Nelson Brands tweets details on why his NCAA career is over

[Alces Alces Gigas]

28 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Correct.

Thanks for the reply!

I'm glad you are the arbiter of all things wrestling/veteran related.     

[WildTurk]

39 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

An NLWC athlete/coach who trains with the PSU wrestlers on a daily basis has a deal with a sports betting company.  A bit shady! Why is he even allowed into the training facility?

Who is that? Why is it shady?

Edited September 22, 2023 by WildTurk

[fishbane]

40 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Most basically for me is that the rules are stupid and Nelson acted like an idiot.  If gamblins is legal, it's legal, and the only time you shouldn't be permitted to gamble is if it's on a team on which you are a competitor.  Just because they might have known football players doesn't mean shit. This happens in actual gambling all the time where different people have "inside information".  For example, if my best friend played for the New York giants, I could still bet on the Giants games.

If I played fro the Giants and I found out a friend was making bets based on information I told him that would probably annoy me.  It would make me not want to share information with that person.

I can't think of a major professional sports league that allows their athletes or employees to bet on league contests even involving other teams.  The Iowa athletic department is essentially running 20 different professional teams some more profitable than others.  The athletes are essentially employees of the same entity.  I am sure there is some interaction between the different sports - they don't have 20 different weight rooms, running tracks, ect.  Information could be learned from proximity and not by someone directly sharing information like your friend example.  Allowing betting on sports at the same institution has little benefit to the institution or the NCAA and can only really damage their reputation if there is an incident, so why allow it?  

I think the NCAA rules could be relaxed in some aspects.  I don't see the conflict in allowing betting on professional sports (NFL, MLB, Overseas Tennis, ect.) and sports that are not sponsored by the school (In Iowa's case one example might be NCAA men's ice hockey), but I'd keep the penalties for betting on your own NCAA sport or your own institution. 

[CHROMEBIRD]

2 hours ago, Alces Alces Gigas said:

I hear that Cael and company are in cahoots with the AGs office in Des Moines.   

Kim Reynolds is currently drilling in Cael's basement

[VakAttack]

30 minutes ago, fishbane said:

If I played fro the Giants and I found out a friend was making bets based on information I told him that would probably annoy me.  It would make me not want to share information with that person.

I can't think of a major professional sports league that allows their athletes or employees to bet on league contests even involving other teams.  The Iowa athletic department is essentially running 20 different professional teams some more profitable than others.  The athletes are essentially employees of the same entity.  I am sure there is some interaction between the different sports - they don't have 20 different weight rooms, running tracks, ect.  Information could be learned from proximity and not by someone directly sharing information like your friend example.  Allowing betting on sports at the same institution has little benefit to the institution or the NCAA and can only really damage their reputation if there is an incident, so why allow it?  

I think the NCAA rules could be relaxed in some aspects.  I don't see the conflict in allowing betting on professional sports (NFL, MLB, Overseas Tennis, ect.) and sports that are not sponsored by the school (In Iowa's case one example might be NCAA men's ice hockey), but I'd keep the penalties for betting on your own NCAA sport or your own institution. 

Again, unless you can have a direct impact on the outcome, I don't see the problem someone betting on a sporting event.  In the hypothetical I gave about the Giants player, you might get annoyed, but there is nothing preventing me from making those bets.  For example:  as far as I know, this is being entirely driven by entities outside the actual gambling itself, mainly the NCAA.  Were it not for that, the gambling outfits themselves would not care.

[ILLINIWrestlingBlog]

First, there are laws against insider trading on Wall Street, and they are there to keep folks from unfairly profiting from insider knowledge. Yes, those laws seem to be haphazardly enforced, and in the case of Congress, not enforced at all. But I think everybody agrees that the laws are necessary even though trading or selling stock in itself is not against the law. For a similar reason, university athletes can't bet on sports. Then, there are the additional policy concerns involved when athletes become addicted, blackmailed, in debt, squeezed, or are out and out cheating. There are a lot of potential problems. 

Second, this thread has almost reached five pages and nobody has done this? 

