Another chapter in "We've Lost Our Freakin' Minds": Episode #31045 NCAA allows athletes to gamble on pro sports

  • Hi Guest, we are working on updating the site servers and software. We're also 'forcing' everyone to read and agree to our site privacy policy and terms of service. There are no significant changes to either of these but the terms page does clarify a few things that are mostly in the legalese. You can just click the checkbox for both and continue using the site as usual! We'll update you more on the site upgrades VERY soon! THANK YOU AS ALWAYS for supporting the site and being an active participant!

CB4

Hall of Fame
Aug 8, 2011
11,781
19,209
187
Birmingham, AL
That might apply to SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS, but we're talking the integrity of the damn game.

We have already had basketball point-shaving scandals at CCNY that went all over the country, Boston College (Henry Hill of "Goodfellas" fame), Tulane, and simultaneous b-ball and football scandals at Northwestern.

We've had at least one fixed World Series (probably more), Hall of Famers (or potential) suspended or banned from several sports, and several everyday players suspended.

And btw, this was just one month ago:

NCAA: 13 players from 6 schools involved in gambling schemes - ESPN
As pointed out in this most recent case, the players were providing inside info to third parties, betting on their own teams etc..

So in restricting them to betting on pro sports only, does this really “prevent” anything?

Let’s say I’m a starting on Acme University’s basketball team. But I spent the fall betting pro football and did poorly. So poorly that I’m $25k in the hole. Someone finds out (trust me people talk) and individual says he can make this problem go away by having you shave a few points in Acme U’s next game. And he can make it a little better for you if in the future you have team mates or friends on other teams that might want in on it.

Do you think the NBA was concerned about Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan losing millions in casinos? No not for them personally. They were concerned however about what losing that amount of money “might” lead them to do get even. I’ve been in the GA rooms long enough to simply say that many have no idea what gamblers will do to “catch up” . I’ve heard some crazy things that would blow your mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg

CB4

Hall of Fame
Aug 8, 2011
11,781
19,209
187
Birmingham, AL
1) Guy with NIL money bets on pro sports - good line of credit because he's rich
2) Guy gets in debt
3) Guy is offered chance to clear his debt, oh and he's the quarterback or a skill position player who handles the ball a lot.

In this case as CB4 noted above, we're not talking a mature 30-year-old.
Thank you. I just posted something similar right after you.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
40,256
36,664
287
55
As pointed out in this most recent case, the players were providing inside info to third parties, betting on their own teams etc..

So in restricting them to betting on pro sports only, does this really “prevent” anything?

Let’s say I’m a starting on Acme University’s basketball team. But I spent the fall betting pro football and did poorly. So poorly that I’m $25k in the hole. Someone finds out (trust me people talk) and individual says he can make this problem go away by you shaving a few points in Acme U’s next game. And he can make it a little better for you if the future if you have team mates or friends on other teams that might want in on it.

Do you think the NBA was concerned about Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan losing millions in casinos? No not for them personally. They were concerned however about what losing that amount of money “might” lead them to do get even. I’ve been in the GA rooms long enough to simply say that many have no idea what gamblers will do to “catch up” . I’ve heard some crazy things that would blow your mind.
I always thought one of the biggest scandals - that MLB covered up at the time - was their umpires being put on what was apparently "double secret" probation at the same time they were banishing Pete Rose from the game.

March 8, 2002


Major league umpires Frank Pulli and Richie Garcia were placed on two years' probation in 1989 after a secret investigation into gambling on sports other than baseball. The New York Daily News said John Dowd, also the investigator in the Pete Rose gambling probe, wrote the report that led to the sanctions against the two umpires.

Fay Vincent, who was deputy commissioner and later commissioner in 1989, said that Don Zimmer -- then manager of the Chicago Cubs -- also was placed on probation in 1989 for betting on sports other than baseball. Zimmer discussed the sanction in a book published last year.

"These guys came in, they didn't deny it, it was no big deal," Vincent said. "That was it."

Vincent said the case was minor is his mind because there was no evidence of betting on baseball. Rose, the manager of the Cincinnati Reds, agreed to a lifetime ban that same year following an investigation into his gambling. While there was no official finding, commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti said he had concluded that Rose, the career hits leader, had bet on baseball.

Pulli and Garcia did not respond to attempts to reach them by the Daily News. Pulli did not return a telephone call Friday from The Associated Press seeking comment and Garcia could not be contacted. Pulli is entering his third season as an umpire supervisor and baseball is considering hiring Garcia as a supervisor.

Sandy Alderson, executive vice president of baseball operations in the commissioner's office, declined comment.

===================

But what is to stop the umpires - who have far bigger say in the outcome of a game than Pete Rose did - from having an Eric Gregg level strike zone to help a team win and help clear a debt? You know, it was at exactly this same time Tim Donaghy was rigging the outcome of the NBA playoffs.

