College football bowls: Where coaches ranked their opponents

During bowl season, coaches will often say they are excited for the opportunity to travel to a new city and play against a good team in a finishing bowl game. Coaches won't publicly slight the city even if it's not considered a vacation destination and they wouldn't disrespect an opponent either.

However, with public Coaches' poll ballots, we can find out what a coach really thinks about their bowl opponent (though some coaches may hand their ballot to someone else in the athletic department). These ballots were completed just before bowl games and opponents were announced.

Most opposing coaches agreed with each other that one of the two teams in the bowl is superior. Only the Holiday Bowl had the coaches rank the teams in different orders and one of the coaches has been fired (Bo Pelini). As I mentioned in the blog when ballots were released, there is overwhelming evidence for familiarity bias in the polls. Coaches in the same conference rated their teams higher than coaches from other conferences for 33 of 36 teams. There were also quite a few coaches who ranked their own teams extremely high.

Anyway, here's how they voted:

Sugar Bowl:

Urban Meyer (Ohio State): Alabama 1, Ohio State 4

Nick Saban (Alabama): Alabama 1, Ohio State 4

Rose Bowl:

Jimbo Fisher (Florida State): FSU 1, Oregon 3

Cotton Bowl:

Art Briles (Baylor): Baylor 3 (extreme), Michigan State 8

Mark Dantonio (Michigan State): Baylor 5, Michigan State 7

Fiesta Bowl:

Rich Rodriguez (Arizona): Arizona 9, Boise State 17

Orange Bowl: 

Paul Johnson (Georgia Tech): Mississippi State 8, GT 9

Chick Fil A Peach Bowl:

Gary Patterson (TCU): TCU 3 (extreme), Ole Miss 12

Music City Bowl: Notre Dame won 31-28.

Brian Kelly (Notre Dame): LSU 23, ND NR

Les Miles (LSU): LSU 18 (extreme), ND NR

Citrus Bowl: 

Jerry Kill (Minnesota): Missouri 17, Minnesota 21 (extreme)

Gary Pinkel (Missouri): Missouri 13, Minnesota NR

Holiday Bowl: USC won 45-42.

Bo Pelini (Nebraska): Nebraska 20, USC 25

Steve Sarkisian (USC): USC 19 (extreme), Nebraska NR

Russell Athletic Bowl: Clemson won 40-6.

Bob Stoops (Oklahoma): Clemson 18, Oklahoma 22

Dabo Swinney (Clemson): Clemson 15, Oklahoma 25

Military Bowl: Virginia Tech won 33-17.

Frank Beamer (Virginia Tech): Cincinnati 25, VT NR

Tommy Tuberville (Cincinnati): Cincinnati 20 (extreme), VT NR

Miami Beach Bowl: Memphis won 55-48 in triple-overtime.

Justin Fuente (Memphis): Memphis 22 (extreme), BYU NR

Bronco Mendenhall (BYU): Memphis NR, BYU NR

Belk Bowl: UGA won 37-14.

Mark Richt (Georgia): UGA 12, Louisville 20

Sun Bowl: ASU won 36-31. Cutcliffe said at the press conference he thought ASU was a top-10 team and Duke top-25.

David Cutcliffe (Duke): ASU 17, Duke 22

Boca Raton Bowl: Marshall won 52-23.

Rod Carey (Northern Illinois): NIU 20 (extreme), Marshall 25

Bitcoin St. Petersburg Bowl: NC State won 34-27.
George O’Leary (UCF): UCF 21 (extreme), NC State NR

Final 2014 MLB payroll shows Beltway boom; D-backs & Rangers collapse

Awhile back, I conducted research on MLB opening day payrolls and the team winning that season. I found that salaries and winning in the regular season were loosely correlated, but even a mathematical correlation doesn't necessarily mean there is one (association as causation).

In the prior posts, I used opening day payroll as my X-variable. However, now that the season is over, we have the official ending payrolls of teams. I was able to find values for ending payroll from 2000-now, using three different sources. These values are used for luxury tax purposes and accounts for things like salary dumps and midseason acquisitions, along with the rest of the 40-man roster.

