Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 151

Thread: Retro Road Trip

  1. #41
    Deja Vu All Over Again


    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    The Friday, June 1, 2018 edition of USA Today featured a major piece by Steve Berkowitz and Erik Brady that discussed the reactions of college sports administrators and organizations to the state-by-state legalization of college sports betting. I would have thought that college administrators and organizations would have learned a few things about how the world actually works between 2000 and 2018. I appear to have been mistaken or, conversely, the powers that be in college sports have indeed learned quite a bit, but have decided to test the gullibility of the public rather than recognize reality.

    I'll go through that piece line by line later this week, but for now what I want to stress is how incredibly similar in tone and argument the college administrators and organizations are to those that attempted to ban college sports gambling in Nevada in 2000. Some of what is argued, then and now, is true. The majority, however, is illogical and conveniently skips over established facts.

    I am using someone else's camera this weekend, so the following photos are pretty raggedy, as Charles Barkley might say. I'll do my best to ensure they are at least semi-readable.


    Retro Resonance: Back in 2000, the then president of Penn State, Graham Spanier (yes, that Graham Spanier, who was ordered to serve a few months due to Jerry Sandusky) was chairman of the NCAA Division 1 board of directors. He spearheaded an effort that almost succeeded in vetoing college sports gambling in Nevada. Derek Wan, a reporter for Knight Ridder in the D.C. bureau, wrote a comprehensive piece that appeared in Spanier's and Penn State's local newspaper, the Centre Daily Times. I will attempt to post copies of that piece.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #42
    Wan's piece appeared in the Wednesday, June 14, 2000 Centre Daily Times, which serves State College, PA, the home of Penn State University.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  3. #43
    Evidently, I don't know how to rotate photos. Anyway, here's the conclusion of Wan's article. Since this piece appeared in the CDT, and Spanier wielded considerable influence with this local paper, I felt that my response should be directed to the same publication.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  4. #44
    I was pleased that the Centre Daily Times felt my op-ed was solid enough to publish in the Sunday edition. That gave it maximum readership. The CDT is the only paper directly serving State College, and it relies beyond heavily on Penn State for its news, so the fact they saw fit to publish it was really something -- surprising, really.

    Spanier never responded, which I found interesting. Despite his ventures to the D.C. area to push through the legislation, it didn't happen. Nevada sports books at the time quoted me the chances of its passing as 50/50, so this whole misdirected venture, largely forgotten now, was live at the time.


    Uh, Dan, I need some serious rotational help. Sorry about that.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  5. #45
    Anyway, that was 2000, and now we have state legalization in 2018, and the same arguments are being made by college administrators. What I wrote in that op-ed applies as much now as then. I'll dissect the Friday USA Today piece next week, and explain how a lot of what is presented as protective protocols and moralizing is really jibber jabber disguising the actual motives for the protocols.

  6. #46
    Pretty dumb move not blocking out the tag.

  7. #47
    Oh, no, what have I done?

    No doubt internet sleuths will hunt me down and have unordered pizzas delivered to my door.

    FWIW I like extra cheese.
    What, Me Worry?

  8. #48
    College Athletic Directors Concerned About Gambling Fallout

    Before addressing other issues with the June 1 piece in USA Today, "Colleges brace for gambling fallout," I wanted to share a letter I sent to colleagues and various media people. The letter is radioactive and will never be published because it mentions (in an ambiguous, imprecise fashion) some gambling situations that came to light in college football this last decade. The coaching staffs mentioned in the first two incidents are gone. Anyway, here's the letter --

    In the June 1 article, "Colleges brace for gambling fallout," Tom McMillen, the CEO of an association of college ADs, trotted out the same old logical misdirection spewed by Graham Spanier in 2000, when college ADs and the NCAA attempted to ban Nevada's college sports betting.

    McMillen is quoted as saying, "If gambling on colleges is in 20 or 30 states, there is probably a 100% chance of a point-shaving scandal at some school. McMillen, of course, fails to acknowledge that (without gambling in 20 or 30 states), there has "probably" been a 100% chance of point-shaving scandals in college athletics this last decade. The NCAA and ADs have managed to restrict public knowledge of these situations by keeping a tight lid on things.