Rich Garcia was the guy who thoroughly botched Game One of the 1996 ALCS, when he gave a home run to the Yankees when a 12-year-old kid interfered.

You think that doesn't look completely different when you find out the guy had been on probation for gambling?
 

NoNC4Tubs

Hall of Fame
Nov 13, 2010
10,022
6,048
187
Central Alabama
But what is to stop the umpires - who have far bigger say in the outcome of a game than Pete Rose did - from having an Eric Gregg level strike zone to help a team win and help clear a debt? You know, it was at exactly this same time Tim Donaghy was rigging the outcome of the NBA playoffs.

Rich Garcia was the guy who thoroughly botched Game One of the 1996 ALCS, when he gave a home run to the Yankees when a 12-year-old kid interfered.

You think that doesn't look completely different when you find out the guy had been on probation for gambling?
IMHO, I believe we saw indication of that in Knoxville three years ago with Jason Autrey......... :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: bamamc1 and dtgreg

Isaiah 63:1

All-American
Dec 8, 2005
2,943
2,868
187
Probably at 35k or in an airport somewhere
1) Guy with NIL money bets on pro sports - good line of credit because he's rich
2) Guy gets in debt
3) Guy is offered chance to clear his debt, oh and he's the quarterback or a skill position player who handles the ball a lot.

In this case as CB4 noted above, we're not talking a mature 30-year-old.
Fair enough; and yet the incentive to accept an offer in exchange for your #3 will still be there even if athletes don't themselves gamble, will it not? It'll probably just come with less of a threat ("...or else you might get in an accident that ends your playing career..."). Love of money and our corruptible nature are the root causes here, aren't they? Gambling is just the incarnation. It's not that all temptations should be legalized - as a relatively recent former Oregonian I've seen first-hand the predictable, negative effects of that - but that to preclude 97% of a group (based on @CB4 's stats) from a legal activity to prevent the irresponsible 3% from legally accessing it seems like too blunt an instrument to me; but I can understand how someone else might not see it that way; it's a judgment, I guess, or perhaps just a preference.

@CB4 Is it safe to say that the 3% to whom you refer are the ones most likely to engage in illicit gambling if legal gambling is proscribed to them? Would illicit gambling be more likely to lead to an "integrity of the game" issue than gambling through a legal sports book?
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
40,256
36,664
287
55
Fair enough; and yet the incentive to accept an offer in exchange for your #3 will still be there even if athletes don't themselves gamble, will it not? It'll probably just come with less of a threat ("...or else you might get in an accident that ends your playing career...").
Yes that's always been there. But we're talking about reducing the possibilities, too.

I don't know if you recall the 1986 Rose Bowl (Iowa vs UCLA), but Iowa had a star running back named Ronnie Harmon. That same year that Bo Jackson won the Heisman, Harmon only had 151 fewer yards from scrimmage than Bo did (and played for the team with the runner-up, QB Chuck Long). In that game, Harmon - who had ONE FUMBLE in the 1985 season - had four lost fumbles (three in the first period) and dropped a TD pass in the end zone with 12 minutes left. They had an investigation that concluded Harmon wasn't throwing the game - but he was involved with those mob affiliated goons (Norby Walters and Lloyd Bloom) who went around signing dozens of athletes to contracts and then blackmailing them.

So I agree it's THERE - but it's sorta like the fact that if you legalize a machine gun we'll no doubt have EVEN MORE shootings than we do now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CB4 and Isaiah 63:1

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
40,256
36,664
287
55
IMHO, I believe we saw indication of that in Knoxville three years ago with Jason Autrey......... :rolleyes:
It will not surprise me if we one day learn that's true.

It will not surprise me if we learn Eric Gregg rigged Game Five of the 1997 NLCS, either. But at least in a case like that, a team has to lose FOUR games not just one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoNC4Tubs

CB4

Hall of Fame
Aug 8, 2011
11,781
19,209
187
Birmingham, AL
@CB4 Is it safe to say that the 3% to whom you refer are the ones most likely to engage in illicit gambling if legal gambling is proscribed to them? Would illicit gambling be more likely to lead to an "integrity of the game" issue than gambling through a legal sports book?
You pose an interesting question and truthfully I don’t think a can give you a factually based opinion. The “3%” number is based on those believed to have pathological gambling issue across all forms of gambling, legal or illegal. I could be wrong but in my mind, for the compulsive gambler, it doesn’t matter if it is legal or illegal. The behavior is as much about “action”’ and “winning” as is about money.

As to having legal options to gamble versus illegal forms and it possibly have less of an effect on risk to “integrity of the game” issues, I would say possibly. However I have seen those in “behind the eight ball”’ in both situations that have done absolutely unfathomable things in order to “catch up”.