The expected win percent is based purely on payroll figures from 2000-14, adjusted for inflation in salaries. From the 2014 season, the Orioles (+9.8%), Nationals (+8%), Angels (+7.8%), Pirates (+7%), and Royals (+6.4%) were the top performing teams relative to their respective ending payrolls, while the Rangers (-10.2%), D-backs (-9.7%), Red Sox (-9.1%), Phillies (-8.8%) and Rockies (-7.8%) all severely underperformed. 

Team	Final 2014 payroll	Win %	Expected	Difference
Orioles	$112,707,105	59.3%	49.5%	9.8%
Nationals	$141,803,228	59.3%	51.3%	8.0%
Angels	$164,059,717	60.5%	52.7%	7.8%
Pirates	$78,379,602	54.3%	47.3%	7.0%
Royals	$97,747,983	54.9%	48.5%	6.4%
A's	$91,615,851	54.3%	48.2%	6.2%
Cardinals	$121,003,590	55.6%	50.0%	5.6%
Indians	$83,697,546	52.5%	47.7%	4.8%
Mariners	$108,957,206	53.7%	49.2%	4.5%
Tigers	$173,291,085	55.6%	53.2%	2.3%
Marlins	$52,518,799	47.5%	45.7%	1.8%
Giants	$165,138,449	54.3%	52.7%	1.6%
Brewers	$110,299,643	50.6%	49.3%	1.3%
Mets	$92,856,260	48.8%	48.2%	0.5%
Blue Jays	$135,435,701	51.2%	50.9%	0.3%
Rays	$77,085,054	47.5%	47.3%	0.3%
Padres	$85,467,063	47.5%	47.8%	-0.3%
Dodgers	$257,283,410	58.0%	58.5%	-0.4%
Braves	$114,699,457	48.8%	49.6%	-0.8%
Astros	$54,689,189	43.2%	45.9%	-2.7%
Reds	$115,358,029	46.9%	49.6%	-2.7%
White Sox	$92,472,106	45.1%	48.2%	-3.2%
Cubs	$93,196,617	45.1%	48.3%	-3.2%
Yankees	$218,457,904	51.9%	56.1%	-4.2%
Twins	$91,071,286	43.2%	48.1%	-4.9%
Rockies	$97,975,929	40.7%	48.6%	-7.8%
Phillies	$183,456,686	45.1%	53.9%	-8.8%
Red Sox	$168,178,367	43.8%	52.9%	-9.1%
D-backs	$108,124,871	39.5%	49.2%	-9.7%
Rangers	$145,707,196	41.4%	51.5%	-10.2%

As you'll notice in the chart below, the Orioles, Royals, and Pirates historically underachieve. So maybe there was market correction in 2014 when those three were in the top five?

To account for the change in salaries over time, I made the CPI variable which tracked movement of average salaries, which more than doubled from the observed time period (2000-14). Basically, all the prior year salaries are converted into 2014 dollars and the multiplier factor depends on the year. Just because a team spent more in 2014, it doesn't mean the team spent more relative to the rest of the league.

