It has come to this. Rather than dealing with the facts, folks are now questioning the motives of the researchers, who incidentally relaeased a similar study last year on students and athletes who gamble on college sports. The timing of the release of results may well have been to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the tournament, but that does not in any way affect conclusions. To impugn the motives of researchers whom you do not know is a big step to take. Incidentally, I know some coaches who think that refs are biased against them and I don't believe that either.
Having read another critical thread on the study, I am curious to know from those of you who question the findings. 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? Or are you acting like those coaches who disagree with your calls, not because they are wrong but because they have a negative impact on his team. Sure the study hurts all refs, regardless of whether or not you gamble, because all are now tarnished with suspicion. But does that make the study wrong?
|
Wed Apr 05, 2000, 11:17pm
Threaded Mode
