The Letdown - Let's do some research!

[OrangeAfroMan]

Letdown team:  any team that is in line to play for the national championship if it wins its last game of the season (pre-bowl), but loses said game.  Then they go on to lose their bowl, most often against a lower-ranked/talented team.
Playoff era:  top 4 team or ranked 5th and playing a top 4 team in its CCG/season finale.
BCS era:  top 2 team or ranked 3rd and playing a top 2 team in its CCG/season finale.
Pre-BCS era:  #1 team only, or #2 and playing the #1 team in its CCG/season finale.

Year, Team, Bowl outcome

2018, Michigan - L

Georgia - L


2017, Auburn - L

Wisconsin - W



2016, Michigan - L


2015, Iowa - L



2013, Missouri - W

Ohio State - L
2012, Georgia - W
2009 , Florida - W
2008 , Alabama - L
2007, Missouri - W
West Virginia - W
2006, Michigan - L
USC - W...........UM & USC played in a bowl, one had to win/one had to lose
2001
Tennesee - W
1998, UCLA - L
Kansas State - L
1995, Ohio State - L
1989, Alabama - L
Notre Dame - W
1988, USC - L
1985, Nebraska - L
1984, Nebraska - W
1982, SMU - W..........The Mustangs actually tied their last game, but dropped in the polls, so I'll count it
1981, Pitt, W
1980, Notre Dame - L

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so that's going back to my birth year, which is plenty.  
These teams are 12-15 in their bowl games.  If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears.  The point isn't that they always lose due to a letdown, it's that they lose more often than they should be expected to.  I think this bores that out.

[utee94]

First, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to do some research.  It's an interesting topic for sure.

But to answer this question you posed:

"If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. "

Well then, sure, there are plenty of reasons for the effect you're attempting to describe and define.  One simple explanation is that the "let-down losers" were overrated. Your model is relying on the rankings/ratings of the very sheeple you blast on a regular basis.  They are often wrong, because they are lazy and engage in group-think.  But there's a reason they didn't make it into the playoff/BCS/MNC game.  In most cases they didn't just lose their final game, they lost other game(s) too.  Which indicates they're fallible and the final season-ending loss wasn't some anomaly.

Second, the sample size is still small enough to be considered statistically insignificant.  And it comes out almost 50-50 which does little to support your assertion, regardless. Even if we are to disregard the point I made above and assume that the rankings were "correct," there's still not enough of a trend to come to the conclusion that you have. And I absolutely can't disregard my first point because I have little faith in the rankings themselves.

Third, you've narrowed your definition so fine, that it's not a representative sample.  Despite your protests to the contrary, many teams that don't fit your precise definition, still have all of the emotional hallmarks of a team that accuratley fit your "let-down syndrome" hypothesis.

In the other thread, you dismissed them, but 2008 Texas is ABSOLUTELY a team that had every single one of its post-season dreams ripped away at the very end of the season.  And not by a particular season-ending loss, but by something far worse-- a tie-breaker that essentially removed their chances at attaining EVERY single post-season goal they had.  When the B12 tie-breaker concluded that OU would represent the B12 South-- a team that Texas had already beaten by double digits on a neutral site-- it eliminated ALL of Texas' season-long goals of playing in the B12 CCG, winning the B12, and playing for the MNC.  It also quite possibly flipped the Heisman voting to Sam Bradford. Colt McCoy finished second, but had it been Texas playing in the B12 CCG and winning it, and then being selected to go to the MNC game, then it's possible and perhaps even likely that Colt would have edged Bradford in the voting.  Texas lost EVERYTHING with that coin flip tie-breaker, and had every reason to mail it in for the bowl game.  And yet they didn't-- they went on to play and beat the B10 co-champ Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl that year.  Because they were playing for pride, and they were playing to show the poll voters that it should have been Texas in the MNC game, not the Sooners.

And 2008 Texas is just one example of teams that have all of the same emotional hallmarks of a "snubbed" team or a "disappointed" team that didn't make the final game or playoff.  There are numerous others.  Your narrow definition dismisses them, which is part of why it results in an inaccurate hypothesis and an unsubstantiated conclusion.

So in short,there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with your assertion.

But again I do appreciate the time and effort you took to break down the data.  If you included ALL of the data, like 2008 Texas and numerous others in similar circumstances, you might come closer to getting a statistically significant sample size, as well as an appropriately representative one.  Then we could all take a look at the total picture and see if there's really any consistent trend. 

[Cincydawg]

My guess is the "let down" concept is a significant factor at times.  I still think the "no let down" record would be something like 15-12 in some alternative reality simply because of the quality of the opponents.

How often should a #5 team beat a #15 team without a let down?  I'd guess something like 2 times in 3., and that is a larger spread than is typical as you often have a #5 team playing a #8 team.

