Huh? Ever heard of Cell Phone location data? Unless the guy's mom drove to Ames and asked to borrow her son's phone to place a bet its pretty obvious who was placing the bets.
Update: Noah Shannon CLEARED TO PRACTICE. 26 UI student-athletes investigated for online gambling, incl in FB, Men’s BB, Baseball, T&F & Wrestling
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
2 total things
1st it was the mothers phone that was used and not the son.
2nd when did the US become a police state where phones are now tapped?. pretty soon there will be camera's in peoples houses for the authorities [Gestapo/KGB] to watch your every movement.
this is the way a police state is run
no more privacy no more freedoms.
It’s law enforcement that obtained the records.
Iowas baseball players have been gone and they aren’t coming back.
Dekkers will be gone.
Have not heard of any Iowa starters being out. They would have been out already. Arland Bruce is already gone. His name is the only starter I have heard.
My initial reaction regarding the NCAA was along the same lines, but I've seen three very good reasons for supporting the NCAA's blanket rule against gambling. (The penalties for infractions are, of course, another matter.)
- Student-athletes may incur gambling debts, which could make them vulnerable to being exploited and corruptible regarding their own team.
- Student-athletes could have inside information about other teams at the school, which would be valuable to others.
- The current rule is easier to understand and enforce than something more selective.
These are legal adults who should be able to participate in legal activities.
Get the heck out of their lives.
The hypocrisy of the NCAA aside--and it does reach rather epic levels--the fact this doesn't come up more often is somewhat interesting. You would think every 3* or better recruit would come under scrutiny each time one doesn't "pan out".
OTOH, I would guess a VERY small portion of athletes "want" to lose, even if money was offered. The idea of "shaving points" vs. throwing a game outright would seem difficult to manage.
Oh Ok. Using your logic, then you won't mind if Congressmen, Senators, and other government employees
involved in the regulation of companies or the issuance of patents investing in stocks since they too are adults and trading stocks is legal.
Geez.
If only it were that simple.
They have the right to participate in those activities, just not to do so and participate in athletics.
College athletics aren't a right.
I never said college athletics were a right. But if they are in college athletics why should they give up their rights?
Your second sentence is the grievous status quo. It's exactly what I think needs to be changed.
What? Student-athletes agree to forgo all kinds of things in order to participate. No different than many other professions.
Also doesn't address the issue that TheGuy9 brought up of student-athletes having SIGNIFICANT advantages and conflicts of interest with sports betting.
The rules are in place for a very good reason.
Just because student-athletes forgo all kinds of things doesn't mean this one is proper.
All the reasons I've hard are inadequate when it comes to things that don't involve their sport. It's like saying I can't coach a Little League team if I bet on pro basketball.
Unless it involves their specific sport they should be able to bet on what they want as the rest of society can.
And I believe gambling is morally wrong for myself. I don't participate in sport betting. It's troubling to me how quickly we want to strip certain citizens of the rights the rest enjoy.
Because these athletes are part of the student populace and inter-mingle with one another. They're privy to information that even regular students aren't.
A blanket ban is far more efficient in terms of enforcement and keeping athletes informed than hundreds of complex differences and exceptions based on sport played, sports sponsored by school, contact with fellow athletes, etc
And what if they only bet on professional sports…zero risk of insider knowledge or influence. Why in the heck would the NCAA care about that?
Oh, good grief. By your logic NO student at the university should be able to bet, after all, they could have someone on a team in their class, LOL.
And what good would that do if the college person is betting on pro sports? Dumb.
Where were the vast majority of pro athletes at before becoming pro athletes?
Even disregarding potential former teammates, many pro and college athletes share training facilities and even personal trainers.
And again, a blanket ban is far more effective than attempting to navigate 100s of potential exceptions.
Well, we should ban you because you could know someone who knew somebody.
It's ridiculous.
Are you going to continue throwing out ridiculous statements based on strawman arguments, or do you want to discuss this like an adult?
No, they don't, as has been pointed out already.
There's multiple examples of point-shaving scandals throughout NCAA history that prove the necessity of a blanket ban. Few of those players accrued their debts by betting on their own sports.
It's irrelevant if there are examples of point-shaving scandals in NCAA history. That will happen, and those happened even during a time collegiate athletes couldn't legally gamble. We're talking about legal gambling. And it's also irrelevant those players accrued debts. These are legal adults, not little kids. It's not our business.
Again, your weak argument is based on the premise that the student athlete will be privy to some inside info because they're an athlete. Better make sure the janitor there can't exercise his rights, too. After all, he may hear something!
It's not the NCAA's business to ensure the integrity of their athletic competitions? Better tell that to all of the sportsbooks to who initiated the investigations as well, despite them having the most to gain from athletes being able to bet.
You keep trying to twist the argument well past what I actually said, but I can play that game too.
Who are we to tell athletes they can't take performance-enhancing drugs? After all, they're not illegal for the general populace and they're adults, so it's "none of our business", as you say.
If a player gets in financial trouble by betting he becomes susceptible to offers from others to throw games in his sport, to get out of trouble.
I don't know why some people don't understand this aspect. It doesn't matter what sport he bets on. He can lose too much and become a target for the less scrupulous element of our society.
It doesn't matter what sport you bet on. Some people, including players, have a problem and can't control their betting.
They aren't allowed to gamble because, like alcohol or drugs, things can escalate. A person--yes, even an athlete-- can get into debt quickly. That can lead to becoming compromised, tempted to manipulate events in order to alleviate/eliminate the debt(s) incurred.
the biggest Pro arguement is making it illegal to bet on sports while in college
the biggest con is the NCAA slow played defining the rules and setting up a prevention in place
although putting those are made to stop that were not going to gamble in the 1st place.
my complaint now 2 actually; what is taking so long to put it out there as to what actually was happening
there are players sitting in limbo waiting on the punishments if any are they facing.
Anyhony's season is done now and had to sit out suspended for multiple weeks. who knows his penalty could nothing more than a 1 maybe 2 game suspension. or it could be up to a full season. now they have punished the whole team instead of the individual.
the biggest con is the NCAA slow played defining the rules and setting up a prevention in place
although putting those are made to stop that were not going to gamble in the 1st place.
my complaint now 2 actually; what is taking so long to put it out there as to what actually was happening
there are players sitting in limbo waiting on the punishments if any are they facing.
Anyhony's season is done now and had to sit out suspended for multiple weeks. who knows his penalty could nothing more than a 1 maybe 2 game suspension. or it could be up to a full season. now they have punished the whole team instead of the individual.
Your opinion of what you think is proper means nothing to the rules they have in place.
So? By that logic that can't buy new things, lest they get in too much debt, and are tempted to manipulate events.
It's like talking to people who live in a quasi-nanny state, lol.
I never said it's not the NCAAs business to ensure the integrity of their athletic competitions. You did. It's not their business to get into area that don't directly affect the integrity of their own competing.
Concerning banned competition drugs, that's a bold false equivalence. The topic was that their athlete status makes them privy to information that could compromise them. That's the root of your argument. You moved into an arena talking about directly improving their own performance through using substances their fellow competitors can't take.
Yeah, you can play the game, but you do play it poorly.
Ok. Do you firmly disagree with professional sports placing betting restrictions on athletes?
If it's not regarding the sport they are a part of, then, yes.
Latest posts
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94
-