Examining Competitive Balance in North American Professional Sport Using Generalizability Theory: a Comparision of the Big Four
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EXAMINING COMPETITIVE BALANCE IN NORTH AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL SPORT USING GENERALIZABILITY THEORY: A COMPARISION OF THE BIG FOUR by Mitchell T. Woltring A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Human Performance Middle Tennessee State University August 2015 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Joey Gray, Chair Dr. Minsoo Kang Dr. Benjamin Goss © 2015 Mitchell T. Woltring All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many who deserve recognition for helping and supporting me to get to this point. First and foremost I thank my wonderful wife Sarah, without her support none of this would be possible. To my parents, thank you for instilling in me the work ethic and drive to achieve what I desire. A very special thanks to Dr. Joey Gray, Dr. Minsoo Kang, and Dr. Ben Goss, who without their help this dissertation would not have been possible. The expertise that each brought was unparalleled and irreplaceable. I would like to thank Dr. Colby Jubenville for asking me the critical questions with the initial one being, “do you want to be the man?”; effectively convincing me Middle Tennessee State University was the place for me. And finally, to everyone else who has helped shape me in to the person I am today, I am forever grateful. iii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to use Generalizability Theory to analyze levels of competitive balance in each of the four major professional sports leagues in North America (MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL) to determine if Generalizability Theory has merit as a measure of competitive balance, if leagues are competitively balanced based on an absolute determination, and to what extent leagues are competitively balanced relative to the other leagues. The study analyzed a 10-year period for each of the four leagues from 2005-2014 and used game-by-game win/loss data to determine competitive balance. A single-facet, crossed design (Teams (T) x Games (G)) was applied for each of the leagues in each of the 10 observed seasons. G-Studies were performed to estimate the percentages of variance associated with each facet and their interaction. D-Studies were then performed to determine if leagues were competitively balanced based on an absolute decision, as well as how each league’s level of competitive balance ranked relative to the other three leagues. The results from the G-Studies showed a majority of the variance for each league came from the interaction term. The D-Studies showed that the NBA was the least competitively balanced of the four leagues and was consequently the only of the four to exhibit an absolute measure of competitive imbalance. MLB was the third most competitively balanced league, while the NHL and NFL were the most competitively balanced leagues. The D-Study results also indicate that Generalizability theory has merit as a method for measuring competitive balance, as the ranking of leagues on levels of competitive balance from the study were comparable to the findings of existing literature utilizing accepted methods for measuring competitive balance. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 Generalizability Theory................................................................................................... 5 Scope of the Study........................................................................................................... 8 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 9 Importance of the Study ................................................................................................ 10 Statement of Purpose ..................................................................................................... 11 Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 17 Competitive Balance ..................................................................................................... 17 Economic Structures Affecting Competitive Balance .................................................. 34 Measures of Competitive Balance................................................................................. 56 Generalizability Theory................................................................................................. 83 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 92 Generalizability Theory................................................................................................. 92 Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 95 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 96 v CHAPTER IV: RESULTS .............................................................................................. 101 MLB ............................................................................................................................ 102 NBA ............................................................................................................................ 108 NHL ............................................................................................................................. 115 NFL ............................................................................................................................. 123 Four League Comparison ............................................................................................ 129 CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 134 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 143 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 144 REFERENCES…………………...……..……………..…………….…………………145 vi LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. D-Study, G-Coefficients, MLB 2005-2014 .................................................................. 102 Table 2. D-Study, G-Coefficients, MLB 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data ........................... 102 Table 3. D-Study, G-Coefficients, AL 2005-2014 ..................................................................... 105 Table 4. D-Study, G-Coefficients, AL 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data .............................. 105 Table 5. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NL 2005-2014 ..................................................................... 107 Table 6. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NL 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data .............................. 107 Table 7. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NBA 2005-2014 .................................................................. 109 Table 8. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NBA 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data ........................... 109 Table 9. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NBA EAST 2005-2014 ....................................................... 112 Table 10. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NBA EAST 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data .............. 112 Table 11. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NBA WEST 2005-2014 .................................................... 114 Table 12. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NBA WEST 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data ............. 114 Table 13. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NHL 2005-2014................................................................. 116 Table 14. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NHL 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data ......................... 116 Table 15. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NHL EAST 2005-2014...................................................... 119 Table 16. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NHL EAST 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data .............. 119 Table 17. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NHL WEST 2005-2014 ..................................................... 121 vii Table 18. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NHL WEST 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data.............. 122 Table 19. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NFL 2005-2014 ................................................................. 123 Table 20. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NFL 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data .......................... 124 Table 21. D-Study, G-Coefficients, AFC 2005-2014 ................................................................. 126 Table 22. D-Study, G-Coefficients, AFC 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data .......................... 126 Table 23. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NFC 2005-2014 ................................................................. 128 Table 24. D-Study, G-Coefficients, NFC 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data .......................... 128 Table 25. D-Study, G-Coefficients, Big Four Leagues 2005-2014 ............................................ 130 Table 26. D-Study, G-Coefficients, Big Four Leagues 2005-2014, 80% Randomized Data ..... 130 viii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Four League G-Coefficient Comparison ..................................................................... 131 Figure 2. Four League G-Coefficient Comparison, 80% Randomized Data ............................... 131 ix