IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jospec/v10y2009i3p305-318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Three Points for a Win Really Better Than Two?

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Dilger

    (University of Münster)

  • Hannah Geyer

    (University of Münster)

Abstract

The effects of the three-point rule in the first league German soccer are tested empirically and compared to games from the German cup competition. The inclusion of cup games ensures that changes in league games can be attributed to the three-point rule. As a result of their relative devaluation, the number of draws should decrease. Furthermore, an increase in the number of close wins is expected. The strategy of a leading team becomes more defensive, resulting in fewer goal shootings by that team, as well as fewer shooting opportunities for the opponent. Empirical evidence supporting these effects is found.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Dilger & Hannah Geyer, 2009. "Are Three Points for a Win Really Better Than Two?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 10(3), pages 305-318, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jospec:v:10:y:2009:i:3:p:305-318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jse.sagepub.com/content/10/3/305.abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wladimir Andreff & Gaël Raballand, 2011. "Is European Football’s Future to Become a Boring Game?," Chapters,in: Contemporary Issues in Sports Economics, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Franck Egon & Theiler Philipp, 2012. "One for Sure or Maybe Three: Empirical Evidence for Overtime Play from a Comparison of Swiss Ice Hockey and the NHL," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 232(3), pages 210-223, June.
    3. Lee Yoong Hon & Rasyad A. Parinduri, 2016. "Does the Three-Point Rule Make Soccer More Exciting? Evidence From a Regression Discontinuity Design," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 17(4), pages 377-395, May.
    4. Manuel Frondel & Stefanie Schubert, 2016. "Sieg der Defensive? Evidenz für die 1. Deutsche Fußball-Liga
      [Victory of the defense? Evidence from the 1. German Football League]
      ," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 10(4), pages 225-246, December.
    5. Dilger, Alexander & Froböse, Gerrit, 2018. "Effects of the three-point rule in German amateur football," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 3/2018, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    6. Parinduri, Rasyad & Lee, Yoong Hon & Tiong, Kung Ming, 2016. "The effects of the three-point rule in individual sports: Evidence from chess," MPRA Paper 71060, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. repec:zbw:rwimat:082 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Eugster Manuel J. A. & Gertheiss Jan & Kaiser Sebastian, 2011. "Having the Second Leg at Home - Advantage in the UEFA Champions League Knockout Phase?," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, January.
    9. Sylvain Béal & Sylvain Ferrières & Eric Rémila & Phillippe Solal, 2016. "An axiomatization of the iterated h-index and applications to sport rankings," Working Papers 2016-11, CRESE.
    10. Manuel Frondel & Stephanie Schubert, 2014. "Diskussionspapier: Sieg der Defensive? Evidenz für die 1. Deutsche Fußball-Liga," RWI Materialien, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, pages 25, 08.
    11. Wladimir Andreff (ed.), 2011. "Contemporary Issues in Sports Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14146.
    12. Ricardo Manuel Santos, 2014. "Optimal Soccer Strategies," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(1), pages 183-200, January.
    13. Liam J.A. Lenten & Jan Libich & Petr Stehlík, 2013. "Policy Timing and Footballers' Incentives," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 14(6), pages 629-655, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jospec:v:10:y:2009:i:3:p:305-318. 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: (SAGE Publications). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.