Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Astounding Breakthrough in Tournament Design
Not sure if you noticed it, but college basketball started last night. The schedule still needs fixing. The NCAA men's championship game takes place before the start of baseball season, but the World Series ended last week. If MLB adds a few more rest days to the postseason schedule, or the NCAA pushes the start of the season back a few days, we will reach Nirvana (located just outside Bristol, CT), where college hoops and MLB fully overlap, providing round-the-calendar sports action.
Anyway, college basketball starts off this year with the 2K Sports Classic, which is billed as a basketball "tournament." I have some old fashioned ideas about how tournaments work. A dated, 20th century notion that in knockout tournaments two teams play a game or a series and the winner advances to the next round while the loser is either eliminated, or perhaps moves to the losers' bracket in some cases (I am open to the idea of a losers' bracket - it works in the College World Series, for example). The problem with my quaint idea of how a tournament should work is that sometimes unexpected events take place - we called them "upsets" back in the day - and a team like Gardner Webb would beat Kentucky at home, advancing to the widely televised later rounds, thus taking up valuable tee-vee exposure and drawing miniscule viewing audiences.
Thanks to the astounding developments made by the Gazelle Group, organizers of the 2K Sports Classic, those pesky "upsets" have been eliminated from their "tournament." Here's how it works. The tournament participants are divided into "hosts" (the Big Boys: Syracuse, North Carolina, Ohio State and Cal), and the "others" (Albany, FIU, Alcorn State, Murray State, Robert Morris, NC Central, Detroit and James Madison). In the "Regional Round," the Big Boys play two games each and the others play one game. Regardless of the outcome of these games, the Big Boys "advance" to Madison Square Garden in NYC to play in the Championship Rounds on the Deuce; the other teams move to the "Subregional Rounds" to play additional games in an "undisclosed location" presided over by former vice president Dick Cheney.
As far as I can tell, the "Championship Round" games will be decided by points scored. In the future, the outcome of these games should be decided by the size of the revenues generated, with the teams drawing the most "supporters," as measured by $0.99 text messages sent to the Gazelle Group, advancing to the championship game.
Anyway, college basketball starts off this year with the 2K Sports Classic, which is billed as a basketball "tournament." I have some old fashioned ideas about how tournaments work. A dated, 20th century notion that in knockout tournaments two teams play a game or a series and the winner advances to the next round while the loser is either eliminated, or perhaps moves to the losers' bracket in some cases (I am open to the idea of a losers' bracket - it works in the College World Series, for example). The problem with my quaint idea of how a tournament should work is that sometimes unexpected events take place - we called them "upsets" back in the day - and a team like Gardner Webb would beat Kentucky at home, advancing to the widely televised later rounds, thus taking up valuable tee-vee exposure and drawing miniscule viewing audiences.
Thanks to the astounding developments made by the Gazelle Group, organizers of the 2K Sports Classic, those pesky "upsets" have been eliminated from their "tournament." Here's how it works. The tournament participants are divided into "hosts" (the Big Boys: Syracuse, North Carolina, Ohio State and Cal), and the "others" (Albany, FIU, Alcorn State, Murray State, Robert Morris, NC Central, Detroit and James Madison). In the "Regional Round," the Big Boys play two games each and the others play one game. Regardless of the outcome of these games, the Big Boys "advance" to Madison Square Garden in NYC to play in the Championship Rounds on the Deuce; the other teams move to the "Subregional Rounds" to play additional games in an "undisclosed location" presided over by former vice president Dick Cheney.
As far as I can tell, the "Championship Round" games will be decided by points scored. In the future, the outcome of these games should be decided by the size of the revenues generated, with the teams drawing the most "supporters," as measured by $0.99 text messages sent to the Gazelle Group, advancing to the championship game.
Labels: college basketball, technology, television
Sunday, April 13, 2008
More on Doping
Skip had an interesting post on doping last week that prompted more discussion in the comments. I have been working on several research projects related to the economics of doping for the past year or so (with little to show for it except a paper on last year's WEA program and a folder full of rejection letters, but that's another story). The use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes continues to get quite a bit of coverage in the popular press. The gist of much of the reportage on doping falls into a few predictable categories: (1) the use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes is rampant, or at least more widespread than the general public suspects; (2) the use of these substances is a travesty, scathing indictment of the sorry state of sport, a horrible consequence of the corrosive effect of money on the purity of sport, etc.; and (3) Something Drastic Must Be Done ASAP.
Take, for example, an article in Sunday's New York Times about doping in athletics. Track coach Trevor Graham is going on trial next month on drug and money laundering charges related to doping among world-class sprinters. Point (1) comes out in the first paragraph
From the perspective of economics, much of this seems to miss the interesting parts. We know this: athletes, even at the highest level, have different abilities and all face strong and clear incentives to improve their performance. There is a lot of strategic interaction among athletes, and the compensation system in tournaments skews earnings significantly. Both of these factors amplifiy the consequences of outcomes. And to top it all off, the use of performance enhancing drugs is very difficult to detect, and the regulators and chemists are in an "arms race" that the regulators can't possibly win. Athletes face powerful economic incentives to dope and have easy access to new doping methods that are hard to detect. Under these conditions, many will use performance enhancing drugs, and most will get away with it.
