Efficiency of competitions.

League competition is investigated using random processes and scaling techniques. In our model, a weak team can upset a strong team with a fixed probability. Teams play an equal number of head-to-head matches and the team with the largest number of wins is declared to be the champion. The total number of games needed for the best team to win the championship with high certainty T grows as the cube of the number of teams N , i.e., T approximately N(3). This number can be substantially reduced using preliminary rounds where teams play a small number of games and subsequently, only the top teams advance to the next round. When there are k rounds, the total number of games needed for the best team to emerge as champion, T(k), scales as follows, T(k) approximately N(gamma(k)) with gamma(k) = [1-(2/3)(k+1)](-1). For example, gamma(k)=95,2719,8165 for k=1,2,3 . These results suggest an algorithm for how to infer the best team using a schedule that is linear in N. We conclude that league format is an ineffective method of determining the best team, and that sequential elimination from the bottom up is fair and efficient.

[1]  E. Ben-Naim,et al.  What is the most competitive sport , 2005 .

[2]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS THE METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS , 1952 .

[3]  M. Newman,et al.  A network-based ranking system for US college football , 2005, physics/0505169.

[4]  E. Ben-Naim,et al.  On the structure of competitive societies , 2005, physics/0512144.

[5]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Phase diagram of a model of self-organizing hierarchies , 1995 .

[6]  A. Bray.  Theory of phase-ordering kinetics , 1994, cond-mat/9501089.

[7]  P. Gennes.  Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics , 1979 .

[8]  S Redner,et al.  Statistics of changes in lead node in connectivity-driven networks. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[9]  S. Edwards,et al.  The Theory of Polymer Dynamics , 1986 .

[10]  Serge Galam,et al.  Real space renormalization group and totalitarian paradox of majority rule voting , 2000 .

[11]  D. Sherrington.  Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry , 1983 .

[12]  James P. Keener,et al.  The Perron-Frobenius Theorem and the Ranking of Football Teams , 1993, SIAM Rev..

[13]  Distribution of winners in truel games , 2005, cond-mat/0505388.

[14]  R. Pearl.  Biometrics , 1914, The American Naturalist.

[15]  R. Mantegna,et al.  An Introduction to Econophysics: Contents , 1999 .

[16]  R. Axtell.  Zipf Distribution of U.S. Firm Sizes , 2001, Science.

[17]  S. Gould.  Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin , 1996 .

[18]  Gregory R. Conner,et al.  An extension of Zermelo's model for ranking by paired comparisons , 2000, European Journal of Applied Mathematics.

[19]  Rosario N. Mantegna,et al.  Book Review: An Introduction to Econophysics, Correlations, and Complexity in Finance, N. Rosario, H. Mantegna, and H. E. Stanley, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. , 2000 .

[20]  E. Ben-Naim,et al.  Scaling in tournaments , 2007 .

[21]  D. Stauffer,et al.  Bonabeau model on a fully connected graph , 2006 .

[22]  E. Ben-Naim,et al.  Leadership statistics in random structures , 2004 .

[23]  David P. Landau,et al.  Phase transitions and critical phenomena , 1989, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[24]  M. Kendall.  Further contributions to the theory of paired comparisons , 1955 .