Is Cheating Good for Sports?

Steven Dubner asks the question. I don't think a categorical answer can be given. Rather, I think the point is that cheating may facilitate certain kinds of things -- the setting of new home run records, or aging star players making amazing comebacks from injury rather than fading to black -- that we like to watch. What's more, some cheating plays as a kind of clever "gamesmanship" that attracts at least some admirers.

On the other hand, it's well-known that many sports restrict the quality of the equipment that can be used by high-level athletes in order to prevent the sport from becoming impossibly dull to watch. Cheaters who break those kinds of rules are almost certainly going to detract from the public's enjoyment of the sport. Somewhat similarly, it seems to me that many people actively prefer the inferior level of skill, strength, and athleticism on display in college basketball. Competitions deficient in top-notch basketball playing draw in fans who like to see lots of passing and jump shots. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that performance-enhancing drugs would probably make the NBA less popular (though not to me personally or others who find the college game stultifying) as the players get even stronger and faster.

Comments

Competitions deficient in top-notch basketball playing draw in fans who like to see lots of passing and jump shots.

You really think that people like college basketball because it's inferior?

Dontcha think it might be that people like college basketball despite it being inferior - because it has other characteristics that the NBA doesn't?

Posted by Al | February 22, 2008 11:52 AM

Under the circumstances, it seems to me that performance-enhancing drugs would probably make the NBA less popular

Um, should I take it that you think the NBA is free of performance enhancing drugs? Surely you're not that naive.

It seems certain to me that some players in the NBA use some illegal performance enhancing drugs, merely by law of averages. Sure you could say that the effects of certain drugs would not necessarily be helpful to an NBA player, where conditioning and durability over a grueling season are important. But the same could be said for baseball no? Any casual glance at a group of center/forward players will show you that strength conditioning is very important. Look at Carlos Boozer or Karl Mallone (not saying that they cheated, just saying that they show the importance of strenght training in the NBA).

Posted by IMU | February 22, 2008 11:57 AM

Wouldn't it be much simpler to offer experience-enhancing drugs to the spectators? That way the same matches would achieve far more interest.

Posted by El Cid | February 22, 2008 11:59 AM

When was the last time you actually attended a college basketball game, Matt? The NBA is entertainment for television. College basketball is a sport you go see in person.

Posted by Clonus | February 22, 2008 12:01 PM

I'd like to see Dwight Howard juiced to the gills, just to see what kind of damage he'd be capable of.

Posted by owenz | February 22, 2008 12:02 PM

though not to me personally or others who find the college game stultifying

Not to some others. Widespread but not complete use would ruin the NBA for me. Unless I can understand the chem enhancements as training, it ruins the game for me. And for me to consider it training, among other things, it must be available to all.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2008 12:13 PM

Heck, I prefer high school basketball over the NBA. I find that the intensity of competition is better and higher than in the pros.

It is great seeing kids play their hearts out, not for money, or even the chance of down the road making money at it, but because they love the game.

Also, the general atmosphere around and at both college and high school games is far more enjoyable than around the pros.

Posted by John | February 22, 2008 12:21 PM

Somewhat similarly, it seems to me that many people actively prefer the inferior level of skill, strength, and athleticism on display in college basketball.

You have to moderate this statement. The truth is that this is very similar to the point about restricting the equipment to keep the game interesting. Some people prefer the style of play in college and it may be b/c the players are inferior, but that isn't the reason they prefer that style of play (many fans insist it's b/c the players are better coached, more disciplined, whatever). It's similar to why women's tennis is the only really popular women's sport. It can be more interesting to watch women play b/c it's not such a serve and volley game, leading to more interesting play.

Posted by mpowell | February 22, 2008 12:24 PM

As someone who's always like the NBA and the college game, I am constantly perplexed by people who show a complete disgust with the NBA. There seems to a belief that college players try much, much harder, which I simply don't find to be true. I happen to like the NBA much better, because it is simply a better product. I'm also fairly confident that the use of PED's in the NBA is minimal. It just wouldn't be as helpful in this particular sport. Who knows? Maybe I'm being naive.

Posted by Craig Greg | February 22, 2008 12:25 PM

Somewhat similarly, it seems to me that many people actively prefer the inferior level of skill, strength, and athleticism on display in college basketball.

I prefer college basketball because it tends to be more of a team game, and because generally the players try harder on defense.

