NCAA Potentially Reducing Gambling Penalties

[Gus]

 

[Gus]

56 minutes ago, Gus said:

 

Could we see the Iowa wrestlers back in the lineup? How would the lineup shake out with the new transfers? 

165: PK/Caliendo

174: PK/Caliendo

184: Brands

197: Assad

HWT: Cassioppi

[Wrestleknownothing]

A freakin men. I always thought the penalties were too harsh in this case and these potential revisions recognize that. If they also make the revisions retroactive, as is being considered, it would be another aknowledgement that they got it wrong the first time. Good for them that they appear to recognize their mistake.

[flyingcement]

2 hours ago, Gus said:

Could we see the Iowa wrestlers back in the lineup? How would the lineup shake out with the new transfers? 

165: PK/Caliendo

174: PK/Caliendo

184: Brands

197: Assad

HWT: Cassioppi

I would go exactly as you have it above - with Caliendo at 65 and Kennedy at 74.  I think both are ideal for 165, and since I believe Caliendo has a higher potential, he should be prioritized.  Of course, it might not work out exactly like that in the room or in the minds of the Brands brothers, but that would be my guess.

[Ohio Elite]

10 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

A freakin men. I always thought the penalties were too harsh in this case and these potential revisions recognize that. If they also make the revisions retroactive, as is being considered, it would be another aknowledgement that they got it wrong the first time. Good for them that they appear to recognize their mistake.

Good news is hard to find these days, I'm lovin this.

[Ohio Elite]

Just now, flyingcement said:

I would go exactly as you have it above - with Caliendo at 65 and Kennedy at 74.  I think both are ideal for 165, and since I believe Caliendo has a higher potential, he should be prioritized.  Of course, it might not work out exactly like that in the room or in the minds of the Brands brothers, but that would be my guess.

What's going on with Anthony Ferrari? Is he smaller?  I suppose I could look it up and stop being lazy.

[Gus]

5 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said:

What's going on with Anthony Ferrari? Is he smaller?  I suppose I could look it up and stop being lazy.

He’s project 157/165 but there is a thought that he could potentially make 149

[JVStateChamp]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

A freakin men. I always thought the penalties were too harsh in this case and these potential revisions recognize that. If they also make the revisions retroactive, as is being considered, it would be another aknowledgement that they got it wrong the first time. Good for them that they appear to recognize their mistake.

Not that I want these wrestlers collegiate careers to end. But playing devils advocate the wrestlers did know the consequences and the violations they were committing at the time. If they say that they did not know that their careers could be over, I am calling BS. Every team meets with a compliance officer that goes over regulations of do's and dont's. What should a penalty be for student athletes that are gambling on their university? This opens a huge can of worms for the integrity of sports. I am also not blind to think it was only Iowa wrestlers and acknowledge that they were just the only ones to get caught but there does need to be some repercussions to ignoring a clear NCAA policy. 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

12 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

A freakin men. I always thought the penalties were too harsh in this case and these potential revisions recognize that. If they also make the revisions retroactive, as is being considered, it would be another aknowledgement that they got it wrong the first time. Good for them that they appear to recognize their mistake.

Yes, the gambling athletes should just get a slap on the wrist (or a pat on the butt) and be given a stern warning to attend the annual compliance meetings where they go over the prohibitions against gambling.

[WildTurk]

I've said since day 1 that the penalties were way too harsh.  Hopefully the NCAA does the right thing here.

[JVStateChamp]

30 minutes ago, WildTurk said:

I've said since day 1 that the penalties were way too harsh.  Hopefully the NCAA does the right thing here.

What is the proper punishment in your eyes? 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Just now, JVStateChamp said:

What is the proper punishment in your eyes? 

Suspended from a number of (meaningless) dual meets...full participation at B10s and NCAAs.

[JVStateChamp]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Suspended from a number of (meaningless) dual meets...full participation at B10s and NCAAs.

Are you talking about the same dual meets that a majority of the starters dont wrestle in anyways? That should solve the problem for sure.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

3 minutes ago, JVStateChamp said:

Are you talking about the same dual meets that a majority of the starters dont wrestle in anyways? That should solve the problem for sure.

I mean, I obviously think there should be a meaningful punishment given that these student athletes attended annual meetings where gambling and its consequences were discussed ad nauseum.  But others don't want to see their favorite team actually punished for breaking the rules.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Jimmy Cinnabon

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Actually, I am hearing now that all the Iowa wrestlers will be back and not face any suspension.  So it looks like my "nothingburger" prediction may ultimately be 100% correct.  I wonder if any of the transferees will want another free transfer home since they now have to battle for a spot they thought they had locked up...

