Slate's Bizbox
sports nut: The stadium scene.

If the Ref Did It, Here's How It HappenedPlus, what the NBA should do about it.

By Robert Weintraub
Updated Monday, July 23, 2007, at 5:56 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

A careful examination of that record shows Donaghy's likely pattern. Last year, Donaghy reffed 12 games in which the over/under was 184.5 or less—those games went over 10 out of 12 times, a highly suspicious number. Donaghy games with an over/under above 205 points, however, only went over seven out of 18 times. This makes sense intuitively. In a low-scoring game, a quick whistle would ensure that each team gets enough free throws to sufficiently pad the point total. On the other hand, it's harder to call enough fouls to ensure an "over" in a game where the Vegas line is already high.

If the NBA spent more time listening to Las Vegas, it probably would've known all this two years ago. As USA Today oddsmaker Danny Sheridan points out, "Nevada bookmakers are a clearinghouse for illegal bookies." Any suspicious bets taken on college campuses or the corner bar get reported back to Vegas sports books, not the local district attorney. Think back to the point-shaving scandal that hit college football this spring. A Vegas oddsmaker thought the betting activity on University of Toledo games looked suspicious. He blew the whistle to the NCAA, and an investigation ultimately revealed Toledo players' connections to a Michigan gambler. That's how game-fixing gets snuffed out—usually. But according to Sheridan and professional handicapper R.J. Bell, the NBA is the only major pro sports league that doesn't stay in regular contact with Vegas about unusual betting activity. "A few years ago the NCAA wanted to abolish gambling on college sports altogether," Sheridan says. "Now, they are sleeping with Nevada. The NBA just got a wake up call. They need to join us in the 21st century."

One easy way to prevent flim-flammery would be to eliminate spread betting altogether. Rather than asking bettors to predict whether the favorite will win by more or less than seven points, sports books could simply lay odds that each team would win outright—bet on the underdog and you'd win more, bet on the favorite and you'd win less. In reality, this will never happen. Point spreads exist because they're an easy way for gambling houses to guarantee an even number of bets on both sides. They also serve as a simple, if imprecise, shorthand to determine the difference between two teams—"the Pistons are favored by seven over the Bulls." By contrast, money lines—"Detroit -110"—are notoriously hard for the layman to understand. And of course, spread bets tend to keep games alive for gamblers long after the actual contest has been decided—only the betting line has the power to make a 20-point game suspenseful in the fourth quarter.

While it's doubtful that anything will change in Vegas, the Donaghy scandal should open up a couple of other items for reassessment. In 2003, Rasheed Wallace was suspended for seven games after a postgame confrontation with Donaghy in the bowels of Portland's Rose Garden. Ever since, Wallace's technical foul tally has skyrocketed and the burly Pistons forward has earned an unshakable reputation as a surly malcontent. Might our opinion of Wallace change if we learn that he was the recipient of a passel of dubious calls?

Even more intriguing, Donaghy and Wallace were both on the floor during the NBA's other recent crisis—the night Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson charged into the stands at the Palace. That game took place before Donaghy's suspected wrongdoing, but there is no question that the refs did a terrible job controlling the on-court action before the mayhem. In the wake of this scandal, every game will be in question, and not only by fans disposed to seeing black helicopters outside the arena. David Stern is often credited with being first among commissioners, but it will take all of his skills to manage this situation. Any misstep, and he'll find himself in the unthinkable position of envying Bud Selig.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Robert Weintraub, a freelance TV producer/writer based in Atlanta, writes about sports media for Slate.
Photograph of Kobe Bryant and Tim Donaghy by Lisa Blumenfeld/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

The reason that Vegas will never go to moneyline betting (or straight up to win betting) only, is not just because it is confusing, and it is a lot stronger than simply "they want 50/50 action".

The real reason, is that if there were only moneylines, you would see games like:

Suns -400

Hawks +350

Essentially, that means a suns bet to win $100 is risking $400, a hawks bet of $100 wins $350.

The reason the books will never go to this system, is that heavy bettors will stop betting on favorites altogether. If you can make 3 $100 bets on large underdogs, even if only one pays off, your still up $50. If 2 of 3 pay off, you would see a significant profit on a very small investment.

Vegas already takes a bath on moneylines when a heavy underdog wins (the 49ers hit +450 ML's twice last season), but if they were to go to SU (straight up) betting only, they would quickly go out of business.

--morphicresident

(To reply, click here.)

For now, it's all speculation, but it seems pretty safe to say this story is going to get worse. Uglier. Creepier.

These weren't the "legal" Vegas books that Donaghy was patronizing. The bookies he was/is connected with are affiliated with mobsters. Organized crime. The Boys. The Outfit.

And there is the real problem. Because all it takes is one bet with those guys, and they've got him by the balls. He then opens himself up to blackmail, and once that happens, the games he bet on becomes secondary. One The Boys have you, they have you for good. They could conceivably have called Donaghy a half hour before any game and told him how those games would end in relation to the spread or the over/under, regardless of whether Donaghy had a bet down or not.

What's Donaghy going to do, refuse?

On a side note, everyone is talking about calls that Donaghy made, and how they may have controlled the outcome of a game. That's not necessarily the only way Donaghy could control a game. Depending on how he bet, he could also control the spread by swallowing his whistle. He could keep the score low by not making calls, (if he'd bet the under for instance), and that's a much harder element to analyze statistically.

What's clear to me is that Tim Donaghy's actions have cast a pall of suspicion over the entire NBA. Is it possible that he's the only ref approached by The Boys? I doubt it. Perhaps he's the only one to fall into this chasm, but I have to believe that if they succeeded in buying Tim Donaghy, they must have tried to buy others. And even if nobody else got caught up in the web, why no whistle-blowers?(pardon the pun) Perhaps fear.

No matter where this rabbit hole leads, what's obvious is this. Once Tim Donaghy made his first over/under bet with criminal bookies, his presence on the court, and his whistle belonged to someone other than the league. His judgment was for the benefit of someone other than the paying fans who (to quote Jay McMullin) "thought it was all on the legit." Even in games he worked where there was no bet by him, and no orders from his new partners, the fact remains that he was bought and paid for, and everything gets tossed in the hopper of suspicion.

Whether it only happened a few times or a few dozen times doesn't matter, because the confidence of the fans, and the integrity of the league are shaken to their very foundation. People now start to wonder if what they've been seeing is real or not. And that can kill a league.

Where dirty refs are concerned, all it takes is once.

--Schmutzie

(To reply, click here.)

(7/26)

Washington Post