Tweet
Officials have been asked to fix games
ESPN.com news services
ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- There are college sports officials who have called games unfairly due to gambling-related issues, according to a study released Wednesday by the University of Michigan.
The yearlong gambling study of 640 Division I officials -- from football and men's and women's basketball -- revealed that 12 officials surveyed (or nearly 2 percent) could cite instances where gambling influenced the way games were officiated.
Details were not available on the games allegedly involved.
Moreover, two officials reported that they had been approached about fixing a game. And two officials said their awareness of the point spread resulted in "their officiating with a level of bias."
The study found that 84.4 percent of officials have gambled since becoming a college official. The most common gambling activities were casinos, lotteries and slot or other gambling machines. The study also found that about 40 percent of officials have bet on sports -- including 2.2 percent who admitted they bet on sports through bookies. And 22.9 percent have gambled on the NCAA basketball tournament.
Just over three percent were identified as problem or pathological gamblers, according to a widely accepted measure of that behavior.
"I think what this tells us is that we have to continue to be diligent about our efforts to keep this issue before sports officials," NCAA spokesman Wallace Renfro said. The NCAA is responsible for hiring and training its game officials.
Renfro said that if the numbers are accurate, the percentage of officials betting on college games heightens the NCAA's anxiety.
In 1996, Congress created a National Gambling Impact Study Commission and asked it to report on the effect of betting across the nation. In November 1998, commissioners were told that illegal sports betting takes in as much as $380 billion annually, dwarfing the $2.4 billion bet legally on sports in Nevada.
Michigan officials said they decided to conduct the study because game officials have the greatest potential to influence the outcome of sporting competitions and may be the most vulnerable to gambling.
Renfro said the NCAA's education efforts with game officials have been ongoing for the past three years. An FBI representative meets with basketball officials in fall clinics and will meet with the officials of the last three Final Four games, he said. Plus, background checks have been conducted on tournament officials, Renfro said.
"These findings should be used as an educational resource," said Ann Vollano, one of the study's co-authors. "The presence of gambling and the problems created are in every part of society. College athletics are no different."
The data in the study was collected from 640 returned questionnaires of the 1,462 mailed to Division I sports officials in January 1999 -- a response rate of 43.8 percent.
The study -- titled "NCAA Division I Officials: Gambling with the Integrity of College Sports?" -- is the second in a series by the compliance office of the University of Michigan's athletic department. It was prepared by Derrick Gragg, assistant athletics director for compliance, and Vollano, the assistant director of compliance.
Michigan's first study, released in January 1999 and titled "The Extent and Nature of Gambling among College Student-Athletes," provided data from across the nation on the gambling habits of college athletes.
The complete findings of both gambling studies can be found on the University of Michigan's athletic department website at mgoblue.com.
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report
ESPN.com news services
ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- There are college sports officials who have called games unfairly due to gambling-related issues, according to a study released Wednesday by the University of Michigan.
The yearlong gambling study of 640 Division I officials -- from football and men's and women's basketball -- revealed that 12 officials surveyed (or nearly 2 percent) could cite instances where gambling influenced the way games were officiated.
Details were not available on the games allegedly involved.
Moreover, two officials reported that they had been approached about fixing a game. And two officials said their awareness of the point spread resulted in "their officiating with a level of bias."
The study found that 84.4 percent of officials have gambled since becoming a college official. The most common gambling activities were casinos, lotteries and slot or other gambling machines. The study also found that about 40 percent of officials have bet on sports -- including 2.2 percent who admitted they bet on sports through bookies. And 22.9 percent have gambled on the NCAA basketball tournament.
Just over three percent were identified as problem or pathological gamblers, according to a widely accepted measure of that behavior.
"I think what this tells us is that we have to continue to be diligent about our efforts to keep this issue before sports officials," NCAA spokesman Wallace Renfro said. The NCAA is responsible for hiring and training its game officials.
Renfro said that if the numbers are accurate, the percentage of officials betting on college games heightens the NCAA's anxiety.
In 1996, Congress created a National Gambling Impact Study Commission and asked it to report on the effect of betting across the nation. In November 1998, commissioners were told that illegal sports betting takes in as much as $380 billion annually, dwarfing the $2.4 billion bet legally on sports in Nevada.
Michigan officials said they decided to conduct the study because game officials have the greatest potential to influence the outcome of sporting competitions and may be the most vulnerable to gambling.
Renfro said the NCAA's education efforts with game officials have been ongoing for the past three years. An FBI representative meets with basketball officials in fall clinics and will meet with the officials of the last three Final Four games, he said. Plus, background checks have been conducted on tournament officials, Renfro said.
"These findings should be used as an educational resource," said Ann Vollano, one of the study's co-authors. "The presence of gambling and the problems created are in every part of society. College athletics are no different."
The data in the study was collected from 640 returned questionnaires of the 1,462 mailed to Division I sports officials in January 1999 -- a response rate of 43.8 percent.
The study -- titled "NCAA Division I Officials: Gambling with the Integrity of College Sports?" -- is the second in a series by the compliance office of the University of Michigan's athletic department. It was prepared by Derrick Gragg, assistant athletics director for compliance, and Vollano, the assistant director of compliance.
Michigan's first study, released in January 1999 and titled "The Extent and Nature of Gambling among College Student-Athletes," provided data from across the nation on the gambling habits of college athletes.
The complete findings of both gambling studies can be found on the University of Michigan's athletic department website at mgoblue.com.
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report