quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach:
Have you read the full study? Are you questioning the methodology, e.g., how the data was collected, how the study is structured? Are you questioning the conclusions drawn from the data? Are you questioning the definition of gambling as used in the study?
Yes, I have read the study.
Their numbers all seem good, but there is a bit too much "reaching" in the study.
Example 1: "No one can assess whether these [overturned (by NFL instant replay)] calls were innocent mistakes . . . or deliberate attempts to influence the outcome." (pg. 23) They have no proof (even anecdotal evidence) of NFL officials "rigging" the game, but suggest it anyways.
Example 2: The chronology (pgs. 7-9). Out of 13 different incidents cited, only one relates to DI officials who have gambled. A breakdown on the rest:
1 - NFL games being fixed
4 - Foreign games that were fixed
1 - Foreign games that were attempted to be fixed
1 - High School refs who gamble
1 - NBA refs tax evasion
3 - Coach and player quotes (including the ever independent Bobby Knight!)
1 - Background checks on NCAA BB Tourney officials.
None of this stuff comes close to involving NCAA refs who gamble, and nothing about NCAA game fixing.