1 / 14

WEAI Portland June 30 2010 Economics of the NFL

What does it mean to find the Face of the Franchise? Physical Attractiveness and the Evaluation of Athletic Performance dave berri , rob simmons, jennifer van gilder & lisle o’neill. WEAI Portland June 30 2010 Economics of the NFL. Universal Beauty (First Down).

abeni
Download Presentation

WEAI Portland June 30 2010 Economics of the NFL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What does it mean to find the Face of the Franchise?Physical Attractiveness and the Evaluation of Athletic Performancedaveberri, rob simmons, jennifer van gilder & lisle o’neill WEAI Portland June 30 2010 Economics of the NFL

  2. Universal Beauty(First Down) • “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” • Beauty affects our judgment from cradle to grave • Sociological studies indicate proportion as a commonality • Samuels (1994) says infants pay greater attention to symmetrical objects • Honekopp (2006) finds human ratings of attractiveness confirm symmetry ratings

  3. Symmetry: Quantitative Beauty • Measuring beauty in a quantitative manner • Technological link between symmetry and human perception of attractiveness • Gunes and Piccardi (2006) find high correlation between human ratings and digital ratings

  4. Beauty in the Labor Market • Hamermesh and Biddle’s findings • Premium for beauty and penalty for ugliness • 3 reasons for premium or penalty • Olson and Marshuetz (2005) suggest beauty has a hiring impact • Our paper differs through use of symmetry analysis

  5. Data: Why Quarterbacks?(Second Down) • Data Richness Acquired from NFL.com • Subjects: 312 Quarterbacks from 1994-2006 • QBs seen as ‘the face of the franchise’, have a leadership role on team, role models for fans & young players, attract media publicity • Contributing factors of Productivity measurement included in the “passer” rating • Creation of 2 data sets: primary and secondary quarterbacks- which can be merged into one set

  6. Method and Theory(Third Down) • Images provided by NFL homepage and Yahoo sports • Theory: why would a GM hire a better-looking quarterback? • Marginal revenue product • Utility maximization • Null Hypothesis, given that B2 is defined as the coefficient on the beauty variable: H0 : B2 = 0 [no impact of beauty on pay] HA : B2 > 0 [beauty has a positive effect on pay, given performance & experience]

  7. Symmetry Analysis • Software: symmeter.com • Three Examples of Analysis and Results Symmetry Value: 98.87103438162 % Symmetry Value: 75.28242925108034 % Symmetry Value: 97.5382309740%

  8. Descriptive Statistics Primary Quarterbacks Secondary Quarterbacks

  9. Final Model Results(Fourth Down) • Model: • lnSAL = b0 + b1*PYARDS + b2*CPASSATT + b3*EXP + b4*EXPSQ + b5* DRAFT1 + b6*DRAFT2 + b7*VET + b8*NEWTM + b9*lnOFFSAL + b10*PB + b11*SYMMETRY + et (1)

  10. Estimation • Dependent Variable: Log of Salary • Years: 1995 to 2006 • n = 480, all QBs • Robust standard errors reported. • Qualifying condition is at least 1 play in previous season; rookies excluded • OLS then Huber Robust Regression

  11. Primary Secondary Variables Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimates Symmetry * 0.03313 Black * * Black*Symmetry - 0.12560 0.16980 Draft1 0.71490 2.71000 Draft2 * 0.39060 Pro Bowler 0.37220 0.43770 Experience 0.04630 0.09830 2 Experience - 0.01219 0.01189 QB Rating 0.00435 0.00183 Change Team 0.55060 0.17300 Year 0.04576 0.03940 Atte mpts 0.00234 0.00183 *Variable not statistically significant. Noteworthy Implications

  12. Future Research and thank you(touchdown) • Caveats • Consider using one stat per QB (average, lifetime max?) • Recent literature indicates CPI over-deflates: different deflators may give different results; earlier regressions had year summies • Quantile Regression was used in JSE QB Race study • QB & receiver performances interact-QBs and receivers are each credited in stats for yards gained- who was really responsible?

More Related