 

[fishbane]

42 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Again, unless you can have a direct impact on the outcome, I don't see the problem someone betting on a sporting event.  In the hypothetical I gave about the Giants player, you might get annoyed, but there is nothing preventing me from making those bets.  For example:  as far as I know, this is being entirely driven by entities outside the actual gambling itself, mainly the NCAA.  Were it not for that, the gambling outfits themselves would not care.

Playing for the Giants my concerns would be more that my friend would lose money and I wouldn't want to feel responsible.  Or general annoyance that he would be betting against me because some player is injury or just not believe in us.  Nothing really unethical or illegal - just being a bad friend. 

Do you think there should be no limits on athletes betting on other sports teams at their institution? Supposing there is a late season largely meaningless football game and bunch of Iowa athletes from other sports (Baseball, basketball, wrestling, golf, track, and women's sports) as well as athletic department staff not directly involved in the game bet against the Hawkeyes and they lose the game.  I could see how if that information came to light it would bring disrepute onto the university and NCAA athletics even if they were all just betting against them because they were really bad and that's why they were playing in a meaningless game late in the season.

It will always be the NCAA and the institution that takes the reputation hit and not the sports books, so they will be the ones making the rules.  Whose image was hurt most by the Black Sox scandal? The players, the team, the league, or the sports books?  The incorrect answer is obvious.  The sports books don't care if it's fixed, so long as they mitigate the risk they will make money either way.  They take bets on WWE events!

[VakAttack]

12 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Playing for the Giants my concerns would be more that my friend would lose money and I wouldn't want to feel responsible.  Or general annoyance that he would be betting against me because some player is injury or just not believe in us.  Nothing really unethical or illegal - just being a bad friend. 

I think we largely agree on this.

12 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Do you think there should be no limits on athletes betting on other sports teams at their institution? Supposing there is a late season largely meaningless football game and bunch of Iowa athletes from other sports (Baseball, basketball, wrestling, golf, track, and women's sports) as well as athletic department staff not directly involved in the game bet against the Hawkeyes and they lose the game.  I could see how if that information came to light it would bring disrepute onto the university and NCAA athletics even if they were all just betting against them because they were really bad and that's why they were playing in a meaningless game late in the season.

No, I don't think there should be a limit on betting on sports you are not participating in.  We live in a free country.  This is no different than the above scenario that we previously agreed on.  It might annoy the athlete to know his friends were betting on his games, etc., but that's life.  Vegas itself is known for having deep insider information, so what do I care if the bettors themselves have potential avenues towards it?  The whole way someone can become successful at gambling (and it's a very thin margin to do so) is exploiting  information gaps/deficits, or just getting extremely lucky.

[ionel]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Again, unless you can have a direct impact on the outcome, I don't see the problem someone betting on a sporting event.  In the hypothetical I gave about the Giants player, you might get annoyed, but there is nothing preventing me from making those bets.  For example:  as far as I know, this is being entirely driven by entities outside the actual gambling itself, mainly the NCAA.  Were it not for that, the gambling outfits themselves would not care.

I feel the same way regarding speed limit regs and ticketing.  If there's no direct impact from my speeding then leave me alone.  

Edited September 22, 2023 by ionel

[VakAttack]

27 minutes ago, ionel said:

I feel the same way regarding speed limit regs and ticketing.  If there's no direct impact from my speeding then leave me alone.  

Not really analogous, but ok.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

4 hours ago, WildTurk said:

Who is that? Why is it shady?

I said it was shady, because I was responding to a previous post that said PSU wrestlers would never gamble, because it is a sin.  Honestly, I really don't care, but Bo Nickal, whom is around the PSU kids every day has a sponsorship with a gambling app.  Not very NLWC of him!

 

[Ban Basketball]

I'm no Sqwawker fan and usually wish the worst for them,  but I'm beginning to think that this is more of a problem of the corporate betting industry and how they've duped politicians  into de-regulating it.  So, these vultures just drop it into our laps at every turn in society and we, in some twisted turn of events,  make athletes SOLELY responsible. 

I see more promotion for frickin betting than I do anything else, and,  of course,  college kids are going to be enticed.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[boconnell]

Colleges are partnering with online sports betting and casinos.  They are basically selling their students.  But then they are banning students who gamble.

