{"id":489,"date":"2013-03-19T14:04:54","date_gmt":"2013-03-19T14:04:54","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2016-10-20T16:49:50","modified_gmt":"2016-10-20T21:49:50","slug":"competitive-balance-in-conference-usa-football-the-effects-of-membership-churning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/competitive-balance-in-conference-usa-football-the-effects-of-membership-churning\/","title":{"rendered":"Competitive Balance in Conference USA Football: The Effects of Membership Churning"},"content":{"rendered":"
Martin M. Perline, G. Clayton Stoldt, Mark C. Vermillion<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Effects of Membership Churning<\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong>
\nConference USA a major college athletic conference that experienced a number of membership changes in 2005.\u00a0 The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of those changes on competitive balance in the sport of football.\u00a0 Three measures of competitive balance were employed, and while results were mixed, the findings indicated slightly more competitive balance in the five years following the membership changes than in the five years before.\u00a0 This result supports the findings of previous studies on the effects of membership churning in other conferences on competitive balance in football.<\/p>\n

Like most NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision conferences, Conference USA has experienced a number of changes in its membership in recent years.\u00a0 As those changes\u2014sometimes referred to as member churning\u2014have occurred the issue of competitive balance has been a relevant concern because of the value conferences place on providing level playing fields for their member institutions (9, 10).\u00a0 Competitive balance is linked to undoubtedly the value of fair play, and it is also an important consideration as conferences seek to maximize revenue.\u00a0 Rhoads (9) linked competitive balance with increased ticket sales and enhanced television rights fees.\u00a0 Other scholars have supported the idea that the greater the uncertainty of a game\u2019s outcome (i.e., competitive balance), the greater the consumer interest in that contest (1, 2, 4, 8).<\/p>\n

Prior to some membership changes that were announced in 2011, but have yet to be completed, the most recent change in membership in Conference USA occurred in 2005.\u00a0 At that time, four institutions left the conference and five others joined.\u00a0 This study examines the impact of those membership changes on competitive balance in the sport of football, which has been acknowledged as the predominant sport driving conference realignment (3).\u00a0 Specifically, the purpose of this study is to compare levels of competitive balance in Conference USA football between the time periods of 2000-2004 and 2005-2009.<\/p>\n

METHODS<\/strong>
\nTable 1 lists the various institutions that were members of Conference USA during the time periods being examined.<\/p>\n

Table 1
\nConference USA Football Membership 2000-2009<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

School<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Years in Conference<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Cincinnati<\/td>\n\n

1995-2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Houston<\/td>\n\n

1995-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Louisville<\/td>\n\n

1996-2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Memphis<\/td>\n\n

1996-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Southern Mississippi (USM)<\/td>\n\n

1995-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Tulane<\/td>\n\n

1995-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Alabama-Birmingham (UAB)<\/td>\n\n

1999-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Southern Florida (USF)<\/td>\n\n

1995-2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Central Florida (UCF)<\/td>\n\n

2005-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Texas Christian (TCU)<\/td>\n\n

1999-2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

East Carolina (ECU)<\/td>\n\n

1996-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Army<\/td>\n\n

1997-2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Marshall<\/td>\n\n

2005-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Rice<\/td>\n\n

2005-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Southern Methodist (SMU)<\/td>\n\n

2005-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Tulsa<\/td>\n\n

2005-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Texas-El-Paso (UTEP)<\/td>\n\n

2005-Present<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Three methods of assessing competitive balance are employed in this study.\u00a0 The first is the standard deviation of winning percentages, which measures the dispersion of winning percentages for conference games around the overall average, which will always be .500.\u00a0 The formula for the standard deviation is:
\n______________
\n\u03c3 = \u221a \u03a3 (WPCT – .500)2<\/span>
\nN<\/p>\n

