Hoya Analysis, Rant #2: Seriously?

[casualhoya]

Admin
Administrator

member is offline

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 399
Re: The Line: Game 15
« Reply #2 Yesterday at 9:16pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This seems to be a good time to get this settled.

There seems to be a fair amount of grumbling that topics such as "the line" and "the spread" are fair game on the board. People can legitimately discuss that a team is favored or not, but topics noting betting lines, "covering" and ATS (that's "against the spread", if you're wondering) are issues that remain illegal in 49 states, and a point of emphasis within the NCAA structure.

These kind of posts are not appropriate going forward on the board.-Admin


« Last Edit: Yesterday at 9:16pm by Admin » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

[strummer8526]

Agreed. (with the rant, not the locking)

[dajuan]

I also disagree with Admin's Orwellian rulings on gambling discussions. Speaking about our record against the spread gives us fans an indication of how well the team is performing relative to expectations. I have never bet on a game, but I do like to know what Las Vegas expects from the Hoyas and I like to know how we've done historically against those expectations. Is that so different from our rankings, RPI or Pomeroy standings or anything else that we discuss on this board?

[Grandpa]

The (Admin's) policy seems reasonable to me. I find the spread an interesting data point leading up to a game, but when the postings starts crossing the line into more overt discussion on betting, it does raise concerns regarding possible violations of NCAA policy re: gambling on collegiate games. While this board is disclaimed as "unofficial", it is the most active free-board discussing Hoya basketball related matters, and as such must be careful re: content. I am no NCAA rules expert, but I think the Admin is just being justifiably precautious re: such discussions (as well as discussions of certain potential player transfers, etc.) so as not to potentially harm (via penalties for NCAA violations) the very team we post on this board to support. While I think such an action by the NCAA would be unlikely, I do understand and respect the Admin for implementing and enforcing the policy.

To be clear though, the Admin's message did not say that one cannot post the line on the game for general discussion purposes of who is favorite/underdog, etc.

[ExcitableBoy]

There seems to be a fair amount of grumbling that topics such as "the line" and "the spread" are fair game on the board. People can legitimately discuss that a team is favored or not, but topics noting betting lines, "covering" and ATS (that's "against the spread", if you're wondering) are issues that remain illegal in 49 states, and a point of emphasis within the NCAA structure.

Betting lines, covering, and ATS are not "issues that remain illegal in 49 states. BETTING is illegal in 49 states. Discussing it is legal in all 50. USA Today publishes lines. ESPN has entire segments and columns dedicated to lines. Just because people are discussing doesn't mean that people are betting. There is a huge difference between the two.

[hoyaboy1]

I propose that we also ban thinking about things that are illegal.

[HoNYaSaxa]

ExcitableBoy's point is spot on. Admin should consider the distinction between illegal behavior and discussing that behavior in debate.

[theexorcist]

Jan 14, 2008 9:59:46 GMT -5 dajuan said:

I also disagree with Admin's Orwellian rulings on gambling discussions. Speaking about our record against the spread gives us fans an indication of how well the team is performing relative to expectations. I have never bet on a game, but I do like to know what Las Vegas expects from the Hoyas and I like to know how we've done historically against those expectations. Is that so different from our rankings, RPI or Pomeroy standings or anything else that we discuss on this board?

I said this on a previous thread, but it seems to me that the issue isn't "gambling discussions", it's a specific topic thread. The difference would be that a pre- and post-game thread could mention the spread, but that a specific topic on the spread for a game or for the season would be verboten.

I still think that this is fair. Mentioning being favored by six or covering, as you've said, indicates how well the Hoyas did relative to how well lots of people thought they would. I might even be OK with a thread mideason that examines how we've done against the spread with some analysis.

But it just seems like putting threads on games is asking for trouble, especially since all the potential replies to the initial post of the line seem bad. Let's say the line for the game against Elbonia State is fifteen. One potential thread can ask whether anyone else has noticed that ESU's point guard has seemed to develop a slight limp - that descends into rumors. Another starts on how ESU has done against the spread before, which can quickly move from basketball-related (which is what the board is for) to gambling-related. I know that it's obvious, but in gambling, you're not picking who's going to win - you're picking who's going to beat the spread. I don't care if GU beats Pitt by one or by forty - I just want them to win.

