Re: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA
At 01:31 PM 7/10/2003 -0500, Fabio wrote: ... But a lot people inside sports seem to resent big market teams (Yankees, LA Lakers) consistently dominating the play-offs, although audiences seem to want dynasties from big cities. Is there an inherent problem here? Is it inevitable that there is a conflict between people inside sports who want to see some diversity among the winners? Is big league team sports inherently biased towards the dynasty model? Are there viable business models for team sports that could produce a wider range of winners? The conflict you describe is that some people want more of a fair fight, and others put more weight on wanting my team to win. Of course the second group doesn't want to win via too easy or obvious an advantage. They may want the rough appearance of fairness, but in fact want enough unfairness for them to win. Does a similar phenomena occur in other areas of life? Do university alumni want an appearance of fair evaluation of applicants, but really want their kids to have an advantage? Do businesses want an appearance that local media are fair and impartial, but really want to be able to buy them off to prefer their side of the story? Are there other examples? Can we model this behavior as resulting from rational agents, or is some irrationality required to make such a story work? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA
Robin said: The conflict you describe is that some people want more of a fair fight, and others put more weight on wanting my team to win. Of course the second group doesn't want to win via too easy or obvious an advantage. They may want the rough appearance of fairness, but in fact want enough unfairness for them to win. Can we model this behavior as resulting from rational agents, or is some irrationality required to make such a story work? It doesn't seem to require any irrationality. Say insisting on an unfair game brings you benefits but has the cost that people may complain. It seems natural to assume that the costs created by complaint will increase as the unfairness of the game increases. If the complaint-unfairness curve crosses the unfairness-advantage curve, then people will be more more fair. Dictators, for example, have pushed the complain-unfairness curve down by ruthlessly hurting dissidents. In democratic societies, the costs imposed by complaints can be high enough to force people back to the crossing point of the curve. Now that you put it this way, I'd say it's a nice econ 101 problem. Fabio
RE: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA
In truth, the major pro sports (at least in the US and Canada)have very different buisness models that to different degrees skew the system to big and small market teams. First and formost, every league has different revenue sharing agreements between its membership. To my recollection, the NFL teams put a relatively large amount of revenue into a common pot and then divide it equally. This, of course, gives a boost to smaller market teams. The last six Super Bowl winners have been Tampa, New England, Baltimore, St. Louis, Denver (twice) and Green Bay. All relatively large markets. Couple this with rigid standards on player salaries (in the form of a collective bargaining agreement with the players union that defines a maximum amount each team can spend on players), and small market and big market teams are on a relatively even playing field. At the other end of the spectrum, Major League Baseball teams share relatively little revenue and have (until last year... And the rules are still pretty loose) no real curbs on how much a team can spend on players). Teams from Southern California or New York have appeared in and won 5 of the last six World Series. Why do relatively similar endeavors have such different business models? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of fabio guillermo rojas Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA Playoffs between small market teams get low ratings, like the New Jersey Nets/San Antonio Spurs championship game. But a lot people inside sports seem to resent big market teams (Yankees, LA Lakers) consistently dominating the play-offs, although audiences seem to want dynasties from big cities. Is there an inherent problem here? Is it inevitable that there is a conflict between people inside sports who want to see some diversity among the winners? Is big league team sports inherently biased towards the dynasty model? Are there viable business models for team sports that could produce a wider range of winners? Fabio
Family Businesses and Licensing
In my informal experience, fathers and sons tend to work together full-time only in professions with strict licensing or training requirements. Electricians, lawyers, realtors and even CPAs - I've found more father/son teams here than in any other type of job. All of those jobs have fairlyrigid prerequisites (electricians have to pass journeyman and master-level tests;lawyers have the bar and law school, etc). Why is that? Also - why is it more often "father/son," and not "mother/daughter" or "mother/son"? Or "father/daughter"? -JP Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
