RBA Rate Decisions More Powerful in Smaller Doses (AFR Piece)


The Australian Financial Review ran an opinion piece of mine (with my colleague, Jan Libich) that appeared in this morning’s edition (Tuesday 7 April), titled: “RBA Medicine Should be Dispensed in Smaller Doses” on p.43 (some of you will find the link to be gated)…or e-mail me a request if you cannot access it any other way.

It discusses an idea of ours to improve the impact of central bank interest-rate setting in Australia, which is to reduce the increment of change to the cash target rate (the main monetary policy instrument), from 25 to 10 basis points. Such a change would incur a relatively small adjustment cost, while providing a good return on extra ‘signalling power’. Read the piece to get more detail.

Lead Article of Volume in ‘Journal of Sports Economics’


There was a nice surprise yesterday, when I discovered that my latest published article – in the Journal of Sports Economics – has been assigned as the lead article of this year’s volume (16). Signals seem to be mixed on whether this actually means anything in terms of esteem or quality judgements, but a well-known empirical regularity is that lead articles do tend to get more citations other things being equal (see, for example, Coupé, Ginsburgh and Noury, 2010, in Oxford Economic Papers), so here’s hoping.

The article itself adjusts win percentages of NFL teams to account for strength of schedule, prior to calculating standard measures of competitive balance. I find that the adjustment makes the NFL (already considered the epitome of competitive balance) look even more balanced. For the record, the details are as follows:

Lenten, L. J. A. (2015), “Measurement of Competitive Balance in Conference and Divisional Tournament Design”, Journal of Sports Economics, 16(1), 3-25.

You can view the abstract here, and e-mail me if you would like a copy.

Hawthorn’s Case for All-time AFL Premiership Supremacy


I thought I’d blog a brief post about Hawthorn’s 2014 AFL Grand Final triumph because…well, I can.

In an orgy of brown and gold hubris, I chose to celebrate the occasion by gloating shamelessly in today’s Australian Financial Review (Tuesday 30 September), in the article: “Adjusting the Count Makes the Hawks AFL Winners” (gated, on p.55 of print copy).

The thrust suggests that all things considered for ‘opportunity’ (both seasons in AFL and number of teams in each season), Hawthorn now goes statistically to the top of the AFL all-time premiership tree, despite being equal-fourth on raw numbers.

I also had a short interview on Mornings with Geoff Hutchison on ABC Radio (Perth), discussing other findings arising from this adjustment (with an emphasis on the two WA teams).

E-mail me a request if you are interested in either of these files.

Perhaps the final word on AFL season 2014 should belong to Titus O’Riely: “The good news is that finally, the drought is over for those long suffering Hawks supporters. How they have waited. It’s not every year Hawthorn wins a Premiership, but it really feels like it.”

NFL Scheduling and Competitive Balance


[Archived from: The Sports Economist, 2 January 2014]

In this paper (now forthcoming, JSE: doi: 10.1177/1527002512471538), it was shown that for every single year after the expansion to 32 teams in 2002 (until 2011), the NFL was even more competitively balanced when the strength of schedule was accounted for, without exception, using four common CB measures. Previous The Sports Economist posts on this are here and here.

Since the 2013 regular season has just been completed, we crunched the numbers on the two most recent seasons. The streak remains unbroken, once again demonstrating the importance of adjusting CB measures for unbalanced schedules.


Standard Deviation Ratio: 1.5245 (unadjusted); 1.4645 (adjusted)

Herfindahl Index of CB:  1.1453 (unadjusted); 1.1340 (adjusted)

Concentration (12) Ratio:  1.4010 (unadjusted); 1.3889 (adjusted)

Gini Coefficient:  0.2776 (unadjusted); 0.2647 (adjusted)

My Research Project Description: Short Video


As part of the La Trobe Research series, on 17 May, I recorded a short video (description below) discussing a current research project of mine: “Unbalanced Scheduling Systems and Demand for Professional Sport” (with Jordi McKenzie, University of Sydney).


Researchers of La Trobe University are asked three questions, giving a glimpse into the wide range of research conducted at La Trobe. Researchers are asked: In the simplest terms, please explain your research hypothesis? What is the key outcome you hope you achieve? How will this outcome impact society or the community?

NFL Even MORE Competitively Balanced (Yet Again)


[Archived from: The Sports Economist, 3 January 2012]

Further to an earlier post one year ago to the day, the same result occurred upon conclusion of the 2011 NFL season as in EVERY previous season since the re-alignment to 32 teams in 2002 – that the  NFL is even more competitively balanced when the standings are adjusted for strength of schedule (than on the basis of raw standings) .

Even though this season was noticeably less balanced than (the recent) average without adjustment, the difference from the adjustment was even more pronounced than any other season during this period (with the exception of 2003), making adjusted competitive balance about average over the same period.

On this occasion, the actual-to-idealized standard deviation ratios are 1.611 (unadjusted) and 1.462 (adjusted); the Gini coefficients are 0.292 (unadjusted) and 0.260 (adjusted); and the Herfindahl indexes of CB are 1.162 (unadjusted) and 1.134 (adjusted).

Ultimately, this result reinforces further the need to account for strength of schedule in producing standard competitive balance metrics for various empirical studies!