In my observation, there are a ton of plays in an NBA game where a team gets into the front court, stands around for a bit, runs some time off the 24, then runs some sort of play in the last 5-8 seconds. In college, teams tend to get into their offense earlier, and despite having more time, they actually use much of that time to work for a good shot. The players don't shoot as well, and on the aggregate, they're far less athletic, but I get the sense that everyone is trying a lot harder, and that makes it more fun to watch.

And it's understandable that NBA players give the impression that they aren't always trying their hardest. The season is three times longer, there's more travel, they play more often, and there's less at stake in every regular season game (except maybe this year in the West).

Plus, there's the emotional attachment to your university, as opposed to the emotional attachment to a multi-million dollar corporation. I prefer both basketball and football at the college level. Baseball and hockey, I still like the pros.

Posted by Seitz | February 22, 2008 12:26 PM

Anyone who prefers women's tennis over men's is silly. If you like it because they have longer points, go watch someone play Pong. The speed and skill of the men's game dwarfs the women's. Although I will say that women's tennis is one of the most enjoyable women's sports to watch.

Posted by Craig Greg | February 22, 2008 12:30 PM

There seems to a belief that college players try much, much harder, which I simply don't find to be true.

I think they try harder from start to finish of a game. I think the action at the end of a close NBA game is very exciting. For example, I thought the last five minutes or so of the Lakers-Suns game the other night was very exciting (I'm a Lakers fan, to the extent I follow the NBA). The action and intensity were great. But I had to sit through 40 minutes of routine game to get it.

When I watch UCLA play Arizona, or (what used to be) Illinois vs. Wisconsin, I get that from the opening tip, and I get it for forty minutes.

Posted by Seitz | February 22, 2008 12:33 PM

If you really thought the first 40 minutes of that Suns-Lakers game was boring, maybe you don't like basketball.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2008 12:35 PM

Seitz,
Fair enough. At least you watch both the sports. I feel like a lot of people make generalizations about the NBA without really watching it. I will agree that the intensity of the college game appears to be higher often times. Like you kind of alluded to earlier, there is more at stake with each game. I would much rather watch a Kansas-Texas game with the Big 12 on the line in February as opposed to a Celtics-Spurs matchup the same month.

Posted by Craig Greg | February 22, 2008 12:39 PM

The real issue is not about athleticism; the real issue is that college basketball players are on average much smaller, a little shorter and a whole lot less muscular. This makes for a roomier court and more lateral movement, both in the half court and on fast breaks.

Moreover, college fans are much cooler and more energetic, by virtue of being 19 and having less responsibility the next morning, than NBA fans are. This improves the atmosphere of the games to a remarkable degree. Even during big games, NBA arenas go through some dead periods, whereas in big games, college arenas rock from the tip to the final buzzer.

Finally, because the three point line is closer, you have a lot more outside shooting, even if the percentages aren't any better, which leads to a lot more point swings and momentum changes. The three has long surpassed the dunk as the most crowd-energizing shot in basketball.

I prefer the NBA myself, because the athleticism is incredible, but I don't think it's the inferiority of the athletes that makes people prefer college ball.

Posted by jhupp | February 22, 2008 12:40 PM

but I get the sense that everyone is trying a lot harder, and that makes it more fun to watch.

You should check out the local Boys Club or even just a playground. In most of those games, if your team loses, you don't get to play again for another hour.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2008 12:40 PM

"It's similar to why women's tennis is the only really popular women's sport. It can be more interesting to watch women play b/c it's not such a serve and volley game, leading to more interesting play."

have you watched women's tennis lately? the top players are painfully boring because all they can do is rip the ball and their opponents can't get it back. with tennis it's a cycle between power players and finesse players being in charge.

Posted by john b | February 22, 2008 12:42 PM

"Somewhat similarly, it seems to me that many people actively prefer the inferior level of skill, strength, and athleticism on display in college basketball."

That's a joke, right? Inferior level of skill? What the hell are you smoking? Why are the conference championships and March Madness about 100 times more popular than recent-year NBA playoffs? Might it be because people prefer to watch REAL BASKETBALL, with teams that play as teams, that play defense, as opposed to the glitter-glamour schlockfest that is the NBA?

Why do our so-called NBA superstars get their butts whipped every time they play international ball? Why is the 2008 Olympic team being led by Coach K, if the NBA is so superior? Might it be because the international game--at which foreign NBA stars seem to do just fine with--requires, you know, college-like team play and discipline?

Get real, Yglesias. The NBA stopped playing basketball a long time ago.

Posted by Claudius | February 22, 2008 12:46 PM

Might it be because people prefer to watch REAL BASKETBALL, with teams that play as teams, that play defense, as opposed to the glitter-glamour schlockfest that is the NBA?

