Does it have an effect on any meaningful level? Discuss...

(11-01-2016 12:40 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Does it have an effect on any meaningful level? Discuss...

Yes, especially in the NFL. But whether it is college ball or professional no player or coach need be involved. Everything is extremely controllable with holding and interference calls. They can't be reviewed but can be used to stop additional points, or to augment them.

In the NFL the house wins against the closing line (the side with the most money bet on it) 85% of the time.

That said, it isn't as dirty as politics!

Both college and pro sports leave themselves open to ref-fixing because they pay their officials relatively little. FBS games are officiated by guys making $3000 per game. Changing the outcome of a game against the spread, or just knowing in advance that the desired outcome ATS is guaranteed, is worth so much that a high-five-figure payment to ensure that outcome would easily be a worthwhile "investment".

It would be interesting to see someone do a statistical analysis of refs and the games ATS. Find out where some "statistical anomalies" exist.

I assume so. Why wouldn't it still exist?

Every endeavor that humans are involved with includes a level of corruption.

It is who we are, right?

I doubt it since casinos have a good thing going without corrupting it, why bother? Sure you might have rare cases but it's in the best interest of the casino to police against it.

I don't think it does like it used to. JR brought up a good point regarding officials, but I don't think that is really point shaving: it works the same way, but I tend to think of point shaving as the players or coaches involved. JR is describing more of "fixing" I think.

College basketball is where it is easiest to do. I would think it may still happen, but I was recently reading a book by Henry Hill (of Goodfellas fame), where he went in detail about how they fixed basketball games for Boston College in 1977 and 1978. Now times have certainly changed, but he said the hardest part about fixing the games is so few people bet on college basketball, you had to spread out the bets over dozens of bookies, in order to make enough money to make it worthwhile, but not so much that you draw suspicion. Now, obviously with betting legalized now, and college basketball more popular than it was in the late 70's, sure things have changed. But the underlying principle is the same, that it would be very hard to bet enough money on games to make it worthwhile, without also attracting attention. go after a small no name school, and half the time they don't even have lines, and when they do, a large bet would attract attention. go after a big school, where more money changes hands, and the guys most capable of affecting the game have pro aspirations, and they can mess it up - which was a problem they had in the Boston College fix, the PG was a pro prospect, and when they kept messing up the games, he would just take over and blow up the spread. So they had to get him in on the scheme. I think there are too many obstacles to really make it worthwhile.

I don't think you see it in college football because aside from a quarterback, it is just too hard for one player to make a difference, and in order to get enough players to make it work, it becomes too big of a job. Too easy to get caught. I supposes you could get a quarterback in on it, but it has to be at a big school, otherwise as again it is hard to make enough money to make it worthwhile, as too much money bet on small schools will draw attention. Which creates a problem because that guy probably either has pro aspirations, or a backup who can take his place if he screws up too much. It could be done, but very hard to pull off.


I think most can agree that pros are probably out. Anyone who can make a difference, either makes too much money to voluntarily be involved or is about to. Extortion and threats would probably be the only way. About the only ones I can see doing it, would be lower level boxers or MMA fighters taking a dive, but again that is not really point shaving.

Note this isn't about naivety. I just think the logistics make it too hard to make enough money in college basketball, college football is too hard to manipulate, and professional sports are not economically feasible.

(11-01-2016 01:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Both college and pro sports leave themselves open to ref-fixing because they pay their officials relatively little. FBS games are officiated by guys making $3000 per game. Changing the outcome of a game against the spread, or just knowing in advance that the desired outcome ATS is guaranteed, is worth so much that a high-five-figure payment to ensure that outcome would easily be a worthwhile "investment".

I beg to differ with this.
I have a good friend who lives in Louisville that calls games for the NFL. He is a Head Linesman. This past weekend his crew worked the Bills Patriots game. He does very well for a part time job.

Last year a rookie official made $78,000 for 16 games. That's $4875 per game. A veteran like my friend, who has officiated a Super Bowl, can easily make $20,000 a game.

When my friend's crew is assigned the Cincinnati and Indianapolis home game, he gets in the car drives to the venue, walks out on the field. They turn the score board on, they do a mic check, he signs the paperwork and walks out with an extra $1000 for an hours work.

