Former NBA official Tim Donaghy has caused quite a stir with his allegations that Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Sacramento Kings and the Los Angeles Lakers was fixed to ensure a seventh game. Even if his claims turn out to be unprovable there are plenty of people who will give Donaghy the benefit of the doubt, as fix or not, the game is widely recognized as the worst officiated game in recent memory. The game was called so poorly it prompted a letter from Ralph Nader to NBA Commissioner David Stern.
In wake of Donaghy's allegations, a
number of people have wondered about the integrity of basketball games and are
asking if the games are really fixed. If you ask Justin Wolfers, a professor of
business and public policy at Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania,
the answer is that it's highly likely.
Wolfers'
Research
Wolfers published a paper entitled
Point Shaving: Corruption in NCAA Basketball in American Economic Review in May
of 2006, suggesting point spread shaving may have influenced the outcome of nearly
500 games over a 16-year sample period. Wolfers looked at point spread
favorites of 12 or more points and concluded those teams tend to cover the
point spread at a lower rate than they should. While that one statistic isn't
enough to conclude there is something unusual going on, Wolfers also mentions
the NCAA survey where eight out of 388 basketball players admitted to taking
money in exchange for playing poorly or at least had knowledge of teammates who
did.
Wolfers correctly states that it is
far easier to fix a game with the favorite in a game with a large point spread
than it is to get the underdog to fix a contest. A large favorite can win the
game, while not covering the point spread, but an underdog would not only have
to concede to losing the game outright, but would have to lose by a larger
margin than the point spread. By the same token, a large favorite also is in a
better position to fix a game than a small favorite, as the small favorite
could easily lose the game outright while trying to win by a small margin.
During his 16-year sample period,
Wolfers found that all favorites covered the spread 50.01-percent of the time,
while favorites of 12-points, or more, covered the point spread 48.37-percent
of the time. As his sample was for a 44,120 games, the deviation is actually
larger than it may appear to be at a quick glance.
College basketball has had its share
of betting scandals in the past, with Boston College, Arizona State, Tulane,
and Northwestern, but if Wolfers is correct, there are plenty more NCAA betting
scandals that are going undetected each year.
