“In this video call, the fixers instructed Gray to fix the upcoming Fordham basketball game against the Duquesne University Dukes Men’s Basketball Team by helping to ensure that Fordham failed to cover the spread,” the document charges.“The fixers also asked Gray to recruit another Fordham basketball player to join the point-shaving scheme. Gray agreed to do so and then recruited Person #4, known to the grand jury, to join the scheme.From there, Smith contacted Gray and Person #4 to instruct them to underperform and ensure Fordham failed to cover the spread.Smith allegedly reminded both players that they would receive bribe payments if the scheme succeeded.According to the document, the fixers placed various wagers across different sportsbooks totaling upwards of $195,000 on Duquesne to cover the full-game spread.

Fordham was a 3.5-point favorite in the contest and won the game handily, 79-67, meaning the fixers lost their bet.After the game, Smith contacted Gray, who scored just three points in the contest.During this exchange, Gray allegedly told Smith, “I tried,” and said that the Duquesne players “were not hoopin’.”

Actually, Duquesne was a 2 1/2-point favorite, the fixers bet the Dukes to cover. Leave it to the Dukes to lose a game badly when the other team was trying to throw it. Should make for an interesting national TV game Saturday, right?  #OnlyDuquesne

[url=​https://nypost.com/2026/01/15/sports/ex-fordham-player-named-in-extensive-college-basketball-point-shaving-scandal/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20document%2C%20the,cover%20the%20full%2Dgame%20spread.&text=Fordham%20was%20a%203.5%2Dpoint,the%20fixers%20lost%20their%20bet.]​https://nypost.com/2026/01/15/sports/ex-fordham-player-named-in-extensive-college-basketball-point-shaving-scandal/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20document%2C%20the,cover%20the%20full%2Dgame%20spread.&text=Fordham%20was%20a%203.5%2Dpoint,the%20fixers%20lost%20their%20bet.[/url]

Last edited by DennisC91 (1/15/2026 1:55 pm)

DennisC91 wrote:

And for the St. Louis game...During those conversations, prosecutors allege that Ezewiro agreed to intentionally “underperform and influence an upcoming St. Louis game against Duquesne” to help ensure SLU failed to cover a first-half point spread, “in exchange for bribe payments,” according to the indictment.The indictment further alleges another unidentified SLU player – identified as “Person #3” – agreed to the same arrangement.Fixers allegedly placed around $242,000 in bets on Duquesne to cover the first-half spread ahead of its Feb. 20, 2024 game against SLU. Prosecutors allege Ezewiro and Person #3 “helped ensure that St. Louis failed to cover the spread in the first half,” with SLU trailing 41-27 at halftime.According to the indictment, SLU played “substantially better” in the second half, outscoring Duquesne 40-39, a contrast prosecutors say indicates the first-half underperformance was intentional.

I'm sure the prosecutors are basing the claims on substantial evidence. The difference in scoring by halves in the SLU game is obviously not part of the evidence. Any basketball player or fan understands that much larger shifts than that can happen - validly. This is true in every sport.
 

Forget the results, the cellphone evidence is all that matters. Yes, they were involved. These players are too stupid to believe, yet, they did?

Being a Dukes fan ain't easy.

So Duquesne managed to lose by 13 to a team with two players who were trying to throw the game?

I have been reading up on the correlation between widespread legalized gambling & the increase in game fixing in college basketball. Interestingly, the link is believed to be driven by the players' exposure to sports betting platforms via social media & exacerbated by their personal betting habits.

Yes, CLK, it will be hard not to be suspicious of anomalous plays & unlikely game outcomes as related to betting lines. That sucks.

I do understand how some players get blackmailed into participating in these schemes because criminals have compromising information about them or hold their gambling debts. I find it perplexing in the era of NIL that players not leveraged by organized crime with even conservative NIL compensation packages to go along with their free tuition, housing, clothing, shoes, & meal plans would risk those income streams & their futures for $8-10,000. I know what a knucklehead I was at 20, but I don't think I was so lacking in judgment as to derail such a lucrative a gravy train.

I recall a bit of that game and I think they had one guy who had a career day and hit a bunch of shots.

I remember that Fordham game very well as I was one of the very few who saw both the high point (the BYU tournament win) and low point (this Fordham loss) of the Dukes historic season. If the slimeballs were only betting the first half, I wouldn't think they got swindled too much. It was a pretty even first half with the Dukes having a slight edge. Remembering the second half makes me wonder if some Dukes were taking money (not really, but they were terrible). The Rams totally dominated the second half, even worse than the score indicates. If anyone wants to check the box score, it's here: https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore/_/gameId/401596915

For a timely viewpoint, here's the game thread from this fine board  https://duquesnefans.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=5350&p=1 If you really want a chuckle, check out the incredibly prescient second post.

For those of you who have not seen the indictment, here are the specific from the Fordham game.

56. On or about February 23, 2024, Fordham played against Duquesne in an NCAA men's basketball game at the Rose Hill Gymnasium, in the Bronx, New York. Duquesne was favored to win the game by approximately 3.5 points. Before the game, the fixers, including defendants MARVES FAIRLEY and SHANE HENNEN, and others acting at their direction, placed wagers with various sportsbooks totaling at least approximately $195,000 on Duquesne, most of which were on Duquesne to cover the full-game spread. In the process of fixing this game and placing these wagers, defendants FAIRLEY, HENNEN, JALEN SMITH, and RODERICK WINKLER, and Antonio Blakeney, communicated via text about the scheme and their wagers. For example, on the date of the game, Blakeney told this group to "[l]oad up [on bets on Duquesne]!! "

57. On or about February 23,2024, in the NCAA men's basketball game between Fordham and Duquesne, Elijah Gray and his teammate, Person #4, attempted to underperform and influence the game as they had agreed. Both players scored fewer points than their season averages, with Gray scoring 3 points.

58. In this game, Duquesne outscored Fordham 32 to 26 in the first half, but Fordham came back in the second half and won the game 79 to 67. This meant that the fixers who wagered on Duquesne for the full game lost their bets.

59. Shortly after this game, defendant JALEN SMITH and Elijah Gray communicated via text concerning the efforts of Gray and Person #4 to fix the game and the failure of the scheme to succeed. Gray told defendant SMITH, "I tried," and noted that the Duquesne players were "not hoopin," or played poorly, making it harder for Duquesne to cover the spread. Defendant SMITH totd Gray, "You did your job for sure," and bemoaned the fact that another Fordham player who was not involved in the scheme had an excellent game.

PhoenixRising2 wrote:

And after entering the wayback machine provided by luckymcd (thanks), it's either remarkable or appalling how some posters consistently miss the mark to this day.

Yes, but it's not easy being a marksman when the targets seem to move quickly and randomly.