Iowa, Iowa St gambling investigation

[Orangezoo]

Does the NCAA prohibit players from smoking cigarettes or (of age) drinking alcohol when they’re off campus and away from anything affiliated with the school/team?

I mean, if we’re so concerned with their well being, we should definitely be making sure they don’t do any legal things that could be harmful.

This isn't even remotely a good counter or relevant example unless you tune everything else out. What background do you have working with 18-24 year olds and their finances?

 

[Orangezoo]

Statistically speaking, 90% of gamblers (not a number I pulled from a hat, a real data-driven number) gamble responsibly and don’t have their world come crashing down around them because of it.

Rules that ‘protect’ the 1/10 who happen to be idiots are good rules? Okay.

Never said the world comes crashing down- that's you editorializing. That number means nothing unless you break down the demographics. Not to mention you are cherry picking vs addressing the holistic picture here.

Protecting them is only a part of it. Integrity of the game, stopping betting rings forming like the ASU example where you can influence a sport you aren't playing in just as much.

Also that 90 pct to boot is relative. It's a weak argument for advocating for it.

 

[Brooky03]

This isn't even remotely a good counter or example unless you tune everything else out. What background do you have working with 18-24 year olds and their finances?

What does working with the finances of 18-24 year olds have to do with anything?

I’m a CPA, btw, not that that should matter.

 

[Brooky03]

Never said the world comes crashing down- that's you editorializing. That number means nothing unless you break down the demographics. Not to mention you are cherry picking vs addressing the holistic picture here.

What’s the holistic picture? Protect young adults from themselves?

 

[Orangezoo]

What’s the holistic picture? Protect young adults from themselves?

Just read - it's been covered.

 

[Orangezoo]

What does working with the finances of 18-24 year olds have to do with anything?

I’m a CPA, btw, not that that should matter.

It means experience with the impacts of gambling when one lacks proper financial literacy. It impacts wealth and outcomes.. it's not rocket science but it's proven. Many athletes in major sports come from more challenging economic circumstances as well.

You are so adamant it's a dumb rule. Name one positive from it... as a CPA I would think you understand that element of this...

That said it falls secondary to outcomes being possibly impacted from betting rings.

 

[Brooky03]

Just read - it's been covered.

I read your posts. Are there other posts I missed? To be clear, I don’t think the argument that young adults are bad with money so we shouldn’t let them gamble legally is an argument that holds water.

 

[Brooky03]

It means experience with the impacts of gambling when one lacks proper financial literacy. It impacts wealth and outcomes.. it's not rocket science but it's proven. Many athletes in major sports come from more challenging economic circumstances as well.

You are so adamant it's a dumb rule. Name one positive from it... as a CPA I would think you understand that element of this...

That said it falls secondary to outcomes being possibly impacted from betting rings.

Entertainment. That’s the positive outcome. For most gamblers, including young adults, gambling is a source of entertainment, not a money making venture. But why does there have to be a positive outcome for it to be allowed?

You’ll have to explain your ‘betting ring’ comment to me. We’re talking about sports wagering in states where it is legal, through licensed sports books. We’re talking about wagers on games unaffiliated with the athlete placing the wager.

 

[Orangezoo]

I read your posts. Are there other posts I missed? To be clear, I don’t think the argument that young adults are bad with money so we should t let them gamble is an argument that holds water.

That isn't the only argument.. not at all. Also we are only disallowing a small segment/demographic of the population with this rule. Allowing it would be bad for college sports due to outcomes being potentially impacted .. while also resulting in certain at risk demographics being disproportionately impacted.

 

[Brooky03]

That isn't the only argument.. not at all. Also we are only disallowing a small segment/demographic of the population with this rule. Allowing it would be bad for college sports due to outcomes being potentially impacted .. while also resulting in certain at risk demographics being disproportionately impacted.

Okay, so from the integrity of the game angle:

1) We all agree they should not be betting on games they’re playing in. No controversy here.

2) Whether or not they should be allowed to bet on college games in their sport (games they have no connection to) is up for debate. I don’t see any real risk that college athletes are going to point shave for each other. But I suppose the risk is non-zero. Notably, the risk is no greater than the risk that some degenerate random dude gets ahold of a college athlete and gets him to point shave. But if the NCAA wants to prohibit this kind of betting, out of an abundance of caution, sure, fine.

3) The rule that I called very stupid: College athletes cannot bet on any sport, PRO or amateur, that their school participates in. So if a college football player wants to bet on a professional cornhole tournament and his school happens to have a cornole team, he’s risking his eligibility. That’s indefensibly stupid.

 

[Orangezoo]

Okay, so from the integrity of the game angle:

1) We all agree they should not be betting on games they’re playing in. No controversy here.

