I wonder if playoff expansion might impact this due to how seeding might work.

While some things are still unknowns, let's take this year as an example. The most likely 4 seed is either USC or Ohio State. The most likely 3 seed is TCU.

Therefore being the 5 seed gives a slightly easier 12 seed in round 1, but the harder USC/Ohio State game in the quarters.

Being the 6 seed gives a slightly harder 11 seed in round 1, but a theoretically easier TCU in the quarters, and also keeps Georgia on the other side of the bracket.

So it would benefit the 5 seed to shave some points or lose some "style points" to slide from 5 to 6. If you think Ohio State is the better overall team vs Michigan, you could even slide to 7.

hard to manipulate.

(11-29-2022 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 12:41 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  "On any given college football Saturday, Matt Holt will flag approximately five games for gambling improprieties. That's equates to about 8% of weekly contests raising enough suspicion of game fixing and/or point-shaving that a closer look is required.

"When we send an alert to every operator and regulator across the country, we're pretty sure there is something happening here that is not good," said Holt, founder and CEO of U.S. Integrity, which oversees corruption in the gaming industry.

That's five games every Saturday, approximately 15-18 per month, according to Holt.

"[Improprieties] are going on right now," Holt said. "Anyone who says that's not happening is naïve to the marketplace.""

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ationwide/

From what I've been told, the games at the most risk aren't SEC football games or exceptionally high profile college football games (although I do think it occasionally happens)...but with low major basketball games. Nobody is making NIL money playing for Bakersfield or South Carolina Upstate. Their compliance departments are tiny, and it'd be easier for a third party to nudge the outcome (or some prop bets) at a smaller event that not as many people have inside information about. As gambling becomes an even bigger business, this is something I'd be very concerned about if I'm at like, the NEC or Big West or Southland.

And I take it that they are only looking at players, and not officials? The gambling edge today Matt is best controlled by the yellow hanky and the ones who toss it. The really big gambling houses want and strive for the perception of fairness. Instant replay was appreciated because a pass interception or fumble which is confirmed restores confidence in fairness. What Las Vegas learned prior to replay was that the public would turn away if they suspected outcomes were manipulated. The manipulations didn't go away, they simply got much more sophisticated. Meanwhile pass interference, holding, and other common fouls will not decide outcomes, but will manage the spread.

I'd say we are going to see a walk back on targeting, the first of which have been mentioned already as setting degrees of targeting to limit disqualifications, distinguish obvious malicious hits from incidental ones which arise from normal play contact, and that too will be done to bolster confidence in perceived fairness. The booth is taking a hit on targeting calls.

I agree that if player point shaving is happening it's not on a major conference level.

Refs at any level in college play are interesting just because of how some are wired into production trucks and booths. In on point-shaving? I think more likely other ways to manipulate games. Coaches, especially those at the lower level, otoh…I would think there’s more room to hide some questionable decisions behind talent that isn’t top level.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/bet...tarkanian/

If we're going to have super conferences making super money, I want to see super officiating.

During the early aughts, Toledo football and basketball players were attempting to shave points for a Detroit gambler.

https://www.hustlebelt.com/2015/4/7/8367...lett-payne

(11-29-2022 03:01 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 12:41 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  "On any given college football Saturday, Matt Holt will flag approximately five games for gambling improprieties. That's equates to about 8% of weekly contests raising enough suspicion of game fixing and/or point-shaving that a closer look is required.

"When we send an alert to every operator and regulator across the country, we're pretty sure there is something happening here that is not good," said Holt, founder and CEO of U.S. Integrity, which oversees corruption in the gaming industry.

That's five games every Saturday, approximately 15-18 per month, according to Holt.

"[Improprieties] are going on right now," Holt said. "Anyone who says that's not happening is naïve to the marketplace.""

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ationwide/

From what I've been told, the games at the most risk aren't SEC football games or exceptionally high profile college football games (although I do think it occasionally happens)...but with low major basketball games. Nobody is making NIL money playing for Bakersfield or South Carolina Upstate. Their compliance departments are tiny, and it'd be easier for a third party to nudge the outcome (or some prop bets) at a smaller event that not as many people have inside information about. As gambling becomes an even bigger business, this is something I'd be very concerned about if I'm at like, the NEC or Big West or Southland.