NFL officials don't exactly hurt for money.
CJ

(11-01-2016 11:22 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 01:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Both college and pro sports leave themselves open to ref-fixing because they pay their officials relatively little. FBS games are officiated by guys making $3000 per game. Changing the outcome of a game against the spread, or just knowing in advance that the desired outcome ATS is guaranteed, is worth so much that a high-five-figure payment to ensure that outcome would easily be a worthwhile "investment".

I beg to differ with this.
I have a good friend who lives in Louisville that calls games for the NFL. He is a Head Linesman. This past weekend his crew worked the Bills Patriots game. He does very well for a part time job.

Last year a rookie official made $78,000 for 16 games. That's $4875 per game. A veteran like my friend, who has officiated a Super Bowl, can easily make $20,000 a game.

When my friend's crew is assigned the Cincinnati and Indianapolis home game, he gets in the car drives to the venue, walks out on the field. They turn the score board on, they do a mic check, he signs the paperwork and walks out with an extra $1000 for an hours work.

NFL officials don't exactly hurt for money.
CJ

A guy making $78,000 might be susceptible to a $50,000 bribe, even if it does ruin his chances of someday making $300,000 per year (which it sounds like is the upper limit for NFL refs).

Is $50k a reasonable amount for a gambler to pay? Anyone know the answer to that?

I don't think a guy making $80k per year, for a part time job that often leads to a more lucrative "day job," would be susceptible to such a bribe. I think someone in a position to make well over $100k per year between jobs, would probably have to be bribed an amount well over his annual salary. Someone who makes $20k a year can be bribed for $20k. A guy who makes a decent living, is harder to bribe for just a year's salary, especially something that if caught, means jail time, and forever banished from high paying jobs. Even the NBA ref who was on the take, he only did so because he was in a LOT of debt, to the wrong people (mafia). It would take something like that, to have them entertain an offer IMO.

Another thing to keep in mind, the low end refs are usually not the ones in position to make the game changing calls needed. And if you are a gambler, are you going to try to bribe a rookie ref, who could easily both it, or a seasoned pro.

Now a ref would probably be easier to bribe than a player. But still hard to do. And with the NFL grading system, you could probably only do it once or twice, before being demoted.

You guys are full of it! Who is the NFL? Why do NFL shows handicap games and go over the lines on said games? The officials work for the league, not the teams. Gambling is heavily connected to the NFL and has been for a long long time. Sports betting is probably more lucrative than the casinos. For one thing there is practically no overhead. Top gamblers prefer roulette, black jack, etc because they like to feel in control while making that risk. There are oodles more casual gamblers that bet the games passively.

You are talking about 50,000 as a viable bribe. There are 10's of millions bet on games weekly and for big games like the Super Bowl you can make that 100's of millions.

There are two lines on every game: the betting line (your point spread) and the closing line which the gamblers never see. The closing line simply indicates which side of the betting line received the higher dollar amount of all bets placed. The House sees the closing line. Historically NFL games have won for the house 85% of the time. Think about that and let it sink in.

When gambling on NFL teams sagged we got instant replay which does nothing for holding and pass interference calls, but does take away bad calls on turnovers and scores. Credibility was lent to the game by instant replay, but nothing was done about judgment calls on holding and interference. Those are the bread and butter of controlling point spreads.

In college ball now a player can be disqualified on a review of a play where a flag wasn't even thrown.

If 50 million is bet in the NFL on a given week the league doesn't need to pay the officials to keep its lucrative connection to gambling. The officials are well paid enough. The reason the rookie officials make less and the top end is so high is because you want to promote the guys who do you a great job. Remember they aren't flipping winners and losers, they are merely keeping the spread in favor of the house and the house is very closely associated with the league.

Why do you think at one time that Jimmy the Greek Snyder was so popular on NFL shows?

They don't have to pay the players or coaches. Those guys get paid what they get paid so that they don't worry about that 15,000 dollar playoff bonus. Hell most of them are ready for the season to end so they can get back to their families. The Pro Bowl is a joke now because they don't want to risk injury in a meaningless game and it is another drain on family time.