This is an interesting concept to consider next year.  Did Ohio State have a let down or were they motivated to prove something?  Had UGA blow out Texas, would they have proven the committee wrong?

[utee94]

My guess is the "let down" concept is a significant factor at times.  I still think the "no let down" record would be something like 15-12 in some alternative reality simply because of the quality of the opponents.

How often should a #5 team beat a #15 team without a let down?  I'd guess something like 2 times in 3., and that is a larger spread than is typical as you often have a #5 team playing a #8 team.

This is an interesting concept to consider next year.  Did Ohio State have a let down or were they motivated to prove something?  Had UGA blow out Texas, would they have proven the committee wrong?

One way to cut the data, would be to take a look at how many times in the regular season do similar "upsets" happen?  If it happens more often in "let-down loser" bowl games, then that might be a start at generating a real hypothesis.  Unfortunately I still don't think we have enough data to come to any serious conclusions.  Nor do I believe using the rankings is a valid way to measure relative team strength and expectation of outcome.

But it would at least be another view.

[Kris60]

First, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to do some research.  It's an interesting topic for sure.

But to answer this question you posed:

"If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. "

Well then, sure, there are plenty of reasons for the effect you're attempting to describe and define.  One simple explanation is that the "let-down losers" were overrated. Your model is relying on the rankings/ratings of the very sheeple you blast on a regular basis.  They are often wrong, because they are lazy and engage in group-think.  But there's a reason they didn't make it into the playoff/BCS/MNC game.  In most cases they didn't just lose their final game, they lost other game(s) too.  Which indicates they're fallible and the final season-ending loss wasn't some anomaly.

Second, the sample size is still small enough to be considered statistically insignificant.  And it comes out almost 50-50 which does little to support your assertion, regardless. Even if we are to disregard the point I made above and assume that the rankings were "correct," there's still not enough of a trend to come to the conclusion that you have. And I absolutely can't disregard my first point because I have little faith in the rankings themselves.

Third, you've narrowed your definition so fine, that it's not a representative sample.  Despite your protests to the contrary, many teams that don't fit your precise definition, still have all of the emotional hallmarks of a team that accuratley fit your "let-down syndrome" hypothesis.

In the other thread, you dismissed them, but 2008 Texas is ABSOLUTELY a team that had every single one of its post-season dreams ripped away at the very end of the season.  And not by a particular season-ending loss, but by something far worse-- a tie-breaker that essentially removed their chances at attaining EVERY single post-season goal they had.  When the B12 tie-breaker concluded that OU would represent the B12 South-- a team that Texas had already beaten by double digits on a neutral site-- it eliminated ALL of Texas' season-long goals of playing in the B12 CCG, winning the B12, and playing for the MNC.  It also quite possibly flipped the Heisman voting to Sam Bradford. Colt McCoy finished second, but had it been Texas playing in the B12 CCG and winning it, and then being selected to go to the MNC game, then it's possible and perhaps even likely that Colt would have edged Bradford in the voting.  Texas lost EVERYTHING with that coin flip tie-breaker, and had every reason to mail it in for the bowl game.  And yet they didn't-- they went on to play and beat the B10 co-champ Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl that year.  Because they were playing for pride, and they were playing to show the poll voters that it should have been Texas in the MNC game, not the Sooners.

And 2008 Texas is just one example of teams that have all of the same emotional hallmarks of a "snubbed" team or a "disappointed" team that didn't make the final game or playoff.  There are numerous others.  Your narrow definition dismisses them, which is part of why it results in an inaccurate hypothesis and an unsubstantiated conclusion.

So in short,there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with your assertion.

But again I do appreciate the time and effort you took to break down the data.  If you included ALL of the data, like 2008 Texas and numerous others in similar circumstances, you might come closer to getting a statistically significant sample size, as well as an appropriately representative one.  Then we could all take a look at the total picture and see if there's really any consistent trend.

Excellent post.  I agree on all counts.  I think a team like Washington St should be included in his letdown criteria.  Their loss to UW knocked them out of the CFP, the Rose Bowl, and any other NY6 bowl.  Despite that, they went out and won the Alamo Bowl.
Here is my other problem with the letdown theory.  I’ll agree that it may affect a player or team’s preparation for the game.  But you will never convince me it affects the effort in the game.  Once the lights come on and the crowd starts roaring, and the hitting starts, and the trash talking begins the competitive instincts kick in.  It’s a football game at that point and they are trying to win.

[ELA]

First, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to do some research.  It's an interesting topic for sure.