    A couple of years ago, Hawaii's football team had in issue with its backfield. An SEC school had problems with its basketball team's guards some seasons back. Most recently, the Alabama football team's defensive playbook magically disappeared the day before the title game. Anyone in the know about this may have been motivated to take Georgia and the Over. All of these stories withered on the vine.

    The fact is that sports books are much more able to detect point-shaving than the NCAA, and they are not beholden to the NCAA to keep a lid on the scandals. This is what McMillen fears, just as Spanier (who knows a thing or two about keeping a lid on scandals) feared 18 years ago.

    The NCAA's primary concern is that point-shaving will be exposed by the sports books, not that point-shaving will occur because of them.
    Last edited by redietz; 06-08-2018 at 05:25 AM.

  9. #49
    rotated
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  10. #50
    Great article, redietz.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  11. #51
    Thanks for the kind words, mickey. I'll have some further comments later today or tomorrow regarding the June 1st USA piece and how Delaware/New Jersey are handling things. I had a friend in Delaware yesterday (the horse he ran finished third), and he checked things out.

  12. #52
    Yes, thanks for posting.

    I'll look it over in a few days, heading to the coast for the weekend.
    What, Me Worry?

  13. #53
    nn
    Attached Images Attached Images    
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  14. #54
    Delaware/New Jersey Sports Gambling -- Some Details and Questions


    Now that I've reviewed some of the initial media coverage, and now that some of my guys have checked out the Delaware and (soon-to-be) New Jersey sports books, I'd like to mention a couple of things.

    First of all, William Hill is running the Delaware sports book. My friends spoke with some of the ticket writers in Delaware. They were not impressed with the employees or the facility. The conclusion is that the sports book will need more seating and more space to function properly. They have 80 days to get the layout tweaked. Although not yet live, the Monmouth, New Jersey, facility was given good reviews. A little spiffing up, and it'll be a poor man's Superbook, which is impressive.

    I apologize if the next material is very basic, but it is important. New Jersey has decided to not feature betting on local college teams, including Seton Hall and Rutgers. Delaware will not allow betting on Delaware schools, which quite possibly affects the 1-AA football playoffs. Previously, Nevada had similar rules in place regarding Nevada's college teams, but these were rescinded circa 2001 (God, I must be old; I remember this like yesterday).

    The American Gaming Association's Sara Slane, a senior VP of public affairs, has argued against this kind of discretionary exclusion. Interestingly, I have not read William Hill's comments regarding this. If anyone has any insight on William Hill's stance, please post or PM me.

    This has always been a fascinating debate point, because banning the local demography from betting local teams has consequences. It greatly reduces handle, obviously, and presumably reduces profits. But it also protects the sports books from being inundated with locals' money. If that locals' money is allowed, the sports book is faced with either absorbing the unbalanced wagering into its overall international pool, creating some risk since "the other side" of the game may not have legal wagering in that state, or conversely, the sports book can use different spreads in different geographic areas, which would obviously make the book vulnerable to seesaw middle shots. William Hill's size dictates that the former is the obvious way to go. It will, however, be very interesting if smaller sports books gain contracts in various states and are faced with the same choices.

    I did not explicitly state what may be profitable angles down the road, but I think anyone who's paying attention can probably read between the lines and understand what the paragraph above implies (regnis, I'm talking to you). It's pretty obvious, and I'm not sure it will work, but you can be damn sure you cannot go against it. And there should be some other opportunities as well. They may, however, take years to appear.
    Last edited by redietz; 06-10-2018 at 04:23 PM.

  15. #55
    Some odds sheets from the Delaware William Hill.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  16. #56
    Here's the World Cup.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  17. #57
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Delaware/New Jersey Sports Gambling -- Some Details and Questions


    Now that I've reviewed some of the initial media coverage, and now that some of my guys have checked out the Delaware and (soon-to-be) New Jersey sports books, I'd like to mention a couple of things.

