How does legalized gambling affect college basketball?

[mbc82584]

Although the original prohibition left loopholes for Nevada and smaller scale online gambling, yesterday's Supreme Court decision will clearly take all action to a fundamentally new level.

No one will ever be more than a short drive or a text message from placing any size bet they wish.

All major sports leagues will, at some point, be forced to reckon with the fact their referees can make far more money, very easily, through game manipulation than they can through calling an honest game.

The leagues can no longer hide behind the prohibition on the books.

So my question is how does this affect CBB?

Will the NCAA, at least on its face, take steps to avoid referee corruption? What might those steps be?

Auditing Financials? Referee raises? Better accountability with things like press conferences and open grading systems?

Refereeing is already bad enough as it is, and I personally believe a lot of dirty money has passed around those circles for years. Make no mistake though, it just got ramped to an entirely new level.

 

[GonzoCat90]

It'll pour a few extra billion into the pot every year and there still won't be enough to pay the players because that money is all used for lacrosse equipment and chemistry supplies.

 

[mbc82584]

As a side note--it's not just the refs. Players and even coaches will have similar temptations.

 

[dckala2]

Will prolly still use bovada for a while.

But I think it really affects the amateur status of college basketball and football. Surprised they didn’t make college gambling illegal. Seems like something the NCAA will do.

 

[mbc82584]

Will prolly still use bovada for a while.

But I think it really affects the amateur status of college basketball and football. Surprised they didn’t make college gambling illegal. Seems like something the NCAA will do.

Good point. Hell I bet on sports in high school. How could something like that (if proven) affect eligibility?

 

[mbc82584]

Or betting on sports in college on unrelated games?

 

[JC CATS]

It'll pour a few extra billion into the pot every year and there still won't be enough to pay the players because that money is all used for lacrosse equipment and chemistry supplies.

When you say chemistry supplies, is that code for "drugs"?

 

[BlueBomb]

The college refs won't be able to get into any trouble if they gamble on the games they call. Because everyone had the same ability to gamble.

UNC affect.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

It'll pour a few extra billion into the pot every year and there still won't be enough to pay the players because that money is all used for lacrosse equipment and chemistry supplies.

What pot would that be?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Will prolly still use bovada for a while.

But I think it really affects the amateur status of college basketball and football. Surprised they didn’t make college gambling illegal. Seems like something the NCAA will do.

How would the NCAA do that?

 

[GonzoCat90]

What pot would that be?

The one full of the collective revenue generated from TV deals, endorsements, ticket sales, etc. The one that pays Mark Emmert $1.9 million a year.

 

[sambowieshin]

Mo money....Mo money....Mo money.
Higgins approves this message.

 

[mj2k10]

One thing it will most certainly do is make the looney tunes tinfoil hat conspiracy nut crowd even more paranoid.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

The one full of the collective revenue generated from TV deals, endorsements, ticket sales, etc. The one that pays Mark Emmert $1.9 million a year.

As much as I abhor Emmert, his salary isn't out of line. How would betting revenue end up in the NCAA's hands?

 

[GonzoCat90]

As much as I abhor Emmert, his salary isn't out of line. How would betting revenue end up in the NCAA's hands?

The same way it'll end up in the hands of the NBA and NFL.

If a $1.9 million salary to do an awful job isn't out of line for running a non-profit that is funded by free labor, we're just too far apart on this one to go any further.

 

[mj2k10]

As much as I abhor Emmert, his salary isn't out of line. How would betting revenue end up in the NCAA's hands?

And that right there illustrates why so many players feel like they're getting screwed.

It's perfectly OK for Emmert to make 2 mill a year, and for coaches to make millions. Nothing out of line with that at all. But it's not OK to give the players anything beyond a scholarship and some chump change.

That's a warped, false, rigged market, with the people in power simply using that power to protect their own interests.

 

[mbc82584]

One thing it will most certainly do is make the looney tunes tinfoil hat conspiracy nut crowd even more paranoid.

And it will also apparently make the people who believe the sport is a sacrosanct stick their heads further up their asses

 

[mbc82584]

As much as I abhor Emmert, his salary isn't out of line. How would betting revenue end up in the NCAA's hands?

More money on games = more viewership

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

The same way it'll end up in the hands of the NBA and NFL.

If a $1.9 million salary to do an awful job isn't out of line for running a non-profit that is funded by free labor, we're just too far apart on this one to go any further.

Players are not employees and they aren't free. Whether or not you like the job Emmert does, he is responsible for over 500 employees and a billion dollar enterprise. His salary is commensurate to his responsibilities.