Edited October 5, 2023 by Jimmy Cinnabon

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Yes, the gambling athletes should just get a slap on the wrist (or a pat on the butt) and be given a stern warning to attend the annual compliance meetings where they go over the prohibitions against gambling.

You are so full of crap.

First time offenders of victimless crimes almost always get a slap on the wrist. It is only when they do not get a slap on the wrist that people get upset. You sit around claiming it is only Iowa fans who are upset, but it is only you, the supposed PSU fan, who is upset when reason prevails.

Again. You are so full of crap.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You are so full of crap.

First time offenders of victimless crimes almost always get a slap on the wrist. It is only when they do not get a slap on the wrist that people get upset. You sit around claiming it is only Iowa fans who are upset, but it is only you, the supposed PSU fan, who is upset when reason prevails.

Again. You are so full of crap.

Do you truly believe it's a victimless crime?

[PSULou64]

I may have an unpopular opinion on this but I don't think the NCAA should change their policy much in this.  The issues that surround gambling are not a joke and to treat them as such are shortsighted and foolish.  I don't like to see any student athlete punished but there have to be consequences to violations and repercussions for inappropriate behavior.  In the case, of wrestling anything less than loss of post season eligibility isn't a penalty at all and make no sense.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

25 minutes ago, JVStateChamp said:

What is the proper punishment in your eyes? 

A slap on the wrist is the proper punishment in this case.

The argument I hear for bringing down the hammer is "but what if we do not punish harshly? Think of the moral hazard they might be subject to. Think of all the gambling debts they most assuredly will have that will most assuredly lead to them throwing games, or influencing outcomes."

Punishing someone over harshly for a minor crime because there is a low probability that it will lead to some larger crime is just wrong.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Do you truly believe it's a victimless crime?

Yes.

Can you identify a victim?

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Do you truly believe it's a victimless crime?

Let me take that back. It is not even a crime in almost all cases. It is a rules violation.

[Wrestleknownothing]

We should also consider the motivation of the NCAA in changing their punishments. Remember that they have already retroactively changed the punishment once, and they are now considering a second retroactive change to the punishment.

Why would they do that?

One possible explanation is that they are reasonable stewards of sport and they that feel a sort of parental benevolence toward their charges, the student-athletes. They are doing this for their own good. Of course, their entire history of enforcement actions and rule sets would suggest otherwise.

A second possible explanation is profit motive. Several of their member institutions already take payments from gambling companies. They also use their position to promote gambling among their students, including underaged students. The NCAA and member institutions have already lost a number of court protections for their past hypocritical positions. They know that they cannot both take money from gambling companies, and overly harshly punish students for doing the thing that they are promoting, AND expect that to hold up in court over the long haul.

A third possibility is that they are mostly concerned about the purity of sport and the wonderful things it can do for the amateur athlete in between going to classes, but classes always come first. I had a hard time typing that sentence between giggles.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Yes.

Can you identify a victim?

Yes, do we really need to go into how an athlete placing bets on his own team (or another team at his school) where he could (a) have insider information or (b) influence on the outcome of the game could potentially cause (1) monetary losses to other bettors, (2) affect the outcome of the game or (3) affect the integrity of the athletics program as whole?

[JVStateChamp]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

A slap on the wrist is the proper punishment in this case.

The argument I hear for bringing down the hammer is "but what if we do not punish harshly? Think of the moral hazard they might be subject to. Think of all the gambling debts they most assuredly will have that will most assuredly lead to them throwing games, or influencing outcomes."

Punishing someone over harshly for a minor crime because there is a low probability that it will lead to some larger crime is just wrong.

Or you could look at it this way... All college athletes have the privilege of being able to represent their university which comes with perks that the average student does not. Student-athletes are provided with food, free tutors, discount tuition, and more. Student-athletes also have to follow particular rules that are well documented and educated about yearly. The NCAA giving them a slap on the wrist is setting a precedent that can't be overturned if and when the next gambling scandal comes around. It is pretty simple, the athletes knew they were not allowed to gamble because of clear NCAA rules and chose to ignore those rules. We are enabling the blatant ignoring of the rules with a slap on the wrist, if you are on a college roster and feel you would rather gamble than be part of that sport then quit and become a normal student. Sometimes you can't have it both ways whether you (or anyone else) thinks it's fair or not. 

[lu1979]

Does "their own team" mean any team at the institution they attend or only the team that they actually are a member of?