What's wrong with making easy money?

Since this seems to be the week for scandal in sports, I figure it's about time for me to join the fray. Because, throughout the Bowl Championship Series debacle, the numerous dubious NFL coaching decisions, and the strange and incomprehensible ranking system of NCAA basketball, I've been harboring a terrible secret of my own concerning the long-awaited Pete Rose confession.

I don't see what is so wrong about betting on one's own team.

I understand that it's taboo and that Bud Selig doesn't like it and all that, but, ethically speaking, what is it about gambling in favor of your team that makes it so problematic to admit Rose to the baseball Hall of Fame?

Forget for a minute that the current HOF hits leader, Ty Cobb, was not only a gambler, but also a murderer and an all-around terrible human being. Let's just consider Rose's infractions alone.

Gambling against one's team - which Pete Rose vehemently denies - is certainly wrong, because you can affect the outcome in a manner other than you would normally. By throwing the game, you cheat your teammates, fans, employer and opponents out of the fair competition they are promised.

But what, exactly, is lost by betting on one's own team? You're not trying any less hard to win. If anything, you'd be more focused on the game and more competitive. Winning at all costs has been par for the course for many coaches and players for so long now that it's hard to imagine how that could be construed as a negative in sports.

Let's say, for a moment, that you are on a professional baseball team. You also have a sibling who is on one, and you two are scheduled to meet in a one-game playoff to determine the final wild-card playoff berth. You call up your sibling and say: "Hey, winner of the game gets a bottle of champagne from the other?" Your sibling, being healthily competitive and believing in his or her team, agrees.

Would anyone be appalled to hear that? Repeat the last paragraph with, instead of a bottle of champagne, a hundred bucks, less than the retail value of a nice bottle of Veuve Clicquot. Still no real problem, right? Neither of you is promising to hedge performances or affect the outcome of the game other more than you would normally. You're just putting stakes on your performance.

Let's put it another way. When Bobby Knight, an ethically questionable man, failed to lead his Texas Tech basketball team to success last year, he gave up his salary, saying that his performance had not been worth paying for. What is that but a bet with his employer? How many contracts are littered with "incentives" for sustained or excellent performance? How are those anything other than legal betting for an athlete? It's essentially the team owner saying "I bet you won't play 130 games this season" or "I bet you won't be an all-star," and putting hundreds of thousands of dollars on it.

Are stock options for CEOs bets? They can affect the performance of the stock. How about paying on commission? Tips for servers or drivers? We would say: "Of course not, that's just capitalism. Payment based on performance. So shall ye work, so shall ye eat." In fact, if a baseball player were to sign a contract based entirely on his performance - x number of dollars per home run, y number of dollars per RBI, etc. - he would be lauded for being unselfish and fair to a level never before seen in professional sports. Seeing a pattern here?

Some people have suggested to me that the problem is that he had an effect on the game whereas the other people gambling did not. This makes no sense to me on three levels. One, if someone's bet was based on whether he was trying to win, then nothing changed, because he was already trying to win - it's not like he would affect the game more because he bet. Two, gambling is inherently based on the premise that you know something the other bettors do not. Three, even if, somehow, his behavior could be construed as unfair to others betting on the same game, unfairness to gamblers is not cause to be kept out of the Hall of Fame.

Rose said in his autobiography that he gambled because he didn't think he'd get caught, not because he thought it was okay. Well, why isn't it okay? Because it's technically illegal? Shall we start making a list of professional athletes with criminal records that are still eligible for the Hall?

When someone can tell me where the line is between those examples and telling a man with a book that you're so confident in your team you're willing to put your daily salary on it, I'll join the petition to keep Rose out of the Hall. Until then, I'll keep waiting for the all-time hits leader in baseball to join the pantheon in which he belongs.

http://www.pittnews.com

The problem with what your saying General is this:

Pete could make moves throughout the game as if it were game 7 of the World Series because he really needs this game, and think to himself that he'll worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. In other words, use a relief pitcher he would normally have rested until the next day, or any other # of moves that he wouldn't have otherwise done.....see what I am saying?

