Toreros and Black Sox: Point-Shaving in Southern CA Sparks Reflection on the Recurring (Underreported?) Problem of Fixing Games

On April 11, 2010 a Grand Jury in the Southern District of California handed down an indictment against two former University of San Diego basketball players, a former assistant coach, and seven others, for Conspiracy to Commit Sports Bribery, Conduct an Illegal Gambling Business, and Distribute Marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The indictment does not specify what games were fixed, but it alleges that San Diego players influenced the outcome of multiple games for monetary bribes. One of the players implicated in the scandal is Brandon Johnson, San Diego’s all time leader in points and assists.

While opinions vary on the prevalence of teams “throwing” games, it has undoubtedly been going on for a long time. In fact, new evidence suggests that it may have been more common in baseball during the early twentieth century than once thought. The infamous Black Sox scandal from the 1919 World Series has been well documented, but a recent Associated Press story indicates that their cross-town rival may have done it first. A 1920 deposition of one of the banned White Sox fixers, Eddie Cicotte, stops short of accusing the Cubs of throwing the 1918 World Series against Boston, but strong inferences are made that members of the Cubs were offered $10,000 to throw the World Series and that the White Sox actually got the idea from the Cubs. Historians’ note that players during this time were grossly underpaid and the bribe represented a substantial sum. The motive, coupled with a few suspicious plays during the 1918 Series, suggests that the Cubs’ drought could have been at least a few years shorter than it currently stands. 

While this anecdote offers an interesting insight into the influence of organized crime during that era, it is (presumably) of little consequence, considering the salaries of today’s professional athletes. It would be naïve to think gambling does not play a role in professional sports (think recently paroled NBA referee Tim Donaghy), but “fixing” is much less common in the professional realm because the players have too much at stake. The question is, just how common is it at the collegiate level where NCAA amateurism standards strictly prohibit the paying of players. Like the underpaid baseball players of yesteryear, the latent motive exists.

High profile point shaving scandals have marred college basketball for decades. Point shaving at CCNY during the 1950-1951 season proved disastrous for the once prominent program. In 1978-1979, Boston College was embroiled in a scandal that involved infamous gangsters Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke. Prior to the San Diego indictments, the last major point-shaving scandal occurred at Arizona State in the mid 1990’s. So are these merely isolated incidents? A 2008 study on wagering in NCAA athletics suggests probably not. The study revealed that 1.6 percent of men’s basketball student athletes were asked to affect the outcome of a game and 2 percent admitted to betting on their own team.

While this percentage is not insignificant, it is difficult to predict just how pervasive the problem really is. First, the NCAA, burdened by a consistent array of compliance issues, does not have the staff to adequately monitor illegal gambling, and furthermore, the involvement of organized crime often takes investigations out of the NCAA’s hands. Second, games fixing like point-shaving is difficult to prove. It usually involves minimal differences in point spreads and a player’s efforts to impact a game undoubtedly go unnoticed more often than not. Finally, the best players are the ones with the most opportunity to impact games, but also the most at stake. The involvement of Brandon Johnson at San Diego proves that the star players are not immune, but a player with significant professional prospects has less incentive to risk his life and his career.  The San Diego scandal may induce the NCAA to ramp up its enforcement efforts, but this incident will unfortunately not be the last.

See other writing on this Blog related to point shaving from Geoff, Howard, and Greg.  HT to law clerk, Brian Konkel, for his work on this piece.

Another Instance of Point Shaving?

One benefit to professional athletes making substantial money is that the threat of players throwing games or shaving points at the behest of gamblers is diminished (even if not eliminated, see Rose, Pete). Gambling was a genuine threat to the integrity of professional sports in the early days of professional sport, particularly baseball, as Dean Roger Abrams describes in a forthcoming book called Dark Side of the Diamond.

But the risk remains in college sports, where players' genuine financial need, combined with access to gambling and gamblers, gives players an incentive to take money in exchange for poor performance. The latest example involves federal criminal charges filed last week against University of Toledo running back Harvey "Scooter" McDougle Jr. for participating in a bribery scheme to influence sporting events. Story here; some comments here. Scooter allegedly acted as go-between a gambler known as "Gary" and various Toledo football and basketball players, who took cash, cars, phones, and other gifts.

College basketball has had its share of point-shaving scandals: the 1948-49 Kentucky Wildcats, the 1950-51 CCNY team (that won both the NCAA and NIT championships), Boston College in the late 1970s, and the 1994 Arizona State Sun Devils. But there have been fewer examples of football players tanking in this way, probably because one (or even a few) players cannot alone affect the outcome of a game. The only example I recall off-hand (I say with the pride of an alumnus) involved former a Northwestern running back named Dennis Lundy, who deliberately fumbled on the one-yard-line in a 1994 game against Iowa to keep NU from covering the spread (he had a $ 400 bet on the game). Lundy was sentenced in 1999 to one month in prison for lying to a grand jury.

Scooter McDougle admits he accepted gifts from Gary, but insists it never changed the way he played to affect the outcome of games. That becomes the key fact the prosecution must prove. We shall see.

Indictments in Toledo Point Shaving Scheme

The U.S. Attorney in Detroit has announced the indictment of two Detroit-area businessmen and six former University of Toledo athletes in connection with point shaving between 2004 and 2006. Howard blogged about the story in March, 2007. Coverage from the Free Press here. According to U.S. Attorney Berg:

Today’s charges shine a light into the dark corner of illegal bookmaking and reveal the unfortunate consequence that the influence from betting can have on the integrity of both athletes and athletic contests.