I am fine with strong punishments to keep college students away from gambling, but the hypocrisy bothers me.

[1032004]

Ok so Cassioppi was outed by Iowa’s linebackers coach, and Brands was outed by himself, who’s it gonna be for Assad?

 

[ILLINIWrestlingBlog]

Third, folks have asked, Why did Brands out himself? Well, psychology. If you make money gambling, you have to tell the world. That's the rule. It's the same reason the Ferraris go shirtless, even on what they call "Sixpack Sundays" at church.   

 

 

[billyhoyle]

Nelson Brands is probably in the worst position out of anyone in terms of having to live with this-it is really terrible to think about how this might impact his family relationships. His opening up about the situation was a ballsy thing to do given how awful it makes Iowa athletics and even his uncle and dad look in terms of running a program. 

Based on his post:

1.  He was absolutely right to be banned. He bet on an Iowa sporting event as a D1 athlete at Iowa.  That's where the story starts and stops in terms of what is fair punishment.  It's the job of the compliance office to make it clear that ANY betting gets you banned, including March Madness pools, fantasy football, etc. With the history of point shaving in NCAA athletics, this simply has to be the rule and there has to be strict enforcement for those who break it. 

2. Iowa failed him as an athlete. The fact that he did not realize the punishment for gambling was loss of eligibility (what other punishment can the NCAA provide?), and that he was able to miss a compliance meeting in 2022 suggests Iowa did not succeed in educating their athletes on the NCAA rules.  How could somebody whose parents run the program not know that you get banned for gambling? He attended how many years of these meetings and still was not aware of this? I don't see why Brands would lie about not knowing about the consequences of these actions.  

 

 

[billyhoyle]

On 9/21/2023 at 4:57 PM, Husker_Du said:

i think missing one year of eligibility is a fair punishment. anything less than a loss of 1 ncaa tournament is meaningless.

i just wish it wasn't their last year of eligibility. 

I think it depends on what the athlete did.  Betting on professional sports should not be a lifetime ban-1 season of eligibility makes sense.  There has to be zero tolerance for betting on your own school or your own sport as an athlete though. Permanent loss of eligibility makes sense for that action. 

I'm not sure what the punishment should be for betting on NCAA athletics of a different school AND a different sport though. Maybe scale it based on number of bets/bet amounts?

On 9/22/2023 at 2:49 AM, JBluegill133 said:

Does anyone think those tweets might have some blow back on the coaches?  He admitted he didn't attend the meeting and received no education that he would lose his eligibility. People could construe that as a lack of guidance by the compliance officer/coaching staff...especially if they knew he didn't attend the meeting (I would think attendance would be recorded) and did nothing to get him up to speed.

  Personally I think this 100% falls on Nelsons shoulders and the blame is squarely with him, but I have seen coaches/teachers fired for much less when their pupils screw up.

His tweet is 100% an indictment on Iowa compliance, and possibly the wrestling coaches as well (If you buy his side, which I personally do). I don't see why he would bet on these events if he thought it would get him banned or that he couldn't be caught. I hope he is doing ok, because to go off script like this makes me think he isn't listening to the advice he is getting-and maybe that makes sense if the same people have given him poor advice in the past.  

14 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Again, unless you can have a direct impact on the outcome, I don't see the problem someone betting on a sporting event.  In the hypothetical I gave about the Giants player, you might get annoyed, but there is nothing preventing me from making those bets.  For example:  as far as I know, this is being entirely driven by entities outside the actual gambling itself, mainly the NCAA.  Were it not for that, the gambling outfits themselves would not care.

State regulators would not allow wagering on college sports if college athletes were allowed to gamble as well.  There would be way too much of an opportunity to influence the outcome of events (e.g. An athlete in sport A makes a deal with an athlete in sport B).  

Edited September 23, 2023 by billyhoyle

[nick]

18 hours ago, fishbane said:

 The sports books don't care if it's fixed, so long as they mitigate the risk they will make money either way.  They take bets on WWE events!

