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

beast (6h) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?

beast (6h) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach

Zero2Cool (16h) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one

Zero2Cool (16h) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.

dfosterf (18h) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season

Zero2Cool (19h) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job

dfosterf (20h) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁

Zero2Cool (20h) : Thank you

wpr (20h) : Z, glad you are feeling better.

wpr (20h) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.

Zero2Cool (20h) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.

wpr (20h) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.

dfosterf (20h) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.

Zero2Cool (21h) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.

Zero2Cool (21h) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.

Martha Careful (21h) : just kidding...it was down

Martha Careful (21h) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor

dfosterf (21h) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious

beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere

beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.

beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.

beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...

beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered

wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.

wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.

wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet

beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury

beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State

beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE

packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome

Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.

Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.

Mucky Tundra (20-Jan) : what's so funny?

Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24

Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM

Eagles

10 - 22