The press releases is posted here .

UPDATE (May 8): The Toledo Blade has coverage here and has posted the full indictment here.

Freakonomics and NBA Officiating

Ian Ayres has a piece in the November 2007 issue of the Economists' Voice urging NBA Commissioner David Stern to "give Freakonomics a chance" as a way to get to the bottom of whether there is pervasive point-shaving or other cheating by NBA officials. Ayres argues that the emerging field of forensic econometrics has been successful in presenting statistical evidence of misconduct, including match-fixing in sumo wrestling, possible point-shaving in college basketball, and racial bias among NBA officials.

Ayres current concern is the case of former official Tim Donaghy, who has confessed to gambling on games he officiated and to manipulating calls to benefit himself and other gamblers. The NBA has insisted that Donaghy was an isolated bad-apple employee. Ayres argues that the league should be more substantively transparent in order to prove to fans that they can trust the league and its officials. Releasing its internal officiating data (tracking which refs made what calls in each game) for study by outside forensic statisticians goes a long way to restoring that trust--whether by assuring fans that the league is, indeed, clean or by exposing more malfeasance and giving the league a chance to really clean itself up.

(Cross-Posted at PrawfsBlawg)

Is Your NCCA Tournament Pool Illegal?

March used to mean something other than basketball, but trademark lawyers took care of that. Now, it is official — March means “March Madness,” and “March Madness” means basketball. At no other point does the entire country become as consumed over a sporting event than during the last two weeks of March. Workers across the country use ALT + TAB with abandon to check scores and statistics; smarter workers save their sick days for the “flu” they just know will be coming during this time of year. People everywhere analyze schools they have never heard of — UAB, St. Mary’s, Montana (the last one’s a state) — with one question on their mind: Who will pull the upset?

Why agonize over the relative strengths of unknown teams? Why focus on confusing terms like “strength of schedule” and “RPI”? Why groan when Gonzaga beats Winthrop or Penn upsets LSU? Why risk being fired if the boss peeks over your shoulder and sees you watching a webcast rather than completing that TPS report? Why else? Because there is money on it, baby.

The NCAA tournament has become almost synonymous with gambling. March Madness is the busiest time of year for the $3.5 billion sports gambling industry. Every office, college dorm, grandparents’ coffee group, and convent has a tournament pool going. All told, more than 25 million Americans participate each year in some form of pool. Brackets are filled out — some with the help of ESPN and advanced statistics; others with the help of a two year-old and the family dog. Both have an equal chance of winning. Just put in your five dollars and you could win hundreds.

But gambling is illegal in the United States, isn't it? Sure, there are exceptions for Nevada and Atlantic City, our country frowns on such moral turpitudes. You want an assault rifle? No problem. You want to bet your assault rifle that Boston College makes the Final Four? Hold on there, tiger. The law has to protect you from yourself. So, could entering the pool run by that annoying guy in accounting have the police beating down your door?

In theory, yes. The majority of states have anti-gambling statutes that cover wagers for almost any amount. In Massachusetts, betting any amount over five dollars can subject an individual to a misdemeanor charge. And organizing the pool is even more dangerous, leading to a possible felony in many states, or worse, federal criminal charges. With few exceptions, states do not have ‘de minimis’ exceptions for tournaments pools or exemptions if the person running the pool does not take a percentage as a service fee. Thus, in most states, unless your pool does not involve the exchange of money, submitting that bracket likely means you are breaking the law.

I would not change your name or flee the state just yet, though. Despite the fact that pools are technically illegal, police will not be busting down the doors of offices in a nationwide sting. Despite the large amount of money changing hand nationwide, the average $100 pool is simply too insignificant for the state to care. Usually, the police do not get involved unless you have ignored your employer's request to stop, the pool is so large that substantial sums of money are involved, or there are minors implicated.

This is not to say that the authorities will never get involved. Although nothing came of it, officials in Charlotte, NC announced last year that no gambling violations, no matter how small, would be tolerated if reported. And, somewhat paradoxically, the NCAA has pressured local officials around the country to crack down on betting pools, especially around college campuses. Despite the incredible attention the pools help bring to the tournament, the NCAA’s greatest fear is that wagering will find its way to the athletes, leading to point-shaving or other illicit conduct.

In addition, you won’t care at all about the police if you get fired over your basketball obsession. Some employers have a no-tolerance policy on gambling and other contests, including tournament pools. Others may not appreciate the fine art of the ALT + TAB between scores and the budget spreadsheet. One study estimates that employers lose nearly $900 million in wasted employee time during the last two weeks of March. Thus, your boss may not care to hear about the ‘Cinderella’ run of Nevada, or the ‘de minimis’ exception to the local gambling law.

But, if the pool stays small and the boss understands, then tournament pools can continue as always. Far be it from the law to try and suck the fun out of something. So, continue to lose five dollars to your neighbor’s dog. Continue to cheer as the ten-seed upsets the seven. Continue to hope your alma mater defies the odds and makes it to the Final Four. Because this is college basketball. This is what March is all about.

Note: Please keep in mind that this is intended to be a fun read and is not legal advice.