NCAA Potentially Reducing Gambling Penalties

[Gus]

12 minutes ago, lu1979 said:

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

I interpret it as the team that they are competing on (ex. Iowa wrestling). 

[Wrestleknownothing]

40 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

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?

A crime needs to occur for there to be a victim of a crime. In the case of the Iowa wrestlers there are no crimes and no allegations of crime.

In the case of Paniro Johnson, none of what you list is alleged to have occurred. His alleged crime relates to his attempts to disguise his identity.

In your list (a) is not a crime, (b) is not alleged to have occurred, making (1) and (2) moot, and (3) is also not a crime.

I need you to tell me you understand what a crime is.

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

We should also consider the motivation of the NCAA ..

Why would they do that?

One possible explanation is that they are reasonable stewards of sport

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

A second possible explanation is profit motive.

nah

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

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, ...

probably not

And btw, didn't the NFL just enact new gambling penalties?  

[Wrestleknownothing]

35 minutes ago, JVStateChamp said:

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. 

I disagree with you on how the real world works.

There are any number of violations of rules, or laws that have a different punishment for a first time offense than for repeated offenses. Warnings exit. Probation exists. Punishments for violating probation exist. Ratcheting punishments for repeat offenders exist. Going to the maximal allowable punishment right away is some old testament stuff, but not real world stuff.

You say, it is pretty simple, and I disagree with that, as well. It is actually quite nuanced. And part of that nuance is the NCAA's own complicity with the gambling industry, their history of hypocrisy with regard to the benefits received by the athletes (notice I did not say student-athletes?), and the recent trend of the courts and legislatures calling them on their hypocrisies.

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 minutes ago, ionel said:

nah

probably not

And btw, didn't the NFL just enact new gambling penalties?  

Everyone will enact new gambling penalties because no one can stop themselves from taking gambling profits.

[JVStateChamp]

2 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I disagree with you on how the real world works.

There are any number of violations of rules, or laws that have a different punishment for a first time offense than for repeated offenses. Warnings exit. Probation exists. Punishments for violating probation exist. Ratcheting punishments for repeat offenders exist. Going to the maximal allowable punishment right away is some old testament stuff, but not real world stuff.

You say, it is pretty simple, and I disagree with that, as well. It is actually quite nuanced. And part of that nuance is the NCAA's own complicity with the gambling industry, their history of hypocrisy with regard to the benefits received by the athletes (notice I did not say student-athletes?), and the recent trend of the courts and legislatures calling them on their hypocrisies.

I can definitely agree with you on the fact that the NCAA has been negligent in maintaining consistency in its own gambling policy which is what makes this argumentative. And I actually do not have any argument with what you're arguing I believe we just have different viewpoints. 

From my perspective, I have been in those compliance meetings not all that long ago (although at a much smaller institution than Iowa) and they make it very clear about the standards of gambling as well as the consequences. In my case, the compliance officer even went into detail about the dangers of being involved in fantasy football leagues that were for money. The other side is that it was originally ruled a year suspension which for some of the wrestlers was their last year of eligibility which is unfortunate. In some instances, if you play with fire you get burned, and if the NCAA does give a slap on the wrist then they must be consistent in the future with that ruling. 

This topic is definitely not as black and white as I previously stated, my frustration is the obvious ignorance of not being sorry that it happened but sorry they got caught. 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

24 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

A crime needs to occur for there to be a victim of a crime. In the case of the Iowa wrestlers there are no crimes and no allegations of crime.

In the case of Paniro Johnson, none of what you list is alleged to have occurred. His alleged crime relates to his attempts to disguise his identity.

In your list (a) is not a crime, (b) is not alleged to have occurred, making (1) and (2) moot, and (3) is also not a crime.

I need you to tell me you understand what a crime is.

Ok, so your beef is that the NCAA has the ability to punish athletes for conduct that is not criminal?  If so, you're basically railing against the entire NCAA system as they've always had a regime that is considerably more restrictive than what is allowed by criminal law.

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, JVStateChamp said:

I can definitely agree with you on the fact that the NCAA has been negligent in maintaining consistency in its own gambling policy which is what makes this argumentative. And I actually do not have any argument with what you're arguing I believe we just have different viewpoints. 

From my perspective, I have been in those compliance meetings not all that long ago (although at a much smaller institution than Iowa) and they make it very clear about the standards of gambling as well as the consequences. In my case, the compliance officer even went into detail about the dangers of being involved in fantasy football leagues that were for money. The other side is that it was originally ruled a year suspension which for some of the wrestlers was their last year of eligibility which is unfortunate. In some instances, if you play with fire you get burned, and if the NCAA does give a slap on the wrist then they must be consistent in the future with that ruling. 

This topic is definitely not as black and white as I previously stated, my frustration is the obvious ignorance of not being sorry that it happened but sorry they got caught. 

Yes, I have been careful not to claim that they are without fault, or that there should not be a rule against gambling, or there should not be consequences for breaking the rule (even if we disagree on whether my consequences are so light as to be meaningless). My argument is that both the original penalties, and the first set of retroactive penalties, were too harsh given the facts and circumstances.