But to answer this question you posed:

"If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. "

Well then, sure, there are plenty of reasons for the effect you're attempting to describe and define.  One simple explanation is that the "let-down losers" were overrated. Your model is relying on the rankings/ratings of the very sheeple you blast on a regular basis.  They are often wrong, because they are lazy and engage in group-think.  But there's a reason they didn't make it into the playoff/BCS/MNC game.  In most cases they didn't just lose their final game, they lost other game(s) too.  Which indicates they're fallible and the final season-ending loss wasn't some anomaly.

Second, the sample size is still small enough to be considered statistically insignificant.  And it comes out almost 50-50 which does little to support your assertion, regardless. Even if we are to disregard the point I made above and assume that the rankings were "correct," there's still not enough of a trend to come to the conclusion that you have. And I absolutely can't disregard my first point because I have little faith in the rankings themselves.

Third, you've narrowed your definition so fine, that it's not a representative sample.  Despite your protests to the contrary, many teams that don't fit your precise definition, still have all of the emotional hallmarks of a team that accuratley fit your "let-down syndrome" hypothesis.

In the other thread, you dismissed them, but 2008 Texas is ABSOLUTELY a team that had every single one of its post-season dreams ripped away at the very end of the season.  And not by a particular season-ending loss, but by something far worse-- a tie-breaker that essentially removed their chances at attaining EVERY single post-season goal they had.  When the B12 tie-breaker concluded that OU would represent the B12 South-- a team that Texas had already beaten by double digits on a neutral site-- it eliminated ALL of Texas' season-long goals of playing in the B12 CCG, winning the B12, and playing for the MNC.  It also quite possibly flipped the Heisman voting to Sam Bradford. Colt McCoy finished second, but had it been Texas playing in the B12 CCG and winning it, and then being selected to go to the MNC game, then it's possible and perhaps even likely that Colt would have edged Bradford in the voting.  Texas lost EVERYTHING with that coin flip tie-breaker, and had every reason to mail it in for the bowl game.  And yet they didn't-- they went on to play and beat the B10 co-champ Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl that year.  Because they were playing for pride, and they were playing to show the poll voters that it should have been Texas in the MNC game, not the Sooners.

And 2008 Texas is just one example of teams that have all of the same emotional hallmarks of a "snubbed" team or a "disappointed" team that didn't make the final game or playoff.  There are numerous others.  Your narrow definition dismisses them, which is part of why it results in an inaccurate hypothesis and an unsubstantiated conclusion.

So in short,there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with your assertion.

But again I do appreciate the time and effort you took to break down the data.  If you included ALL of the data, like 2008 Texas and numerous others in similar circumstances, you might come closer to getting a statistically significant sample size, as well as an appropriately representative one.  Then we could all take a look at the total picture and see if there's really any consistent trend.

Don't think I could possibly phrase it better

[Entropy]

During the regular season a team can play a less respected program/team in between 2 big games.   often there is a "let down" and they lose.   When it comes to playoffs or NC games, we don't excuse those away... they are part of the resume.   Yet when it comes to bowl games, fans love to make excuses.

[847badgerfan]

Excellent post.  I agree on all counts.  I think a team like Washington St should be included in his letdown criteria.  Their loss to UW knocked them out of the CFP, the Rose Bowl, and any other NY6 bowl.  Despite that, they went out and won the Alamo Bowl.
Here is my other problem with the letdown theory.  I’ll agree that it may affect a player or team’s preparation for the game.  But you will never convince me it affects the effort in the game.  Once the lights come on and the crowd starts roaring, and the hitting starts, and the trash talking begins the competitive instincts kick in.  It’s a football game at that point and they are trying to win.

This is it right here. This is 100 percent on the coaching staff, period. If a staff sees a kid or kids giving half effort, it's up to them to get the kids snapped in and focused.

[SFBadger96]

So many factors at work.

First, I think teams do have letdowns. Definitely on the preparation side, which in sports played at this level makes a huge difference. Teams "play down" to the competition all the time. Better preparation, better leadership, better whatever could fix this, but there's a reason that there's more to coaching at this level than just recruiting.

Second, I think teams get behind early and fall apart. This happens at all levels of sport (and life, frankly). This is more likely to happen if the team already feels like it isn't getting its due, which is part of the letdown dynamic. To Cincy's point about teams losing when they are favored, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been favored, it just means they lost. Again, Purdue shouldn't have crushed Ohio State--a 1-loss, Rose Bowl winner--but it did. The ball starts rolling and sometimes it doesn't stop.

This goes to the "they showed up to play" issue. Yes, when the lights go on, they run out of the tunnel, and they line up for the first play, they are jacked and ready to go. But when they are all of the sudden--unexpectedly--down two scores, they remember the feeling of loss from the last game, they don't get a call they really wanted, and they have another turnover, players--and teams--absolutely do fall apart. Not all teams, not all the time, but this is a team dynamic. Good leadership prevents that--so Georgia and Washington fought back into games that looked too far gone (they still lost, but they went down swinging); Miami imploded against Wisconsin. Was 7-5 Wisconsin that much better? A team that lost at home to BYU and was kicked around at home by Minnesota? No.

