Pissed Off In Iowa

[FloridaGuy]

>>>>>>> It’s not complicated————college coaches and athletes should not bet on college sports. It reflects on the integrity of the sport .

Brands knows this and has a responsibility to educate his team and stress the importance of compliance——-same as every coach.

Brand’s whining about ‘picking on Iowa’ is like a driving a hot red Ferrari well over the speed limit and complaining it’s unfair when ticketed for speeding.


Additional Reply to Oracle: Yes, the AD, President and Bd of Trustees are ultimately responsible for hiring coaches that educate and stress compliance with rules.

But the coaching staff is accountable for the team’s compliance——— and in this case, imo, the Iowa wrestling staff was clearly deficient.

[1/2NELSON]

Enough with the F'n BABY-SITTING, and the passing-of-the-buck. They were aware of the LAW, and they flaunted it, committed the CRIME, now do the TIME! No love-lost from this fella !

[Oracle]

I get where you guys are coming from. I do.

With Penn State dominating, stock-piling recruits, and winning everything in sight --- it gets me rooting for Iowa. IMO, Tom Brands is a high integrity guy so I disagree that he "flaunted" the rules. They work hard for their kids, program and University. It is a very unfortunate situation and one extremely difficult to plan for. Unless you think a coach is omnipresent and omniscient. I don't.

[lu90]

I get where you guys are coming from. I do.

With Penn State dominating, stock-piling recruits, and winning everything in sight --- it gets me rooting for Iowa. IMO, Tom Brands is a high integrity guy so I disagree that he "flaunted" the rules. They work hard for their kids, program and University. It is a very unfortunate situation and one extremely difficult to plan for. Unless you think a coach is omnipresent and omniscient. I don't.

When I signed my kid up for move in day as a college freshman this year, they required us to use Sign-up Genius to pick your block. As most of those services do, upon completion of registering, they took the opportunity to offer these great deals that hopefully a new college student could find useful. Ad 1 - Fan Duel; Ad 2-Staples; Ad 3-Draft Kings; Ad 4-Hello Fresh.

I understand those athletes must have known (or should have known) it was probably not the best idea to place bets on NCAA sporting events as an athlete, but these companies are heavily focusing on and marketing to young, immature and fiscally-challenged college aged adults. Wonder why it has become such a problem?

[JAD77]

When I signed my kid up for move in day as a college freshman this year, they required us to use Sign-up Genius to pick your block. As most of those services do, upon completion of registering, they took the opportunity to offer these great deals that hopefully a new college student could find useful. Ad 1 - Fan Duel; Ad 2-Staples; Ad 3-Draft Kings; Ad 4-Hello Fresh.

I understand those athletes must have known (or should have known) it was probably not the best idea to place bets on NCAA sporting events as an athlete, but these companies are heavily focusing on and marketing to young, immature and fiscally-challenged college aged adults. Wonder why it has become such a problem?

Bingo!! We live in a society that, rightly or wrongly, has basically legalized sports betting for anyone 18 years of age or older. Unless these young men were actually betting on Iowa matches, or on spreads on their own bouts, what the h*ll do we expect as a society? Let's face it - they are not supposed to drink until the age of 21, and yet 99.9% of them have. Should we suspend everyone because they enjoyed a beer? You can't expect student athletes to be immune from the temptation of online betting when society not only makes it so incredibly simple, but - as lu90 pointed out above - actually ENCOURAGES it. And how the heck is a coach to know unless they confiscate all electronics on a daily basis?
I think we can all agree that Lehigh's coaches - Coaches Santoro et al, are people of excellent character and integrity. But I would bet (use of the aforementioned word is intentional) that most of the Lehigh wrestlers have placed at least one online wager.

And I also agree with Oracle - I do think that Tom Brands is very good at developing character in his wrestlers. I used to think he was an ass because he is so intense and animated. But after seeing what he accomplished with Austin DeSanto, I have done a 180. Austin was a young man who was a loose cannon - showing total disrespect to both his coaches and his opponents. Brands took him under his wing, and was able to help DeSanto achieve his potential. An incredible turnaround in a very short time. And one that would only be possible if there was tremendous respect afforded to the coach. And respect does not occur in a vacuum - it only occurs if it is mutual.

We now allow college athletes to be basically professional athletes - with stipends and NIL's with basically zero limitations - the money being thrown around is insane. The NCAA has totally lost control, and to pick this fight as the one to make a stand upon, is totally wrong - IMHO.

[mookie]

I'm guessing the Lehigh coaches do their fair share of online gambling and probably have also spent some time at the Wind Creek Casino down the road.

[FloridaGuy]

>>>>>> Reply to JAD: “We now allow” is, imo, incorrect. It’s the constitution that sets forth individual freedoms.

The proper way, imo, to address NIL is: Colleges can no longer deprive student athletes of their constitutionally protected rights to earn a living from their talents and hard work.


Also: it’s fashionable theses days to blame everyone and everything for Individual/group shortcomings, mistakes and even criminal behavior.

But with individual freedom comes individual responsibility and accountability.

Brands deflecting blame is the exact opposite, imo, of what he should be doing.

Reply to mookster: we would not be having this discussion if the Brands bet at a casino. It’s because the Brands failed to educate and monitor student athletes under their supervision to not bet on college sports.

[Oracle]

Your post seems to me to be a sanctimonious position.


BTW, I understand why Tom Brands got worked up. He lost 4 starters to this. Could he have handled it differently and/or better? Probably. But he gets a pass from me because this wasn't a hanging offense and the NCAA made it into one.

[DF2002]

Your post seems to me to be a sanctimonious position.


BTW, I understand why Tom Brands got worked up. He lost 4 starters to this. Could he have handled it differently and/or better? Probably. But he gets a pass from me because this wasn't a hanging offense and the NCAA made it into one.

The NCAA did reduce the penalty from lifetime ban to 1 year. For seniors, it is effectively the same thing but should they get special dispensation because they are seniors?

Clearly the NCAA is moderating the penalty due to the prevalence of the crime. The old penalty was a hanging. The new one isn’t.

[JAD77]

>>>>>> Reply to JAD: “We now allow” is, imo, incorrect. It’s the constitution that sets forth individual freedoms.

The proper way, imo, to address NIL is: Colleges can no longer deprive student athletes of their constitutionally protected rights to earn a living from their talents and hard work.

Also: it’s fashionable theses days to blame everyone and everything for Individual/group shortcomings, mistakes and even criminal behavior.

But with individual freedom comes individual responsibility and accountability.

You can’t argue that:
1) the NCAA “can no longer deprive student athletes of their constitutionally protected rights to earn a living from their talents and hard work.”
2) while at the same time argue that they have the right to restrict their individual freedom to engage in a perfectly legal endeavor.

Also, if you want to split hairs, nowhere does the Constitution directly address an individual’s “protected rights to earn a living from their talents and hard work”. If you can find it somewhere in the original Articles or in the 27 Amendments, please share with me and I will gladly admit that I am incorrect.