Speaking of the ages:
I wish all my readers a happy and successful new year 2012! See you back here next year!
We are looking forward to a very exciting sports year! Olympics, European Football Championships, NFL playoffs....
A good article to check out of 2011.
Freitag, 30. Dezember 2011
Donnerstag, 29. Dezember 2011
For the ages?
A few days ago a record in the NFL was broken. This is not that rare, as there are so many records out there that one loses track of them. But what happened on Monday night was rather special: Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints broke the single season passing yardage record previously held by Dan Marino (Miami Dolphins, retired). The record now stands at 5087, 3 yards more than the mark Marino set in 1984.
Records. While they are just a statistical byproduct in European sports, they are big in US sports. They are an important element in all major US sports. There are team records, career records, season records, individual game records, and individual play records. Every other game some record is broken. In the case of Drew Brees' new record it took some time. During this time the game of professional Football certainly has changed. the tactics have changed, the level of athleticism has changed, the business side of the game has changed and even the rules have changed.
All the aforementioned changed caused some sports writers to question the new record and some even suggested to put an asterisk next to Brees' name in the record books. They argued that Marino set his record at a time when defensive players were allowed to do much more to defend receivers and dangerous hits were still a legal part of the game. Well, this might be true. But they neglect all the other elements of the game that have change since then. Defenders got faster on average (just compare the videos), more athletic and NFL Defenses certainly look faster and more athletic than in the mid 80s. It is often argued that the NFL has become a passing league. While that might be true, it still took more than 25 years to break the single season passing record. And it was broken at a point of time when defenses knew that they had to focus on defending the passing game. At a time when Linebackers are able to run as fast as Cornerbacks 20 years ago. Putting an asterisk next to know cheaters in ML Baseball is fair, but Drew Brees deserves to stand on top on the list of the most prolific passers in a single season.
Statistics are important. Especially for sports economists. They measure how individuals or teams perform. Records are one way to evaluate these performances. Still, they have to be interpreted with caution. So many factors can influence how performances can be rated. Often the best performances are not the record setting ones. If one wants to evaluate a QBs performance one has to account for the quality of the opposing teams, the ability of his team mates, the strategy of the coaches, the weather conditions and countless other factors. Career records are always difficult to evaluate, as they are often results of overly long careers (ask Brett Farve how his 71+k yards came by).
Anyway, Drew Brees definitely set a fantastic record and he should go to the Hall of Fame once he decides to call it a career. Congratulations! Let's see how long the record he will complete next weekend will hold...
Records. While they are just a statistical byproduct in European sports, they are big in US sports. They are an important element in all major US sports. There are team records, career records, season records, individual game records, and individual play records. Every other game some record is broken. In the case of Drew Brees' new record it took some time. During this time the game of professional Football certainly has changed. the tactics have changed, the level of athleticism has changed, the business side of the game has changed and even the rules have changed.
All the aforementioned changed caused some sports writers to question the new record and some even suggested to put an asterisk next to Brees' name in the record books. They argued that Marino set his record at a time when defensive players were allowed to do much more to defend receivers and dangerous hits were still a legal part of the game. Well, this might be true. But they neglect all the other elements of the game that have change since then. Defenders got faster on average (just compare the videos), more athletic and NFL Defenses certainly look faster and more athletic than in the mid 80s. It is often argued that the NFL has become a passing league. While that might be true, it still took more than 25 years to break the single season passing record. And it was broken at a point of time when defenses knew that they had to focus on defending the passing game. At a time when Linebackers are able to run as fast as Cornerbacks 20 years ago. Putting an asterisk next to know cheaters in ML Baseball is fair, but Drew Brees deserves to stand on top on the list of the most prolific passers in a single season.
Statistics are important. Especially for sports economists. They measure how individuals or teams perform. Records are one way to evaluate these performances. Still, they have to be interpreted with caution. So many factors can influence how performances can be rated. Often the best performances are not the record setting ones. If one wants to evaluate a QBs performance one has to account for the quality of the opposing teams, the ability of his team mates, the strategy of the coaches, the weather conditions and countless other factors. Career records are always difficult to evaluate, as they are often results of overly long careers (ask Brett Farve how his 71+k yards came by).
Anyway, Drew Brees definitely set a fantastic record and he should go to the Hall of Fame once he decides to call it a career. Congratulations! Let's see how long the record he will complete next weekend will hold...
Donnerstag, 22. Dezember 2011
Merry Christmas
I wish all of my followers merry Christmas and (even if the system is flawed) a good bowl season!
By the way: Sports economics has made it to the NFL.com frontpage with this article. Although it is good to see the economics of sports in the media spotlight, I have to say the argument Dubner makes is pretty weak. The final conclusion on the effect of coach changes is far from being made. There is a lot of endogeneity involved in this problem. But I am working on it...
Merry christmas!
By the way: Sports economics has made it to the NFL.com frontpage with this article. Although it is good to see the economics of sports in the media spotlight, I have to say the argument Dubner makes is pretty weak. The final conclusion on the effect of coach changes is far from being made. There is a lot of endogeneity involved in this problem. But I am working on it...
