I’m not a sports gambler, so this is a purely speculative question on my end. How much of this do you think is going on?
When NIL hit, I hypothesized that it would become more common. It’s one thing to be finishing up your playing career as a non-NFL-bound player in an amateur model where nominally you’re not financially worse off than most of your teammates. But when other guys in the locker room are making 6-7 figures or when you’re the breakout star at a small-time program without a big collective making peanuts, I imagine that the mental hurdles to self-justify a little shaving become a lot lower.
I haven’t watched much football this year (I’m increasing just watching my kids and some club level hockey), so I’m wondering if anyone is noticing some outlier performances this year. I figure I’d be too subject to confirmation bias Ben if I were watching games.
(11-28-2022 03:35 PM)jrj84105 Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not a sports gambler, so this is a purely speculative question on my end. How much of this do you think is going on?
When NIL hit, I hypothesized that it would become more common. It’s one thing to be finishing up your playing career as a non-NFL-bound player in an amateur model where nominally you’re not financially worse off than most of your teammates. But when other guys in the locker room are making 6-7 figures or when you’re the breakout star at a small-time program without a big collective making peanuts, I imagine that the mental hurdles to self-justify a little shaving become a lot lower.
I haven’t watched much football this year (I’m increasing just watching my kids and some club level hockey), so I’m wondering if anyone is noticing some outlier performances this year. I figure I’d be too subject to confirmation bias Ben if I were watching games.
I think it happens a lot in basketball.
In football, the refs are vulnerable, but they aren't as certain to be able to achieve the goal.
Bobby Baccaleri: "He was a great man. My cousin says it was Carmine who invented point shaving."
Junior Soprano: “CCNY versus Kentucky, 1951. Nobody beat the spread. I got a black Fleetwood.”
I would be shocked if we have any point shaving scandals. I do think coaches feel more job security beating the spread and it might be a factor for some of them.
Lose the game and lose money the boosters bet on it? People get angrier and the seat gets hotter than if you lost the game but atleast won their bets.
Very!
Any time there is a significant amount of money on the line (compared to what a person has currently), there will be the temptation to succumb to things like point shaving. I'd wager that it's fairly common, though as mentioned above it's much easier for athletes to affect this in basketball than in football.
Tulane in 1985 is the last case I remember where they were caught. Tulane dropped basketball.
I'm convinced Jameis Winston did it at FSU. How often did his team trail at halftime only to blow out their opponent in the second half? Could it be that Jameis - or someone who was influencing him - had a bet on the halftime score?
Nothing but respect for the Seminoles program as a whole, but I've always suspected that the kid who stole crab legs from Publix might also shave points in the first half - particularly if it didn't cost his team the games.
https://vault.si.com/vault/1990/03/12/th...step-aside
In the Wake Forest game referenced in the article, the game's TV announcers were openly laughing about how blatant Shackleford's "effort" against career hack Ralph Kitley was. Their restraint in not calling it point shaving on air was impressive (and transparent).
Using players is too risky. Besides with NIL they make money win or lose so the drive to win will gradually die like it did in the NFL. Millionaires just want to stay healthy.
Games today are controlled on the field and on the pine by officials, review processes, and no calls. Holding and Pass Interference can be called anytime you wish or conveniently ignored.
And it's not like the officials (who are the least paid people in the industry) have to throw a game, just the spread, unless of course it's even or under 3 points.
The closing line is all that matters. The closing line is not the spread, it is the total of money bet on either side of the equation. In the NFL the house wins 85% of the time against the spread. They know before the kick which side had the most bet on it. All officials have to do is manage the spread.
If a player makes a spectacular run you toss a block in the back, or a holding penalty. If a kicker is about to be in his prime range a hold can back him up. And it doesn't have to be suspiciously present on every play, just a late flag on spread changing plays. And if a spread needs to be closed then interference, hands to the face, and defensive holding are available to move them closer.
Rookie SEC officials make about 800 a game plus travel & meals. Veterans can make up to 2000. The games they are calling easily have 10's of millions bet on them. What is it to the house to buy the field officials at say 5000 each in cash or to a numbered account offshore? Nothing. Cost of doing business.
When college games were legalized for betting lines veteran officials in every conference retired in droves. They didn't want the pressure put on them and their families.
We have crappy officiating in all conferences now because they are newbies and because some are on the take.
Outside of officials look to the coaches. When to kneel and when to run it in for another 7, or kick another 3. I've seen some bizarre end of game final moves in the past couple of years. What does a coach say at a news conference? A win is a win. Or, I wanted to get our subs in for mop up time. Who is going to know any better but the house?
BTW: Even ESPN refers to College Football now as an entertainment industry instead of a sport. That's what you call a big damn red flag. Entertainment doesn't promise to be fair. It just promises to entertain. The NFL has long ago started calling itself an entertainment industry. And always remember when everyone makes more money who is going to call it fixed? And it's not really fixed is what they will say, it is just managed.
I have seen one game where I was totally convinced point shaving occurred.
Wiki article
“The 1998 UCLA vs. Miami football game, played December 5, 1998, was an NCAA college football game held between the UCLA Bruins and the Miami Hurricanes at the Orange Bowl, the home stadium of Miami. The game had large implications as UCLA was assured a spot in the Fiesta Bowl with a victory; that season, the Fiesta Bowl served as the site for the BCS National Championship. After trailing 38–21 late into the third quarter, Miami stormed back to stun the Bruins 49–45.”
