Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

New Insights on the Tendency of NCAA Basketball Officials to Even Out Foul Calls

Contents:

Author Info

  • Noecker Cecilia A.

    (St. Olaf College)

  • Roback Paul

    (St. Olaf College)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    This analysis revises and strengthens a study by Anderson and Pierce (2009) on referee bias in NCAA basketball. Using a logistic regression model, they determined that referees display a statistically significant tendency to even out the foul count between the two teams—every additional increase in the foul differential (home team fouls minus visiting team fouls) raises the odds of a foul on the home team. This study analyzes Anderson and Pierce’s data on the 2004-2005 season from the Big Ten, Big East and ACC conferences, as well as additional data on the 2009-2010 season. Generalized linear mixed modeling, which takes into account the correlation in the data by game and by home and visiting teams, was used to consider the effect of several variables on the odds of a foul on the home team. These included the same variables used by Anderson and Pierce as well as additional terms including the timing and type of the foul. We also used estimates of the random effects in our models to study the relative proneness of different teams to fouls.In Anderson and Pierce’s logistic regression model, every additional unit of foul differential was found to raise the odds of a foul on the home team by 12.5% in 2004-2005. Using a generalized linear mixed model with the same terms, along with random effects for game, home team, and visiting team, raised that estimate to 19.9% and improved the quality of the model. A more in-depth analysis of this data also found that a foul on the home team becomes less likely as the game progresses, particularly when the home team is winning. Similar results were found in an analysis of data from the 2009-2010 season. The 2009-2010 analysis also found evidence that the odds of more subjective offensive fouls were more affected by foul differential than personal or shooting fouls. The effect of individual referees on the amount of bias in each foul call was explored through a preliminary analysis but no significant results were found.A tendency to even out the number of foul calls on each team has the potential to lead to increased physicality in NCAA basketball if the referee tries to keep the foul count close even when one team is clearly playing more physically. These results strengthen the evidence that referees display this propensity significantly, consciously or unconsciously.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jqas.2012.8.issue-3/1559-0410.1402/1559-0410.1402.xml?format=INT
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by De Gruyter in its journal Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports.

    Volume (Year): 8 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 3 (October)
    Pages: 1-23

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:8:y:2012:i:3:n:5

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.degruyter.com

    Order Information:
    Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jqas

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:8:y:2012:i:3:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.