You're a moron. It's not a close question: NBA players are substantially better, and better trained, than college players. The reason we moved to NBA Olympic teams is because college players--and this was when good college players stayed more than a year--couldn't keep up with the rest of the world. There's a reason we haven't moved back.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2008 12:52 PM

Anyone who prefers women's tennis over men's is silly. If you like it because they have longer points, go watch someone play Pong. The speed and skill of the men's game dwarfs the women's. Although I will say that women's tennis is one of the most enjoyable women's sports to watch.

Yeah but Federer looks like crap in a skirt. Maybe if he shaved his legs... no, no I think not.

Posted by IMU | February 22, 2008 12:56 PM

Imu,
Have you actually seen Federer in a skirt? Not bad.

Claudius,
I agree with Tim, you are a moron. You just gave the most cliche reasons for not liking the NBA. My guess would be that you haven't watched an NBA game in some time. "The NBA stopped playing basketball a long time ago." How can you be taken seriously? I'm surprised you didn't resort to calling all the players "thugs."

Posted by Craig Greg | February 22, 2008 1:00 PM

I would be surprised if there wasn't a good deal of PED use in the NBA. HGH and steroids would provide the same benefits to basketball players that it provides to baseball and football players and track stand field athletes . Basketball players coming off of major injuries would have the same need for HGH and steroids.

Posted by blah | February 22, 2008 1:00 PM

HGH and steroids would provide the same benefits to basketball players that it provides to baseball and football players and track stand field athletes

I think it depends on the sorts of skill involved. I don't imagine baseball players use steroids to become better fielders--which seems like the sort of skill that would most closely (though still badly) approximate what a basketball player would want to do--though perhaps I'm wrong.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2008 1:04 PM

Are music fans secretly in favor of Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson? I don't think so. It sounds like Steven Dubner likes soap opera and controversy, not sports. I like sports. If you have too much cheating and scandal sport becomes farce, like professional wrestling. There is an audience for that but it's not a sports audience. The fact that sports still had a massive audience pre-Jim Bouton's 'Ball Four' suggests that sport itself is sufficient to gain an audience.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 22, 2008 1:04 PM

Also, when many people say they're "huge college basketball fans," they usually mean they're huge March Madness fans. Of course the tournament is sweet. Its a 65 team, single elimination tourney. What's not to like? Oh, and Dick Vitale is an idiot.

Posted by Craig Greg | February 22, 2008 1:06 PM

My understanding is that PEDS help improve training, endurance, speed, strength, and recuperation time. It's the reasons they used in so many different sports - baseball, football, boxing, weightlifting, cycling, sprinting, long distance running, jumping, etc. etc. I see no reason why PEDs wouldn't give NBA players a competitive advantage as well.

Posted by blah | February 22, 2008 1:09 PM

Man ... I am so sick of the meme that NBA players don't play defense. What utter nonsense. I've watched far more college ball this year than NBA games, and when I tuned-in the Lakers-Suns game the other night I was simply gob-smacked at the quality of play. Yeah, both teams scored over 120 points, but that doesn't mean that there was no defense being played. It means that it's awfully hard to keep these guys from scoring. How do you shut-down Steve Nash's passing? Kobe? Gasol? Good luck keeping them from getting getting their twenty plus points each. In college there's always one guy on the floor you can ignore (often two or three). In the pros, everyone can score. Pro's have the experience and have a high incentive for learning about their game and doing extraordinarily well at it. It's crazy to think that a bunch kids just out of high school are going to play harder defense.

Posted by DanF | February 22, 2008 1:18 PM

Al is right. There are a small number of zealots who think that college basketball is top-notch and the NBA is an inferior product. But most of us who enjoy college basketball do so despite the less-impressive displays of basketball skills. It's all about the great rivalries, the game-day atmosphere, the unpredictability, the vastly superior post-season format, the wider variety of styles of play, and the appeal of watching raw talent mature into NBA-caliber players.

I enjoy watching pro basketball because of the higher quality of play, but I tend not to care as much about the outcomes.

However, as a lifelong Indiana Hoosiers fan, cheating is a sore subject today. And I'm increasingly disgruntled with the open corruption and exploitation of big-time college sports and "student athletics" in general.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 22, 2008 1:29 PM

Every time I hear the claim that the pros shoot so much better, I go and look at the stats. The result is always the same. College players shoot a higher percentage. If pros worked their offense like college kids did maybe they would shoot close to the same percentage.

