This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free All Versions of this Article: 1527002506298122v1 8/6/642    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Fort, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comments on ``Measuring Parity''

Washington State University

From historical odds Cain and Haddock assign the probability of a tie at 25% and offer functional forms for the standard deviation of a league with equal chances of a win for each team under different point assignment schemes. They then track the ratio of actual to these idealized standard deviations and argue against using an approximation that assigns half a win to both teams in a tie game or match. Their article contains some confusing use of nomenclature and there are some important lapses in scholarship. But perhaps more important, they ignore the fact (after acknowledging it) that if one uses percentages rather than absolute points, their measures of competitive balance are invariant to the point system actually used. Although their point is well-taken for competitive balance questions where absolute points might prove informative, for other competitive balance questions their point is not.

Key Words: sports economics • competitive balance • measurement • ratio of standard deviations

This version was published on December 1, 2007

Journal of Sports Economics, Vol. 8, No. 6, 642-651 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1527002506298122


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?