Merry christmas!
Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2011
Biased coaches?(!)
A recent posting in the Freakonomics blog is dealing with the results of a new working paper analyzing voting behavior of NCAA football coaches in the USA Today coaches poll.
In their work Matthew Kotchen and Matthew Potoski find that "coaches distort their rankings to reflect their own team’s reputation and financial interests.". And, as Stephen Dubner notes, it is absolutely not surprising. It is amazing that the BCS system and the NCAA is still relying on this ridiculously biased form of finding a ranking of collegiate teams. Of course coaches will follow their interests in the poll because their salary and job depends on it. They have clear incentives to do so. The image of the coach who should lead by example and be a role model to students is becoming harder and harder to sell to the public these days.
Dubner writes:
In their work Matthew Kotchen and Matthew Potoski find that "coaches distort their rankings to reflect their own team’s reputation and financial interests.". And, as Stephen Dubner notes, it is absolutely not surprising. It is amazing that the BCS system and the NCAA is still relying on this ridiculously biased form of finding a ranking of collegiate teams. Of course coaches will follow their interests in the poll because their salary and job depends on it. They have clear incentives to do so. The image of the coach who should lead by example and be a role model to students is becoming harder and harder to sell to the public these days.
Dubner writes:
[...]the more one learns about incentives and bias (and self-delusion), the more one is unsurprised by this sort of behavior.Yes, the BCS and FBS football is continuing to delude itself as it increasingly fails to delude the public. If a student athlete sells memorabilia there is a huge outcry. Mostly from the media and NCAA officials, but also from coaches. Where is the outcry now? Why are there no sanctions?
Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2011
Sorting the pile
Now we have it. The BCS bowls and their matchups (and all non-BCS bowls) are set. And once again it is painful to watch the system. Here are the BCS games:
BCS Title Game: No. 1 LSU (13-0) vs. No. 2 Alabama (11-1)
Orange Bowl: No. 15 Clemson (10-3) vs. No. 23 West Virginia (9-3)
Sugar Bowl: No. 13 Michigan (10-2) vs. No. 11 Virginia Tech (11-2)
Fiesta Bowl: No. 3 Oklahoma State (11-1) vs. No. 4 Stanford (11-1)
Rose Bowl: No. 5 Oregon (11-2) vs. No. 10 Wisconsin (11-2)
The champion will either be LSU or Alabama. The almighty Southeastern Conference (SEC) will get even more powerful and revenues will flow to the already rich universities. Both colleges are ranked 1 (LSU) and 2 (Alabama) and this will automatically select them into the BCS championship game. So the BCS champion is from the SEC, no matter who wins the game. Oklahoma State has an 11-1 record as well but they were selected into the Fiesta Bowl. Well, they are not from the SEC....
Now one can understand why Texas A&M and Missouri will join the SEC in 2012. The name SOUTHEASTERN Conference is a bit of a stretch considering Texas and Missouri I would say.
One can like it or not, but at least the BCS is somewhat consistent concerning the championship game selection. But when we take a look at the other bowl the system really shows how broken it is. Let us take a look at Monday's final BCS ranking:
1 LSU
2 Alabama
3 Oklahoma State
4 Stanford
5 Oregon
6 Arkansas
7 Boise State
8 Kansas State
9 South Carolina
10 Wisconsin
11 Virginia Tech
12 Baylor
13 Michigan
14 Oklahoma
15 Clemson
16 Georgia
When we look at number 7 we see that Boise State is not playing in a BCS bowl. Boise State has a 11-1 record (note same as Alabama or Stanford who are both in a BCS bowl) and is selected into a small non-BCS bowl. West Virginia is not even ranked among the top 16 but is playing in the Orange bowl. Although it lost 3 times it is selected over Kansas State, Michigan State and South Carolina who are all ranked in the top ten. But that is the automatic qualification system. But why have a ranking then? To mock a somewhat fair system? The BCS has lost a lot of support among journalists, coaches, politicians and, most important, football fans. Those who give their time and passion to cheer their teams, those who love the game of football, should have seen by now that the BCS is all about one thing: money.
I think CBS's Tony Barnhart nails it when he writes:
BCS Title Game: No. 1 LSU (13-0) vs. No. 2 Alabama (11-1)
Orange Bowl: No. 15 Clemson (10-3) vs. No. 23 West Virginia (9-3)
Sugar Bowl: No. 13 Michigan (10-2) vs. No. 11 Virginia Tech (11-2)
Fiesta Bowl: No. 3 Oklahoma State (11-1) vs. No. 4 Stanford (11-1)
Rose Bowl: No. 5 Oregon (11-2) vs. No. 10 Wisconsin (11-2)
The champion will either be LSU or Alabama. The almighty Southeastern Conference (SEC) will get even more powerful and revenues will flow to the already rich universities. Both colleges are ranked 1 (LSU) and 2 (Alabama) and this will automatically select them into the BCS championship game. So the BCS champion is from the SEC, no matter who wins the game. Oklahoma State has an 11-1 record as well but they were selected into the Fiesta Bowl. Well, they are not from the SEC....
