Back in December I reviewed a published article by Justin Wolfers examining point shaving in NCAA basketball. Not all of our readers were impressed with the paper and one actually stated that I “…should be ashamed to support this research.”
I am not. Economics clearly argues that incentives work, and college players – especially those without a serious chance of playing professionally – have an incentive to shave points since the short-term benefits of being paid to point shave are greater than the short-term costs of point shaving. I think that given this incentive that it is a tribute to college athletes that more point shaving does not occur.
The Sports Economist blog from April 1st (no foolin’) shows that a running back at the University of Toledo has been charged with recruiting players to point shave and fix games. I think it is a shame that any player (college or pro) shave points or fix games, but the real shame is on the NCAA. College athletes – like men’s basketball and football – who generate large sums of money for their schools are not receiving a salary for their time and effort. This lack of payment occurs so that the NCAA can maintain the appearance that college games are amateur contests. Who does the NCAA think they are fooling? If the NCAA was willing to paying college athletes this would substantially reduce the incentive of point shaving.
You can read more about this story HERE and HERE (hat tip to Skip Sauer from The Sports Economist).
– Stacey Brook
4 responses so far ↓
Ryan J. Parker // April 5, 2007 at 7:21 am
My only hope is that people don’t blame the gambling community for this type of activity.
If the NCAA didn’t exploit these kids that come from nothing then they’d have no reason to shave points.
The pros might not play as hard (as some people like to see it), but at least the pros have too many fancy cars to care about shaving points.
Mark T // April 5, 2007 at 9:14 am
Thank you for the collection of thoughtful posts on the economics of college athletics over the past few days. It is unfortunate that the current practices of college athletics are so deeply entrenched politically and culturally that it will probably be impossible in my lifetime to reform them as needed. If colleges had to pay athletes, then more schools would make optimal decisions that would lead to better allocation of their resources and better education for young people. I applaud schools like Swarthmore that had the courage to drop out of NCAA football and I wish more schools would follow the same pattern. Thanks for your focus on this important area.
Jack Mott // April 8, 2007 at 9:29 am
A counter point here, is that the players who you say are most likely to shave points, ones with no anticipation of a future pro career, aren’t really worth much more, if any, than the free tution they are getting for their efforts.
Brian // July 29, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Dave-As an economist, you of all people should know that NCAA athletes are in fact highly compensated for their participation, albeit not in US tender.
They are given a scholarship, worth many, many thousands of dollars. They are also afforded notoriety and an opportunity to display their skills to a wide audience.
As an economist, you should also understand that if it were not worthwhile for the athlete, they would not do it. It’s a free society and the athletes voluntarily accept the arrangement.
Lastly, as you must be aware, being paid does not prevent corruption. That includes politicians, CEOs, and NBA referees.