2023 NFL Off season News

[Cobra Mgr]

Four players suspended for gambling, 3 for the entire season.

[Syd Thrift]

As much as I deride the NFL for being two-faced on the subject, man, you can’t keep guys in the league who gambled on their own team the way Isaiah Rodgers did.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

As much as I deride the NFL for being two-faced on the subject, man, you can’t keep guys in the league who gambled on their own team the way Isaiah Rodgers did.

I find the NFL dealing w/sportsbooks & suspending players to be like McD's firing employees for buying Big Macs.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I find the NFL dealing w/sportsbooks & suspending players to be like McD's firing employees for buying Big Macs.

It is explicitly in the players contracts and the CBA that they are not to gamble in team facilities, on the team plane or on their own team.
It may forbid them from gambling on the NFL at all.


And yes, I get the double standard. But it is not like the players did not know this was breaking a rule.

Well, that article made it easy.
Here are the rules

The six "key rules" of the gambling policy the league officials will emphasize are:

Don't bet on the NFL.

Don't gamble at your team facility, while traveling for a road game or staying at a team hotel.

Don't have someone bet for you.

Don't share team "inside information."

Don't enter a sportsbook during the NFL playing season.

Don't play daily fantasy football.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

It is explicitly in the players contracts and the CBA that they are not to gamble in team facilities, on the team plane or on their own team.
It may forbid them from gambling on the NFL at all.


And yes, I get the double standard. But it is not like the players did not know this was breaking a rule.

Well, that article made it easy.
Here are the rules

The six "key rules" of the gambling policy the league officials will emphasize are:

Don't bet on the NFL.

Don't gamble at your team facility, while traveling for a road game or staying at a team hotel.

Don't have someone bet for you.

Don't share team "inside information."

Don't enter a sportsbook during the NFL playing season.

Don't play daily fantasy football.

I wasn't trying to defend the players or say the NFL was heavy handed. I'm against professional sports personnel gambling in any sport even if it isn't their own. I think sports leagues are acting to their own detriment when they promote an activity & discourage it at the same time. Those are mixed signals like starting a kid's TV show w/"Don't try this at home".

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I find the NFL dealing w/sportsbooks & suspending players to be like McD's firing employees for buying Big Macs.

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

It is explicitly in the players contracts and the CBA that they are not to gamble in team facilities, on the team plane or on their own team.
It may forbid them from gambling on the NFL at all.


And yes, I get the double standard. But it is not like the players did not know this was breaking a rule.

Well, that article made it easy.
Here are the rules

The six "key rules" of the gambling policy the league officials will emphasize are:

Don't bet on the NFL.

Don't gamble at your team facility, while traveling for a road game or staying at a team hotel.

Don't have someone bet for you.

Don't share team "inside information."

Don't enter a sportsbook during the NFL playing season.

Don't play daily fantasy football.

Still, I agree with CM. Watch as pro sports increasingly look like they are playing "Whack-a-Mole" with the gambling suspensions. They made their bed; let them lie in it. Though, not that it won't be comfortable bedding as long as we fans continue to believe in the authenticity of what we are seeing on the field.

[Marinersfan51]

The great irony of it is that the reason policing players gambling is so important to sports league right now is because of the partnerships with sportsbooks. I'm sure there have been plenty of players betting on sports in the past that leagues were willing to just not notice as long as it didn't get Pete Rose level egregious. But now that they are closely financially tied to the sportsbooks, they really need to make sure the perception of everything being on the level (not suggesting it isn't) is maintained to get and keep people gambling on sports.

Sports betting is moving from something the leagues didn't mind because it boosted viewership a bit to a central profit center for the leagues. As a result they are way more invested in keeping their leagues attractive for gamblers.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

The great irony of it is that the reason policing players gambling is so important to sports league right now is because of the partnerships with sportsbooks. I'm sure there have been plenty of players betting on sports in the past that leagues were willing to just not notice as long as it didn't get Pete Rose level egregious. But now that they are closely financially tied to the sportsbooks, they really need to make sure the perception of everything being on the level (not suggesting it isn't) is maintained to get and keep people gambling on sports.

Sports betting is moving from something the leagues didn't mind because it boosted viewership a bit to a central profit center for the leagues. As a result they are way more invested in keeping their leagues attractive for gamblers.

But some of us, Like myself, it will never be on the level. I think it hubris to not think that every game there isn't somebody trying to manipulate it in some way. And I don't mean force a loss on purpose. So i think they've lost that battle. But when you see obvious mistakes made by officials go unaddressed & unpunished, now you begin to wonder if "higher-ups" are not attempting the same. Especially when these mistakes are made after consulting replay.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

The great irony of it is that the reason policing players gambling is so important to sports league right now is because of the partnerships with sportsbooks. I'm sure there have been plenty of players betting on sports in the past that leagues were willing to just not notice as long as it didn't get Pete Rose level egregious. But now that they are closely financially tied to the sportsbooks, they really need to make sure the perception of everything being on the level (not suggesting it isn't) is maintained to get and keep people gambling on sports.

Sports betting is moving from something the leagues didn't mind because it boosted viewership a bit to a central profit center for the leagues. As a result they are way more invested in keeping their leagues attractive for gamblers.

How are they getting caught? If I'm a sportsbook, my clients are confidential. Unless you're paying me a lot of money to do otherwise.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

How are they getting caught? If I'm a sportsbook, my clients are confidential. Unless you're paying me a lot of money to do otherwise.