Team	Avg. Payroll	Avg. Baseball CPI	Win %	Expected	Difference
A's	$60,544,004	$83,567,393	54.5%	47.7%	6.9%
Cardinals	$98,614,830	$137,731,557	56.2%	51.0%	5.1%
Braves	$93,834,408	$134,321,294	55.2%	50.8%	4.4%
Angels	$110,794,460	$149,960,153	54.8%	51.8%	3.0%
Giants	$100,745,839	$137,427,530	53.2%	51.0%	2.2%
Twins	$68,242,531	$91,232,713	50.3%	48.1%	2.1%
Marlins	$45,570,320	$63,841,758	48.2%	46.4%	1.8%
White Sox	$88,480,236	$120,549,965	51.2%	50.0%	1.2%
Indians	$68,402,902	$98,310,102	49.8%	48.6%	1.2%
Phillies	$114,403,870	$152,476,630	52.6%	51.9%	0.6%
Red Sox	$139,499,156	$192,832,987	55.0%	54.5%	0.5%
Reds	$71,297,800	$96,345,542	48.7%	48.5%	0.3%
Rays	$50,316,371	$70,050,346	46.9%	46.8%	0.1%
Blue Jays	$81,281,310	$111,203,841	49.4%	49.4%	0.1%
Padres	$59,493,766	$84,221,474	47.6%	47.7%	-0.1%
Dodgers	$129,173,887	$176,603,329	53.4%	53.4%	-0.1%
Yankees	$193,117,372	$266,992,063	58.6%	59.1%	-0.5%
D-backs	$79,074,909	$113,736,684	49.0%	49.5%	-0.6%
Rangers	$93,331,986	$129,456,919	49.9%	50.5%	-0.6%
Brewers	$70,293,258	$94,151,612	47.5%	48.3%	-0.9%
Nationals	$66,072,385	$87,443,184	46.9%	47.9%	-1.0%
Mariners	$91,926,390	$129,143,148	49.3%	50.5%	-1.2%
Rockies	$72,909,516	$101,887,560	46.4%	48.8%	-2.4%
Astros	$76,821,338	$110,186,206	46.9%	49.3%	-2.4%
Tigers	$102,008,140	$135,648,943	48.4%	50.9%	-2.5%
Pirates	$50,339,521	$69,588,533	44.1%	46.8%	-2.6%
Mets	$111,941,990	$158,703,919	49.3%	52.3%	-3.0%
Cubs	$102,876,289	$142,688,975	47.5%	51.3%	-3.8%
Orioles	$80,747,533	$113,373,868	45.6%	49.5%	-3.9%
Royals	$58,585,331	$79,056,701	43.4%	47.4%	-3.9%

Going into this research, I was expecting teams to have vastly different win% expectations using ending payroll instead of beginning. However, most teams were expected to win about the same amount of games. On average the two models differed by 0.16% (about one-fourth of a win per season). 

The A's (+6.9%) are still the highest performing team relative to payroll, while the Cardinals (+5.1%), Braves (+4.4%) and Angels (+3%) round out the top four. Although in a slightly different order, the bottom five remained the same from the last model. The Royals (-3.95%), Orioles (-3.93%), Cubs (-3.8%), Mets (-3%) and Pirates (-2.6%) all have not performed relative to how much each club spent on payroll, but as I mentioned earlier, three of them shined last year. 

USA Today/Amway Coaches' poll ballots show familiarity bias

At the end of each season, the coaches participating in the Amway/USA Today Coaches' Poll are forced to reveal their ballot. Whether or not the coaches are actually filling them out or someone else in the athletics department is doing the work is another story. Last Sunday, we saw the ballots from coaches and there were obvious signs of the familiarity bias. Coaches were generally more favorable toward their own team than their peers in addition to giving preferential treatment for conference members or out-of-conference foes.

I ran a few tests to find out who the most extreme voters were in the Coaches' poll, using the same methodology as I did last month with AP voters. Here were the top five most extreme coaches from the final ballot:

1. Rick Stockstill (Middle Tennessee): Stockstill is a prime example of someone who ranked teams higher that his team faced. Nobody has BYU (lost 27-7), Memphis (lost 36-17), or Marshall (lost 49-14) higher than he does (No. 20, No. 16 and No. 14 respectively). He gave BYU all six of its points in the poll and Memphis 10 of its 18.

2. Frank Beamer (Virginia Tech): Beamer has the most amount of "extreme" teams among those who voted in the poll. He has Ohio State No. 2 in his poll, but the Buckeyes were only No. 2 by default when VT came to town. Beamer's most extreme ranking, though, is having Duke No. 15 (VT beat Duke 17-16). The next highest vote for Duke in the poll was No. 21.

3. Bret Bielema (Arkansas): Bielema was apparently not impressed by the teams that lost in the last week of the season. Nobody has Georgia Tech (19) and Kansas State (18) lower than him and only one person has Arizona (17) lower than he put them.

4. Art Briles (Baylor): Briles is obviously upset with the Big 12 that it promoted TCU and Baylor as co-champs, even though Baylor is the #OneTrueChampion of the Big 12. Any two-team tiebreaker would be settled by head-to-head. He ended up putting the Bears No. 3 (extreme) and TCU No. 5, with Alabama sandwiched between them.  Briles' vote for Alabama at No. 4 was the lowest the Crimson Tide received.