So the coaches, players, and officials are sufficiently paid as to not care if the points are controlled. Their only job is to maintain the insistence that everything is pure as the driven snow so the suckers keep losing their money. The house has to make sure the suckers win just often enough to keep them playing. Fantasy football has opened a whole new industry and audience with regards to games, stats, and gambling.

The NFL doesn't consider itself to be a sport. In their eyes they are an entertainment industry.

And if you think it is just about sports you are nuts. The president makes what? Less than half a million a year. Yet they get big paychecks for speaking events, get perks from spending millions in campaign contributions, etc, etc, etc. They spend millions to make so little. Did you really think that is all they get? It is no different from the NFL only here they get paid to maintain the status quo for the wealthiest corporations. The Obama's made about 7 million last year. How? The Republicans are no different. The Bush's bought a large fresh water aquifer in Uruguay in their daughter's name so they could sell the water back for a large profit.

But hey if you want to wrestle with it so you can be a true believer then have at it. But you live in a corrupt world where faith in the goodness of leadership is probably the first symptom of fatal naivety.

I have less concern about the point shaving refs than I do about biased refs.

Too many G5 teams has been on the receiving end of way too many questionable calls against P5 opponents for it to be a statistical anomaly. Personally I think that bias is more subconscious than conscious, but it's there.

(11-01-2016 12:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  In the NFL the house wins against the closing line (the side with the most money bet on it) 85% of the time.

Do you have a reference for that?

(11-01-2016 03:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I have less concern about the point shaving refs than I do about biased refs.

Too many G5 teams has been on the receiving end of way too many questionable calls against P5 opponents for it to be a statistical anomaly. Personally I think that bias is more subconscious than conscious, but it's there.

How about incompetent, no one is perfect? Besides, none of us could do any better.

I've never really bought biased/crooked refs as more than an exception. The powers that be have a very definite interest in making sure everything appears fair and people will be bias even if everything was 100% perfect.

I do think some biases exist, but for the most part it is in refs being more willing to call certain things than other refs. The outcome of a game is far, far less important to them than getting the call wrong and getting scrutinized for that. On a game by game bases one team might end up with more calls than another, but over the long haul it balances out. To the extent we see longer term biases, they are mostly in our head for the following reasons:

1. We remember the plays that don't go our way far, far more often than the ones that do.
2. We also think the plays that go against us are far more egregious than the ones that go for us with very rare exceptions.
3. Calls go against everyone, but the best teams will still win more and people only really remember bad calls if they helped the winning team. If a bad call helps the loosing team, it is usually forgetting much quicker.

As for crooked refs, I can buy a little, but nothing from the top down. Way too many chances for accusations to spread which would be extremely damaging for the sport. More likely, the top would try to hide when they found crooked ones.

(11-01-2016 03:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I have less concern about the point shaving refs than I do about biased refs.

Too many G5 teams has been on the receiving end of way too many questionable calls against P5 opponents for it to be a statistical anomaly. Personally I think that bias is more subconscious than conscious, but it's there.

I agree.

Its worst in the NBA where the refs think they are bigger than the game.

(11-01-2016 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And if you think it is just about sports you are nuts. The president makes what? Less than half a million a year. Yet they get big paychecks for speaking events, get perks from spending millions in campaign contributions, etc, etc, etc. They spend millions to make so little. Did you really think that is all they get? It is no different from the NFL only here they get paid to maintain the status quo for the wealthiest corporations. The Obama's made about 7 million last year. How? The Republicans are no different. The Bush's bought a large fresh water aquifer in Uruguay in their daughter's name so they could sell the water back for a large profit.

But hey if you want to wrestle with it so you can be a true believer then have at it. But you live in a corrupt world where faith in the goodness of leadership is probably the first symptom of fatal naivety.

I am an academic who has studied political influence (although I haven't published in it yet). As a whole, there is little empirical support for your theory that campaign contributions buy influence. Rather, votes are what buys influence. If your company has 10,000 employees in your congressman's district, you have a lot more influence than if the firm donates $10 million to the election campaign. (and campaign donations don't buy votes - rather, money tends to follow the votes rather than the other way around).

The biggest perk of being in office is that you get to have a big say in how the country is governed. Do you think the average politician LIKES having to fly around the country constantly just because they're on a private jet? You think they LIKE having to maintain two households (1 in DC and one in their district) on a salary under $200k? Over 10% of congressmen sleep in their offices to save money - you think they do that for fun? Of course not - they put up with all that in exchange for the power to put their convictions into law.

