Tit-for-tat Strategies in Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma Games: Evidence from NCAA Football
Defection in every period is the dominant strategy Nash equilibrium in finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma games with complete information. However, in the presence of incomplete information, players may have an incentive to cooperate in some periods, leading to tit-for-tat strategies. We describe the decision to comply with recruiting regulations or cheat made by NCAA Division IA football programs as a finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma game. The game includes incomplete information about the resources devoted to football programs, the recruiting effort made by rival programs, and the behavior of rival programs. We test for evidence that NCAA Division IA football programs follow tit-for-tat strategies in terms of complying with or defecting from NCAA recruiting rules using panel data from NCAA Division IA football over the period 1976-2005. We find anecdotal and empirical evidence that is consistent with tit-for-tat strategies in this setting. The presence of in-conference rivals under NCAA sanctions increases the probability of a team being placed under sanctions.
|Date of creation:||01 Jul 2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 8-14 HM Tory, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H4|
Phone: (780) 492-3406
Fax: (780) 492-3300
Web page: http://www.ualberta.ca/economics
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kreps, David M. & Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John & Wilson, Robert, 1982.
"Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 245-252, August.
- David Kreps & Paul Milgrom & John Roberts & Bob Wilson, 2010. "Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma," Levine's Working Paper Archive 239, David K. Levine.
- Craig A. Depken II & Dennis P. Wilson, 2006. "NCAA Enforcement and Competitive Balance in College Football," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(4), pages 826–845-826, April.
- Shapiro, Carl, 1989. "Theories of oligopoly behavior," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 329-414 Elsevier.
- Michael Spence, 1978. "Tacit Co-ordination and Imperfect Information," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 11(3), pages 490-505, August.
- J. Michael Dumond & Allen K. Lynch & Jennifer Platania, 2008. "An Economic Model of the College Football Recruiting Process," Journal of Sports Economics, The North American Association of Sports Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 67-87, February.
- Brad R. Humphreys & Jane E. Ruseski, 2009. "Monitoring Cartel Behavior and Stability: Evidence from NCAA Football," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 720–735-720, January.
- Fleisher, Arthur III & Shughart, William II & Tollison, Robert D. & Goff, Brian L., 1988. "Crime or punishment? : Enforcement of the NCAA football cartel," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 433-451, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:albaec:2009_024. 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: (Joseph Marchand)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.