Player benching viewed in world with gambling?

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

6 years ago

I was reading this and thought, that's a good point.

As I got to the bottom of the article I was thinking, why does gambling matter? Why should the NFL or any league have to change their disclosure policies to accommodate gambling?

After all, when you gamble, you are assuming risk. Are you not? If leagues are going to be forced to alternate anything to accommodate gambling, then I would rather gambling being outlawed permanently.

This part (one of several) that stuck out to me as absurd.

"Teams eventually may have to publish binding depth charts within, say, 48 hours before kickoff."

A lot can happen in 48 hours. What if the player falls in the shower, breaks their leg? Are you subjected to a penalty if the doctors x-ray doesn't show a significant enough break?

I am fine with those who want to risk their money. Its your own life, do whatever you wish, but to have things change to accommodate those risking their money is wrong.

What do you feel about this article and its point?

Here’s a great question that emerged in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision to allow legalized sports wagering in the 49 states that don’t have it: If Patriots coach Bill Belichick had planned to bench starting cornerback Malcolm Butler for the entirety of a Super Bowl (with the exception of one special-teams play) in an environment with widespread legal gambling, would Belichick have been able to keep that to himself?

The people who legally (in Nevada) and illegally (everywhere else) bet on the Patriots to cover in Super Bowl LII surely were miffed and perplexed that Butler didn’t play. If hundreds of millions of dollars legally had been bet on the Patriots and Belichick had made such an unexpected move for reasons that he chose (as he always does) to keep to himself, the reaction may have been far different.

This is just one of the many issues that NFL will have to consider as it braces for the unintended consequences of something that, on the surface, will result in much greater revenue for the sport. And it will be important for the league to anticipate the many unintended consequences and plan for them.

Continue reading @ProFootballTalk

Mike Florio wrote:

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

nerdmann
Premier Member

6 years ago

Because it goes to the integrity of the game.

For example, let’s say your star quarterback has a secret habit of sexually harassing female massage therapists. This may put him at risk of being blackmailed to throw horrible INTs in the playoffs.

Organized crime reaches deep. I mean look at the DPI rules, and what constitutes a catch. We already have officials determining the outcome of games.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

beast
Select Member

6 years ago

You got to give priorities to these things, and I think the final priority has to go to the team... which means if Bill does that kind of thing, then I think he has full right to do it... though I think he might have to explain it to the NFL (and they'll just look into it, and say it was alright and legal for Bill to do (because 1) It was, and 2) the NFL lies for themselves even if something isn't alright).

As far as betting would go, I would have a bigger problem with the purposely tanking like the Bucs seemed to do to lock up the 1st overall pick (which was used on QB Jameis Winston)...

And other teams have been accused of doing more of lately (even if that wasn't the case).

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

6 years ago

Originally Posted by: beast

No, absolutely, NO! The priority goes to the league and how their teams want to disclose their own information. If you want to be a fool and gamble, YOU assume 100% of the risk. Money is such a bullshit thing.

beast
Select Member

6 years ago

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Um, you just rudely said no... then very much agreed with what I was trying to saying... 😕

They only thing I said differently was the NFL would probably add a BS fake ass review board for PR reasons... the review board wouldn't actually be doing anything... just pretend to investigate and then give the NFL approve... sorta like all the other NFL fake investigations. So they would pretend to go investigate why Bill did it, and a couple of weeks later they'll give their seal of approval (in pretty much ever case)... sorta like all the other NFL fake investigations.

The Biggest Problem(s) the NFL Might Have

1) The interpretation of the rules (ie, is it a catch? Is it not a catch?)

2) When the NFL decides to not even follow their own written rules.

~ There was talk that the NFL didn't follow their current in place catch rules for the Super Bowl when doing NYC GameDay Central "booth" reviews, and where instead implying their new rules to it, before the new rule was even officially in place.

And I argued that late in the season that the NYC GameDay Central "booth" reviews seemed to be ignoring their own rule book. So I think the NYC "booth" lead by the head ref was going by a different rule book than the official one.