Third, many of these teams were overrated going into that game they lost. The 2006 Big Ten teams appeared to be overrated. If I remember correctly, USC smoked Michigan and Florida smoked Ohio State in the MNC game. Maybe neither deserved the 1 or 2 ranking they had when they played each other. Wisconsin had 1 loss that season and took all it could muster to beat a one-dimensional, good-but-not-great Arkansas team in the Capital One Bowl. Maybe the Big Ten just wasn't that big that year, which inflated both Michigan and OSU's rankings. Maybe the Pac-10 (USC, Oregon State, and UCLA) and the SEC (Florida, LSU, and Auburn) were. Kansas State and UCLA in 1998 are other good examples. They lost those games because they weren't elite teams, despite their rankings.

Fourth, as already noted, these are often among the best teams each of these teams played all season, so it isn't surprising that they are tough outs.

And finally, some teams are better week-to-week in the regular season, others have coaching staffs that are really good at preparing for bowl games. Bret Bielema fielded better teams week-to-week; Barry Alvarez coached them up for bowl games. They aren't the same.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I’ll agree that it may affect a player or team’s preparation for the game.  But you will never convince me it affects the effort in the game.  Once the lights come on and the crowd starts roaring, and the hitting starts, and the trash talking begins the competitive instincts kick in.  It’s a football game at that point and they are trying to win.

Who has said it affects the effort in the game?  And if the preparation can be affected, does that not matter greatly?  Hell, if it wasn't that important to prepare, why do they bother???



I'm saying it affects the outcome of the games.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I'm not sure why you're dwelling on 2008 Texas - they are obviously not in the "letdown" group of teams I specified.  They were one spot ahead of OU late in the season, with a bye  week and a game against a crap A&M team. They knew OU was playing #2 Texas Tech, and if they won, they'd jump the Longhorns, because the voters do that.  And then they're in front of Florida, who was to play #1 Alabama in the SECCG as Texas sat home, again, KNOWING the winner was going to end up ranked ahead of the Longhorns.





The last-game loss is the thing.  Not just the timing of it, but the fact that their fates were in their hands and they lost.  Texas' loss on November 1 was damning at the time, and with where they were ranked and with what games were to be played, they knew the ifs and knew it wasn't good.  






Also, if you're wanting to say these 11-1 and 10-0 teams may have been overranked, but then also suggest we include these teams with September losses and October losses and November 1st losses.....ummm, nope!  What's less accurate, a 3-0 team being really good or a 10-0 team being really good?  The top 5 in September is MUCH less accurate than the top 5 in December - that's just common sense.

[OrangeAfroMan]

The cool thing about this is that while everyone can disagree with me, we can identify the teams each year that fit this mold and see how they perform.  
Georgia lost to a 4-loss team.
Michigan lost to a very ordinary Florida team it waxed just last season.

[ELA]

The cool thing about this is that while everyone can disagree with me, we can identify the teams each year that fit this mold and see how they perform.  
Georgia lost to a 4-loss team.
Michigan lost to a very ordinary Florida team it waxed just last season.

Dropping Georgia to 2-3 against teams who will finish in the top 15, and Michigan to 0-3

[Kris60]

I'm not sure why you're dwelling on 2008 Texas - they are obviously not in the "letdown" group of teams I specified.  They were one spot ahead of OU late in the season, with a bye  week and a game against a crap A&M team. They knew OU was playing #2 Texas Tech, and if they won, they'd jump the Longhorns, because the voters do that.  And then they're in front of Florida, who was to play #1 Alabama in the SECCG as Texas sat home, again, KNOWING the winner was going to end up ranked ahead of the Longhorns.





The last-game loss is the thing.  Not just the timing of it, but the fact that their fates were in their hands and they lost.  Texas' loss on November 1 was damning at the time, and with where they were ranked and with what games were to be played, they knew the ifs and knew it wasn't good.  






Also, if you're wanting to say these 11-1 and 10-0 teams may have been overranked, but then also suggest we include these teams with September losses and October losses and November 1st losses.....ummm, nope!  What's less accurate, a 3-0 team being really good or a 10-0 team being really good?  The top 5 in September is MUCH less accurate than the top 5 in December - that's just common sense.

You seem to be saying that unless a team meets the criteria you set forth then they couldn’t possibly be as disappointed at the end of the season as the other teams.  All Texas needed the last game of the season was a loss from Oklahoma in a rivalry game to a very good opponent.  Once Oklahoma won Texas was faced with reality that everything they wanted to accomplish that season was gone.   You don’t think that was disappointing?