|
on Sports and Economics |
| By: | Abigail Cormier; Austin F. Eggers; Peter A. Groothuis; Kurt W. Rotthoff |
| Abstract: | Successful college football programs draw students to a university. This effect extends to university administrators, who provide higher peer rankings to schools with successful football programs. We analyze the opposite effect, how athletic malfeasance resulting in football postseason bowl bans influences peer rankings and other university measures at the sanctioned school. Surprisingly, we find that the peer ranking increases the year of the football bowl ban but decreases the year after the ban. We further find that bowl bans increase a school’s acceptance rate, decrease alumni giving, and decrease academic quality at the sanctioned university. Key Words: Education, (Anti) Flutie-Factor, NCAA, Athletic Malfeasance |
| JEL: | Z2 I2 |
| Date: | 2022 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:apl:wpaper:22-02&r= |
| By: | Abigail Cormier; Austin F. Eggers; Peter A. Groothuis; Kurt W. Rotthoff |
| Abstract: | Collegiate sports have a profound impact on a university beyond athletics. Successfully managed athletics have been shown to have a positive impact on the institution. Likewise, unsuccessful management that leads to athletic malfeasance has been shown to have negative impacts on the university. We analyze tournament bans in Division I college basketball as a signal for university quality in student quality, rankings (U.S. News and World Report’s peer rankings), and other university measures. We find evidence that following a postseason tournament ban, applications from students in the top ten percent of their high school class decrease, some evidence that academic test scores decrease, and some evidence that the amount of alumni donations decrease. These results suggest that mismanagement of athletics leads to a decline in university quality. We do, however, find that peer rankings from faculty administrators do not change and actually increase slightly after sanctions of athletic malfeasance. Key Words: Education, (Anti) Flutie-Factor, NCAA, Athletic Malfeasance |
| JEL: | Z2 I2 |
| Date: | 2022 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:apl:wpaper:22-01&r= |
| By: | Justin Ehrlich; Christopher Boudreaux; James Boudreau; Shane Sanders |
| Abstract: | We ask if there are alternative contest models that minimize error or information loss from misspecification and outperform the Pythagorean model. This article aims to use simulated data to select the optimal expected win percentage model among the choice of relevant alternatives. The choices include the traditional Pythagorean model and the difference-form contest success function (CSF). Method. We simulate 1,000 iterations of the 2014 MLB season for the purpose of estimating and analyzing alternative models of expected win percentage (team quality). We use the open-source, Strategic Baseball Simulator and develop an AutoHotKey script that programmatically executes the SBS application, chooses the correct settings for the 2014 season, enters a unique ID for the simulation data file, and iterates these steps 1,000 times. We estimate expected win percentage using the traditional Pythagorean model, as well as the difference-form CSF model that is used in game theory and public choice economics. Each model is estimated while accounting for fixed (team) effects. We find that the difference-form CSF model outperforms the traditional Pythagorean model in terms of explanatory power and in terms of misspecification-based information loss as estimated by the Akaike Information Criterion. Through parametric estimation, we further confirm that the simulator yields realistic statistical outcomes. The simulation methodology offers the advantage of greatly improved sample size. As the season is held constant, our simulation-based statistical inference also allows for estimation and model comparison without the (time series) issue of non-stationarity. The results suggest that improved win (productivity) estimation can be achieved through alternative CSF specifications. |
| Date: | 2021–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2112.14846&r= |
| By: | Jean-Loup Chappelet (SU - Sorbonne Université) |
| Date: | 2021 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03435211&r= |