[Wrestleknownothing]

Just now, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Ok, so your beef is that the NCAA has the ability to punish athletes for conduct that is not criminal?  If so, you're basically railing against the entire NCAA system as they've always had a regime that is considerably more restrictive than what is allowed by criminal law.

You do like to mis-paraphrase.

My beef is that the NCAA misused their ability to punish athletes for breaking a rule. And as evidence I offer the NCAA's own actions. They have retroactively changed their punishment once, and are now messaging they will do it a second time.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

5 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You do like to mis-paraphrase.

My beef is that the NCAA misused their ability to punish athletes for breaking a rule. And as evidence I offer the NCAA's own actions. They have retroactively changed their punishment once, and are now messaging they will do it a second time.

So you now contend they lacked the requisite authority to impose punishments?  That's very different from complaining that the punishments were overly harsh.  And the NCAA reducing the severity of any imposed punishments =/= an admission that they lacked the authority to punish in the first place.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

So you now contend they lacked the requisite authority to impose punishments?  That's very different from complaining that the punishments were overly harsh.  And the NCAA reducing the severity of any imposed punishments =/= an admission that they lacked the authority to punish in the first place.

To quote my favorite author "you do like to mis-paraphrase"

If you ever want to have a real conversation, let me know.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

To quote my favorite author "you do like to mis-paraphrase"

If you ever want to have a real conversation, let me know.

It's hard to follow your train of thought when you keep moving the goalposts.

[WildTurk]

Look how many posts Jimmy has in this thread.  His butt is hurting with this news  

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

3 minutes ago, WildTurk said:

Look how many posts Jimmy has in this thread.  His butt is hurting with this news  

Yes, I'm very against gambling as a moral matter.

[nhs67]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

It's hard to follow your train of thought when you keep moving the goalposts.

He isn't moving the goalposts, you're just being intentionally dense and it is frustrating for a factual guy like Wkn.

Quit being a dolt.

[CHROMEBIRD]

20 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 wonder where Brands and some of the others are at right now weight and training wise. If it was me, I would've taken a vacation from the gym and hit the all-you-can-eat buffet the moment that the earlier NCAA ruling came down.

[WildTurk]

25 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

I wonder where Brands and some of the others are at right now weight and training wise. If it was me, I would've taken a vacation from the gym and hit the all-you-can-eat buffet the moment that the earlier NCAA ruling came down.

The Brands don't eat at Buffets. You are what you eat, even in the "off-season"

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 minutes ago, WildTurk said:

The Brands don't eat at Buffets. You are what you eat, even in the "off-season"

Eating at Buffett's is prohibitively expensive. I just can't see them affording it on an assistant wrestling coach's salary, unless I am vastly underestimating NIL.

https://www.reuters.com/business/bidding-tops-123-mln-warren-buffett-charity-lunch-2022-06-17/

Edited October 5, 2023 by Wrestleknownothing

[nhs67]

I don't think Brands at anything other than 174 is a good thing.  He is tough and hard-nosed... can handfight and claw with the best of 'em... but he isn't big enough for 184.  We saw that already.

I think it would need to be Swafford or Caliendo at 184 with PK at 165.  PK is also too small for anything other than 165.  He has the head of a 197lber, though.

[WildTurk]

12 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Eating at Buffett's is prohibitively expensive. I just can't see them affording it on an assistant wrestling coach's salary, unless I am vastly underestimating NIL.

https://www.reuters.com/business/bidding-tops-123-mln-warren-buffett-charity-lunch-2022-06-17/

I avoid buffets.  Low quality food in high quantities.  Plus I can can't stand obese people to be honest.  I hold my breath and look away every time I walk by those fat slobs.  Buffets are cheap for morbidly obese people. They sit there for 2+ hours stuffing a dozen plates of food in their mouths.  Then they waddle out the door to their 20 year old minivans and sleep the rest of the day in government housing. 

[1032004]

1 hour ago, nhs67 said:

I don't think Brands at anything other than 174 is a good thing.  He is tough and hard-nosed... can handfight and claw with the best of 'em...

I see what you did there 

[Dogbone]

I am skeptical that this will help the Iowa and Iowa St wrestlers.  Mainly because this would require the NCAA to be reasonable and thoughtful regarding the severity of the punishment with the rule be broken. 

[1032004]

5 hours ago, Dogbone said:

I am skeptical that this will help the Iowa and Iowa St wrestlers.  Mainly because this would require the NCAA to be reasonable and thoughtful regarding the severity of the punishment with the rule be broken. 

Was anyone from ISU wrestling punished by the NCAA?

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Was anyone from ISU wrestling punished by the NCAA?

I think Paniro Johnson was, but he also has legal issues because he was charged with an actual crime.

[1032004]

8 hours ago, WildTurk said:

Look how many posts Jimmy has in this thread.  His butt is hurting with this news  

Oh yeah he’s loving this.  He can simultaneously claim he’s going to be right about the suspensions being a “nothingburger” while also claiming to be holier than thou and saying they should be suspended for the season