VakAttack

Asking someone to disprove a negative. It's on the person making the claim to prove it. That said, I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate to discuss the situation, as long as it's couched in the framework that it's speculation. If we're being honest, my first thought when I read the story was that it didn't quite add up; that doesn't mean it's not true, I've had stories that didn't make sense to me end up being true in my line of work

It's not perfect at all, but it's a far better solution with better results than we have here. I'm going to leave the conversation here, not to avoid it, but this is the wrong forum and I don't want to go into a political or political-adjacent debate in a non-political forum. @Barracuda141 I tried to add your post into this one to let you know I wasn't avoiding the discussion, but it wouldn't let me do the multiquote for some reason. People who illicitly deal drugs should face consequences, especially high volume dealers. People who do drugs should receive treatment if they want it, or be left alone, unless they commit an actual crime with victims, similar to how we treat alcohol. ETA: To be clear, Barracuda, this is my opinion on the matter, not me claiming it is a fact. I think the evidence is with me, but it's still an opinion.

The results in Portugal have been staggering, and just another demerit on America's "War on Drugs."

This is not how...existence works.

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.

No. But you'll have to show me where this rule has any nexus w/ anything. Gambling is (arguably) a vice. Should we ban the kids for smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol?

Also, I saw this mentioned somewhere in the thread, it wasn't within the program that Nelson was hearing to be t the under on Iowa football, nor is that what Nelson claimed in his Tweets; it was from social media. Which is true, one of the biggest running jokes on college football podcasts and social media is Iowa going under constantly, it's what lead Shemp Ferentz' contract clause that he had to average 25 PPG to keep his job.

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.

Yazdani's skill inferiority is compounded by what seems like mental weakness (in this matchup only). The moment the refs (correctly) changed the call, he was done.

Yazdani just isn't dynamic enough.

Just life, lol. Nothing bad. I usually take a break before the season.