Monday, May 14, 2018

What Supreme Court ruling means for BC

The United States Supreme Court overturned the federal ban on sports betting opening up a whole host of opportunities for gamblers and sports leagues alike. No one knows the details, but it sounds like it will be a state-by-state deal, however, the online aspect will make that even less relevant. What we can assume is that there will be more gambling and therefore more money and interest in sports, including college sports like BC.

More money is coming to BC

Given our lack of clout in our state and in our conference, I don't think BC will be driving Massachusetts' rules nor the ACC's. We are just along for the ride. Yet even if our status or membership never allows us to get a percentage of the action, there should be a bump in ad dollars. DraftKings, which is a Boston company with BC-ties, announced already that they are going to roll out online gambling. I hope that they buy ad time and space from BC to help promote it.

The increased revenue and interest is always going to be a good thing for BC.

BC needs to keep student athletes from gambling

Every college program will have to deal with this issue. Given our history, BC must be hyper-vigilant. A third gambling issue would be a huge black eye. And if it happens when there is legal gambling, the story would be that much bigger and have more far reaching implications.

19 comments:

mod34b said...

BC never had a gambling problem. Not good for BC for ia BC blog to repeat false claims.

ATL_eagle said...

We had two separate incidents where student athletes were involved with illegal gambling. What would you call it? Not a BC problem? Was the impact of the respective scandals overblown by TOB? Sure, but it still happened.

Napolean Bonaparte said...

Not sure how this will add revenue to BC's coffers other than by potentially increasing interest. Unlikely Congress will act at least in the short term. The state politicians will continue to express concern about the less fortunate - yet be delighted to expand gambling any way they can as an easy source of revenue to pay off their state pension bills even though most of it comes from the pockets of those who can least afford it. The biggest issue for the schools is the increased incentive for the crooks to corrupt the players and coaches and affect the outcome. Congress might write specific legislation to protect "amateur" athletics but it will probably take several major scandals involving some high profile schools before they would do so - let's hope BC is not among them. Maybe this blog will get a big boost from gamblers trying to gain insight on BC's prospects! So Knuck and Mod may be looking at consulting gigs! https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2018/05/14/sports-gambling-status-every-state-after-supreme-court-ruling/607334002/

Napolean Bonaparte said...

I might add that the potential for corruption is not just limited to affecting outcome - it's also just to gain an edge from inside information. So now, for example, the inside strength and conditioning coach becomes an attractive pay off target for information on the extent of a key player's injury status before a big game.

NYCEagle said...

Not sure this increases the risk of gambling incidents. It’s not like it was difficult to find a bookie before this

Napolean Bonaparte said...

Which makes you realize that the increased cost to the schools for heightened internal compliance and auditing (which they will absolutely need to incur now) may well offset the gains. Money corrupts - always has and always will.

Napolean Bonaparte said...

NYC - true - but the amounts involved now will quadruple and so will the incentives.

knucklehead said...

This is a state by state situation. Massachusetts is not jumping on this like NY, NJ and PA. So draftkings can setup online sportsbetting but nobody with a MA address on their credit card is going to be granted access(to game/match bets).

MA had a massive lottery program, one of the biggest in the country. Will be interesting to see how the politicians handle sportsbetting when so many people are betting with the lottery already.

Cannot wait to see how much of a cut of the winnings of sports bets the government gives itself when this ultimately gets passed in MA.

knucklehead said...

. . . Has a massive lottery.

knucklehead said...

BC has no clout in MA politics is as erroneous as saying BC doesn't(didn't) have a gambling issue.

Boston College is not going near this issue with a goal post. Unless some asshole in the media asks BC to comment on it. Then the Chestnut Hill legal team will drawing up another slander case against them(ask Michael Felger why he stopped incessantly trashing BC on the air).

NEDofSavinHill said...

Knew a gambler years ago who said if you have the money and bet it's not gambling. It's only gambling if you have no funds but a bookie gives you credit and then you post a large bet. That is where the thrill is. 2. The Mass State Lottery should run the program. They already have the infrastructure. Make people go to the Lottery machine and use cash to bet. No credit or on line betting. 3. Mod's take is essentially correct. The Henning gambling scandal was a non story. The b-ball one of over forty years ago was minor. No outcomes effected. Media hyped stories. All the time the press was covering up for Weinstein, Epstein Frankenstein, Spitzer, Studds, Weiner Schneiderman, Rose, Sandusky, Bernie Fine and Lauer. 4. Don;t listen to Know Nothings on talk radio.

mod34b said...

@ATL, the major incident involved the MAFIA corrupting a player. That is not a BC issue. In fact, it has been shown that BC the institution had no knowledge of the matter, and had appropriate institutional controls. There was no fine censure etc of BC. It happened 40 years ago too.

Why do you suggest it was a BC problem? No good for BC.

The second matter - players placing small bets on sports - was so trivial that it is not even worth mentioning.

Goberry said...

To anyone who says the Lottery should handle sports gambling in Mass, be careful what you wish for. The Lottery's takeout on bets ranges from 37% (numbers game) to 50% (multistate games). If the Lottery handled sports betting, expect at least a 30% vig on win bets, probably more on parlays.

knucklehead said...

The 10:30 comment is bizarre.

NEDofSavinHill said...

Mod hit the nail on the head. Large profits for the Lottery would ne good for cities and towns. Why let bookies and other swindlers control gaming.

working rich said...

never understood why Rick Kuhn went to prison.
amateur athlete playing amateur sport. Gambling was illegal.
He should have gotten a medal for breaking up an illegal activity.

Punishment did not fit the crime.

once gambling is legal it will be a different story.

ObserverCollege said...

In all seriousness, you inevitably hear off-the-wall conspiracy theories about crazy upsets like this one: http://uaafan.blogspot.com/2006/04/blast-from-past-greatest-upset.html

Those rumors will get rocket fuel with the added funds Nap cites that flow from legalized gambling.

Craig Yeaster said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deacon Drake said...

If it wasn't a problem before, the likeliness it will become a problem moving forward is slim. If players had wanted to bet before, they would have been doing it offshore with crypto, which will remain the safest way for them to do so. Sure, everyone knows a bookie, or can find one at the bar if they need to, but that is a much higher risk play. Many athletes are stupid and may dive in head first regardless of NCAA rules, but the infrastructure is there at many schools to do it off the grid.