Related but unrelated

In Kentucky, Churchill Downs is building casinos but the slot machines are based on old horse races - this way they can skirt the rules against slot machines 

[WildTurk]

Here's another perspective/opinion from @bluroptimo on Rivals

 

"Everyone knows, don’t text and drive. Don’t play on your smartphone while you drive. How would we all feel if geo location technology was used for the last year and today you found out you had to pay for all of those texting while driving offenses? And it could get ugly. f you were going over 84mph while texting, suspended license. Multiple violations, habitual offenders, five year suspended license.

How many of you would change your smartphone habits if you knew they’d be monitoring your cell phone use while driving? Would it be more acceptable if they said explicitly, “for the next year you’ll be watched via technology and issued warnings. After that fines and suspensions.”

And to those saying this isn’t a good analogy to this gambling situation, I agree. Smartphone use while driving is a much bigger problem. More lives lost, more injuries. Much larger scale.

But yet here we are talking about college athletes, none involved in organized crime or point shaving, being “monitored” and penalized."

[Ban Basketball]

On 9/22/2023 at 10:49 AM, WildTurk said:

Drake, UNI, Coe, Wartburg, Simpson etc. Just slipped through the cracks? No college females in Iowa placed a bet?  Targets were hand cherry picked 

Yeah! Let's up the stupid and call it a weaponized NCAA, eh, friends!?

[Ban Basketball]

23 hours ago, Alces Alces Gigas said:

I hear that Cael and company are in cahoots with the AGs office in Des Moines.   

Gonna give 'em the Bird, in one of the greatest moments of political stupidity I've seen in my life,  and that's saying something!

I doubt it though,  given that she's too busy giving the Bird to Iowa voters and legally trying to make voting more difficult for Iowa latinos. 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[Wrestleknownothing]

16 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

Gonna give 'em the Bird, in one of the greatest moments of political stupidity I've seen in my life,  and that's saying something!

I doubt it though,  given that she's too busy giving the Bird to Iowa voters and legally trying to make voting more difficult for Iowa latinos. 

Seems like a Non Wrestling Topics post

Edited September 23, 2023 by Wrestleknownothing

[Ban Basketball]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

Seems like an Other Topics post

You're right.  Someone mentioned the Iowa AG, so I added to it. My apologies. 

[1032004]

4 hours ago, WildTurk said:

Here's another perspective/opinion from @bluroptimo on Rivals

 

"Everyone knows, don’t text and drive. Don’t play on your smartphone while you drive. How would we all feel if geo location technology was used for the last year and today you found out you had to pay for all of those texting while driving offenses? And it could get ugly. f you were going over 84mph while texting, suspended license. Multiple violations, habitual offenders, five year suspended license.

How many of you would change your smartphone habits if you knew they’d be monitoring your cell phone use while driving? Would it be more acceptable if they said explicitly, “for the next year you’ll be watched via technology and issued warnings. After that fines and suspensions.”

And to those saying this isn’t a good analogy to this gambling situation, I agree. Smartphone use while driving is a much bigger problem. More lives lost, more injuries. Much larger scale.

But yet here we are talking about college athletes, none involved in organized crime or point shaving, being “monitored” and penalized."

But the current penalties for texting while driving aren’t a loss of NCAA eligibility…

[CHROMEBIRD]

10 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

Nelson Brands is probably in the worst position out of anyone in terms of having to live with this-it is really terrible to think about how this might impact his family relationships. His opening up about the situation was a ballsy thing to do given how awful it makes Iowa athletics and even his uncle and dad look in terms of running a program. 

YM: "boneheaded." I wanted to see Nelson compete this year but the thing that rubbed me the wrong way was how he Tweeted all that stuff and made it sound like he was the poor helpless victim when we all know that as a family member of the coaches and someone who has been around college wrestling for pretty much all his life, he should have known better. When he said he skipped the compliance meeting, what was he implying? That he should be exempt from the rules? He knew full well that he has the advantage of his connections, being beloved by fans, and relative of a couple of Iowa's all-time greats and thought he could garner everyone's sympathy and rally support to get the decision overturned. Instead he embarrassed himself and the program, which makes me mad.