 

[Glenn's take]

IMO, legal sports betting will help with the fixing of games. Legal sports books don't wamt corrupt games and they go along was towards policing it. They are looking for it. The last one I remember was Toledo football and Vegas was the one to bring that to light.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

And that right there illustrates why so many players feel like they're getting screwed.

It's perfectly OK for Emmert to make 2 mill a year, and for coaches to make millions. Nothing out of line with that at all. But it's not OK to give the players anything beyond a scholarship and some chump change.

That's a warped, false, rigged market, with the people in power simply using that power to protect their own interests.

No it isn't. You have a skewed view of what is really going on. A tiny % of college athletes are pro prospects. The vast majority play for the love of the game and the opportunity for a free, or reduced cost, education. Please tell me what money you would spread around to all players and then roughly how much.

It will be enlightening to me to see the math work.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

More money on games = more viewership

You think some significant sum of people who are interested enough in college sports to bet on them, aren't already interested enough to watch? Ratings for college sports have been going down. This ruling isn't going to change that.

 

[VikingCat21]

Sports books already take extreme measures to try and root out any corruption in sports. They monitor betting trends to find anomalies that could indicate cheating. They flag large wagers and investigate to make sure they are on the up-and-up. Pro sports leagues and the NCAA now have to embrace nation wide sports gambling and they will partner with the sports books in some way to help police it.

 

[VikingCat21]

Also, expect to see an insane level of scrutiny at the end of all games now. Sure players and refs can impact a game throughout, but when it's down to the last few plays of any game and every move impacts the spread, expect every call by an official and every decision by a player/coach to be analyzed like crazy to see if there is anything fishy going on.

 

[FFWhite]

Billions are already bet on sports. Making it legal will not make curruption more likely. Prohibition cause an expansion of organized crime in this country. Making it legal will greatly reduce organized crimes role in sports betting.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Players are not employees and they aren't free. Whether or not you like the job Emmert does, he is responsible for over 500 employees and a billion dollar enterprise. His salary is commensurate to his responsibilities.

We should pay Mark Emmert in education then. It's the most valuable commodity of all. And he's not responsible for a billion dollar enterprise. He's responsible for a non-profit geared toward education. Isn't that the facade?

Players aren't employees except they work a particular number of hours, have supervisors, are given instructions to follow, generate revenue, and work extremely hard alongside others who do the same job for a common goal. There's just one tricky part missing.

Let Mark Emmert and all of the players both disappear tomorrow and see which one the NCAA is more concerned with replacing.

But at least now Mark Emmert will be responsible for an even bigger billion dollar enterprise and his salary will have to reflect that because otherwise what would we do with all of that money?

 

[mj2k10]

And it will also apparently make the people who believe the sport is a sacrosanct stick their heads further up their asses

Define sacrosanct.

Has there been corruption caused by gambling, known and unknown? Certainly yes. Is it some huge endemic problem? Certainly no. However dim your view of human nature, it's a simple fact that there are all kinds of measures in place to prevent it, both legally and ethically, and the number of people who are willingly going to break laws and put their livelihoods and freedom at risk is relatively small. No matter how paranoid you are.

Legalized gambling actually helps to lessen the potential for this, BTW. Vegas books pay a lot of attention to where the bets are coming from, and keeps an eagle eye on anything suspicious. Same thing goes on in Europe, where all this stuff has been going on for decades, spread out over more sports than what you see in the US.

 

[mj2k10]

No it isn't. You have a skewed view of what is really going on. A tiny % of college athletes are pro prospects. The vast majority play for the love of the game and the opportunity for a free, or reduced cost, education. Please tell me what money you would spread around to all players and then roughly how much.

It will be enlightening to me to see the math work.

Valid argument, back in the day when the NCAA Tournament television contract was a few million dollars total, and a coach like John Wooden made 32,500 dollars his final season (and no, I didn't forget any zeros there).

Let me ask a question: How did colleges run all their sports' programs (and the NCAA exist) back before they were raking in all these millions, or, in the case of the NCAA Tournament TV deal, billions? Although athletic departments are certainly larger today, as far as I know, UK and every other D1 school of any size had no problems at all funding all kinds of teams that certainly weren't raking in a lot of cash.

But now the argument is that the athletes in the sports that generate all these billions can't get a cut of it because it's needed for other things.

Those other things are mainly an industry of people whose livelihoods are based in large part on the money generated by the 2 big revenue sports.

As for the math, here's what I know- a high-end estimate of D1 players on basketball scholarships would be 4,500. A billion divided by 4,500 is $222,222 per player.

But there's not enough money. Horsesh**.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

We should pay Mark Emmert in education then. It's the most valuable commodity of all. And he's not responsible for a billion dollar enterprise. He's responsible for a non-profit geared toward education. Isn't that the facade?