Now one can understand why Texas A&M and Missouri will join the SEC in 2012. The name SOUTHEASTERN Conference is a bit of a stretch considering Texas and Missouri I would say.
One can like it or not, but at least the BCS is somewhat consistent concerning the championship game selection. But when we take a look at the other bowl the system really shows how broken it is. Let us take a look at Monday's final BCS ranking:
1 LSU
2 Alabama
3 Oklahoma State
4 Stanford
5 Oregon
6 Arkansas
7 Boise State
8 Kansas State
9 South Carolina
10 Wisconsin
11 Virginia Tech
12 Baylor
13 Michigan
14 Oklahoma
15 Clemson
16 Georgia
When we look at number 7 we see that Boise State is not playing in a BCS bowl. Boise State has a 11-1 record (note same as Alabama or Stanford who are both in a BCS bowl) and is selected into a small non-BCS bowl. West Virginia is not even ranked among the top 16 but is playing in the Orange bowl. Although it lost 3 times it is selected over Kansas State, Michigan State and South Carolina who are all ranked in the top ten. But that is the automatic qualification system. But why have a ranking then? To mock a somewhat fair system? The BCS has lost a lot of support among journalists, coaches, politicians and, most important, football fans. Those who give their time and passion to cheer their teams, those who love the game of football, should have seen by now that the BCS is all about one thing: money.
I think CBS's Tony Barnhart nails it when he writes:
"Still, it was surprising the Sugar would take the Hokies over No. 7 Boise State (11-1) and No. 8 Kansas State (10-2). Actually, it wasn't surprising. It is a reminder that after the BCS Championship Game, it's really not about the most deserving teams. It's about putting fannies in the seats and drawing eyeballs to the TV in a down economy. That's simply the way it is."Amateur sports, right?
Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2011
As the rich square off they get even richer.
Now that the College Football season is nearing bowl season and the BCS is once again showing how ridiculously it is violating the free market principle (more on that when the bowls are on), it is time to take a look at the salaries of the two coaches meeting in the BCS championship. I know that it is not certain, but believe me, those BCS officials will find a way to orchestrate the most profitable game: Alabama vs. LSU.
So let's talk about the coaches. By now it is well known that Nick Saban, headcoach of Alabama Football, is earning a annual basic salary of about $4.15 million. his counterpart at LSU, Les Miles, "only" earns $3.751 million. But that could change soon, as a contract clause in Miles' contract would see his basic salary increase to the highest paid headcoaches' salary (Saban's) $ +1,000. With these salary number (not including bonuses and non-financial compensation) they would be in the upper half of a ranking of all NFL coaches. In terms of salary over workload they would top the list (compare games, season length and regulation of training).
Are they worth it? As we assume that these salaries reflect an equilibrium of demand and supply we could say yeas. Even more so if we acknowledge that the BCS championship game is closing the gap on the Super Bowl as the biggest sports event in the US.
But is it really justifiable to spend that amount of money for coaches of "amateur" sport teams? Is this still on the grounds of idle NCAA regulations? Is it really the objective of Universities to put that much financial effort into competing in sports? Is it good for US education? Can a coach earn that much with all his players earning nothing at all? Can we really call it a free market as BCS conferences share their revenues like a classical cartel?
Collegiate sports certainly can be entertaining and beneficiary for students. And it can be amateur sports as it is meant to be. But if revenues, TV audiences and coaches salaries resemble those of professional sports leagues please stop pretending it is still amateur sports.
So let's talk about the coaches. By now it is well known that Nick Saban, headcoach of Alabama Football, is earning a annual basic salary of about $4.15 million. his counterpart at LSU, Les Miles, "only" earns $3.751 million. But that could change soon, as a contract clause in Miles' contract would see his basic salary increase to the highest paid headcoaches' salary (Saban's) $ +1,000. With these salary number (not including bonuses and non-financial compensation) they would be in the upper half of a ranking of all NFL coaches. In terms of salary over workload they would top the list (compare games, season length and regulation of training).
Are they worth it? As we assume that these salaries reflect an equilibrium of demand and supply we could say yeas. Even more so if we acknowledge that the BCS championship game is closing the gap on the Super Bowl as the biggest sports event in the US.
But is it really justifiable to spend that amount of money for coaches of "amateur" sport teams? Is this still on the grounds of idle NCAA regulations? Is it really the objective of Universities to put that much financial effort into competing in sports? Is it good for US education? Can a coach earn that much with all his players earning nothing at all? Can we really call it a free market as BCS conferences share their revenues like a classical cartel?
Collegiate sports certainly can be entertaining and beneficiary for students. And it can be amateur sports as it is meant to be. But if revenues, TV audiences and coaches salaries resemble those of professional sports leagues please stop pretending it is still amateur sports.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)