I Knew It!!!!!

It is being reported that the FBI is investigating an NBA referee for allegedly betting on NBA games, including games that he was officiating. The official, whose name was withheld, allegedly wagered on games during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 NBA seasons.

The New York Post broke the story this morning that the FBI has been involved in a year long investigation looking into allegations that an NBA referee has been betting on games and making calls that affected the point spread on games that he/she officiated. The FBI has declined comment on the story.

Federal agents are set to arrest the referee and a cadre of mobsters and their associates who lined their pockets, sources told the Post.

David Stern is supposedly aware of the situation, but has not commented.

I have no idea who the referee is, but my money is on Joe Crawford or Steve Javie. I'm just throwing those names out there because I think they make some seriously strange calls sometimes. Hell, Joe Crawford is the main reason I stopped watching NBA games. I've thought Joe was fixing games for years.

But, seriously. Take a look at Coverwire.com's data on NBA referees from the 06-07 season. Take a look at the ref's "Over %". If you're looking for a ref affecting gambling outcomes, the "over/under" is what you want to look at. I don't think there is any way that a referee would be crazy enough to try to make a big enough impact on a game to change the winner/loser. It would be too easy to get caught. Therefore, it would only make sense to focus on the over/under which would be really easy for a referee to manipulate. Ideally if a ref works a high number of games, the "over/under" should be close to 50 percent. I think you could take the 50 percent and add a + or - of 10 percent and still feel fairly good about the ref's honesty in an "ideal world." Any "over/under" percentage outside of the 40-60 percent range would make me start asking questions. A score outside of the 40-60 range doesn't necessarily mean the ref is dishonest. I'm just saying that if I was a betting man I would bet on games that those guys were officiating based on their previous "over/under" percentage. Keep in mind, all of this data and speculation is based on the original accuracy of the "over/under", which isn't exactly a precise science.

If you look at Coverwire's data, you will see there are 11 referees who fall out of the 40-60 range. Of those 11, 6 officiated a high number of games and fell well out of the 40-60 range. Those 6 are Jim Clark ( 66 games with a .651%), Orlandis Poole (54 games with a .627%), Bennet Salvatore (61 games with a .621%), Joe Crawford (42 games with a .357%), Kevin Fehr (60 games with a .356%), and Luis Grillo (42 games with a .350%). I'll bet the guy under investigation is one of those 6. Based on the statistics alone, the most obvious choice to me would be Jim Clark or Kevin Fehr. You could throw Joe Crawford and Luis Grillo in there as well, but they didn't ref as many games as Clark and Fehr so their numbers aren't as statistically significant. I'm not making any accusations. I'm just analyzing the statistics on Coverwire's website.

I have no idea who it is, and I really don't care. The poor quality of officiating in the NBA drove me away from the League years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI arrested all of the refs in the NBA and then discovered that David Stern was also involved in fixing games.

I just got an email from a friend of mine reminding me about a post I made on this blog back in April. Click here to read it. Kind of prophetic, huh?