The higher the standard deviation the greater the dispersion of winning percentages around the mean; and therefore, the lower the level of competitive balance.The second method employed is designed to determine the level of turnover among overall winners.\u00a0 The Hirfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), which was originally to measure concentration among firms within an industry (5), may be adapted to measure the concentration of championships within a given sport over time.\u00a0 The HHI is calculated by counting the number of times a team won a championship during a given period, summing those values and then dividing by the number of years in the period considered. The formula:
\nHHI =\u00a0 \u03a3f2<\/span>
\nT
\nLower HHI values are indicative of more teams winning championships in a given time period, which is related to better competitive balance.The third tool for evaluating competitive balance is to examine the range of winning percentages for members of the conference during each time period.\u00a0 Winning percentages near .500 for conference game are indicative of better competitive balance.\u00a0 Therefore, the lower the range of winning percentages, the better the overall competitive balance.<\/p>\n

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<\/strong>
\nThe following sections provide the results of the study based on the three methods of assessing competitive balance described above.<\/p>\n

Standard Deviation of Winning Percentages<\/strong>
\nTables 2 and 3 display the winning percentages for Conference USA football for the years 2000-04 and 20005-09 respectively.\u00a0 Table 4 displays the standard deviations for both time periods.<\/p>\n

Table 2
\nWinning Percentage for Football Teams, 2000 through 2004 <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Year<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Lou<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Cin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ECU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

USM<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

UAB<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Tul<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mem<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hou<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Army<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

TCU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

USF<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2000<\/td>\n0.857<\/td>\n0.714<\/td>\n0.714<\/td>\n0.571<\/td>\n0.429<\/td>\n0.429<\/td>\n0.286<\/td>\n0.286<\/td>\n0.143<\/td>\n—<\/td>\n\u00a0—<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2001<\/td>\n0.857<\/td>\n0.714<\/td>\n0.714<\/td>\n0.571<\/td>\n0.714<\/td>\n0.714<\/td>\n0.429<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0.286<\/td>\n0.571<\/td>\n—<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2002<\/td>\n0.625<\/td>\n0.75<\/td>\n0.5<\/td>\n0.625<\/td>\n0.500<\/td>\n0.5<\/td>\n0.222<\/td>\n0.375<\/td>\n0.125<\/td>\n0.75<\/td>\n—<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2003<\/td>\n0.625<\/td>\n0.25<\/td>\n0.125<\/td>\n1.000<\/td>\n0.500<\/td>\n0.375<\/td>\n0.625<\/td>\n0.5<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n0.875<\/td>\n0.625<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2004<\/td>\n1.000<\/td>\n0.625<\/td>\n0.25<\/td>\n0.625<\/td>\n0.625<\/td>\n0.375<\/td>\n0.625<\/td>\n0.375<\/td>\n0.25<\/td>\n0.375<\/td>\n0.375<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mean<\/strong><\/td>\n0.793<\/strong><\/td>\n0.611<\/strong><\/td>\n0.461<\/strong><\/td>\n0.678<\/strong><\/td>\n0.554<\/strong><\/td>\n0.364<\/strong><\/td>\n0.437<\/strong><\/td>\n0.307<\/strong><\/td>\n0.161<\/strong><\/td>\n0.643<\/strong><\/td>\n0.5<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 3
\nWinning Percentage for Football Teams for 2005 through 2009<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Year<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

UCF<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mem<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

USM<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ECU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

UAB<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Marshall<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Tulsa<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

UTEP<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Houston<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SMU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Tulane<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Rice<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.875<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.625<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.625<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.625<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2006<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.625<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.625<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.875<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2007<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.875<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.625<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2008<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.875<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.875<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.625<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.875<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.375<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Mean<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.65<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.425<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.625<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.7<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.325<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.425<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.675<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.425<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.725<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.35<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.2<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.475<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 4
\nStandard Deviation for Winning Percentages <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Year<\/td>\nSD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2000<\/td>\n0.238<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2001<\/td>\n0.280<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2002<\/td>\n0.208<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2003<\/td>\n0.301<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2004<\/td>\n0.224<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5-Year Mean SD<\/strong><\/td>\n0.250<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2005<\/td>\n0.226<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2006<\/td>\n0.232<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2007<\/td>\n0.287<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2008<\/td>\n0.277<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2009<\/td>\n0.256<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong>5-Year Mean SD<\/strong><\/td>\n0.256<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

