...while it seemed like the article could've been 2,000 words, I was shocked it was only 1,000.  While I believe Vegas is that good at picking numbers, I remain unconvinced by that article to believe that what's going on is point shaving or anything like that - especially since no hard evidence about certain programs more likely to do it wasn't provided.  I would require a lot more data to be convinced.

Just looking at the numbers isn't going to be that convincing.  If he has signatures, bank statements, or photos, I'll buy it.

The fact is, it's difficult to beat any able-bodied basketball team by 30 pts.  On top of that, when a team is up by 30, they don't usually keep the starters in.  It's not surprising, then, that a team could beat the huge spread in the last few minutes of a game in which they were getting beaten so handily.  

...the backdoor cover.  And it really, really stings...haha

McCain is on a crusade against sports betting for whatever reason.

But it's laughable at best because the only way to control point shaving is by allowing legitimate avenues for sports betting.  Eliminate the Vegas lines and here comes the illegal bookies who most assuredly will not be regulated by the Nevada Gaming Control Board.  The only reason the Az St scandal broke was because red-flags went off inside a Vegas casino, and the Control Board was notified.  

One of my pet peeves.  Here follows a rant.

Why should it be illegal (criminal) for a player to fix a game?  

In an amateur game, the only one hurt is the gambler, to whom the player has not made any representation of honesty.  If enough games were thrown, gambling would go out of sports,a good thing.

A pro team should have a civil, not criminal, claim against a player under contract.  So let the team sue the player to recover damages.

I don't want to waste court time on such issues.  Caveat emptor!

The article doesn't say much about the actual evidence -- here's the paper from Wolfers' website: http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/PointShaving.pdf.

I'm not sure why commenters are vigorously defending gambling in general, as neither the paper nor the article suggests we should abolish gambling.

Instead, if you bet on college bball games, it's very much in your interest to abolish point shaving, and very much in your interest to know if point shaving is still happening (unless, of course, you're the bookie setting it all up, in which case, you don't want any change).  For the same reason you don't want someone with insider information playing the same stocks you do, you don't want point shaving to happen.  The paper takes no stance on policy... Wolfers just points out that, based on how heavy favorites perform against the spread as compared to other teams, there's a statistically significant chance that something fishy's going on.

I'd be curious about the difference between the opening line and the closing line in the 5 percent of games in question. We might not be seeing evidence of anything other than bookmakers making money and bettors losing money.