Tim Donaghy: Personal Foul

2010 May 04

On CBS's 60 Minutes Robert G. Anderson recently interviewed disgraced referee Tim Donaghy. The report is must watch for all sports fans.

While this interview didn't really unveil anything that I (personally) wasn't already suspecting about the NBA and other professional sports leagues, it did at best, corroborate it, and at worst, confirm it. The rest of my thoughts, after the fold.

Part 1

I've long been jaded toward pointing out that leagues give preferential treatment toward teams that one way or another benefit the league financially. The only way to accomplish this is to insist that the game officials make calls that benefit the desired outcome. Typically I point to outrageous conclusions reached by NFL Referees during "Official Replay" (see: Steelers vs. Colts, 2006 AFC Divisional Playoffs) as proof—in my opinion—that the league has a preference toward certain teams or players reaching the final rounds of the playoffs. Donaghy went as far as to confirm this suspicion of mine.

As a league official, Donaghy was privy to knowledge of exactly what what biases were present in a given game and what calls the Association was imploring the officials to make (I believe the NFL calls them "Points of Interest"). This is the true corruption of the pure competition that people involved simply refer to with the cliche, "the game the way it's meant to be played." Donaghy simply identified this corruption and (regrettably) used it toward his own personal gain, and eventually and unfortunately, the Mob's.

But let's not overlook the fact that without other referees satisfying their own personal grudges or the Association's emphasis on the success of certain teams and players, none of Donaghy's exploitions are even possible. This, to me, was the more profound take-away from this piece rather than a story about a crooked referee. NBA Commissioner David Stern—in my opinion—needs the public to view this incident as a junky that the league let slip through the cracks.

As for this discussion the question remains, "Why believe Donaghy?" I believe him for three reasons: 1) Every official investigation cites Donaghy's willingness to cooperate and tell the truth to authorities even the internal investigation that the NBA did, 2) at no point did Donaghy try to influence the outcome of a game in his own official capacity, and 3) While making his wagers, Donaghy was picking at a 75% clip. To put that in perspective, professional gamblers are able to pick winners at about a 58% rate. So whatever method Donaghy was using was, in the gambling world, a stone-cold lock.

But this does not mean that every professional sports game is crooked. Donaghy points out that over a 4 year period where over 5000 games took place, he only made 100 wagers. So not every game is fixed, just the important ones.

I do want to point out that my views and opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employers.