As shown in Table 4, the mean standard deviation was .250 in the 2000-04 period and .256 in the 2005-09 period.\u00a0 While the difference is not great, there is slightly more competitive balance in the earlier period.\u00a0 One could reasonably conclude that using the standard deviation as a measure of competitive balance indicated there was very little difference when comparing the two five year periods.<\/p>\n

HHI Championships<\/strong>
\nUsing the data from Table 5 to construct the HHI to measure competitive balance between the two periods we find somewhat more competitive balance in the later period. <\/a><\/p>\n

Table 5
\nRegular Season Conference Champions, 2000 through 2009<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Year<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Champion(s)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2000<\/td>\n\n

Louisville<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2001<\/td>\n\n

Louisville<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2002<\/td>\n\n

Cincinnati, TCU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2003<\/td>\n\n

Southern Mississippi<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2004<\/td>\n\n

Louisville<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Central Florida<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2006<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Houston<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2007<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Central Florida<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2008<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Rice, Tulsa<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

East Carolina<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

When we measure the regular season standings in the 2000-04 period we found Louisville won the championship three times, while Southern Mississippi won once, and in one year (2002) there was a tie between TCU and Cincinnati.\u00a0 Giving one point for an outright championship and .5 to each team for a two-way tie, we found:
\nHHI= 32<\/span>+12<\/span>+.52<\/span>+.52<\/span>\u00a0= 9+1+.25+.25= 10.50\/5=2.1
\nWhen measuring the HHI in the later period we found that Central Florida won two championships, with Houston and East Carolina winning one, while there was a two-way tie between Tulsa and Rice (2008).\u00a0 Using the same point distribution as indicated above, we found:
\nHHI=22<\/span>+12<\/span>+12<\/span>+.52<\/span>+.52<\/span>\u00a0= 4+1+1+.25+.25=6.50\/5=1.3
\nGiven the fact that the lower the HHI, the more competitive balance, we can conclude that there was more competitive balance in the 2005-09 period than in the earlier period.<\/p>\n

Range of Winning Percentage Imbalance<\/strong>
\nThe mean winning percentages displayed for each team in Table 2 (2000-04) and Table 3 (2005-09) indicate that the range from the top to the bottom in the earlier period was .632 (Louisville .793 and Army .161) whereas in the later period it was .525 (Houston .725 and Tulane .2) This would suggest somewhat more overall balance in the 2005-09 period.<\/p>\n

Another way of viewing competitive balance would be to arbitrarily set .500 plus or minus .100 as a range which would suggest a high degree of competitive balance and the more teams in this range, the greater the tendency toward competitive balance. \u00a0\u00a0In using such a measure we find little difference between the two periods.\u00a0 Again referring to Tables 2 and 3 we found four teams within this range in the 2000-04 period (East Carolina, Alabama-Birmingham, Memphis and South Florida) and four teams within this range in the 2005-09 period (Memphis, Marshall, Rice, and Texas-El Paso).\u00a0 Overall, the fact that the range of winning percentages from the top to the bottom of the standings was about 20% lower in the later period, would suggest a somewhat better balance in this period.<\/p>\n

CONCLUSIONS<\/strong>
\nWhile the conclusions reached by using the three above techniques offer some mixed results, it is reasonable to give a slight edge on the question of competitive balance to the 2005-09 period.\u00a0 Although there was a very small difference in the standard deviation favoring more competitive balance in the 2000-04 period, the fact that there was a smaller range of winning percentages from top to bottom in the 2005-09 period and a lower HHI in this period tend to indicate there was a bit more competitive balance in this later period.<\/p>\n

The conclusion that competitive balance in football was better after the most recent round of member churning aligns with the findings of this study with other research examining the effects of conference membership changes on competitive balance in football.\u00a0 Rhoads (9) examined the Western Athletic and Mountain West conferences and found better competitive balance in football after member churning.\u00a0 Perline and Stoldt (7) compared the final years of the Big 8 with the early years of the Big 12 and found improved levels of competitive balance after the Big 8 added four members formerly in the Southwest Conference.<\/p>\n

The findings of each of these studies also support the contention that football is a primary consideration in conference realignment decisions (3).\u00a0 If competitive balance is indeed a central concern for college athletic conferences (9, 10), then it is reasonable to expect that higher levels of competitive balance in that predominant sport will be found following conference realignment.<\/p>\n