I do watch the occassional pro game for as long as I can stand and I inevitably find myself thinking "This is what happens when sport becomes big business. The sport always takes back seat to the business."

Posted by socratic_me | February 22, 2008 1:40 PM

blah, I completely agree with you on PEDs in basketball. There's absolutely no question that players are much, much more muscular than they used to be. If muscles meant nothing in basketball, why isn't everyone as skinny as the great players were 25+ years ago? And PED's help not only with sheer strength but with speed and explosiveness (probably including jumping ability) too. I think there's no chance whatsoever that the NBA is free of PED usage. I think it's very likely to be pretty widespread.

jhupp, I agree also with your point about the size of players in college. There was a discussion here about a year ago about expanding the NBA court. The consensus seemed to be against it. The argument in favor of it is that a bigger court makes the 2008 version of Shaq even more of a liability, not to mention the Mbengas of the world, while making smaller, quicker players more valuable.

I wonder how tennis would be now if the ruling authorities had limited the size of racket heads or restricted rackets to wood or metal. No more standing behind the baseline wailing away at the ball.

Posted by Pesto | February 22, 2008 1:47 PM

I'll agree with everything LaFollette Progressive says except about the vastly superior post season. It's exciting, but one-and-done is not good for my digestion (Go Hoosiers!).

Posted by DanF | February 22, 2008 1:47 PM

Socratic_me, higher shooting percentages do not necessarily mean better offense. They can also mean longer shot clocks, smaller and less athletic defenders, and a three-point line that's two feet closer to the basket. The reason they "work" their offenses is because they've got more time to do it. But if you don't think NBA teams work their offenses, watch San Antonio, Dallas, or Utah. They're masterful at it.

Also, if you think college basketball isn't a business, I envy you. I wish I could go back to that same sense of childlike wonder when I watched sports.

Posted by jhupp | February 22, 2008 1:54 PM

The other reason college teams "work" their offense is because college players play terrible defense. There are whole college offenses built around back-door cuts. How many times can you fool an NBA defense with a back-door cut? A couple times a game? And if they know it's coming, maybe never.

Also, college players don't have to shoot real 3-pointers. Anyone, including me, can shoot from 19-9.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2008 1:58 PM

Socratic,
Your post is so mind-blowingly stupid, its almost hard to believe you actually believe it. So let's get this straight, you think that college basketball players are BETTER shooters than the professionals? Regardless of what the percentages are, how could this possibly make sense? Also, you said the NBA players might shoot as high a percetage if they worked their offense like the college teams do. Do you know anything about basketball? Do you know the difference in the shot clock? Do you the difference in distance between the two three point lines? Tim Duncan would be one of the best 3 point shooters if he played in college. You are a silly person who has no legitimate point. How has the sport taken a backseat to the business? In what way?

Posted by Craig Greg | February 22, 2008 1:58 PM

Really? College basketball is superior? That is the politically correct opinion, but how can anyone actually sit through a game? Sure the arena atmosphere is far superior, but between a 35 second shot clock, far too close 3 point line (the combination of which causes far too many situations where a team dribbles the ball around the perimeter for 30 seconds and then takes an ill advised 3), tv time-outs every two minutes, and absolutely horrible officiating (the NBA officiating is bad, but not nearly this bad), the game is completely unwatchable except in March.

Posted by jacobus | February 22, 2008 1:59 PM

Man ... I am so sick of the meme that NBA players don't play defense.

In college, you rarely see as many jump shots simply go uncontested like you do in the NBA. There may be good reason for that. Few college players can blow by a guy like Kobe can, so they'll back off a bit. And the big men in the NBA can actually catch if Kobe drives and dishes, and those guys are a lot rarer in college basketball. But the intensity of the defense both on the ball and away from the ball is consistently greater in college. It's not that NBA guys don't play defense. It's just that there seem to be as much defensive pressure.

Every time I hear the claim that the pros shoot so much better, I go and look at the stats. The result is always the same. College players shoot a higher percentage.

Those links didn't work for me, but my eye says that NBA players are better jump shooters. I don't know if the stats you looked at showed any differences in jumps shots versus lay-ups, etc.

Posted by Seitz | February 22, 2008 2:01 PM

I think college football is a better sport to use for inferior players allowing different strategies. For example, no pro team in their right mind would run a triple option offense because defenses are too fast and strong, so it would lead to a dead quarterback.

As far as basketball in the NBA being dead. Only someone who hasn't watched pro hoops in the last 3 years would say that. I would say the current season is the best season of all around play since the time before the Bad Boys ruined things.