    First of all, William Hill is running the Delaware sports book. My friends spoke with some of the ticket writers in Delaware. They were not impressed with the employees or the facility. The conclusion is that the sports book will need more seating and more space to function properly. They have 80 days to get the layout tweaked. Although not yet live, the Monmouth, New Jersey, facility was given good reviews. A little spiffing up, and it'll be a poor man's Superbook, which is impressive.

    I apologize if the next material is very basic, but it is important. New Jersey has decided to not feature betting on local college teams, including Seton Hall and Rutgers. Delaware will not allow betting on Delaware schools, which quite possibly affects the 1-AA football playoffs. Previously, Nevada had similar rules in place regarding Nevada's college teams, but these were rescinded circa 2001 (God, I must be old; I remember this like yesterday).

    The American Gaming Association's Sara Slane, a senior VP of public affairs, has argued against this kind of discretionary exclusion. Interestingly, I have not read William Hill's comments regarding this. If anyone has any insight on William Hill's stance, please post or PM me.

    This has always been a fascinating debate point, because banning the local demography from betting local teams has consequences. It greatly reduces handle, obviously, and presumably reduces profits. But it also protects the sports books from being inundated with locals' money. If that locals' money is allowed, the sports book is faced with either absorbing the unbalanced wagering into its overall international pool, creating some risk since "the other side" of the game may not have legal wagering in that state, or conversely, the sports book can use different spreads in different geographic areas, which would obviously make the book vulnerable to seesaw middle shots. William Hill's size dictates that the former is the obvious way to go. It will, however, be very interesting if smaller sports books gain contracts in various states and are faced with the same choices.

    I did not explicitly state what may be profitable angles down the road, but I think anyone who's paying attention can probably read between the lines and understand what the paragraph above implies (regnis, I'm talking to you). It's pretty obvious, and I'm not sure it will work, but you can be damn sure you cannot go against it. And there should be some other opportunities as well. They may, however, take years to appear.
    Great minds think alike--or in our case 2 decrepit old men think alike. When I saw that they were not taking the local teams I had the same thought. Unfortunately I don't have the contacts geographically anymore to take advantage. I do wonder, however, as the states implement sports betting, how long it will take to implement on-line wagering which may diminish this play.

  18. #58
    Regnis, I talked to some people with interesting ideas. So here's some tie-in questions.

    If you have an account that can be used online in Nevada with William Hill or Cantor or Stations or CET or whomever, are you grandfathered into any online access that eventually occurs? Or do you need separate accounts for each state?

    If online is offered, won't the racinos and casinos lobby for a "convenience penalty" of sorts? Because why would anyone physically go to racinos or casinos if the odds are the same as what they can legally do at home? So is it possible somebody might push for 6/5 online and 11/10 on site? It sounds insane, but who knows?

    Assuming OTBs eventually handle the action, similar to small books like old Leroy's or Churchill Downs in LV or current storefront books in the UK, won't the traffic, say, from Pennsylvania or New York to Delaware/New Jersey swamp any books just over the state borders? Then what? Build more OTBs, which will be out of business as soon as Pennsylvania/New York push things through? You can't have this, so online has to be the way to go, right?

    The big question is, assuming it's in 20 or 30 states within a couple of years, how many does William Hill control versus other books?

    And, eventually, when Nevada's handle drops because of this, and Final Four and the Super Bowl go back to being simply busy, not jammed, will Nevada return to offering the better comps of yore to sports players? How about those -105s reserved for the big bettors with connections or regular folks for four hours a week? Any chance we see -105s midweek as a standard?

    And I haven't even touched the subject of rebates. In horse racing, the dozen or so whales all get rebates. That precedent has been set and is part of race betting in the US as a standard. Imagine, if you will, the possibilities if you can wrangle sports rebates from various states, with the states competing against each other for whale money. It'll be a situation analogous to a certain individual playing Atlantic City casinos against each other with blackjack rebates. If rebates become part of the picture, but only for players of a certain status, won't people be motivated to pool their money, as happens when folks buy lottery tickets? What happens if that money is partially from people out-of-state? Is that illegal? Nevada already cleared the way for in-state companies as fronts for "investment pools." Many ideas.