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/strong>
\nMore than institutions at the NCAA Division I FBS level are scheduled to change conferences in the next four years (6).\u00a0 Therefore, an understanding of the key considerations associated with conference churning in college athletics is critical for practitioners, scholars, and students with interests in college athletics.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. While a change in conference membership affects multiple sports programs within an athletics department (unless is the change is limited to just one sport), achieving desirable outcomes such as increased interest in and revenue from the sport of football is commonly the most important consideration (3).<\/li>\n
  2. The greater the uncertainty associated with a game\u2019s outcome, the greater the likely consumer interest in the contest (1, 2, 4, and 8).\u00a0 Accordingly, achieving high levels of competitive balance can be expected to yield positive financial results (e.g., ticket sales, rights fees values) for college athletic conferences.<\/li>\n
  3. Research points toward a pattern in which realignment decisions at the NCAA Division I FBS level produces higher levels of competitive balance in football (7, 9). This study provides additional support for that expectation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<\/strong>
    \nNone<\/p>\n

    REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n

    (1) Depken II, C.A., & Wilson, D.\u00a0 (n.d). The uncertainty outcome hypothesis in college football<\/em>. Department of Economics, University of Texas-Arlington. Retrieved from http:\/\/belkcollegeofbusiness.uncc.edu\/cdepken\/P\/UOH12.pdf
    \n(2) Dittmore, S. W., & Crow, C. M. (2010). The influence of the Bowl Championship Series on competitive balance in college football. Journal of Sport Administration & Supervision, 2<\/em>(1), 7-19.
    \n(3) Fort, R. & Quirk, J.\u00a0 (1999).\u00a0The college football industry.\u00a0 In J. Fizel, E. Gustafson and L. Hadley (Eds.) Sports economics: Current research <\/em>(pp. 11-26). Westport, CT: Praeger.
    \n(4) Humpreys, B. (2002). Alternative measures of competitive balance.\u00a0 Journal of Sports Economics, 3<\/em>, (2), 133-148.
    \n(5) Leeds, M. & von Allmen, P. (2005).The Economics of Sports.<\/em>Boston: Pearson-Addison Wesley.
    \n(6) NCAA Division I conference realignment chart. (2012, July 19). Retrieved from http:\/\/csnbbs.com\/showthread.php?tid=567087<\/a>
    \n(7) Perline, M.M. & Stoldt, G.C. (2007). Competitive balance and conference realignment: The case of Big 12 football. The Sport Journal, 10 <\/em>(2). http:\/\/www.thesportjournal.org\/2007Journal\/Vol10-No2\/Perline08.asp
    \n(8) Rein, I., Kotler, P., & Shields, B. (2006). The elusive fan. <\/em>New York: McGraw-Hill.
    \n(9) Rhoads, T.A. (2004). Competitive balance and conference realignment in the NCAA<\/em>. Paper presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of Southern Economic Association, New Orleans, LA.
    \n(10) Staurowsky, E.J. & Abney, R. (2011). Intercollegiate athletics. In P.M. Pedersen, J.B. Parks, J. Quarterman, & L. Thibault (Eds.) Contemporary sport management <\/em>(4th ed., pp. 142-163). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    \n
    \n

    <\/a> In the 2000-04 period there was only one division whereas in the 2005-09 period, the conference went to two divisions with the champion being the winner between the first place finishers in each division.\u00a0 Since there was no playoff in the earlier period we needed to measure the regular season champion.\u00a0 For a better comparison we chose to measure the regular season champion, as opposed to the tournament victor, in the latter season as well.\u00a0\u00a0 In this case we declared the regular season champion to be the team with the best won-lost record over the two divisions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Martin M. Perline, G. Clayton Stoldt, Mark C. Vermillion<\/div>\n

