CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

1951 college basketball point-shaving scandal

College basketball gambling scandal

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 27, 2026
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

In 1951, allegations of point-shaving and match fixing in college basketball revealed widespread bribery and corruption involving major colleges and universities in and around New York City, particularly at Madison Square Garden. While the public scandal officially involved at least seven American colleges and universities, the scandal has been most closely associated with the 1949–50 CCNY Beavers, which won both the 1950 NCAA basketball tournament and 1950 National Invitation Tournament and had a number of players implicated in point shaving and match fixing.

Editorial summary

“1951 college basketball point-shaving scandal” enters the record as college basketball gambling scandal. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what college, basketball and point-shaving can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1951, 1949, 1950—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around college, basketball and point-shaving.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“1951 college basketball point-shaving scandal” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, college, basketball and point-shaving provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 27, 2026. The first chronological checks are 1951, 1949 and 1950.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “1951 college basketball point-shaving scandal”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 1951 college basketball point-shaving scandal primary sources, 1951 college basketball point-shaving scandal archive and college research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “1951 college basketball point-shaving scandal”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “1951 college basketball point-shaving scandal” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.