I am convinced that some of UCLA’s defensive linemen laid down. There were holes a Mack truck could drive through. Miami ran all over the Bruins who would have been playing for a National title if they won.
Thoughtful responses. I think point-shaving to benefit bettors may be a different beast than games being thrown to alter the W-L column.
I think manipulation by officials to impact spreads has been a thing for a good long while. I think the potential for players to outright throw games has increased.
I think it is incredibly uncommon.
In football, Not common at all.
In certain respects, I think it's harder to really prove. I do believe players and coaches are more aware of spreads and totals, because of the rise of online sports gambling and the prevalence of advertising across sports. And the spreads and lines can then serve as talking points in programming. They can also be motivators for teams to some degree.
But I think point shaving is small-time now compared to other fixes. And, yes, I do believe college football has some integrity issues because of the chase for CFP, NY6, and other media contract money. That PAC-12 game where you had a league guy telling refs about targeting did it for me. Get them the **** out of there. And I was already concerned about basketball because the "media partners'" involvement in field selection and seeding processes. It really has turned into professional wrestling in the way where processes and relationships with networks and conferences are well hidden. "Don't expose the business."
Whatever the incidence is (I happen to think it is miniscule), I kinda wonder if NIL will reduce it even more. Players have legit revenue sources now.
(11-29-2022 10:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]Whatever the incidence is (I happen to think it is miniscule), I kinda wonder if NIL will reduce it even more. Players have legit revenue sources now.
The question posed in the OP puts the focus on the relationship between players and gambling. For the most part, in the "old days", the concept of shaving points suggests it was the athletes who could by their actions during the game most influence the ultimate outcome with respect to the final point spread. They could make an errant pass. They could take a bad shot, or commit a "stupid" foul at a critical time. And they were the ones who weren't getting compensated for the value that they contributed to the economic success of college sports.
Today, I don't believe the players are the easiest targets to create a rigged contest. And the visibility of the game action through the ubiquity of television makes tanking by players too easily spotted. At the same time, information technology that didn't exist in the heydey of point shaving scandals has changed the nature of sports betting. It's no longer local (relatively small scale) bookies conspiring with local players to take advantage of local bettors.
Now, national betting sites can track how much money is being wagered on any given game in real time. Instead of cheating to make a small time score, or a number of small time scores, betting data can be monitored to guarantee success for the house on a grander scale, and those inclined to cheat aren't as likely to put their trust in 19 year old kids to give them that guarantee.
So, cheating yes. "Point shaving"
by players, not so much. Look elsewhere for the villains.
"On any given college football Saturday, Matt Holt will flag approximately five games for gambling improprieties. That's equates to about 8% of weekly contests raising enough suspicion of game fixing and/or point-shaving that a closer look is required.
"When we send an alert to every operator and regulator across the country, we're pretty sure there is something happening here that is not good," said Holt, founder and CEO of U.S. Integrity, which oversees corruption in the gaming industry.
That's five games every Saturday, approximately 15-18 per month, according to Holt.
"[Improprieties] are going on right now," Holt said. "Anyone who says that's not happening is naïve to the marketplace.""
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ationwide/
From what I've been told, the games at the most risk aren't SEC football games or exceptionally high profile college football games (although I do think it occasionally happens)...but with low major basketball games. Nobody is making NIL money playing for Bakersfield or South Carolina Upstate. Their compliance departments are tiny, and it'd be easier for a third party to nudge the outcome (or some prop bets) at a smaller event that not as many people have inside information about. As gambling becomes an even bigger business, this is something I'd be very concerned about if I'm at like, the NEC or Big West or Southland.
(11-29-2022 12:41 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote: [ -> ]"On any given college football Saturday, Matt Holt will flag approximately five games for gambling improprieties. That's equates to about 8% of weekly contests raising enough suspicion of game fixing and/or point-shaving that a closer look is required.
"When we send an alert to every operator and regulator across the country, we're pretty sure there is something happening here that is not good," said Holt, founder and CEO of U.S. Integrity, which oversees corruption in the gaming industry.
That's five games every Saturday, approximately 15-18 per month, according to Holt.
"[Improprieties] are going on right now," Holt said. "Anyone who says that's not happening is naïve to the marketplace.""
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ationwide/
From what I've been told, the games at the most risk aren't SEC football games or exceptionally high profile college football games (although I do think it occasionally happens)...but with low major basketball games. Nobody is making NIL money playing for Bakersfield or South Carolina Upstate. Their compliance departments are tiny, and it'd be easier for a third party to nudge the outcome (or some prop bets) at a smaller event that not as many people have inside information about. As gambling becomes an even bigger business, this is something I'd be very concerned about if I'm at like, the NEC or Big West or Southland.
And I take it that they are only looking at players, and not officials? The gambling edge today Matt is best controlled by the yellow hanky and the ones who toss it. The really big gambling houses want and strive for the perception of fairness. Instant replay was appreciated because a pass interception or fumble which is confirmed restores confidence in fairness. What Las Vegas learned prior to replay was that the public would turn away if they suspected outcomes were manipulated. The manipulations didn't go away, they simply got much more sophisticated. Meanwhile pass interference, holding, and other common fouls will not decide outcomes, but will manage the spread.
I'd say we are going to see a walk back on targeting, the first of which have been mentioned already as setting degrees of targeting to limit disqualifications, distinguish obvious malicious hits from incidental ones which arise from normal play contact, and that too will be done to bolster confidence in perceived fairness. The booth is taking a hit on targeting calls.
I agree that if player point shaving is happening it's not on a major conference level.