2) Whether or not they should be allowed to bet on college games in their sport (games they have no connection to) is up for debate. I don’t see any real risk that college athletes are going to point shave for each other. But I suppose the risk is non-zero. Notably, the risk is no greater than the risk that some degenerate random dude gets ahold of a college athlete and gets him to point shave. But if the NCAA wants to prohibit this kind of betting, out of an abundance of caution, sure, fine.

3) The rule that I called very stupid: College athletes cannot bet on any sport, PRO or amateur, that their school participates in. So if a college football player wants to bet on a professional cornhole tournament and his school happens to have a cornole team, he’s risking his eligibility. That’s indefensibly stupid.

I'll wager that they are betting on major sports not.. fringe sports. So the cornhole example (for dramatic effect) is statistically insignificant. Could they clear up the rule? Sure- clarity is always better in policy.

As for impact.. yeah it's greater than non-zero. That matters because what good does having a tolerance do here? I have yet to see this be unfairly administered or lawsuits coming out around the rule. This one will be the biggest to date without knowing all the details.

End of the day the cons out weight the pros.. follow the rules like most and there is no issue. It's not like not being able to bet has a high opportunity cost...

 

[Brooky03]

I'll wager that they are betting on major sports not.. fringe sports. So the cornhole example (for dramatic effect) is statistically insignificant. Could they clear up the rule? Sure- clarity is always better in policy.

As for impact.. yeah it's greater than non-zero. That matters because what good does having a tolerance do here? I have yet to see this be unfairly administered or lawsuits coming out around the rule. This one will be the biggest to date without knowing all the details.

End of the day the cons out weight the pros.. follow the rules like most and there is no issue. It's not like not being able to bet has a high opportunity cost...

Following the rules isn’t the issue. The rules themselves are the issue. Whether it’s major sports or cornhole, there’s no good reason to have a rule prohibiting betting on games an athlete does not and could not influence directly or indirectly. At least, not from an ‘integrity’ perspective.

I suspect the problem is that the rule was created before the recent wave of legal sports betting. The NCAA needs to catch up.

The NCAA, to my knowledge, does not prohibit athletes from gambling at casinos, online or in-person. If they have this rule to protect the athletes’ financial interests or mental health, or anything along those lines, the rule would not be restricted to sports betting.

The rule feels like a moral judgement more so than a practical consideration.

 

[Newhouser]

Following the rules isn’t the issue. The rules themselves are the issue. Whether it’s major sports or cornhole, there’s no good reason to have a rule prohibiting betting on games an athlete does not and could not influence directly or indirectly. At least, not from an ‘integrity’ perspective.

I suspect the problem is that the rule was created before the recent wave of legal sports betting. The NCAA needs to catch up.

The NCAA, to my knowledge, does not prohibit athletes from gambling at casinos, online or in-person. If they have this rule to protect the athletes’ financial interests or mental health, or anything along those lines, the rule would not be restricted to sports betting.

The rule feels like a moral judgement more so than a practical consideration.

I think you are correct.

 

[721Comstock]

Following the rules isn’t the issue. The rules themselves are the issue. Whether it’s major sports or cornhole, there’s no good reason to have a rule prohibiting betting on games an athlete does not and could not influence directly or indirectly. At least, not from an ‘integrity’ perspective.

I suspect the problem is that the rule was created before the recent wave of legal sports betting. The NCAA needs to catch up.

The NCAA, to my knowledge, does not prohibit athletes from gambling at casinos, online or in-person. If they have this rule to protect the athletes’ financial interests or mental health, or anything along those lines, the rule would not be restricted to sports betting.

The rule feels like a moral judgement more so than a practical consideration.

Meh.

I’d imagine the thought process now is more like:

College athlete bets on totally unrelated sports.

College athlete loses, again and again.
(because this is what happens to most novice gamblers)

College athlete has no way to repay debts.

College athlete gets involved in point shaving in their sport as a means to pay back their debt.

Is it a stretch?
Sure. Maybe?

I think gambling is stupid, and destructive.
For me, the pain of loss far outweighs the joy of gain.
(and I am very much a risk taker and adrenaline junkie in terms of sports and activities I do. Just not with money.)

Have seen too many families hurt and even destroyed by it.
(My wife’s included, her dad was a degenerate gambler - which to me, is redundant.)

 

[Forloveoforange]

I think these arguments, on most anything actually, often stem from a defense mechanism. "Let's see, I gamble, so therefore, I should find words to defend it, and therefore feel good about my past and present choices". People will find a way to justify.

 

[Sbucketball]

I just wish I could bet Syracuse games as a NY resident.

 

[Brooky03]

Meh.

I’d imagine the thought process now is more like:

College athlete bets on totally unrelated sports.

College athlete loses, again and again.
(because this is what happens to most novice gamblers)

College athlete has no way to repay debts.

College athlete gets involved in point shaving in their sport as a means to pay back their debt.

Is it a stretch?
Sure. Maybe?

