Nelson Brands tweets details on why his NCAA career is over

[wrestlingshoe]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Who said he's innocent? 

Bahah... I stand by my comment. 

[Alces Alces Gigas]

I'm only guessing here but do some of you think that the harsh punishment is set forth as a deterrent to other athletes that might consider placing wagers now or in the future?  

[Caveira]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You weren't wrong about 3, just 1 and 2. Now do the part where you admit that.

And 1 and 2 are categorically different than 3.

No one disputes that the rule against gambling exists. No one thinks that Nelson Brands is not guilty of breaking NCAA rules.

I do think the NCAA penalty is too harsh. That is partially because I think the NCAA is conflicted and hypocritical on this issue.

I do not think this is directly about the purity of sport as they would have you believe. I do think this is about the long term, existential threat to TV rights contracts if the NCAA is perceived to not be tough on gambling.

You can literally cheat.  Steroids.   Lie about it and not miss as much.  
 

on the other hand.  Folks like to bring up this behavior (gambling) may cause you do do bad things down the road if you get stuck.  
So a situation where literal cheating is a lesser slap on the wrist so you can potentially stop potential cheating down the road is a more severe penalty.  Does not seem to be fair. 
 

Yes It is a rule.  I’ll bet they knew that as well.  There should be a penalty.  But it shouldn’t be this severe.  

[VakAttack]

2 hours ago, wrestlingshoe said:

Bahah... I stand by my comment. 

Great.  It's ok to admit that you're not capable of participating in a nuanced discussion, champ.

[D3 for LU]

3 hours ago, ILLINIWrestlingBlog said:

Sure, I hate Iowa.

If Iowa...

The point is that I hate Iowa, and the point is that gambling and sports don't mix. 

 

 

...like oil & vinegar?

D3

[wrestlingshoe]

2 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Great.  It's ok to admit that you're not capable of participating in a nuanced discussion, champ.

Just because you can use a big word doesn't mean your advice is any better. Your argument reeks of someone who lets his emotions get in the way. All the more reason not to take your advice. 

[VakAttack]

2 hours ago, wrestlingshoe said:

Just because you can use a big word doesn't mean your advice is any better. Your argument reeks of someone who lets his emotions get in the way. All the more reason not to take your advice. 

If you think any of the words I used in that post are big, I think that'll just about wrap things up, bucko.

[1032004]

12 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I get it. Do as we say, not as we do.

There is nothing you can say to convince me that the NCAA has any moral authority to take a season of eligibility from someone who gambled with $195 and his winnings on $195. It is not the right punishment for breaking the rule in the way he did.

If they were worried about him being led down a wayward path over $195 they would not be standing silently by while their member institutions signed deals with gambling sites and casinos to recruit kids on campus to become gamblers.

It is like a bunch of posters on here have Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to the NCAA.

While I agree there is really no reason to restrict college athletes from betting on professional sports, again the biggest issue seems to be betting on Iowa sports.  I assume that’s the reason some guys did NOT have a full season of eligibility taken from them.   Has anyone lost more than a season? That could be a bit harsh depending on the allegations.

Sure, the NCAA likes the money from the gambling companies.  But they don’t want to risk their sports being compromised, so they restrict their athletes from betting on them, and it makes sense to prohibit the entire athletic department considering the likelihood of knowing other athletes.  The NFL does similar with rules against players sharing non-public information, as well as things like rules against office staff members betting even though they don’t have any impact on the outcome of the game.

[Eagle26]

I personally agree we have to be very careful about how sports betting could affect the integrity of sports. However, what is the difference between an Iowa wrestler betting on Iowa football vs. a random Iowa student betting on Iowa football? The example was given that a girlfriend of an Iowa football player or someone else very close to the team could still bet on the game. I’m not sure I see the distinction in severity? If you make a bet involving your own team, they should throw the book at you. Other than that, what’s the difference?

And yes, I understand he knew the rules (or should have). It’s his own fault and not a good look for his family and the program. I don’t think we should go back and change the rules for him. He needs to face the penalty as laid out. However, I do agree with others that it seems the punishment doesn’t fit the crime and it may be something to reconsider in the future

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

16 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

the scenario you described is legal.

 

No kidding.

You just don't get it...

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Eagle26 said:

I personally agree we have to be very careful about how sports betting could affect the integrity of sports. However, what is the difference between an Iowa wrestler betting on Iowa football vs. a random Iowa student betting on Iowa football? The example was given that a girlfriend of an Iowa football player or someone else very close to the team could still bet on the game. I’m not sure I see the distinction in severity? If you make a bet involving your own team, they should throw the book at you. Other than that, what’s the difference?

And yes, I understand he knew the rules (or should have). It’s his own fault and not a good look for his family and the program. I don’t think we should go back and change the rules for him. He needs to face the penalty as laid out. However, I do agree with others that it seems the punishment doesn’t fit the crime and it may be something to reconsider in the future

As mentioned, the girlfriend may not get in trouble in that scenario, but the player could if they shared any information that wasn’t public.

Athletes are more likely going to be around other athletes, and have access to facilities that non-athletes don’t.  I’m sure the NCAA would like to prohibit athletes’ friends from betting as well, but they have no jurisdiction over non-athletes.

 

[ILLINIWrestlingBlog]

I don't think you can say that the infraction is akin to jaywalking or a moving violation in one paragraph, and in the next, acknowledge that colleges have billions invested in the issue and have some incentive to protect that interest. In fact, university sports departments are starting to earn a quarter billion dollars in revenue annually. The valuation of the athletic departments and facilities at those schools must be in the tens of billions of dollars. 

