Skip to main content
Log in

Structural Change in Competitive Balance in Big-Time College Football

  • Published:
Review of Industrial Organization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Competitive balance is an important element of fan preferences in sports industries. We analyze the time series behavior of competitive balance measures over the entire histories of each of the current US. “Power 5” football conferences. Competitive balance has been remarkably stable. All series are stationary by unit root tests. None of the very few structural break points that we do find coincide with economy-wide shocks (wars and the Great Depression) or with any particular college-football-wide policy alteration. This has important implications for sports researchers and for policy in the “big-time” college football industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The idea that balance matters to fans can be traced in economics back to Rottenberg (1956).

  2. Our data end point (2010) is arbitrary. Things are always changing in college sports conferences, and no doubt there will be room for future work as more data are generated. Our choice to exclude, say, the Big East when it had FBS football, or the Southwest as a powerhouse of its time, was due to our focus on FBS college football as it moves forward. There is little in the way of policy observation to offer for defunct conferences.

  3. Goff (2004) reviews a substantial literature on these other values. The literature that followed included Tucker (2004, 2005), Humphreys (2006), Tucker and Amato (2006), Humphreys and Mondello (2007), Stinson and Howard (2007), Pope and Pope (2008), Smith (2008), and Fort and Winfree (2013).

  4. The BP Approach has been used on all four North American pro sports leagues and the English Premier League. On competitive balance, see Lee and Fort (2005, 2012) and Fort and Lee (2007). On attendance, see Lee and Fort (2008) and Mills and Fort (2014).

  5. Scholarship limits and the determination of the national champion, as well as passing notice about the introduction of the GI Bill, are covered later in the paper.

  6. Presentation of the entire results would result in a paper that is unsuited to the usual journal length. The full test and regression results are in the Data and Statistical Tests Appendix available online at https://www.dropbox.com/s/reo9ym5uoohbmym/SalagaFortAppendix.docx?dl=0.

  7. Others might take the history of the Big 12 back to the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association (1907–1927) and the Pac-12 only back to the Athletic Association of Western Universities (1959–1967), rather than including the Pacific Coast Conference (1916–1958) that was broken up due to scandal.

  8. College conference championship games have only been around since Arkansas and South Carolina joined the SEC in 1992–1993. One could envision “post season” access to bowl games, but the purpose of nearly none of them is to crown a champion. Indeed there was no national championship game, per se, until the Bowl Championship Series put one in place for the 2007 bowl season.

  9. The full data and calculation results for historical conference championships are in Tables A1–A5 in the online appendix (see footnote 6).

  10. The “tail likelihood” measure from Fort and Quirk (1995) puts the attention on the outliers (big losers and big winners) rather than on outcomes around the mean of the winning percentage. In the data to follow, RSD takes on values that are much lower than in sports such as baseball or basketball (Fort 2011, Chapter 6), which suggests that there really isn’t as much going on in the tails for college football competitive balance.

  11. Andrews (1993) focused on a single structural change, while Bai (1997, 1999) and Bai and Perron (1998, 2003) moved on to consider multiple structural changes.

  12. Sequential tests allow for the ability to determine the optimal number of breaks within a given series. The UDMax and WDMax tests identify the presence of breaks (with no set maximum number of breaks) against the null of zero breaks. The Sup F T (k) tests specify statistical significance for a given number of breaks (k) against a null of zero breaks.

  13. Bounded time series such as ours can render unit root tests misleading. However, in actuality, none of our series hit the boundaries so unit root testing remains insightful. Our reference is Cavaliere and Xu (2014).

  14. ADF and PP tests are the standard choice for unit root testing in the BP literature and test results are in Table A6 in the online appendix (see footnote 6).