And the Obamas made that money on selling books to the general public, NOT on speeches. Speeches are incredibly lucrative after you retire, but it's illegal under campaign finance laws for a sitting politician (or someone running for office) to be paid for a speech.

And what's wrong with the Bush family buying an aquifer and expecting a return on their investment? How is that any different than buying a share of stock in a company?

(11-01-2016 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You guys are full of it! Who is the NFL? Why do NFL shows handicap games and go over the lines on said games? The officials work for the league, not the teams. Gambling is heavily connected to the NFL and has been for a long long time. Sports betting is probably more lucrative than the casinos. For one thing there is practically no overhead. Top gamblers prefer roulette, black jack, etc because they like to feel in control while making that risk. There are oodles more casual gamblers that bet the games passively.

You are talking about 50,000 as a viable bribe. There are 10's of millions bet on games weekly and for big games like the Super Bowl you can make that 100's of millions.

There are two lines on every game: the betting line (your point spread) and the closing line which the gamblers never see. The closing line simply indicates which side of the betting line received the higher dollar amount of all bets placed. The House sees the closing line. Historically NFL games have won for the house 85% of the time. Think about that and let it sink in.

When gambling on NFL teams sagged we got instant replay which does nothing for holding and pass interference calls, but does take away bad calls on turnovers and scores. Credibility was lent to the game by instant replay, but nothing was done about judgment calls on holding and interference. Those are the bread and butter of controlling point spreads.

In college ball now a player can be disqualified on a review of a play where a flag wasn't even thrown.

If 50 million is bet in the NFL on a given week the league doesn't need to pay the officials to keep its lucrative connection to gambling. The officials are well paid enough. The reason the rookie officials make less and the top end is so high is because you want to promote the guys who do you a great job. Remember they aren't flipping winners and losers, they are merely keeping the spread in favor of the house and the house is very closely associated with the league.

Why do you think at one time that Jimmy the Greek Snyder was so popular on NFL shows?

They don't have to pay the players or coaches. Those guys get paid what they get paid so that they don't worry about that 15,000 dollar playoff bonus. Hell most of them are ready for the season to end so they can get back to their families. The Pro Bowl is a joke now because they don't want to risk injury in a meaningless game and it is another drain on family time.

So the coaches, players, and officials are sufficiently paid as to not care if the points are controlled. Their only job is to maintain the insistence that everything is pure as the driven snow so the suckers keep losing their money. The house has to make sure the suckers win just often enough to keep them playing. Fantasy football has opened a whole new industry and audience with regards to games, stats, and gambling.

The NFL doesn't consider itself to be a sport. In their eyes they are an entertainment industry.

And if you think it is just about sports you are nuts. The president makes what? Less than half a million a year. Yet they get big paychecks for speaking events, get perks from spending millions in campaign contributions, etc, etc, etc. They spend millions to make so little. Did you really think that is all they get? It is no different from the NFL only here they get paid to maintain the status quo for the wealthiest corporations. The Obama's made about 7 million last year. How? The Republicans are no different. The Bush's bought a large fresh water aquifer in Uruguay in their daughter's name so they could sell the water back for a large profit.

But hey if you want to wrestle with it so you can be a true believer then have at it. But you live in a corrupt world where faith in the goodness of leadership is probably the first symptom of fatal naivety.

Jr

This is the legally operative part.

"The NFL doesn't consider itself to be a sport. In their eyes they are an entertainment industry."

(11-01-2016 03:50 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I have less concern about the point shaving refs than I do about biased refs.

Too many G5 teams has been on the receiving end of way too many questionable calls against P5 opponents for it to be a statistical anomaly. Personally I think that bias is more subconscious than conscious, but it's there.

How about incompetent, no one is perfect? Besides, none of us could do any better.

While I understand with 100% certainly that I have a fair amount of confirmation bias, when incompetence always seems to favor the P5, I become suspect.

Whether or not we could do better is irrelevant because we are not referees. I don't hold the referees to any semblance of responsibility for my job, why should we take the reverse into account?

Funny how when James Winston was at FSU they always seemed to do just enough to win but not enough to cover the spread.