5. George O'Leary (UCF): Well, somebody's got to believe in Central Florida. The Knights started 0-2 with losses to Penn State and Missouri, but finished a respectful 9-1. However, that one loss is to Connecticut (2-10), which is about as ugly as a loss can get. O'Leary had UCF No. 21, and the only other vote for UCF was a No. 25 one. O'Leary also has Auburn unranked, which three others do as well. 

Other notable rankings/exclusions

-Jimbo Fisher not ranking Georgia, putting Clemson No. 12. I'm just going to assume Fisher forgot about Georgia rather than deliberately leaving them off his ballot. Georgia and Clemson are both 9-3 and the Bulldogs won the head-to-head matchup, so it wouldn't make sense for there to be that much of a difference in the other direction between the schools.

-Mike Gundy ranking TCU No. 1. Mike Gundy was really pulling for the Big 12 co-champs here. The week before TCU didn't have a first-place vote, so Gundy obviously switched his vote. Only a few people have the Horned Frogs in the Top 3, and Gundy's the only person to have them in the Top 2. He also ranked Baylor No. 3 and Oregon No. 5. Outside of his bizarre Top 5, his ballot is actually fairly closely aligned with the poll.

-Ron Turner (FIU) ranking Stanford No. 19. Stanford (7-5) certainly disappointed this season, given the Cardinal's BCS bowl streak, but it could have been better (three losses by a field goal). Turner was the only person to rank Stanford in the final coaches' ballot, and he had them at No. 19. Perhaps he ranked them because of Stanford's last game, a three touchdown wallop over UCLA, but Stanford had two less points in the poll this week than the one prior.

-Apparently, we all decided Michigan State was either the No. 7 or No. 8 team in the country. Only one voter had them different (at No. 10). Of the Top 25, the Spartans had the most conformity among voters. Wisconsin and Missouri had the least.

Conference bias

I was able to produce a ranking of each team by conference fairly easily using Microsoft Excel. For the 36 non-independent teams receiving votes in the poll, 33 of them were positioned higher in the polls by their own conference (this includes coaches voting for themselves). The three teams that were viewed less favorable were Stanford (single vote outside conference), UCLA (10.84 average vs. 10.83 Pac-12) and Wisconsin. 25 of those 33 teams were viewed as most favorable by the league they play in.

