VakAttack

Whoa, are we really ready to raise the standards around here to those kind of heights? Because I like @PortaJohn!

Minnesota had an alleged drug distribution ring busted, WTF are you even talking about lol.

Honestly I don't know, and I wasn't watching back then to experience it, either. I started watching college wrestling in like 2001ish and got really into it in like 2005. Iowa had that great run w/ Metcalf and Co., but the recruiting wasn't like this.

I wonder if this still remains fun for normal Penn State fans. Not the winning titles on the mat, I'm sure that's great but just how often top recruits pick them. At some point does it become old hat? We've never seen anything like this.

Are there people arguing about what the actual rule is? If there are, count me out of that one. I fully acknowledge that the rule exists and Nelson violated it. Damn, y'all

Still not a thing I said, and an internet forum is not a court room. I tried to keep the syllables to a minimum for you, chief.

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.

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

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

Who said he's innocent?

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.

Nobody is actually providing any good reason why this should be the rule, just that it is the rule. Which is a stupid reason for a rule to exist.

Not really analogous, but ok.

I think we largely agree on this. 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.

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.