VakAttack

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.

Call reversed to 4 Taylor, 2 Yazdani!

YES!

Effing terrible call.

Didn't he get teched like 2 years ago?

All info us that 74 kg is a tough cut for Dake at this point. He usually looks off early but is fine later in the day. Hopefully he's ready to put an end to Cinderelpolous.

It was on this day we became a true descendant of themat.com.

Again, you're just making things up. I didn't say the opinions were false, I said they were just opinions without any presented factual underpinning. The Republicans are the ones holding the hearings, they have access to all this information, it's their job to prove their assertions. I didn't imply anything, I very directly stated that no actual evidence of their allegations has been presented. They present a benign fact (for example, Hunter Biden flew on Air Force 2) and tie it into innuendo but don't present any evidence for the innuendo. You think you're being intelligent, but you're just saying things, calling them facts, and then proceeding as if you've proved them. No. Circumstantial evidence would require some cause/effect. For example, if my fingerprints are found at a house, and John Doe is found murdered at that house, my fingerprints could be presented as circumstantial evidence at a trial for that murder. In this case you would have to show whatever benefit that business partner of Hunter's received from Joe.

You saying something is true doesn't make it true. Archer's testimony doesn't refute what you're saying it does. Hunter making money in China, Joe being wrong about that doesn't mean he's lying, just wrong. As to the second paragraph, I never said the investigation had to stop. If they want to utilize their resources this way, have at it. Again, you're making suppositions

I didn't say it can't be true. This is false. I said no evidence of these allegations has actually be presented, just benign facts included with innuendo to make them seem more substantive than they are.

Truly incredible to watch the same people see Trump charged with actual crimes multiple times with tons of evidence presented cover there eyes and stick their fingers in their ears but also insist that Joe Biden is a participant in crimes with no evidence presented and no charges