The interesting economic angle relates to the question Rod Fort raised in the comments: "does anybody on the revenue generation side really care?" My answer is no. Event organizers desire absolute quality to increase interest in their events. World records, amazing performances that go well beyond what 99% of the population can do, "the human drama of athletic competition" bit. Sports fans, especially casual sports fans, are primarily interested in extraordinary performances. During the McGwire-Sosa home run race a few years ago, how many people said "I'm not paying attention because they are both on the juice?" Plenty of incentives exist to look the other way on the doping issue on the revenue generation side, but nobody pays much attention to it.
I realize that there are very important cost issues here as well, but I'm just sayin' ...
Take, for example, an article in Sunday's New York Times about doping in athletics. Track coach Trevor Graham is going on trial next month on drug and money laundering charges related to doping among world-class sprinters. Point (1) comes out in the first paragraph
When one of the most successful coaches in the history of track and field goes on trial next month in the long-running federal investigation into doping in sports, lawyers for both sides are prepared to reveal that cheating in track is far more widespread than previously known.Points (2) and (3) are scattered throughout the article, with references to "underside of track and field" and tales of Federal regulators ruthlessly stamping out this scourge.
From the perspective of economics, much of this seems to miss the interesting parts. We know this: athletes, even at the highest level, have different abilities and all face strong and clear incentives to improve their performance. There is a lot of strategic interaction among athletes, and the compensation system in tournaments skews earnings significantly. Both of these factors amplifiy the consequences of outcomes. And to top it all off, the use of performance enhancing drugs is very difficult to detect, and the regulators and chemists are in an "arms race" that the regulators can't possibly win. Athletes face powerful economic incentives to dope and have easy access to new doping methods that are hard to detect. Under these conditions, many will use performance enhancing drugs, and most will get away with it.
The interesting economic angle relates to the question Rod Fort raised in the comments: "does anybody on the revenue generation side really care?" My answer is no. Event organizers desire absolute quality to increase interest in their events. World records, amazing performances that go well beyond what 99% of the population can do, "the human drama of athletic competition" bit. Sports fans, especially casual sports fans, are primarily interested in extraordinary performances. During the McGwire-Sosa home run race a few years ago, how many people said "I'm not paying attention because they are both on the juice?" Plenty of incentives exist to look the other way on the doping issue on the revenue generation side, but nobody pays much attention to it.
I realize that there are very important cost issues here as well, but I'm just sayin' ...
Labels: doping, technology, tournament theory
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Questec, and tweaking the rules in baseball
I have a long-running interest in the use of technology to assist umpires and referees in calling the game. Umps and refs are fallible in ways that new technology is not. Hence I'm in favor of judiciously employing advances like QuesTec, which monitors calls of balls and strikes in Major League Baseball. Better measurement and adjustment using technology and umpire training can help restore the essential notion that the rules of the game are the same for all, i.e. that there aren't special rules for special players.
A relevant example is the case of NY Mets pitcher Tom Glavine, who was forced to switch from an in and out scheme (making use of erroneous strike calls off the outside corner), to an up and down strategy. Glavine deserves credit for adapting to how the game was being called in both the pre and post-QuesTec eras. In the pre-QuesTec era, and even today, high and low strikes are not called as the rules state. Glavine cant be faulted for pitching as dictated by umpires calls, rather than the rules per se. It is MLB's obligation to make the rules meaningful.
On this theme, there may be changes in store for the upcoming season, based in part on QuesTec. SI writer Tom Verducci spent a few days suited up as a Toronto Blue Jay during spring training. His account of the Blue Jays' team meeting with the supervisor of umpires foretells the changes:
A relevant example is the case of NY Mets pitcher Tom Glavine, who was forced to switch from an in and out scheme (making use of erroneous strike calls off the outside corner), to an up and down strategy. Glavine deserves credit for adapting to how the game was being called in both the pre and post-QuesTec eras. In the pre-QuesTec era, and even today, high and low strikes are not called as the rules state. Glavine cant be faulted for pitching as dictated by umpires calls, rather than the rules per se. It is MLB's obligation to make the rules meaningful.
On this theme, there may be changes in store for the upcoming season, based in part on QuesTec. SI writer Tom Verducci spent a few days suited up as a Toronto Blue Jay during spring training. His account of the Blue Jays' team meeting with the supervisor of umpires foretells the changes:
At 8 a.m. we are back in the classroom -- Wells, with a fresh apple, in the same seat -- this time for the annual umpires' presentation, delivered by umpire supervisor Rich Garcia. Garcia notes that the average time of game increased by one minute last year, to 2:51, and players need to be aware of pace-of-game guidelines. He also says more strikes on the upper and lower edges of the strike zone will be called this year -- too many were called balls last year, according to the laser-guided QuesTec umpire information system.
Johnson asks Garcia if it is true that QuesTec allows a two-inch buffer zone on each side of the plate when grading umpires. Garcia acknowledges that it's true, and adds that if you include the three-inch width of the baseball, the 17-inch plate actually becomes a 27-inch plate to QuesTec.
There are grumbles in the back of the room.
"Schilling gets more."
"Pedro gets more."
Garcia moves on to beanballs. The quick warnings issued by umpires are designed to cut down on brawls. "And they have," he says. "We had only three last year. Myth: Once a warning is issued, my guy can't pitch inside. Fact: 75 percent of hit batters following a warning did not result in an ejection. So it's working."
"I thoroughly disagree!"
It is Batista, raising a loud objection.
"Last year I was given a warning for throwing a changeup in the dirt," he says angrily. "A changeup!"
Garcia admits umpires can make mistakes but reiterates that brawls are terrible for the game's image and the umpires will act aggressively to prevent them.
Labels: MLB, rules, technology