  15. Break point test results are in Tables A7–A9 in the online appendix for the results for each of \(RSD_{t}\), \(MVR_{t}\), and \(WPC_{t}\), respectively (see footnote 6). As a robustness check, we tried to recreate the significance and direction of the break-point results using generalized linear modeling (GLM). Conference-level measures were the dependent variable, and indicators for the years at which we find break points, plus a constant, and a trend were the explanatory variables. For all of the series where we find a single break point using the BP Approach, our GLM results give the same results for both significance and direction of the break point. For the series where we find two break points, our GLM results give the same the direction of the breaks, and significance occurs in 3 of 6 cases. The BP Approach and GLM results are in general agreement.

  16. The regression results are in Table A10 in the online appendix for the results for each of \(RSD_{t}\), \(MVR_{t}\), and \(WPC_{t}\), respectively (see footnote 6).

  17. The actual and fitted results for all Power 5 conferences, including those not in Figure 1, are in Figures A1–A3 in the online appendix (see footnote 6).

  18. It may be the case that our measures of competitive balance are not robust enough to show the impact of events. However, in the many other works that are referenced as using these variables, the measures were insightful.

  19. To follow part of this discussion, the reader will need to return to Figures A1–A3 in the online appendix (see footnote 6).

  20. Salaga (2015) analyzed the GI Bill (1946), a general national education policy measure thought to have influenced balance in college football. Our work reinforces his episode analysis finding that the GI Bill did not coincide with changes in competitive balance. However, Mills and Salaga (2015) do find breakpoints in NCAA college basketball that align closely with the implementation of the GI Bill.

  21. Quirk (2004) found short-term impacts on balance with conference switching. The work cited above on pro sports also found the pro version of conference switching—expansion and relocation—and integration to coincide with break points. With respect to integration, Mills and Salaga (2015) find a number of breaks proximate to this time period in college basketball.

  22. The grant-in-aid allowed coverage of tuition, room and board, and books. See Falla (1981) and Byers (1995).

  23. The invariance principle holds that the distribution of talent is invariant with respect to who keeps the value created by athletes. Talent goes to its highest valued use whether athletes are paid their marginal revenue product or less due to labor market restrictions. Our finding also reinforces the episode analysis in Salaga (2015) that finds grants-in-aid had no impact on balance in college football.

  24. 468 US 85 (1984).

  25. Scholarship limits: Sutter and Winkler (2003). TV deregulation: Bennett and Fizel (1995), Eckard (1998), Siegfried and Burba (2004), and Salaga (2015). The BCS formation is common knowledge and its website was still in operation as of this writing (www.bcsfootball.org).

  26. For example, on coaches, no break points were associated with other outlier performances such as: Fielding Yost at the University of Michigan (1901–1926, pre-bowls, 6 National Championships including 4 in a row, 1901–1904); John McKay at the University of Southern California (1960–1975, 9 bowls, 4 National Championships); Bear Bryant at the University of Alabama (1958–1982, 24 bowls, 6 National Championships); or Joe Paterno at Pennsylvania State University (1966–2011, 37 bowls, 2 National Championships).

