Thursday, July 21, 2011

All the news that's fit to print (and a wacky opinion)

Click for IMDB including trailer.
Talking about wins and losses from the upcoming NFL bargaining settlement, this from Judy Battista at the NYT:

"A new rookie wage system in which even the top picks in the 2011 draft could sign contracts worth about half of what the top pics signed for in 2010, a concession by players."

Wow.  Current players conceding the earnings of rookies yet to enter the league doesn't seem like much of a concession, especially when...(later in the article):

"And in a boon for players, each team will be expected to be required to spend — in cash, not in tricky accounting — a total of 90 percent of the salary cap."

So... rookies get their entering deals cut by half and owner have agreed to spend it all on current players.  For current players, like Eric Cartman always says on South Park, "Pretty sweet."

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Observations on San Diego

Click for IMDB including trailer.
Sorry a break in the posts.  I was traveling.  Part of it to the WEAI Meetings where sports economists gather for many reasons--history, academic fellowship, and, well, it was San Diego.

I counted 17 sessions and 68 papers.


  1. All of the sessions were "sponsored" by the North American Association of Sports Economists (NAASE). 
  2. All of the sessions were organized by Dave Berri (Southern Utah University), Brad Humphreys (University of Alberta), and Tony Krautmann (DePaul University).
  3. The Gini coefficient on the number of times a colleague's name appears as an author on the 68 papers was 19.5 (Berri, 7; Humphreys 6; one other person with 5, 14 people with 2, and 87 with 1).  This is pretty equal; the Gini on income inequality in the U.S. in 2009 was 46.8 and in the EU in 2005 31.0.
  4. The Gini coefficient on the number of times a university name appears for the 68 papers is 35.4 (University of Alberta, 11; Southern Utah, 8; Michigan and Lancaster, 6; 3 others with 4; 5 others with 3; 17 others with 2; and 45 others appear once).  This is pretty unequal; worse than income inequality in the EU but not quite as bad as income inequality in the U.S.
  5. I also categorized the papers into 7 groups, Labor/Discrimination/PEDs (23), I-O/Contests/Balance (17), Production (9), Demand/Attendance (8), Policy/Participation (3), Facilities/Development (3), Others (2).  The Gini coefficient on topics indicates decided inequality at 44.1.

On item 1, there are two other associations.  On items 2-4, I leave readers to their own conclusions.  On the last item, while any categorization is subjective, perhaps we need to branch out a bit?