I think gambling is stupid, and destructive.
For me, the pain of loss far outweighs the joy of gain.
(and I am very much a risk taker and adrenaline junkie in terms of sports and activities I do. Just not with money.)

Have seen too many families hurt and even destroyed by it.
(My wife’s included, her dad was a degenerate gambler - which to me, is redundant.)

There are so many things you can get caught up in and lose a bunch of money doing, though. Like the casino example. What’s the difference between losing it betting on sports vs. the slot machines or blackjack table or strip club or betting on the ponies?

Assuming we’re just talking about athletes in states with legal sports books, wagering through the sports books, debt is a smaller concern. They don’t let you bet on credit. You could get some cash advances from a credit card, but credit card companies aren’t giving college kids with no credit any kind of credit limit that can get them in real trouble, usually. Some of the higher profile guys could get loans, maybe, but that’s probably an NCAA violation itself. And the guys getting big NIL money could take it down to zero, but not negative, or not negative by much.

 

[atlanticuse]

I bet this is the tip of the iceberg
3:1 odds

 

[NYCCuse826]

Gambling is to this generation of college students as credit cards were to previous. You can't turn anywhere without it being offered to you. The addiction of gambling and fast money builds quickly if you don't have any discipline. When I gambled at SU, I had to do it at offshore books or have someone go to a bookie back home. Now, all you have to do is log in to an app.

 

[Newhouser]

I think these arguments, on most anything actually, often stem from a defense mechanism. "Let's see, I gamble, so therefore, I should find words to defend it, and therefore feel good about my past and present choices". People will find a way to justify.

Better than we take money from casinos and actively promote gaming sites but let's take the higher ground on 20 something year olds doing it.

 

[MSOrange]

Never said the world comes crashing down- that's you editorializing. That number means nothing unless you break down the demographics. Not to mention you are cherry picking vs addressing the holistic picture here.

Protecting them is only a part of it. Integrity of the game, stopping betting rings forming like the ASU example where you can influence a sport you aren't playing in just as much.

Also that 90 pct to boot is relative. It's a weak argument for advocating for it.

Agree with this. An athlete can bet on another sport, but if they lose and can’t make the payment, it’s not hard to see how that could lead to possibly making some bad choices that could impact games they are participating in.

 

[Orangezoo]

Following the rules isn’t the issue. The rules themselves are the issue. Whether it’s major sports or cornhole, there’s no good reason to have a rule prohibiting betting on games an athlete does not and could not influence directly or indirectly. At least, not from an ‘integrity’ perspective.

I suspect the problem is that the rule was created before the recent wave of legal sports betting. The NCAA needs to catch up.

The NCAA, to my knowledge, does not prohibit athletes from gambling at casinos, online or in-person. If they have this rule to protect the athletes’ financial interests or mental health, or anything along those lines, the rule would not be restricted to sports betting.

The rule feels like a moral judgement more so than a practical consideration.

You are arguing from a position of challenging the rule which I get. I don't see an argument for eliminating the rule at all. Obviously there are more than a few financial misteps one can take as a young person. That said zero tolerance for impacting the integrity of the sport seems more than fair. This isn't a cure to the ails of the game by any stretch but the rule has a net good effect unless it's resulting in mass suspensions over the equivalent of a scratch off. Which there is no evidence of whatsoever.

Many rules are intended to address moral hazard. That's a very common component. You have both impact to the sport, program and student athlete with betting on games irrelevant on sport. It's not a freedom issue- as a student athlete can just decide to gamble and not play. The two combined is sensible.

Backing out of the various rabbit holes I don't see a reason to reverse the rule unless it is having a significant negative impact on student athletes that outweighs the hazards the rule was intended for. That's the piece I haven't heard about or read and was driving at that I don't see in any of your criticism of the rule. No animus here either.

 

[Brooky03]

I think these arguments, on most anything actually, often stem from a defense mechanism. "Let's see, I gamble, so therefore, I should find words to defend it, and therefore feel good about my past and present choices". People will find a way to justify.

Find ways to justify what exactly?

 

[Brooky03]

Agree with this. An athlete can bet on another sport, but if they lose and can’t make the payment, it’s not hard to see how that could lead to possibly making some bad choices that could impact games they are participating in.

How does it differ from the other hundred ways a person could lose money they can’t repay? Gone are the days of placing a bet with a bookie, losing, not paying, and then getting shaken down by some dudes with bats at your doorstep. I could see this reasoning when guys could make a deal with the bookie to pay the debt by point shaving, but those days are gone.

 

[JustPherU]

How does it differ from the other hundred ways a person could lose money they can’t repay? Gone are the days of placing a bet with a bookie, losing, not paying, and then getting shaken down by some dues with bats at your doorstep. I could see this reasoning when guys could make a deal with the bookie to pay the debt by point shaving, but those days are gone.

I know lots of guys still using bookies, would not shock me if players are still on the take for mob types.