References

  • Andrews, D. W. K. (1993). Tests for parameter instability and structural change with unknown change point. Econometrica, 61, 821–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, J. (1997). Estimating multiple breaks one at time. Econometric Theory, 13, 315–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, J. (1999). Likelihood ratio tests for multiple structural changes. Journal of Econometrics, 91, 299–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, J., & Perron, P. (1998). Estimating and testing lineal models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica, 66, 47–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, J., & Perron, P. (2003). Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. W., & Fizel, J. L. (1995). Telecast deregulation and competitive balance: NCAA Division I football. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 54, 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, M. (1995). Competitive balance in Major League Baseball. American Economist, 39, 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, W. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, J. (1987). Evaluating changes in league structure: The reorganization of the Scottish Football league. Applied Economics, 19, 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaliere, G., & Xu, F. (2014). Testing for unit roots in bounded time series. Journal of Econometrics, 178, 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B., Downward, P., & Jackson, I. (1995). The demand for Rugby League: Evidence from causality tests. Applied Economics, 27, 1003–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, S. M., & Goddard, J. A. (1998). Performance and revenue in Professional League Football: Evidence from Granger causality tests. Applied Economics, 30, 16541–16551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckard, E. W. (1998). The NCAA cartel and competitive balance in college football. Review of Industrial Organization, 13, 347–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falla, J. (1981). NCAA: The voice of college sports. Mission, KS: National Collegiate Athletic Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fort, R. (2011). Sports economics (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fort, R., & Lee, Y. H. (2006). Stationarity and Major League Baseball attendance analysis. Journal of Sports Economics, 7, 408–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, R., & Lee, Y. H. (2007). Structural change, competitive balance, and the rest of the Major Leagues. Economic Inquiry, 45, 519–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, R., & Quirk, J. (1995). Cross-subsidization, incentives, and outcomes in professional team sports leagues. Journal of Economic Literature, 23, 1265–1299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fort, R., & Winfree, J. (2013). 15 Sports myths and why they’re wrong (pp. 22–40). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goff, B. (2004). Effects of university athletics on the university: A review and extension of empirical assessment. In J. Fizel & R. Fort (Eds.), Economics of college sports (pp. 65–86). Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, B. R. (2006). The relationship between big-time college football and state appropriations to higher education. International Journal of Sport Finance, 1, 119–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, B. R., & Mondello, M. J. (2007). Intercollegiate athletic success and donations at NCAA Division I institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. H., & Fort, R. (2005). Structural change in baseball’s competitive balance: The depression, team location, and integration. Economic Inquiry, 43, 158–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. H., & Fort, R. (2008). Attendance and the uncertainty-of-outcome hypothesis in baseball. Review of Industrial Organization, 33, 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. H., & Fort, R. (2012). Competitive balance: Time series lessons from the English Premiere League. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 59, 266–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, B., & Fort, R. (2014). League level attendance and outcome uncertainty in U.S. pro sports leagues. Economic Inquiry, 52, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, B. M., & Salaga, S. (2015). Historical time series perspectives on competitive balance in NCAA Division I basketball. Journal of Sports Economics, 16, 614–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noll, R. G. (1988). Professional basketball. Studies in industrial economics paper no. 144. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

  • Pope, D. G., & Pope, J. C. (2008). The impact of college sports success on the quantity and quality of student applications. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 750–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quirk, J. (2004). College football conferences and competitive balance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25, 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quirk, J., & Quirk, Q. (2012). All time major college football game scores, 1869–2011. CDROM.

  • Rottenberg, S. (1956). The baseball players’ labor market. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 242–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salaga, S. (2012). Empirical essays in sport management. Dissertation, University of Michigan.

  • Salaga, S. (2015). Competitive balance in college football: The GI Bill, grant-in-aid and the College Football Association (pp. 116–143). XXXIII: Essays in Economic and Business History.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, G. (1989). The business of Major League Baseball. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegfried, J. J., & Burba, M. G. (2004). The College Football Association television broadcast cartel. The Antitrust Bulletin, 49, 799–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloane, P. J. (1976). Sporting equality: Labour market versus product market control: A comment. Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. R. (2008). Big-time college basketball and the advertising effect: Does success really matter? Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sports-Reference.com. (2014). Sports reference/college football, conference index. Accessed October 10, 2014 from http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences.

  • Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2007). Athletic success and private giving to athletic and academic programs at NCAA institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 235–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutter, D., & Winkler, S. (2003). NCAA scholarship limits and competitive balance in college football. Journal of Sports Economics, 4, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, I. B. (2004). A re-examination of the effect of big-time football and basketball success on graduation rates and alumni giving rates. Economics of Education Review, 23, 655–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, I. B. (2005). Big-time pigskin success: Is there an advertising effect? Journal of Sports Economics, 6, 222–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, I. B., & Amato, L. T. (2006). A reinvestigation of the relationship between big-time basketball success and average SAT scores. Journal of Sports Economics, 7, 428–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodney Fort.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salaga, S., Fort, R. Structural Change in Competitive Balance in Big-Time College Football. Rev Ind Organ 50, 27–41 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-016-9526-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-016-9526-z

Keywords

Navigation