A Possible Players Problem

At one point the NFL got seriously fine crazy about big hits on ST units, trying to curve ST injuries via fines (which totally didn't work, but NFL likes trying poor management ideas).

But anyways, I noticed that if the announcer verbally pointed you out or even said your name, or talked about your hit... it was basically an automatic fine. Even if the big hit look pretty legal, they still got the fine when ever the announce talked about a big hit.

Interestingly, there were some bigger clearly illegal hits further away from the play, that the announcer didn't talk about and they were never given fines for those, because they didn't get airtime (which is how I think the NFL was halfway giving out fines... if anyone announcers or other teams, pointed out big hits, they gave them fines.)

My point being, the NFL could (stupidly) go back to very questionable fining practices, if/when the public/gambling places starts complaining more.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

6 years ago

Um, you just rudely said no... then very much agreed with what I was trying to saying... 😕

Originally Posted by: beast

The "rude" no was to giving priority to gambling over the leagues. I inferred that to mean leagues need to disclose more information to appease the betting community. Am I wrong with my inferrance?

beast
Select Member

6 years ago

You got to give priorities to these things, and I think the final priority has to go to the team... which means if Bill does that kind of thing, then I think he has full right to do it... though I think he might have to explain it to the NFL (and they'll just look into it, and say it was alright and legal for Bill to do (because 1) It was, and 2) the NFL lies for themselves even if something isn't alright).

Originally Posted by: beast

The "rude" no was to giving priority to gambling over the leagues. I inferred that to mean leagues need to disclose more information to appease the betting community. Am I wrong with my inferrance?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

It depends... I want to say, yes, you're mistaken with your inference... but it depends on how you interpret certain actions. Let's see if I can explain what I meant better and see you're thoughts. OR to save time, read the recap at the bottom

The "rude" no was to giving priority to gambling over the leagues.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I said giving priority to the teams, which I meant giving priority to the leagues over gambling (gambling needs the leagues a lot more than the leagues need gambling)

I inferred that to mean leagues need to disclose more information to appease the betting community.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Nope, I was suggesting the the league would probably set up a fake ass investigation committee or group or etc, to pretend to give a rats' ass about what their teams do and how it effects gambling...

Not because the league needs to... but because the league is huge into PR and pretending like they're taking a matter serious, when in reality it's mostly PR bullshiting...

So for example, if Bill sat Butler with no warning, then gambling people might get upset and this fake ass investigation committee will investigate, annoying the hell out of Bill for a few weeks and then sooner or later find that there is nothing to see here, you don't got to go home, but you can't stay here... because the NFL is doing their job perfectly bullshit.

So no, not because the NFL needs to... but because the NFL wants to
1) Pretend like they care
2) Pretend like they can be unbiased when monitor themselves

But the reality being, that it's nothing but PR and lies... and if they ever did find something, that they'd attempt to sweep it under the rug, just like they attempted to do with Spygate (and every other controversy)...

Recap
You're saying NO to the NFL caring about and changing for gambling.

I'm saying I think the NFL is going to FAKE caring and changing for gambling, but in reality there will be no real caring/change (at least not until the NFL gets caught in some betting scandal that they can't ignore)

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

6 years ago

I apologize for my misunderstanding. I am just very ardent that the leagues (regardless of sport) do not change anything to accommodate those risking their money. If you wanna put $100 on a team winning a game and they bench someone that you later feel cost that team a victory, tough titties. No one should have to jump through hoops for people who wish to gamble their money.

beast
Select Member

6 years ago

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I agree with that... the thing I think the NFL needs to fix (for all fans and ethics, not for gambling) is to have all the reviews following the NFL rulebook, which I'm still upset about because I feel pretty sure that the NFL/NYC headquarters review did not do at times last year... and both former NFL Head of Officiating seem to agree with me, as they publically spoke out how they couldn't figure out they made some of their calls because it went against the rulebook.

That needs to be fixed no matter what...

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

bboystyle (6m) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (16m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (36m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (45m) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (57m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (4h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (5h) : Packers will get in

beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS