2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2018.07.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bayesian forecasting of UEFA Champions League under alternative seeding regimes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
44
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In a similar vein, Scarf et al (1980) confirm that seeding increases the correlation between team rank at tournament entry and exit. Dagaev and Rudyak (2019) and Corona et al (2019) find qualitatively similar results when evaluating the 2015/2016 seeding reform, which reserved the first pot in the UEFA Champions League for the title holder and the champions of the top-7 nations, instead of seeding exclusively based on the team coefficient. 1 Their simulations indicate that the tournaments prior to the reform were characterized by higher average coefficients for the finalists, as well as more balanced match-ups in the final.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 70%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In a similar vein, Scarf et al (1980) confirm that seeding increases the correlation between team rank at tournament entry and exit. Dagaev and Rudyak (2019) and Corona et al (2019) find qualitatively similar results when evaluating the 2015/2016 seeding reform, which reserved the first pot in the UEFA Champions League for the title holder and the champions of the top-7 nations, instead of seeding exclusively based on the team coefficient. 1 Their simulations indicate that the tournaments prior to the reform were characterized by higher average coefficients for the finalists, as well as more balanced match-ups in the final.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…1 Their simulations indicate that the tournaments prior to the reform were characterized by higher average coefficients for the finalists, as well as more balanced match-ups in the final. Corona et al (2019) conclude that the reform particularly favored national champions with low coefficients, such as the 2015 Dutch champion PSV Eindhoven, by placing them in pot 1 rather than pot 3, thus shielding them from facing an additional highly ranked competitor like FC Barcelona or Bayern Munich. It should be noted that the 2015/2016 reform induced perverse incentives for national competitions by awarding the eighth position in the first pot to a lower ranked league if the title holder of the Champions League and the national competition coincide (Csató, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Case II: at learning rate = 1 Fig. 11: MSE results for LR=1 at 1000 epochs Figure (11), illustrated that in the network trained at 1000 epochs the least MSE value is 0.04921with a 15 hidden neurons while, the maximum MSE value is 0.054578 appeared at 13 hidden neurons. 13), illustrated that in the network trained at 2000 epochs the least MSE value is 0.013125 with a 15 hidden neurons, while the maximum MSE value is 0.017422 appeared at 10 hidden neurons.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Corona et. al., in [11] proposed a Bayesian approach for simulating the UEFA Champions League results under alternative seeding regimes. They indicated that the changes in 2015 tended to increase the uncertainty over progression to the knock-out stage, but made limited difference to which clubs would contest the final.…”
Section: Forecasting In Soccer: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most numerical studies of tournament designs apply specific models for simulating match results (Corona et al, 2019;Dagaev & Rudyak, 2019;Goossens et al, 2012;Lasek & Gagolewski, 2018;Scarf et al, 2009;Scarf & Yusof, 2011), but we do not follow this approach due to several reasons. First, general works comparing different competition formats (Appleton, 1995;Marchand, 2002;McGarry & Schutz, 1997) or ranking methods (Mendoņ ca & Raghavachari, 2000) avoid the use of specific prediction models.…”
Section: The Simulation Of Match Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%