But as there are no statics to prove it didn't work, there is absolutely no evidence that it did work.  Population totals, distribution, food sources (or scarcities), wealth and associated welth lust, etc. (sources of war) make any comparisions to other locations and times totally futile and baseless.  There is no true evidence that proves human sacrifices averted any warfare.  It is theory at best.  Certainly most experts cite an seemingly endless supply of prisoners of war as the victims of human sacrific.  It was not just the losers of the games.  And I know that you must see the error comparing across centuries.

And Viet Nam showed us the flaw in evaluating conflicts based on body counts.  BUT if it is insisted upon as a measure, percentage of population would be a more reasonable measure.  As far as sparing the population and economy, how is that viewed from the perspective of those that were conquered?  Completely whipped out or absorbed? At least in the 20th Century Poland managed to stick around.  Ancient cultures were great because they were warrior/conquerer people to a heavy degree.

Of course we are talking of an extinct civilization, so who knows, maybe they did not war enough to really get good at it.  But to say the ballgame DID have a beneficial effect would also need the same adequate statistics fo rwhich you call.  A belief does not make it true.  

My friend, we seem to disagree and that is OK.  I am not sure I would have guessed you to be of the French Revolutionary mindset that there must always be human bloodletting.  I will never see a civilization whose core value contains human rights violations, let alone state organized murder, as a Utopian ideal.  They were great for many reasons.  But they were what they were, good and bad.

I only stand (well sit) ready to advise.