List of Extreme Teams

Coach	School	Rating	Exact Coaches Matches	# of extremes	Extreme #1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7
Rick Stockstill	Middle Tennessee	1.310	4	4	BYU (20)	Memphis (16)	Marshall (14)	Miss. St. (11)
Frank Beamer	Virginia Tech	1.135	4	7	Duke (15)	Miss St (14)	Ohio State (24)	ASU (21)	Nebraska (17)	Alabama (3)	UCLA (20)
Bret Bielema	Arkansas	1.051	5	5	Georgia Tech (19)	Kansas State (18)	Nebraska (16)	Arizona (17)	Louisville (14)
Art Briles	Baylor	0.965	1	6	Alabama (4)	Georgia Tech (17)	Louisville (12)	Baylor (3)	Georgia (20)	Auburn (NR)
George O'Leary	Central Florida	0.947	4	3	UCF (21)	Arizona (18)	Auburn (NR)
Mike MacIntyre	Colorado	0.938	5	4	Air Force (24)	Duke (21)	Louisville (NR)	Auburn (NR)
Tommy Tuberville	Cincinnati	0.933	6	3	Cincinnati (20)	Georgia Tech (16)	Missouri (22)
Blake Anderson	Arkansas State	0.911	4	3	Ole Miss (25)	Northern Illinois (19)	Auburn (9)
Ron Turner	Florida International	0.905	7	4	Stanford (19)	Wisconsin (NR)	USC (21)	UCLA (20)
Les Miles	LSU	0.857	3	3	ASU (23)	Arizona (17)	LSU (18)
Troy Calhoun	Air Force	0.809	5	1	Air Force (22)
Gary Pinkel	Missouri	0.800	7	4	Michigan State (10)	Kansas State (18)	Wisconsin (8)	Miss. St. (11)
Norm Chow	Hawaii	0.791	7	4	Marshall (17)	Colorado State (24)	Missouri (NR)	Wisconsin (NR)
Jimbo Fisher	Florida State	0.788	8	4	Georgia (NR)	Northern Illinois (22)	Louisville (13)	Clemson (12)
Steve Spurrier	South Carolina	0.785	8	2	Colorado State (23)	Louisville (NR)
Todd Monken	Southern Miss.	0.780	5	2	Nebraska (16)	Georgia (20)
Al Golden	Miami	0.771	5	0
Dan McCarney	North Texas	0.747	7	0
Todd Berry	Lousiana - Monroe	0.747	5	2	Baylor (3)	Florida State (5)
Rocky Long	San Diego State	0.743	6	1	Utah (19)
Craig Bohl	Wyoming	0.733	4	1	Boise State (10)
Terry Bowden	Akron	0.732	3	1	Oklahoma (16)
Kevin Wilson	Indiana	0.722	6	3	Clemson (NR)	ASU (9)	LSU (18)
Justin Fuente	Memphis	0.710	5	2	Memphis (22)	Auburn (NR)
Bobby Hauck	UNLV	0.703	5	1	Colorado State (24)
Rod Carey	Northern Illinois	0.703	4	2	Northern Illinois (20)	Louisville (NR)
Charlie Strong	Texas	0.699	6	1	TCU (3)
David Bailiff	Rice	0.688	6	1	Cincinnati (23)
Bo Pelini	Nebraska	0.671	10	2	Minnesota (19)	Louisville (NR)
Brady Hoke	Michigan	0.662	3	0
Mike Gundy	Oklahoma State	0.654	9	3	TCU (1)	Oregon (5)	Baylor (3)
Chris Petersen	Washington	0.654	8	3	UCLA (21)	Oklahoma (19)	Missouri (22)
Dino Babers	Bowling Green	0.648	7	1	Utah (21)
Urban Meyer	Ohio State	0.635	10	0
Matt Rhule	Temple	0.633	7	0
Nick Saban	Alabama	0.628	8	1	LSU (18)
Steve Sarkisian	USC	0.605	6	2	USC (19)	Utah (20)
Frank Solich	Ohio	0.595	6	2	Minnesota (21)	UCLA (20)
Mike Riley	Oregon State	0.593	4	1	Alabama (3)
Gary Patterson	TCU	0.584	11	2	Oklahoma (18)	TCU (3)
Bronco Mendenhall	BYU	0.583	9	0
Tim DeRuyter	Fresno State	0.575	3	1	Alabama (3)
Dennis Franchione	Texas State	0.575	9	1	Mississippi State (11)
Larry Blakeney	Troy	0.569	7	2	Missouri (24)	Minnesota (21)
Jeff Quinn	Buffalo	0.567	9	0
Bill Blankenship	Tulsa	0.555	8	0
Larry Fedora	North Carolina	0.546	7	1	Mississippi State (12)
Bob Stoops	Oklahoma	0.545	11	1	TCU (3)
Dabo Swinney	Clemson	0.537	6	0
Matt Campbell	Toledo	0.519	7	0
Larry Coker	UTSA	0.519	7	0
Jerry Kill	Minnesota	0.519	6	1	Minnesota (21)
Paul Johnson	Georgia Tech	0.518	6	0
Brian Kelly	Notre Dame	0.510	10	1	Alabama (3)
Mark Richt	Georgia	0.493	9	0
David Cutcliffe	Duke	0.491	6	0
Rich Rodriguez	Arizona	0.475	9	0
Mark Dantonio	Michigan State	0.475	11	0
Mike Leach	Washington State	0.469	8	0
Bob Diaco	Connecticut	0.457	9	0
Ken Niumatalolo	Navy	0.417	10	0

(The rating is a formula I came up with to determine how extreme a voter is. The exact coaches matches means that a coach ranked the team the same as the final poll turned out. I blued extreme teams that were from the head coach of that team.)