Does anyone other than me find the timing of the release of the U. Mich. study on gambling a bit too convenient.

Let's see . . . Michigan State is in the Final Four, University of Michigan didn't even make it into the tournament.

Is it jealousy, or am I just listening to the voices in my head too much?

I don't know about the timing, buy I don't buy the story.

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?

No, i didn't read any study finding. I heard it on radio and watch it on TV. I'm not one who swallows everything the media reports. Or what a study by a Univ. finds. How many times have studies and media been wrong or at the very least bias. The reports i heard made a lot of accusations and NO proof. If you are going to be accusd of something, don't you think they ought to offer some PROOF. Think about it. College Prof. receives $ to study sports officials gambling. Every study will find something so they can justify the study. Pat on back and heres another study since we did a great job of uncovering this gambling problem.

Your reply makes my point. You personally have not been accused, but you react as though you have. The study may be flawed, may not, but you object to the findings and therefore reject them as false. Without looking at the study, you are criticizing the work of professionals with professional credentials. That is like a coach questioning referee calls without ever consulting a rulebook.

My fellow refs -

Please go to www.ereferee.com for a synopsis of the study. The conclusions from the study are flawed.

The University of Michigan Department of Athletics, headed by Ann Vollano and Derrick Gragg, recently conducted a survey of 1,462 Division I officials in the sports of football, and men's and women's basketball.

The results of the survey are generating a lot of controversy in the sports community. It is clear that the intent of the survey is to place the officiating community in a negative light. The survey makes many unsubstantiated and sweeping assumptions.

How do you know it was a professional study done by professionals. And in this study, what makes a professional. You pick up phone, ask official ?'s. Do you know any official that was interviewed. what were the ?'s. As an earlier post said. if i get in an office pool for the super bowl. does this mean i am a problem sports gambler? I BET oops, i wonder if according to these professionals i would be considered a problem.

I think that this report is closely related to the evening news that we all watch every night. Bad news sells better than good news. It's sad that a remark by someone like Knight can spark a study by an otherwise highly regarded institution of learning. The more disturbing story, to me, is that the NCAA investigated tournament refs after being promped by Knight's remark. I hope that Knight supports and appreciates the current and ongoing investigation into his alleged abuses of players. After all, the person most likely to abuse players is the head coach.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

Hawks Coach -

When you posted those earlier remarks ......had you read the study?

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.

Yes I had read the study, but that was not really relevant to what I was asking. I reacted to what I felt were emotional responses to an academic study without regard to how the study was conducted. I agreed with Mark Dexter regarding the conclusions section "reaching" for significance, and the anecdotal stuff up front is junk. But I also think the numbers are good. I wanted to see if folks even knew what the numbers say, or what UM reported to the press. For instance (and this is from UM's press release):

"The most common gambling activities were casino gambling, lotteries, and playing slot or other gaming machines. The study also found that approximately 40 percent of officials have bet on sports including 2.2 percent who admitted they bet on sports through bookies."

More importantly:
"Just over three percent were identified as problem or pathological gamblers according to a widely accepted measure of that behavior."

You can look at these numbers and decide for yourself whether you think this is problematic.

And yes, I do believe that individuals employed in sports administration that have Masters Degrees and follow accepted research methods can be regarded as professionals.

Hawks Coach -

I always have a reason why I ask questions, although I may not share them with you. Let me be the judge of what is relevant.

And just because a pesrson has a Masters Degree in Sports Admin doesnt make them a professional. I have my MBA from Boston College but I have been wrong in some of my conclusions --- once or twice.

My oh my this place used to be friendly and enjoyable. Too bad some people have to ruin it.

Hawks Coach -

It is relevant that you read the report. If you did not and you made those comments you would be guilty of blindly defending the researchers without regard to the accuracy of their conclusions.

I would be willing to bet (gentleman's bet of course, please don't label me an incessant gambler) that there is not another group of people that could say that 97% of them DO NOT GAMBLE and that includes clergy, choir boys, coaches and the NCAA Rules Committee.

Hawks Coach there is a way of discussing issues without using inflammatory language such as you have used since you joined this forum (e.g., "emotional potshots at authors", or an earlier comment "Without looking at the study, you are criticizing the work of professionals with professional credentials. That is like a coach questioning referee calls without ever consulting a rulebook", and this post "It has come to this. Rather than dealing with the facts, folks are now questioning the motives of the researchers,