Players Betting

[XLIX]

Bob Kraft invested 400K in Draft Kings before gambling became legal in Taxachusetts and I bet the value of that investment has skyrocketed. We can only guess what impact he had over that by making the rules on the games being gambled on, but I'm sure it's significant.

Here's the flaw in your argument: No one looks at Bob Kraft's investment in Draft Kings and thinks the Patriots are throwing games. (Granted, the way they've played these past few seasons could lead someone to reasonably conclude that, but in general it is not something people believe).

But if a player gets involved in gambling, then it creates a situation where throwing games is very much in the realm of possibility.

 

[1960Pats]

Here's the flaw in your argument: No one looks at Bob Kraft's investment in Draft Kings and thinks the Patriots are throwing games. (Granted, the way they've played these past few seasons could lead someone to reasonably conclude that, but in general it is not something people believe).

But if a player gets involved in gambling, then it creates a situation where throwing games is very much in the realm of possibility.

This really isn't about tanking games. It's about gambling. We already know that one of the owners wanted his coach to tank games. I bet he got severely punished huh? We also saw Suck for Luck, no tanking there eh? And we all watched as Bill Polian took players out of games a few years ago so the Indiots got the Jets instead of the Steelers in the playoffs. His phony excuse at the time was that he didn't want to go for an undefeated season and end like the Pats did in 2007, but in fact did end the same with a loss in the SB. If the NYFL is trying to show that they aren't tanking games then they're going about it all wrong.

 

[XLIX]

This really isn't about tanking games. It's about gambling.

If one is talking about players engaging in gambling, you cannot separate the two.

As I stated in a previous post, there are already enough idiots out there claiming the NFL is fixed. Imagine how much louder those cries would be if players were able to gamble (or players gambling was given a slap on the wrist instead of a real punishment).

We already know that one of the owners wanted his coach to tank games. I bet he got severely punished huh? We also saw Suck for Luck, no tanking there eh? And we all watched as Bill Polian took players out of games a few years ago so the Indiots got the Jets instead of the Steelers in the playoffs. His phony excuse at the time was that he didn't want to go for an undefeated season and end like the Pats did in 2007, but in fact did end the same with a loss in the SB. If the NYFL is trying to show that they aren't tanking games then they're going about it all wrong.

Fans have no problem with teams deliberately playing poorly if it is done with long term goals in mind. Whether it is suck for Luck or it involves, for example, benching Mahomes and Kelce in week 18 if KC already clinched the #1 seed.

What fans can not and will not tolerate is the idea that individuals are losing games and/or playing poorly on purpose because they have gambled on the other team. That is the death knell of a sports league.

 

[p8ryts]

If one is talking about players engaging in gambling, you cannot separate the two.

As I stated in a previous post, there are already enough idiots out there claiming the NFL is fixed. Imagine how much louder those cries would be if players were able to gamble (or players gambling was given a slap on the wrist instead of a real punishment).

Fans have no problem with teams deliberately playing poorly if it is done with long term goals in mind. Whether it is suck for Luck or it involves, for example, benching Mahomes and Kelce in week 18 if KC already clinched the #1 seed.

What fans can not and will not tolerate is the idea that individuals are losing games and/or playing poorly on purpose because they have gambled on the other team. That is the death knell of a sports league.

I will NEVER be okay with tanking!! YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!!!

 

[1960Pats]

I will NEVER be okay with tanking!! YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!!!

It also reflects on the integrity of the game, which I know is a major goal of Goodell's because he has INTEGRITY stenciled all over his office.

I'll never forget the looks on the faces of Manning and Jeff Saturday when Bill Polian ordered the HC to take them out rather than go for the undefeated season with only two games left.

 

[1960Pats]

If one is talking about players engaging in gambling, you cannot separate the two.

As I stated in a previous post, there are already enough idiots out there claiming the NFL is fixed. Imagine how much louder those cries would be if players were able to gamble (or players gambling was given a slap on the wrist instead of a real punishment).

Fans have no problem with teams deliberately playing poorly if it is done with long term goals in mind. Whether it is suck for Luck or it involves, for example, benching Mahomes and Kelce in week 18 if KC already clinched the #1 seed.

What fans can not and will not tolerate is the idea that individuals are losing games and/or playing poorly on purpose because they have gambled on the other team. That is the death knell of a sports league.

The NYFL can get the same message across without throwing away a guys career over a first offense while allowing the owners to make money hand over fist from the gambling sites that they finance.

 

[XLIX]

I will NEVER be okay with tanking!! YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!!!

Well, we accept that teams tank and yet.... you're still here..... so it may be something you disapprove of, but obviously it isn't a deal breaker for you.

 

[XLIX]

The NYFL can get the same message across without throwing away a guys career over a first offense while allowing the owners to make money hand over fist from the gambling sites that they finance.

Oh yeah? How? Quite honestly, I think the NFL's punishment is lenient in this instance.

BTW, you always conveniently omit the fact that the owners and the players make money off their League's association with gambling entities. I don't see the players giving the money back or asking the salary cap to be lowered by $1.5 million per team because of how dirty that gambling money is.....

 

[1960Pats]

Well, we accept that teams tank and yet.... you're still here..... so it may be something you disapprove of, but obviously it isn't a deal breaker for you.

I like this site, not the NYFL.

 

[1960Pats]

Oh yeah? How? Quite honestly, I think the NFL's punishment is lenient in this instance.

BTW, you always conveniently omit the fact that the owners and the players make money off their League's association with gambling entities. I don't see the players giving the money back or asking the salary cap to be lowered by $1.5 million per team because of how dirty that gambling money is.....

I actually brought the money up earlier. If gambling brings in 100 million for the NYFL then the 51/49 split would give each player 25K and each owner 1.6 million. That's if the NYFL owners aren't fudging the books.

I think a player losing his career over a first gambling offense while the owners are basking in the profits of it is far from lenient. And in no way do I trust the owners to be even handed with their punishments. Do you really think that if the NYFL caught the NYJ's Aaron Rodgers gambling on a game that they'd take him out for a full season? I sure as hell don't.

 

[XLIX]

I actually brought the money up earlier. If gambling brings in 100 million for the NYFL then the 51/49 split would give each player 25K and each owner 1.6 million. That's if the NYFL owners aren't fudging the books.

The owners AND players are "basking in the profits".

I think a player losing his career over a first gambling offense while the owners are basking in the profits of it is far from lenient.

That aside, 1 one year suspension is not career ending.

And in no way do I trust the owners to be even handed with their punishments. Do you really think that if the NYFL caught the NYJ's Aaron Rodgers gambling on a game that they'd take him out for a full season? I sure as hell don't.

Yes I do because a big name QB getting involved in gambling is worse than a no-name backup defensive back.