That being said, I DO believe the man belongs in the HOF (but never again in Baseball)

I agree 100% that there is nothing wrong with betting on your own team.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let's put it another way. When Bobby Knight, an ethically questionable man, failed to lead his Texas Tech basketball team to success last year, he gave up his salary, saying that his performance had not been worth paying for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Bobby is the man

I'm really torn by this. On one hand, as I heard one comentator say Gaylord Perry in in the HOF, right? How many times did he get caught cheating? How about Ferguson Jenkins and the drug bust?

On the other hand, the rule is clear and clearly posted... Here's a compromise that Pete Rose probably wouldn't be interested in accepting: It's a lifetime ban, so he can go in after he dies. I sure wish somebody would come to their senses about Shoeless Joe Jackson. IMO, he belongs in the HOF. His stats during the 1919 Series don't convince me that he threw anything!

Overlooking gambling by participants in sporting events ( including coaches), even when on his own side leads to a very slippery slope.

What would you propose, that athletes be allowed to bet on their own teams but not the opposition? Makes no sense at all.

It's similar to insider trading of stocks. The very concept of it severly damages confidence in the fairness of the outcome of events that non-connected investors/players need to have to participate.
The entire sports betting industry would be destroyed if people weren't confident that the outcomes of the games were completely fair.

Should CEO's be allowed to purchase stock in their company? Seems to me like roughly the same.

I agree with your opinion General. Very well written and thought out, good job Marine.

Sorry, but I didnt write it. You can find it here.

http://www.pittnews.com

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grindingwheel:
On the other hand, the rule is clear and clearly posted... Here's a compromise that Pete Rose probably wouldn't be interested in accepting: It's a lifetime ban, so he can go in after he dies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They'd have to change the rules as you only have 20 year eligibility period. Many believe that is why he's coming clean now, so he has 2 ballots left (i.e. 2 years) for consideration.

Also, Rose claims he never bet from the clubhouse but I find that highly unlikely in the 80's. Unless he had a runner or something doing the bets for him. He had to have been making phone calls... I bet they have phone logs as part of the evidence. There was no internet, very few car phones, and most bookies only accepted bets during certain hours.

Also, I think it's not cool to bet on your own team because you'll be making decisions in the best interest of your bet and not your team. Like putting players out there on short rest, playing injured, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEYKIS101:
Should CEO's be allowed to purchase stock in their company? Seems to me like roughly the same.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very few do b/c they have so many options. Should CEO's be able to sell stock is a different story.

The analogy doesn't quite work either b/c there are rules on when a CEO can sell his shares and he has to give notice and it is regulated. Yes, regulation is not perfect, but people do get caught.

As was mentioned previously:

The only people that don't see a real problem betting on your own team in baseball are the one's that really don't follow baseball all that much and understand the sport.

Baseball is a marathon, not a sprint... The simplest example I can use is late in a game that you are down a significant amount of runs in. Say you are down 7-0 in the 8th inning of a regular season game. A good manager will cut his losses and start setting things up for the next game... Pulling some starters to avoid injury, bringing in the bottom half of the relief pitchers so as not to waste good arms for a potentially winnable game the next day.

But what if Pete has a significant amount of money on the game? He'll be *MUCH* more likely to put his best pitchers and hitters out there, to put him in the best position possible to still win that game and his bet. That, is poor managing that comes as a result of having an outside influence (a wager) on the game.


In addition to this... Pete obviously bet on his team quite a bit. Ignoring the fact that Pete was a bad sports gambler, how must it look to the bookies (and thus, everyone else) when Pete bets on his team 3 or 4 games in a row, then all of a sudden doesn't bet on his team... That alone gives a heads up to most of the betting public that even the manager doesn't think his team has a good shot at winning the game.

To further clarify for the non-baseball watching crowd, consider this similar scenario in football...

A head coach bets on his team to cover a 14 point spread. Late in the game, his team is up 8 with the ball at the 50 yard line with 1:30 minutes left and the other team with no timeouts. The smart thing to do is to run the ball 3 times and kill the clock. But what if the head coach has a substantial wager on *his team* minus 14 points. He'd be more inclined to go for the touchdown and possibly pass the ball on a few downs. But at the same time, its an 8 point (one possession) game. One intereception can be returned for a TD and the game could quickly become tied.

Because of this outside influence of having money on the game (even if it is on his team to win), he is putting his team in a bad situation that could and should have been avoided if he had been thinking straight.