IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tem/wpaper/1009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Point Shaving in NCAA Basketball: Corrupt Behavior or Statistical Artifact?

Author

Listed:
  • George Diemer

    (Department of Economics, Temple University)

  • Mike Leeds

    (Department of Economics, Temple University)

Abstract

The possibility that college basketball teams shave points -- win games by less than the point spread established in gambling markets -- has generated heated controversy among researchers. Some claim to find clear evidence of point shaving, while others assert that the evidence is a statistical artifact. We use data from college basketball NCAA games from 1995-1996 through 2008-2009 to support the existence of point shaving. We identify two incentives to shave points and find as these incentives increase so too does the statistical evidence of point shaving. First we show that the distribution of the outcomes of games in which there is a heavy favorite differs from the distribution of outcomes of games that do not have a heavy favorite. Second we show that point shaving is not a significant factor in post-season games when the incentive to shave decreases.

Suggested Citation

  • George Diemer & Mike Leeds, 2010. "Point Shaving in NCAA Basketball: Corrupt Behavior or Statistical Artifact?," DETU Working Papers 1009, Department of Economics, Temple University.
    • Handle: RePEc:tem:wpaper:1009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cla.temple.edu/RePEc/documents/detu_10_09.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    College basketball; Sports gambling; Corruption; Economics; Probabilities.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tem:wpaper:1009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dimitrios Diamantaras (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edtemus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.