Jaywalking or moving violations will not upset that apple cart. A point-shaving scheme might. Even the appearance of impropriety could be damaging. 

Now that that's off my chest, let's take a light-hearted look at sports. It just so happens that young Brands will now go down in Hawkeye history as the subject matter of a "The Adventures of Jombo" strip. (You can purchase an NFT of this strip for one million dollars (US) and own an important part of Hawkeye Wrestling History. Truly, a gift to cherish and hand down to your children). 

[ionel]

18 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Who said he's innocent? 

 

16 hours ago, wrestlingshoe said:

Bahah... I stand by my comment. 

Boom!!

[ionel]

24 minutes ago, ILLINIWrestlingBlog said:

I don't think you can say that the infraction is akin to jaywalking or a moving violation in one  "The Adventures of Jombo" strip. (You can purchase an NFT of this strip for one million dollars (US) and own an important part of Hawkeye Wrestling History. Truly, a gift to cherish and hand down to your children). 

 

I have a Jimmy Stickybun 10% off coupon, can I get one for $900k?

[Maxwell Smart]

ILLINIWrestlingBlog - That's freaking hilarious! Thank you.

[MPhillips]

[Eagle26]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

As mentioned, the girlfriend may not get in trouble in that scenario, but the player could if they shared any information that wasn’t public.

Athletes are more likely going to be around other athletes, and have access to facilities that non-athletes don’t.  I’m sure the NCAA would like to prohibit athletes’ friends from betting as well, but they have no jurisdiction over non-athletes.

 

That’s a fair point. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if sports betting was illegal period. The thing I don’t like is that for some people it’s perfectly ok and for others it’s so wrong that they take away something that means the world to them. 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

The Gamblin' Iowa Snake-eyes!

[ionel]

1 hour ago, MPhillips said:

You already won the day, take the afternoon off and enjoy!  

[Lipdrag]

2 hours ago, MPhillips said:

Bet on the takedown color and/or number.  Huge bonus if the takedown is on the Green 0.  Think of the parlays, trifectas, and other possibilities.  Now all fans who have a bet pending on the match can throw the brick to get a video review of the actual takedown location.  Bet limit:  $194.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Lipdrag

[pokemonster]

On 9/24/2023 at 12:21 AM, VakAttack said:

I'm not aware of 1 and 2 being reported anywhere.  As to 3, I've already addressed that.  Yes, it's the rule, but there's zero reason for it to exist.

Again, for no reason. For example, other students at Iowa or Iowa State, even say a football player's girlfriend, would be free and clear to make bets on the respective football teams with the same or better access to that inside information.  Finding information to find bad lines is how truly successful sports bettors succeed.

Isn't the use of insider information illegal in Nevada? Just because people are unethical and cheating, doesn't mean the NCAA should open up their athletes to doing so. 

Are you saying if you woke up tomorrow and were the NCAA president, you'd decide to allow sports betting amongst college athletes? Seems like a monumental mistake to do so. You open the NCAA up to a ton of scrutiny for various reasons. Integrity of the game / institution, the fact that gambling generally goes against the mission of developing and safe-guarding student athletes, the fact it's a slippery slope for many many people and can lead to compromising games, the potential loss of trust in the games from fans, etc. It's simply in the NCAA's best interest to keep the rules as they are. 

Wanna gamble? Go gamble. You just can't do it as an NCAA athlete. 

[ionel]

2 hours ago, MPhillips said:

 

4 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Bet on the takedown color and/or number.  Huge bonus if the takedown is on the Green 0.  Think of the parlays, trifectas, and other possibilities.  Now all fans who have a bet pending on the match can throw the brick to get a video review of the actual takedown location.  Bet limit:  $194.

This is most disappointing, I was going to bet $10,000 that the fans called STALLING! on the blue with white stripe wrestler when he is in red 23.  

[Lipdrag]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

 

This is most disappointing, I was going to bet $10,000 that the fans called STALLING! on the blue with white stripe wrestler when he is in red 23.  

Betting on fans is unlimited so you are good to go.  Betting on college athletes is limited.  Integrity, you know.

[ionel]

Just now, Lipdrag said:

Betting on fans is unlimited so you are good to go.  Betting on college athletes is limited.  Integrity, you know.

Excellent!  Then I'll put $10k on red 23 and $25k on black 35.  

[VakAttack]

42 minutes ago, pokemonster said:

Isn't the use of insider information illegal in Nevada? Just because people are unethical and cheating, doesn't mean the NCAA should open up their athletes to doing so. 

Are you saying if you woke up tomorrow and were the NCAA president, you'd decide to allow sports betting amongst college athletes? Seems like a monumental mistake to do so. You open the NCAA up to a ton of scrutiny for various reasons. Integrity of the game / institution, the fact that gambling generally goes against the mission of developing and safe-guarding student athletes, the fact it's a slippery slope for many many people and can lead to compromising games, the potential loss of trust in the games from fans, etc. It's simply in the NCAA's best interest to keep the rules as they are. 

Wanna gamble? Go gamble. You just can't do it as an NCAA athlete. 

Spare me on the NCAA's moral high ground.  They've proven, constantly, they don't have it.  Yes, I would let athletes bet on other college sports that they are not a participant in.  There is zero evidence that it has any more affect on the integrity of the games compared to what other students at the school wagering does.