The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Testing Efficiency Across Markets: Evidence from the NCAA Basketball Betting Market
Abstract
This study utilizes the National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball point spread betting market to investigate whether differences in information availability across markets result in different relative efficiencies of price formation within those markets. Using intra‐conference games of various conferences as clearly defined markets, we show that these markets are efficient given the information available in those markets. However, we also show that regression error variances are significantly smaller (greater) for those conferences with greater (lesser) information availability. This evidence supports previous stock market research suggesting that differential fundamental information availability across stock markets results in differential departures from equilibrium values.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Across time and sporting leagues researchers have identified that it is difficult to estimate win probabilities that are more accurate than the market; that is, the betting markets are efficient.”
From How often does the best team win? A unified approach to understanding randomness in North American sport (2018) · cites this paper as Colquitt, Godwin and Caudill (2001)
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, Colquitt, Godwin and Caudill (2001) suggested that the efficiency of college basketball markets was proportional to the amount of pregame information available-with the amount known about professional sports teams, this would suggest that markets in the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB are as efficient as they come.”
From How often does the best team win? A unified approach to understanding randomness in North American sport (2018) · cites this paper as Colquitt, Godwin and Caudill (2001)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Lopez, M. J., Matthews, G. J., & Baumer, B. S. (2018) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/18-aoas1165 · Cited by 52
Building an NCAA men’s basketball predictive model and quantifying its success
Lopez, M. J., & Matthews, G. J. (2015) · Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports · doi:10.1515/jqas-2014-0058 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Colquitt, L. L., Godwin, N. H., & Caudill, S. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Business Finance & Accounting
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 231-248
- ISSN
- 0306-686X
- 1468-5957
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Testing Efficiency Across Markets: Evidence from the NCAA Basketball Betting Market. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1468-5957.00372
- The paper
- Colquitt, L. L., Godwin, N. H., & Caudill, S. B. (2001). Testing Efficiency Across Markets: Evidence from the NCAA Basketball Betting Market. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00372
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