    It's a shame we don't live forever, regnis. This will be a mess, and it should be a fun mess.
    Last edited by redietz; 06-11-2018 at 06:50 AM.

  19. #59
    New jersey (monmouth) set to go this Thursday.

  20. #60
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Regnis, I talked to some people with interesting ideas. So here's some tie-in questions.

    If you have an account that can be used online in Nevada with William Hill or Cantor or Stations or CET or whomever, are you grandfathered into any online access that eventually occurs? Or do you need separate accounts for each state?

    If online is offered, won't the racinos and casinos lobby for a "convenience penalty" of sorts? Because why would anyone physically go to racinos or casinos if the odds are the same as what they can legally do at home? So is it possible somebody might push for 6/5 online and 11/10 on site? It sounds insane, but who knows?

    Assuming OTBs eventually handle the action, similar to small books like old Leroy's or Churchill Downs in LV or current storefront books in the UK, won't the traffic, say, from Pennsylvania or New York to Delaware/New Jersey swamp any books just over the state borders? Then what? Build more OTBs, which will be out of business as soon as Pennsylvania/New York push things through? You can't have this, so online has to be the way to go, right?

    The big question is, assuming it's in 20 or 30 states within a couple of years, how many does William Hill control versus other books?

    And, eventually, when Nevada's handle drops because of this, and Final Four and the Super Bowl go back to being simply busy, not jammed, will Nevada return to offering the better comps of yore to sports players? How about those -105s reserved for the big bettors with connections or regular folks for four hours a week? Any chance we see -105s midweek as a standard?

    And I haven't even touched the subject of rebates. In horse racing, the dozen or so whales all get rebates. That precedent has been set and is part of race betting in the US as a standard. Imagine, if you will, the possibilities if you can wrangle sports rebates from various states, with the states competing against each other for whale money. It'll be a situation analogous to a certain individual playing Atlantic City casinos against each other with blackjack rebates. If rebates become part of the picture, but only for players of a certain status, won't people be motivated to pool their money, as happens when folks buy lottery tickets? What happens if that money is partially from people out-of-state? Is that illegal? Nevada already cleared the way for in-state companies as fronts for "investment pools." Many ideas.

    It's a shame we don't live forever, regnis. This will be a mess, and it should be a fun mess.
    On-line has to ultimately be the future. But the casinos and racetracks want the bodies there in the hopes of some overlap and of course the food and beverage. If I'm sitting at home in my underwear betting on-line, that's the only revenue being generated. So I fear it will be a while until on-line wagering is allowed, and also fear, as you said, some kind of penalty. Here in Illinois it could be years until anything gets done, and whatever they do will be unfair to players. I also assume that states that legalize will do so in state only so that if and when we go on-line, we will have to bet with an in state "book". So even if Nevada has a better line, I will have to bet in Illinois (at least legally).

    I was getting heavy rebates at one time, but they were forced to cut the rebates dramatically as the major tracks increased their cut and left much less for the rebate companies to offer. I still get a decent rebate, but the better rebates are on small or foreign tracks. The problem with betting the small tracks is their handle is small and you effect the odds. Similarly, since the foreign tracks don't commingle pools, again, any large bet effects the odds too much. But when you are getting 12-14% rebate on these tracks, it is still effective on more of a grinding basis.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Road Pics
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 739
    Last Post: 03-04-2024, 05:10 AM
  2. Mountain road to Lake Tahoe (Kingsbury Grade) closed due to sinkhole
    By Dan Druff in forum California/Western US Casinos
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-24-2017, 02:21 AM
  3. Tahoe labor day weekend trip report: A sequential royal saves trip
    By FABismonte in forum California/Western US Casinos
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-19-2016, 01:28 PM
  4. Rob Singer has taken his act on the road again.
    By Bill Yung in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 06-04-2016, 04:46 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2011, 07:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •