The alliance formation puzzle in contests with capacity-constraints: A test using American football reception-coverage contest data.
Clicks: 317
ID: 99252
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
317 views
55 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #758 of 2,056 articles by views in PloS one
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 2,056 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
We utilize a contest-theoretic model to demonstrate a version of the alliance formation puzzle that aligns with reception-coverage contests in American football. Namely, secondary defenders can opt for single-coverage-1 v 1 contest. Alternatively, they can choose to ally-form double-coverage or 2 v 1 contest with exogenous intra-alliance prize division-when defending a given receiver. In our theoretical treatment, we find that defenses have a lower equilibrium success rate in preventing the receiver from "getting open" under double-coverage than under single-coverage in the absence of capacity constraints. We also find that this success rate paradox is a necessary condition for the alliance formation puzzle. We then test the theoretical treatment by analyzing 8,508 plays of NCAA and NFL game data within a set of fixed effects, logistic regression models that control for receiver, level-of-play, and season-of-play. We find that equilibrium level of defensive success rises significantly and substantially (p-value < 0.01 and marginal effect of between 13 and 17 percentage points) when moving from single-coverage to double-coverage, ceteris paribus. There is strong evidence that the necessary condition for the alliance formation puzzle does not hold in this setting. We conclude that sufficiently-binding physiological and training-based capacity constraints eliminate the alliance formation puzzle in this setting, as was shown theoretically by Konrad and Kovenock (2009). This empirical result suggests that other contest settings that regularly feature alliance, such as liquidity-constrained conflict, may not be puzzling.
| Reference Key |
ehrlich2020theplos
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Ehrlich, Justin;Harmon, Matthew;Sanders, Shane; |
| Journal | PloS one |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
10.1371/journal.pone.0227750
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.