If you're a sportsbook that does some advertising with the NFL, what hurts more, giving up some names so that the shield can show how tough it is on players who use your product, or losing that agreement with the shield? If I'm even a middle-time bookie I'm going the former route and will even perhaps volunteer the information if I think it will get me into their better graces.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

How are they getting caught? If I'm a sportsbook, my clients are confidential. Unless you're paying me a lot of money to do otherwise.

The sportsbooks are in business with the leagues and it is in all of their interests to police it aggressively. Coming down on players who are betting increases confidence in the product as being on the level. What they don't want is a situation where there is a controversial play that decides a game and then later it comes out that a player involved had action on the game. That could kill (or at least seriously injure) the golden goose.

The sportsbooks don't care about your confidentiality, that all gets signed away in the fine print of the terms and conditions. They already have to monitor and police activity to comply with the various laws surrounding sports betting since each state handles it differently.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

If you're a sportsbook that does some advertising with the NFL, what hurts more, giving up some names so that the shield can show how tough it is on players who use your product, or losing that agreement with the shield? If I'm even a middle-time bookie I'm going the former route and will even perhaps volunteer the information if I think it will get me into their better graces.

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

The sportsbooks are in business with the leagues and it is in all of their interests to police it aggressively. Coming down on players who are betting increases confidence in the product as being on the level. What they don't want is a situation where there is a controversial play that decides a game and then later it comes out that a player involved had action on the game. That could kill (or at least seriously injure) the golden goose.

The sportsbooks don't care about your confidentiality, that all gets signed away in the fine print of the terms and conditions. They already have to monitor and police activity to comply with the various laws surrounding sports betting since each state handles it differently.

I agree. I understand. But they're being paid to do so.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I agree. I understand. But they're being paid to do so.

It's more that they are paying to do so. The sportsbooks pay the leagues, not the other way around.

[Cobra Mgr]

The sportsbooks squealing about players placing bets is for the same good reason as the leagues preventing them from placing bets.

If fans start to believe players are manipulating results, the leagues lose business.

If gamblers start to believe players are manipulating the results, the sportsbooks lose business.

[Amazin69]

Well, Larry Merchant actually interviewed a confessed game dumper in The National Football Lottery (his book about his experiences betting on the NFL) back in 1972, but we would hope that better contracts had put a stop to that. Sad if the spigot is getting turned back on again.

(Apparently there was a huge scandal involving point-shaving with Kansas City in 1966. To quote Merchant, visiting Las Vegas, "Here's what they say about Kansas City around here: 'I wouldn't bet the Chiefs if the game were over.'"

Allegedly Len Dawson was interviewed by the FBI and passed a lie-detector test, for what that's worth.

It seems KC was just swarming with gamblers back then. In Ball Four, Bouton talks about how in most cities there were two or three places the players were warned to stay away from because they were known hangouts for gamblers…but in KC it was well over a dozen.

Bouton quotes a fellow Pilot, "Wow, you can save $900 just by drinking in the hotel bar." [The hotel bar was off-limits to players at a $100 fine, since Dave Boswell can tell you what happens when the players and the manager drink in the same bar. But the gambling hangouts were a $1000 fine, which was serious cheese in those days when the minimum was a paltry $12K])

[Cobra Mgr]

Barkley, Jacobs & Pollard did not sign new contracts & will have to play on their franchise tag offers.

Question: Should RB's break from the NFLPA & form their own separate union?

[Syd Thrift]

And lose the bargaining power they already have, as geared against them as it is? Nah.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

And lose the bargaining power they already have, as geared against them as it is? Nah.

I think if one position group went on strike, it would cause a serious disruption in the league's season. That's leverage.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I think if one position group went on strike, it would cause a serious disruption in the league's season. That's leverage.

What if the strike wasn’t signed onto by everyone and/or teams successfully pulled practice squad guys and non-RB skill players in instead? I’m not sure the NFLPA is in that great of a position right now as it is and I’ll be honest, the possibly most vulnerable skill position is in an even worse situation. The shield would use this as a way to split the union because that’s what the owners do and in turn, when - not if - this did fail, do you think the NFLPA is letting those guys back in with open arms? Also, too, our horrible labor laws blame the union when there’s a wildcat strike, which is what this would be if all the RBs didn’t get together and decertify and recert, which would be an insanely complicated thing to do, and so if there *is* some kind of demonstrable damage from running backs walking out - even something like lowered attendance or TV ratings, the shield might be able to sue the union for it.

The real issue here is that running backs get screwed over by the way the game is set up: every major US sports league gets a rookie scale deal where they get a premium for players; unfortunately for running backs those first 3-4 years are often the best years of their career, especially if the team burns them up, and there’s no incentive at all for a team not to use up a RB who’s on his rookie contract. I don’t know how to fix that. Giving running backs even less bargaining power than they have right now seems like the wrong way. Maybe they get different rookie scale money? That would be a start.

[Cobra Mgr]

I've expressed up here before the reasons the NFLPA is impotent. The short version is the needs of the membership are too diverse. The NFL RB has considerations that don't coincide w/the rank & file. The current union can't get enough of the players to sit out for the needs of just one position. Therefore, the position is better off, IMO, striking out on their own. Yes, there are risks. Getting the union started in the 1st place was a risk. But now the RB's I think need to exit the NFLPA & start out on their own. Their needs are not being met. In fact, More positions ought to start their own factions. Cause being under one umbrella is probably the owners biggest advantage.