    <\/p>\n

    The Effects of Membership Churning <\/h3>\n

    <\/p>\n

    ABSTRACT<\/strong>
    \n Conference USA a major college athletic conference that experienced a number of membership changes in 2005.\u00a0 The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of those changes on competitive balance in the sport of football.\u00a0 Three measures of competitive balance were employed, and while results were mixed, the findings indicated slightly more competitive balance in the five years following the membership changes than in the five years before.\u00a0 This result supports the findings of previous studies on the effects of membership churning in other conferences on competitive balance in football.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,296],"tags":[258,260,164,257,256],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-7T","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":3862,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/big-12-football-competitive-balance-before-and-after-realignment\/","url_meta":{"origin":489,"position":0},"title":"Big 12 Football: Competitive Balance Before and After Realignment","date":"July 8, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Jeffrey S. Noble*, Martin M. Perline, G. Clayton Stoldt Institutional Affiliation of Authors: Wichita State University *Corresponding Author: Jeff Noble, Ed.D Department of Sport Management Wichita State University 1845 Fairmount Wichita, Kansas 67260-0127 Email: jeffrey.noble@wichita.edu Phone: (316)978-5442 Abstract Conference realignment among athletic programs that compete at the Division I\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"BIG 12 CONFERENCE FOOTBALL WINNING PERCENTAGES","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Table-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":443,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-effects-of-conference-realignment-on-national-success-and-competitive-balance-the-case-of-conference-usa-mens-basketball\/","url_meta":{"origin":489,"position":1},"title":"The Effects of Conference Realignment on National Success and Competitive Balance: The Case of Conference USA Men\u2019s Basketball","date":"January 3, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Martin M. Perline, G. Clayton Stoldt, Mark C. Vermillion ### Abstract Collegiate athletic conferences serve multiple functions, including providing regular opportunities for members to compete in a relatively equitable environment and contributing to the financial well being of member institutions. Many conferences have undergone realignment in recent years, and the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6811,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/ncaa-realignment-impact-upon-university-olympic-sports\/","url_meta":{"origin":489,"position":2},"title":"NCAA Realignment: Impact upon University ‘Olympic’ Sports","date":"January 24, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Stephen W. Litvin, Crystal Lindner and Jillian Wilkie Corresponding Author:Stephen W. Litvin, DBAProfessor, School of BusinessCollege of Charleston66 George StreetCharleston, South Carolina 29424litvins@cofc.edu843-953-7317 Stephen Litvin is a professor in the School of Business of the College of Charleston.\u00a0 Crystal Lindner and Jillian Wilkie are students at the College of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/Figure1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":266,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/competitive-balance-and-conference-realignment-the-case-of-big-12-football\/","url_meta":{"origin":489,"position":3},"title":"Competitive Balance and Conference Realignment: The Case of Big 12 Football","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Martin M. Perline, Ph.D. & G. Clayton Stoldt, Ed.D. Abstract: Past research has indicated that an effort to achieve greater competitive balance has been one factor in conference realignments within college athletics. The purpose of this study was to determine if greater levels of competitive balance in football\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":292,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/competitive-balance-in-mens-and-womens-basketball-the-cast-of-the-missouri-valley-conference\/","url_meta":{"origin":489,"position":4},"title":"Competitive Balance in Men\u2019s and Women\u2019s Basketball: The Cast of the Missouri Valley Conference","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Martin M. Perline, Ph.D. & G. Clayton Stoldt, Ed.D. Abstract: Competitive balance typically fosters fan interest. Since revenue associated with men\u2019s sports is typically greater than with women\u2019s, one might expect to find greater levels of competitive balance in men\u2019s sport than women\u2019s sport. The purpose of this\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5914,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/competitive-balance-in-ncaa-power-conferences-the-case-of-mens-and-womens-basketball\/","url_meta":{"origin":489,"position":5},"title":"Competitive Balance in NCAA “Power Conferences:” The Case of Men\u2019s and Women’s Basketball","date":"August 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Martin M. Perline, Jeffrey S. Noble, G. Clayton Stoldt; Wichita State University Corresponding Author: Jeff Noble, Ed.D Department of Sport Management Wichita State University 1845 Fairmount Wichita, KS 67260-0127 jeffrey.noble@wichita.edu (316)978-5442 Competitive Balance in the NCAA \u201cPower Conferences:\u201d The Case of Men\u2019s and Women\u2019s Basketball ABSTRACT The uncertainty of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Table-1-1.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/489"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=489"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/489\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4606,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/489\/revisions\/4606"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}