I’ll confess. Sometimes my “Stanford” personality just gets the better of me. Sometimes I waste hours on an intellectual pursuit—with no particular payout other than conquering a mental challenge. This is one of those times.
I wondered to myself: if the Pac-12 allowed 5-7 teams to go bowling, what would Stanford’s odds be? I did an elaborate calculation that involved scrupulously gathering bowl eligible teams, teams on the bubble, and APR rankings. I considered bowl bans, 13-game seasons, and number of FCS opponents. I topped it off with FPI win probabilities, Monte Carlo simulations, and a probability analysis. (For anybody who wants to see the nitty-gritty of my analysis, I’ll leave all the math in the first comment to this post.)
Ultimately, I determined the odds to be around 660-to-1 (0.15%). Even in an alternate universe where the Pac-12 allows 5-7 teams to go bowling, it still seems Stanford’s odds of bowling are nigh-on-impossible. But does nigh-on-impossible mean impossible?
Imagine for a moment that you have sitting in front of you the names of every working person in America. You randomly select a name. Do you think it’s at least possible that you selected the name of someone who works as a dentist?
If so, you’ve already conceded that in our alternate universe, it would be possible for Stanford to get a bowl game. In fact, the odds of Stanford going bowling would be even better than the odds of choosing a dentist (only 0.1% of American workers are dentists)!
After putting far too much work into a completely meaningless calculation, I began thinking about a sentiment I’d heard from a growing number of Stanford fans. Many told me: “The Notre Dame game is inconsequential. Why should I even watch?” Others told me: “I’m glad I’m a Stanford fan—if our football team is bad, we don’t even have to watch!”
I tried my hardest to come up with any reason whatsoever for a casual fan to watch the Notre Dame game. Does Stanford have anything to play for? Not really. Even if everything fell perfectly into place, Pac-12 rules bar 5-7 teams from a bowl game. Could we ruin Notre Dame’s season? Well, no. Not really. They already have two losses and even if they win, nobody expects them to get a NY6 Bowl anyway. How about the Legends Trophy? Not especially meaningful to casual fans. The trophy that mattered most is the one Stanford already lost: the axe.
And then I thought something that might be absolutely sacrilege: maybe—just maybe—the Pac-12 should allow 5-7 teams to go bowling. Maybe it shouldn’t stand alone as the lone conference that forbids it. I know, I know. Teams lose money by going to lesser bowls. And a team with a losing season does not deserve an appearance in a bowl game. Besides, even if the Pac-12 did allow 5-7 teams to go bowling, Stanford’s odds are still very remote.
But what if it did happen? I, for one, would suddenly be watching the Notre Dame game in silent suspense, wondering how it might end. I know it’s irrational. I know a 0.15% chance is only scarcely better than a 0% chance. But hear me out: it’s not exactly thrilling on Selection Sunday anticipating the fate of an undefeated power five team: everybody already knows it’s heading to the CFP. But to go into a game you’re supposed to lose—to go into a weekend with the odds stacked against you—with nothing but a hope and a prayer—I for one know that I’d be glued to my seat, mesmerized by the possibility of witnessing the seemingly impossible.
And isn’t that the goal of the Pac-12? The goal isn’t to save football programs money by avoiding lesser bowl games. The goal isn’t even to give teams what they deserve. The goal is to create a product that gets people to watch. Lucrative broadcast deals don’t get signed unless people are watching the games. And a Stanford-Notre Dame game with absolutely nothing at stake to the casual fan is guaranteed to get low viewership from Stanford fans.
Alas, the Pac-12 does not allow 5-7 teams to go bowling. And because of this, suddenly Stanford has nothing to play for—its fans have nothing to watch. And while Stanford won’t typically be 4-7 going into the final game of the season, there will be Pac-12 teams each season who are. Each and every one of these games could have stakes attached to them. But each year, we’ll turn blind eyes to these games that a Pac-12 rule rendered meaningless.
And will Stanford upset Notre Dame? Probably not. And will there be any bowl slots available for 5-7 teams? Again, probably not. And would Stanford get in even if slots were available? Not a guarantee.
But what if it did happen? What if—against all odds—everything fell perfectly into place? Before the Pac-12 rule, there was a chance. But now there is none.
Comments
Math Is Fun!
And, for those who want to get nerdy with me, here’s the calculation that led to the 0.15% probability. Remember that all of the below calculations are based in an alternate universe where the Pac-12 never passed the rule that 5-7 teams are disallowed from going bowling:
First, our givens:
1. Excluding the CFP National Championship, there are 39 FBS bowls this year. This means 78 teams will be selected.
2. If any slots remain for 5-7 teams, they are filled based on APR rankings (how much progress each football program has made toward graduating its players). The 5-7 team with the highest APR will be offered an unfilled bowl slot (if one exists).
3. Currently five of the 78 bowl slots are left to be filled. This is because, as of right now, 73 teams are already bowl eligible. This is inclusive of all current teams with 6 or more wins EXCEPT for Liberty, who got two wins against FCS teams and therefore still needs one more win to get bowl eligible.
4. Although there are five bowl slots (78 – 73 = 5) currently unfilled, insofar as Stanford is concerned, there are functionally only four slots left to be filled. The reason is because Boston College currently has five wins and is ranked ahead of Stanford in APR. From Stanford’s perspective, it doesn’t matter whether BC wins or loses its final game—BC will be ahead of Stanford for a bowl game regardless. So, instead of five bowl slots potentially available to Stanford, there are now only four.
5. Excluding BC (see #4 above), there are 12 teams currently in the hunt to get bowl eligible before the season ends: Army, Colorado, Kent State, Liberty, Louisiana Monroe, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon State, TCU, and Troy.
