Sorry if you misunderstood my comment on "relevant". i did not mean to question the relveance of your post. I merely meant to say that my reading the study had no impact on my asking the questions. My questions were driven by the content of the criticism I read in two threads on this site, not the content of the study.
I too question the conclusion section of the study, which appears to be a political statement rather than a scientific conclusion. I do believe that the numbers that led to those conclusions are good. But am I concerned if an official buys a Lotto ticket? Not. Am I concerned if he is one of the 3% that are considered problem gamblers - absolutely.
Finally, it is not my intent to ruin anyone's fun. I look at this as a forum for serious discussion of issues related to basketball officiating. This gambling issue will become serious for officials by the mere existence of the study. The NCAA will examine this and will probably end up deciding to change something, rightly or wrongly. I think it would be more fruitful to discuss what problems may exist, and what in the study is overblown, rather than firing emotional potshots at the authors.
|