Players aren't employees except they work a particular number of hours, have supervisors, are given instructions to follow, generate revenue, and work extremely hard alongside others who do the same job for a common goal. There's just one tricky part missing.

Let Mark Emmert and all of the players both disappear tomorrow and see which one the NCAA is more concerned with replacing.

But at least now Mark Emmert will be responsible for an even bigger billion dollar enterprise and his salary will have to reflect that because otherwise what would we do with all of that money?

I usually appreciate your intelligence even though we disagree constantly. On this issue I think your emotions get in the way of logic. But let's run with your premise. They are employees and should be paid. How much should they be paid?

 

[UK90]

One thing it will most certainly do is make the looney tunes tinfoil hat conspiracy nut crowd even more paranoid.

Yep. Except now they'll no longer be able to use the ominous "Vegas" term when talking about these dark hidden forces scripting outcomes against UK, for now there will be many Vegases across the country.

Evil will surround us on all sides, UK will never get a fair shake again.

 

[mebeblue2]

absolutely nothing will change

 

[GonzoCat90]

I usually appreciate your intelligence even though we disagree constantly. On this issue I think your emotions get in the way of logic. But let's run with your premise. They are employees and should be paid. How much should they be paid?

I don't know for certain, but it isn't an impossible question to answer. Take a percentage of the revenue their particular sport creates for their particular athletic department. Take another smaller percentage and divide that up among the non-revenue sports. It isn't equal, but it's fair.

Or clearly the programs are sustainable based on the current revenue being created. Everything is happy and well-paid and breaking even for non-profit reasons, so just take the additional gambling money and split that among the players.

I'm sure there are probably all kinds of issues with those ideas, but there are with any idea. Something being logistically difficult is no excuse not to do what's right.

 

[Glenn's take]

I don't know for certain, but it isn't an impossible question to answer. Take a percentage of the revenue their particular sport creates for their particular athletic department. Take another smaller percentage and divide that up among the non-revenue sports. It isn't equal, but it's fair.

Or clearly the programs are sustainable based on the current revenue being created. Everything is happy and well-paid and breaking even for non-profit reasons, so just take the additional gambling money and split that among the players.

I'm sure there are probably all kinds of issues with those ideas, but there are with any idea. Something being logistically difficult is no excuse not to do what's right.

Nope. You just said the men get more than the women. Ain't gonna happen. Remember, these things aren't based on merit. You are not giving a male at a federally funded university a penny more than a female. Doesn't matter if they aren't as good or if they don't generate any income. I am not saying it's right or fair. Quite the contrary but it is real life.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Valid argument, back in the day when the NCAA Tournament television contract was a few million dollars total, and a coach like John Wooden made 32,500 dollars his final season (and no, I didn't forget any zeros there).

Let me ask a question: How did colleges run all their sports' programs (and the NCAA exist) back before they were raking in all these millions, or, in the case of the NCAA Tournament TV deal, billions? Although athletic departments are certainly larger today, as far as I know, UK and every other D1 school of any size had no problems at all funding all kinds of teams that certainly weren't raking in a lot of cash.

But now the argument is that the athletes in the sports that generate all these billions can't get a cut of it because it's needed for other things.

Those other things are mainly an industry of people whose livelihoods are based in large part on the money generated by the 2 big revenue sports.

As for the math, here's what I know- a high-end estimate of D1 players on basketball scholarships would be 4,500. A billion divided by 4,500 is $222,222 per player.

But there's not enough money. Horsesh**.

You do realize there are something like 150000 student athletes in D1 and D2. You're using 100% of revenue to support basketball players only and only D1 at that. That isn't remotely close to how it works.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I don't know for certain, but it isn't an impossible question to answer. Take a percentage of the revenue their particular sport creates for their particular athletic department. Take another smaller percentage and divide that up among the non-revenue sports. It isn't equal, but it's fair.

Or clearly the programs are sustainable based on the current revenue being created. Everything is happy and well-paid and breaking even for non-profit reasons, so just take the additional gambling money and split that among the players.

I'm sure there are probably all kinds of issues with those ideas, but there are with any idea. Something being logistically difficult is no excuse not to do what's right.

I don't believe Title IX allows for that. You keep mentioning "gambling money" and I've asked for a definition several times. Can you provide one?

 

[GonzoCat90]

I don't believe Title IX allows for that. You keep mentioning "gambling money" and I've asked for a definition several times. Can you provide one?

Well now that folks can bet on games as they're happening, there's a huge competition market for the sites through which that money will change hands.

In the same way other companies sponsor games and pay for commercial time or to have their logo around the court, casinos, websites, apps, etc will do that now in hopes of gaining all of that business.

At the very least, you'll have one major spot that becomes the official, allowed NCAA gambling company and that partnership will cost a pretty penny. You'll probably also see the smaller, more local casinos or bookmakers advertising within the arenas themselves.