The last potential thread bears emphasis on its own. Let's say that someone says postgame that ESU's point guard held the ball when GU was up by sixteen rather than shoot an open three - "coincidentally" just allowing ESU to fail to cover. This swirls into nasty rumors that can get the NCAA involved quick.

Like I said, I get the value of putting the spread into the pre- and post-game discussion. But I really don't see how the threads on their own are self-sustaining without moving into areas that the board shouldn't touch.

[Hoya06]

If lines can be posted everywhere on the internet, on a National station ESPN, and Bloomberg and Reuters, its ridiculous to think that they can't be posted here.

If someone ever posts "I bet $X on the game and won!" or "The team cost me $$!," or "I think Sapp missed that shot to affect the spread" by all means lock the thread and kick out the user.

[theexorcist]

Also, note that USA Today or ESPN isn't associated with a specific program (Duke notwithstanding). Being associated with Georgetown, or any university, even unofficially, demands that we toe a harder line.

[hoyaboy1]

Come on, people. Do you REALLY think that "The Line" threads could result in NCAA involvement? Really?

I suspect that it is more likely that my house blows up before I finish this post . . . and it didn't.

[capcenterhoya]

Moreover, online betting is still legal for EVERY US resident. The prohibition against US Credit Cards does not cover bank or wire transfers. That is up to the discretion of the bank in question.

Obviously the board administrators are within their right to ban discussion on gambling. In that case, they may as well ban any discussion on creating brackets in March

[dajuan]

Jan 14, 2008 10:34:28 GMT -5 capcenterhoya said:

Moreover, online betting is still legal for EVERY US resident. The prohibition against US Credit Cards does not cover bank or wire transfers. That is up to the discretion of the bank in question.

Obviously the board administrators are within their right to ban discussion on gambling. In that case, they may as well ban any discussion on creating brackets in March

Good point. Let's ban talk of bracketology because millions of people bet on brackets, which is illegal in 49 states! The thought police are coming for us!!!! Destroy all "gambling" threads!!

[rosslynhoya]

I agree with your proposed right to post information about the spread, but I also agree with the admin and the anonymous grumblers that there's something inherently distasteful about gambling on non-professional sports. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with arbitrarily determining that these topics are out of bounds for this board, but I think they'll have trouble enforcing a zero tolerance policy in practice (e.g., simply acknowledging that the Hoyas are 3-pt favorites would be inappropriate?).

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2008 10:21:13 GMT -5 ExcitableBoy said:

ESPN has entire segments and columns dedicated to lines.

And TV segments.

Hank Goldberg = ugliest, most vomit-inducing person on TV.

(Except when BUM is on SportsReporters, that is...)

[bubbrubbhoya]

I would like to lend my voice to the pro-line-discussion side of this landslide victory for justice debate. I don't bet on college hoops, but it's fun to talk about these things from time to time, and that's the purpose of this board.

[hoyaLS05]

Bet you guys $10 this thread is eventually locked. Over/under is six more posts.

[redskins12820]

tons of other boards have discussions about the line. One even has a contest asking fans to bet against the line every week in a series of games. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with talking about the line so long as actual transactions do not occur. I can take all I want to about the price of weed and get in zero trouble so long as I don't buy any or give any indications I intend to do so. Let's lay off the censorship please! What are the pre-season odds Georgetown wins the championship, oh wait we can't ever know because that info is discussed nowhere on the web

[redskins12820]

Jan 14, 2008 11:35:06 GMT -5 hoyaLS05 said:

Bet you guys $10 this thread is eventually locked. Over/under is six more posts.

You don't bet? 20 bucks I get you betting by the end of the day=Jim Carrey

[tal1286]

Did someone just imply that the NCAA might get involved because a bunch of fans of a program are discussing the line of a game?

Are we taking our role as posters on an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD that seriously now?