Posted by Mo | February 22, 2008 2:05 PM

This is what happens when sport becomes big business.

You have a curious definition of big business. College sports--and college basketball in particular--is the most openly corrupt widely publicized endeavor in the US. The only thing that really bothers me about the Webber deal is that he rented himself so cheaply.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 22, 2008 2:10 PM

Can't believe you'd say that about college basketball.

College basketball is the garage rock of hoops. The creative melding of individually inadequate parts, and a youthful energy that doesn't know any better, produces a lot of interesting results.

NBA is more like the Gin Blossoms of hoops.

Posted by Alan in SF | February 22, 2008 2:42 PM

If the NBA is the Gin Blossoms of hoops, then that makes college basketball Smashmouth.

Posted by Craig Greg | February 22, 2008 2:46 PM

This might explain a lot about the various ethical corners that Dubner and Levitt have cut in their rise to riches and fame.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 22, 2008 2:56 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Steve Sailer prefers college hoops to the NBA.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2008 3:18 PM

As was pointed out earlier, part of the reason that the defense doesn't seem as intense in the NBA is that if you play the type of defense that is played in college, you will get killed. First of all, the hand-check rules eliminate most contact on the perimeter so if you get right up on the point guard, you are probably going to get called for the foul. Secondly, even if you could get right up on him, the guards in the NBA are so strong and quick, and such great ballhandlers, that they will blow by you more often than not. As a result, perimeter defenders generally have to play off a bit which makes the defense appear weaker than it is. Also, jumpshots are almost never blocked so it is somewhat pointless to go for one, which most NBA players understand.

If the defense is so poor in the NBA then why does Kevin Durant suck so badly in the pros? And why do at least 90% of college players perform worse on offense their first year in the NBA. Do you really think that a rookie, living his NBA dream, is dogging it relative to how hard he played in college?

As far as the ridiculous "team game" argument, passing the ball around the wing 8 times a possession does not mean you are playing more "as a team." It just means you aren't efficient with your passing. Playing as a team means playing to win and I really don't think that the vast majority of NBA teams are not trying hard every night.

Honestly though, I just can't understand how you can watch college basketball on tv. I get the in game experience, but on tv the crowd noise is just static and the level of play is just so low that I get bored immediately.

Posted by Ethan | February 22, 2008 4:13 PM

The college vs. NBA argument always strikes me as really weird. My sense is that most people like both. Maybe you prefer one or the other a little, but it's a small minority that for some reason wants to dismiss the one he/she doesn't like more.

Posted by Antid Oto | February 22, 2008 4:13 PM

Here's the college coach's idea of "working your offense" and playing a team game: I've read a couple of anecdotes about coaches (Bob Knight is one, but there are others) who are furious if you don't make at least x number of passes before you shoot. If you've got a good shot, you should pass it up, make 2 more pointless passes, and then settle for a worse shot. That's not team basketball, that's just stupid.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2008 4:21 PM

I think Antid Oto gets it right. I prefer college hoops, basically for the reasons being offered here. But I think the argument is much weaker than it once was, as the elimination of illegal defense and the rise of suns-style play has made the nba much better. There was a stretch where the nba really was just one guy backing someone down and four other guys watching but it's not the case anymore. That suns-lakers game the other day was one of the best regular season games I've seen in a long time.

Posted by future man | February 22, 2008 10:31 PM

I'm glad you're coming around, future man. All I can say is, watch more. That Suns-Lakers game wasn't an anomaly. Hell, on the same night, the Warriors and Celtics probably played an even more entertaining game.

Maybe I'll even give the college game another chance. With that one-year-in-college rule, now I get to watch some good players on that level. I'm sure glad it wasn't around when LeBron came up, though. The idea of watching LeBron James follow the orders of some jerkoff college coach, passing it around the perimeter and "working the offense," would be an offense to the basketball gods.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2008 11:33 PM

It isn't "top notch" basketball that you get in the NBA. Its the showcasing of individual talent.

If you want "top notch" basketball you'll have to tune into the international game, which regularly produces teams capable of wiping the floor with any collection of individual NBA all-stars. How do they do it? Through passing and jump shots.

Posted by jeff | February 23, 2008 6:05 PM

jeff: "If you want "top notch" basketball you'll have to tune into the international game, which regularly produces teams capable of wiping the floor with any collection of individual NBA all-stars."

See you this summer, it ain't gonna be pretty.

Posted by Andruw | February 23, 2008 8:56 PM

yiJPL3 hi nice site man thx http://peace.com

Posted by bob | March 4, 2008 8:46 AM