It's also going to increase viewership and push the TV contracts even higher. If you think the NCAA Tournament is a gambling paradise now, just wait.

Basically, more money pouring in from all over.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Well now that folks can bet on games as they're happening, there's a huge competition market for the sites through which that money will change hands.

In the same way other companies sponsor games and pay for commercial time or to have their logo around the court, casinos, websites, apps, etc will do that now in hopes of gaining all of that business.

At the very least, you'll have one major spot that becomes the official, allowed NCAA gambling company and that partnership will cost a pretty penny. You'll probably also see the smaller, more local casinos or bookmakers advertising within the arenas themselves.

It's also going to increase viewership and push the TV contracts even higher. If you think the NCAA Tournament is a gambling paradise now, just wait.

Basically, more money pouring in from all over.

I don't think you can support increased viewers. Any increase would be insignificant. Non-sport fans aren't suddenly converting because of betting. As for an official betting site for the NCAA, I'd put the likelihood of that at almost 0.

 

[mj2k10]

You do realize there are something like 150000 student athletes in D1 and D2. You're using 100% of revenue to support basketball players only and only D1 at that. That isn't remotely close to how it works.

It's not even remotely close to "100% of revenue". That's insane. You're completely discarding all the revenue generated by individual athletic departments.

No one is saying that all payments for players should come out of the NCAA Tournament TV contract. The NCAA pays the schools about 30% of the billion dollars per year on that, so 300 million spread out to 68 teams. That's chump change when you consider that USA Today listed 28 different schools with athletic department revenues of over 100 million dollars in 2015-16.

The revenues for the top 50 schools in 15-16 adds up to around 6 billion dollars. That would be 40,000 per 150,000. But of course, there are 162 more schools with revenue ranging from 76 million down to 10. Without doing all the addition on that one, it's still safe to say that we're well over 10 billion a year, so also well over 60,000 per 150,000. And that 150,000 number is counting D2, so it's way, way, way high.

So it's not an exaggeration at all to say that the average D1 school generates over 100,000 a year revenue per athlete.

 

[GonzoCat90]

I don't think you can support increased viewers. Any increase would be insignificant. Non-sport fans aren't suddenly converting because of betting. As for an official betting site for the NCAA, I'd put the likelihood of that at almost 0.

Any increase will not be insignificant.

Ask yourself how many people would be at the horse track if they couldn't gamble on it. Do you think it's a coincidence that a niche sport like college hoops suddenly dominates our culture for three weeks every March? Do you know how many non-sports fans are still part of the SuperBowl prop betting?

If you let people gamble on it, beyond just the degenerates, it will draw new viewers. Maybe not to a cable box for a full 2 hour Tuesday night game in January, but to apps and websites that give score updates, to ESPN's new premium service, to the various streaming companies that are already engaged in bidding wars to show live sports. And everywhere there's a set of eyeballs, there's a place to sell ad space.

None of that even gets in to the potential for team/conference sponsorships. If Dr Pepper can be the official beverage of the SEC, why can't Bob's Casino be the "Official Corporate Gaming Partner?" We already see ads on NBA jerseys. There's another avenue.

Trust me, this didn't finally happen because our government trusts the citizens to engage in activities of their free will and leisure. It's because they saw the money on the table. Look at what fantasy football has done for the NFL. This is real-time, real-life, fantasy sports. From your phone. While the game is on.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

It's not even remotely close to "100% of revenue". That's insane. You're completely discarding all the revenue generated by individual athletic departments.

No one is saying that all payments for players should come out of the NCAA Tournament TV contract. The NCAA pays the schools about 30% of the billion dollars per year on that, so 300 million spread out to 68 teams. That's chump change when you consider that USA Today listed 28 different schools with athletic department revenues of over 100 million dollars in 2015-16.

The revenues for the top 50 schools in 15-16 adds up to around 6 billion dollars. That would be 40,000 per 150,000. But of course, there are 162 more schools with revenue ranging from 76 million down to 10. Without doing all the addition on that one, it's still safe to say that we're well over 10 billion a year, so also well over 60,000 per 150,000. And that 150,000 number is counting D2, so it's way, way, way high.

So it's not an exaggeration at all to say that the average D1 school generates over 100,000 a year revenue per athlete.

No, I was saying 100% of a billion which is roughly what the NCAA brings in. You said it, not me. As for the way teams are paid, they aren't paid directly anymore. The conferences are paid. USA may have listed those revenue numbers but you are very conveniently leaving out the expense numbers and you're totally ignoring the fact that 90% of schools lose money in athletics....that's after they have e received NCAA money split up within their conference. You haven't listed a single thing that supports your position.