6. Duke has four wins and is ranked above Stanford in APR. If Duke wins, it will also be 5-7 and ahead of Stanford for a bowl game. This means that Stanford would need one of the following two scenarios to have a slot offered to it for a bowl game:
7. Given the above, the probability of Stanford getting a bowl game is: p(Stanford win over ND) * [p(Duke win) * p(10+ of the aforementioned 12 teams lose) + p(Duke loss) * p(9+ of the aforementioned 12 teams lose)]
Let’s begin plugging in our values!
p(Stanford win over ND): per ESPN’s FPI, the probability is 14.4%
p(Duke win): per ESPN’s FPI, the probability is 32.8%
p(Duke loss) = 1 – 0.328 = 67.2%
The final part (probability of the aforementioned 12 teams losing) is the hardest part of this analysis. But with ESPN’s FPI and a Monte Carlo simulation, it’s more than doable. First, let’s gather up the probabilities of each team winning from ESPN’s FPI:
p(2 Army wins) = 36.3% * 29.2% =~ 10.6%
p(Colorado win): 4.9%
p(Kent State win): 34.1%
p(Liberty win): 89.4%
p(Louisiana Monroe win): 6.4%
p(Michigan State win): 89.6%
p(Mississippi State win): 64.9%
p(Nebraska win): 29.5%
p(North Carolina win): 72.6%
p(Oregon State win): 5.5%
p(TCU win): 85.5%
p(Troy win): 21.1%
Okay. Now that we’ve gathered those probabilities, we just toss them into a Monte Carlo simulation to get our last two values. Here they are:
p(10+ of the aforementioned 12 teams lose): 0.12635%
p(9+ of the aforementioned 12 teams lose): 1.49595%
So, let’s plug our values into: p(Stanford win over ND) * [p(Duke win) * p(10+ of the aforementioned 12 teams lose) + p(Duke loss) * p(9+ of the aforementioned 12 teams lose)]
0.144 * (0.328 * 0.0012635 + 0.672 * 0.0149595) = 0.15%
By Matt Vassar on 11.29.19 3:47am
That gets a rec just for the intellectual brutality needed to grind through the calculation
Well done. Now, if you could only get Stanford’s odds above that minuscule level…
By g8tgod on 11.29.19 7:09pm
Many thanks!
If I were to be honest, I only wrote this piece as an excuse to post a comment with that calculation! Perhaps next season will give us something more meaningful to "stat nerd"!
By Matt Vassar on 11.30.19 10:14am
Losing teams shouldn't go to bowls
There are too many meaningless bowl games already in the profit-driven morass of college football.
By worldblee on 11.29.19 9:52am
Thing is...
…from time to time, losing teams will be going to bowl games regardless. The bowls are going to be filled no matter what. The only question here is whether the Pac-12 should be the lone conference that disallows its teams from joining in.
By Matt Vassar on 11.29.19 12:00pm
I find it odd
Hardly anyone watches those bottom feeder bowl games, in person or on television. What’s the win for ESPN or the NCAA?
By g8tgod on 11.29.19 7:11pm
People are watching them...
The very lowest rated bowl game in 2017 was the Camellia bowl between Middle Tennessee State and Arkansas State. It still got 1.2 million viewers.
This means that even the lowly Camellia Bowl outperformed some postseason MLB games. For instance, game 3 of the Astros-Rays ALDS series only got 958,000 viewers.
And bear in mind that the Camellia Bowl was the VERY WORST bowl in viewership. There are plenty of lesser bowls that are doing even better. For instance, the 2017 Pinstripe Bowl between 7-5 Iowa and 7-5 Boston College got over 4 million viewers!
By Matt Vassar on 11.30.19 5:56am
39 FBS bowls, not including the National Championship game
… means that 78 out of 130 programs will go bowling. That inflation has bereft most of these postseason games of their rewarding character. A vast number of college bowl games generate losses for the participating teams due to mandatory ticket allotments which have to be purchased at face value, no matter the actual sales potential.
If anything, the number of bowl games should be cut in half. Although we all know that the cash grab which is college football won’t allow it.
By Dr. Schmerzfrei on 11.29.19 10:58am
Some conferences game the system too
The SEC and ACC are gaming the system with the 8 conference games. Meaning more bowl teams. The CFP committee then looks at record vs bowl eligible teams which is artificially inflated. Such bs
By layman on 11.30.19 2:58am
Re: "the number of bowl games should be cut in half"
My understanding is that, legally speaking, the NCAA cannot cut bowl games (antitrust laws). The only check on bowl expansion is the free market. Problem is that huge numbers of people are watching bowl games, so the number of bowl games keeps expanding (four new bowl games will launch in 2020)…
By Matt Vassar on 11.30.19 7:33pm
Huge financial loss for the team
The big reason why the pac-12 voted unanimously in favor of the ban, is the huge financial negative in playing the bowl game at 5-7. First the expenses to and from the bowl game, which can be significant if it’s not on the west coast. Then the team has to sell the ticket allotment which in our case, is hard enough for a sun bowl. Now, there is a scenario that the pac-12 team can reject any bowl even if 6-6. But, these bowl big wigs feel slighted and gives a bad rep for the school in future pairing. That’s why the rule was passed.
Regarding stanford, no way I want us to go to the bowl game at 5-7. Maybe a program like Oregon state, which is having an uptick season after cellar dwelling for 6 yrs now, would benefit from the bowl game. The moment we lost to Colorado, the pipe dream was over.
By layman on 11.30.19 2:56am