And I take it that they are only looking at players, and not officials? The gambling edge today Matt is best controlled by the yellow hanky and the ones who toss it. The really big gambling houses want and strive for the perception of fairness. Instant replay was appreciated because a pass interception or fumble which is confirmed restores confidence in fairness. What Las Vegas learned prior to replay was that the public would turn away if they suspected outcomes were manipulated. The manipulations didn't go away, they simply got much more sophisticated. Meanwhile pass interference, holding, and other common fouls will not decide outcomes, but will manage the spread.

I'd say we are going to see a walk back on targeting, the first of which have been mentioned already as setting degrees of targeting to limit disqualifications, distinguish obvious malicious hits from incidental ones which arise from normal play contact, and that too will be done to bolster confidence in perceived fairness. The booth is taking a hit on targeting calls.

I agree that if player point shaving is happening it's not on a major conference level.

Refs at any level in college play are interesting just because of how some are wired into production trucks and booths. In on point-shaving? I think more likely other ways to manipulate games. Coaches, especially those at the lower level, otoh…I would think there’s more room to hide some questionable decisions behind talent that isn’t top level.

The Dodd article linked above is actually pretty good and timely. It points out that point shaving and trying to manage the spread aren’t really where the large risks are today, but rather the explosion of prop bets because all it takes is one person and one play for that to pay out (e.g. the payout for a QB that never throws an interception to throw a second half interception). As Matt indicated, lower profile games where participants aren’t compensated as well are also more at risk - Dodd’s article points out that women’s basketball is where a lot more gambling influences are coming into play.

This all makes sense. The sports books all have a ton of information and analytics on every NFL and power conference college football game, so it’s much more difficult for any bribes to occur that would influence the point spread (albeit the risk of bribes for hitting prop bets is still there). However, there’s a large information gap for lower profile sports, and that’s where sharps make their money. For sharps, money is money and they don’t assign any more value to winning a bet on the Super Bowl or Michigan-Ohio State than a random women’s basketball game on a Wednesday night. So, to the extent that they want to manipulate a game, it’s clearly way more efficient (and much less likely to be caught) to find a way to manipulate that random women’s basketball game.

I similarly recall a sports gambling article a few years ago that the biggest hotspot for bribes was in lower level women’s tennis matches. Once again, sharps aren’t trying to get glory on fixing the Super Bowl or Final Four that every single person in the US is watching, but they look for which sports aren’t covered well by the sports books or media at all with lower paid athletes where taking a bribe constitutes a real amount of money for them.

The shifting emphasis on prop bets for bribery also makes sense - there are too many factors and people involved to truly control a point spread, but a prop bet that only requires a single person to commit a single act (like a fumble at a particular time) is a much more efficient way for a bribe to pay out.

That’s extremely informative Frank.

I was not really familiar with prop bets, but that is exactly what made me post this- seeing a single bad play that just struck me as very weird and left me wondering “did he try to do that?”.

A non-consequential play in a low stakes game, which after reading your post is exactly where this kind of thing would tend to happen.

(11-30-2022 09:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, there’s a large information gap for lower profile sports, and that’s where sharps make their money.

Yeah, totally agree about those “gaps.” Even for men’s hoops at the lower levels, it can almost just look like spreads and totals based on where the game was played, prior bouts (if a conference game), and overall record. Lines don’t fluctuate much. An ardent follower of the game could do well there if they took up betting, imo. It’s not that Vegas isn’t paying attention, but they aren’t putting top resources into the every game, either. In the more niche sports, I can only imagine what and where that could go.

I am not a prude but I don't think this will evolve well.

As gambling moves from illegal bookies to legitimate businesses, debts will be enforceable by our courts.

I also suspect the gambling sites may be the new owners and distributors of the leagues and not just advertisers.

For universities, how is defacto gambling a mission of the school?