins? Then Alabama's incentives conflict with the SEC's incentives.

It is at this point that I start to think about bad calls in games...plays that could be reversed upon further review that are not reversed...12 men on the field calls...inexplicable personal foul penalties...etc.

We've talked about the fact that the BCS causes us to have to cheer for our rivals (e.g., LSU over Arkansas so that Auburn can't go to the SECCG) and how much we hate that, but this incentive incompatability is a real problem. Unless the league office is in full support of Alabama's goals without question, then how can we ever trust the conference officials (both on-field officials and off-field officials)?

 

[GaBullDawg]

Let me see if I follow you. Are you saying that the SEC and individual schools within the conference have conflicting incentives? And SEC officials on and off the field will manipulate the outcome of games in order to fill their bowl tie ins?

 

[Proxigean Tide]

The problem (as we've all known for some time) is too many bowl games.

In the relatively short span of 25 years, college football has gone from sending 20-24 teams to bowls, to sending around 62 teams bowling.

In the last 5 years, the term "6 wins" has come into vogue as that is all it takes to guarentee a bowl trip. I'm wondering if the magic number will change with the addition of an extra game to college schedules next year. Don't bet on it.

It doesn't take a mathmatical genius to figure out that with 115 Div 1A teams, with the top 20 averaging 1.5 losses, that the bottom half of the college football ranks has to lose the majority of its games to produce 62 teams with at least 6 wins.

That is the problem.

 

[Pluck and Grit]

I'm more of a believer in individual and institutional incompetence than I am in conspiracies. That's my answer to the conspiracy angle on this.

 

[Bama-94-00]

Different points of view

My point is that the SEC (the conference office) has a set of incentives that do not line up with the incentives of individual schools. Alabama has an incentive to beat everybody and go 12-0. However, what if Alabama going 12-0 means that Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy, S Carolina, Arkansas, etc., will not get 6 wins? Then Alabama's incentives conflict with the SEC's incentives.

The SEC office has different goals than its individual members; no conflict. The SEC's goal is to get its as many members in bowl games and the best ones available. The colleges want to win as many games as possible and get in the the best bowl available. Just different points of view. Things are the same in other conferences.

Now poor officiatiing is another matter. There's been planty of threads on that..

 

[Salty Dog @ Work]

Let me see if I follow you. Are you saying that the SEC and individual schools within the conference have conflicting incentives? And SEC officials on and off the field will manipulate the outcome of games in order to fill their bowl tie ins?

What I'm saying is that the SEC doesn't need an undefeated team...just one that is in the top 5 or 6 in the country plus a bunch of other average teams so that bowl slots get filled. UGA should have as a goal to go undefeated, but this goal conflicts with the SEC's goals of filling bowl slots.

 

[rollntider]

Actually the SEC would rather have an undefeated team and a one loss team if not 2 one loss teams. It is possible. Lets say Georgia and Bama did sweep their season. Lsu only loses to Bama in the Regular season(assuming they dont meltdown vs UT). Then you would have an undefeated SEC champ in Bama/Georgia and a one loss LSU. They could possibly have 3 teams in the BCS which pays more money than any of the little bowl tie ins. Because if the team is in the BCS top, the BCS has to take them. They would take the automatic winner, plus an at large, and given the right circumstances (notre dame losing 3 games and several 2 and 3 loss BCS teams) It is totally possible for a conference to have 3 BCS teams(although very unlikely) They would much rather have 2 or 3 top teams (13 million per team) vs 5 teams going to the weedeater bowl @ 1 mill a pop.

 

[Salty Dog @ Work]

Actually the SEC would rather have an undefeated team and a one loss team if not 2 one loss teams. It is possible. Lets say Georgia and Bama did sweep their season. Lsu only loses to Bama in the Regular season(assuming they dont meltdown vs UT). Then you would have an undefeated SEC champ in Bama/Georgia and a one loss LSU. They could possibly have 3 teams in the BCS which pays more money than any of the little bowl tie ins. Because if the team is in the BCS top, the BCS has to take them. They would take the automatic winner, plus an at large, and given the right circumstances (notre dame losing 3 games and several 2 and 3 loss BCS teams) It is totally possible for a conference to have 3 BCS teams(although very unlikely) They would much rather have 2 or 3 top teams (13 million per team) vs 5 teams going to the weedeater bowl @ 1 mill a pop.

Correct. However, the probability of this happening IS small, and I believe that the SEC thinks that the probability-weighted average dollar return to the SEC is highest when the SEC maximizes the number of bowl-eligible teams NOT the number of BCS-eligible teams.

 

[uafootball92]

The problem (as we've all known for some time) is too many bowl games.

In the relatively short span of 25 years, college football has gone from sending 20-24 teams to bowls, to sending around 62 teams bowling.

In the last 5 years, the term "6 wins" has come into vogue as that is all it takes to guarentee a bowl trip. I'm wondering if the magic number will change with the addition of an extra game to college schedules next year. Don't bet on it.

It doesn't take a mathmatical genius to figure out that with 115 Div 1A teams, with the top 20 averaging 1.5 losses, that the bottom half of the college football ranks has to lose the majority of its games to produce 62 teams with at least 6 wins.

That is the problem.

I agree with having too many bowls. It used to mean something to go to a bowl. You could have a winning season and not get close to going to a bowl. With the season Tennessee has had, they were just one game away from going to a bowl. We should have four BCS games if the BCS has to stay and then the traditional bowls and a few others. Yes if we have more bowls, that means more bowls for the schools, which is better, but yet again, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY$$$!!!

 

[alatider]

I look at it like the more bowls the more games to watch. Besides, some of the schools that go to play at some of these smaller bowl are delighted to go.