Superman

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37934061/nfl-suspends-four-players-gambling-violations

I think you have the Rodgers thing backward. What I read is that his friends are in Florida, where online bets are not allowed. So rather than Rodgers having friends place bets for him, Rodgers placed bets for his friends. And that's just incredibly stupid on his part. And his friends were stupid, also.

And you could do that whether gambling was legal or not, whether the NFL had partnerships or not, etc. The NFL has a policy, which they enforce, and if they were able to prove that a player was feeding insider information to someone else to place bets, that player would be penalized. Even if the NFL never catches a player doing this, the policy is necessary from a legal standpoint, otherwise the NFL is guilty of negligence. Same thing is true in business. It can be difficult to prove insider trading, but the laws still exist. And people still go down for it.

That seems like an extreme statement. I'm not here to defend all the NFL's actions, but they obviously didn't condone what Michael Vick did. They didn't condone what Deshaun Watson did. Both received suspensions. So saying it's not important to the NFL rings false. In the same way, the NFL is not condoning gambling. They are suspending players accordingly. Moral integrity and competitive integrity are different, but the NFL takes actions to uphold both.

This is also prohibited in the gambling policy. It's probably difficult to prove, but if strong evidence were presented it would be acted upon by the NFL. Paragraph 5.2 -- here's the PDF: https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2018 Policies/2018 Gambling Policy - FINAL.pdf

That's not my counterargument to what you've presented, although it's a legitimate point. Some people have a moral objection to sports gambling (or gambling in general), but that's not why the NFL is suspending players for gambling. It's not 'gambling is bad for you,' not at all. It's about preventing the appearance of anything that could undermine the competitive integrity of the league. Not about morality. I'd also like to point out that the NFL isn't gambling on the outcome of games, so the 'do as I say, not as I do' part doesn't seem applicable. The NFL does make money from their partnerships with sportsbooks and other outlets. However, that money is football related revenue, and it gets split with the players just like ticket sales, TV revenue, jersey sales, etc. So the players, as a whole, stand to benefit from the NFL's gambling partnerships, without ever placing a bet. And this is why I think the charge of hypocrisy is misplaced. Now, is gambling objectively "good" for the NFL, its players, or society in general? I think that's an entirely different discussion.

People keep pointing out this so-called hypocrisy by the league. I guess the argument is that the NFL wants its share of the many billions of dollars that are spent gambling on football, so that makes the NFL greedy...? Is this what you're referring to when you speak of a moral hazard?

This is probably true. Franchise QB is nearly untouchable. I guess what I really wonder is whether the Colts were intent on sending a message, and if so was that message meant to be 'we don't care who you are, if you violate the policy we'll cut you.' Or if I'm just reading too much into the choice of words.

I'm fine with Rose being banned from baseball activities, but I think he should be eligible for the HOF.

@stitches Do you think the Colts would have cut Calvin Ridley? The Falcons kept him, then traded him to the Jags, but he's a higher caliber player.

I think maybe they didn't view him the way YOU view him, but they showed zero interest in keeping Facyson, and traded Gilmore. I think the intention was for him to be a locked in starter this season. (Also side note, he doesn't fit Bradley's preferred physical profile, which explains why Facyson got favored treatment for so long.) I'm interested in what the Colts would do because their statement was kind of high-minded, IMO. It was basically 'they violated the gambling policy, so we cut them.' I'm not naive enough to think that they'd do the exact same thing if it was a more critical player, but if you take that statement purely at face value, it reads as if violating the gambling policy is a hard line for the Colts. To me, that can be taken to mean that if a player violates the gambling policy, the Colts will cut said player. Again, I don't believe that's absolutely true, but it seems to be the implication. Is that just my interpretation? I think the Watson thing is an entirely different situation, and I don't think the situations should be compared.

Yeah I definitely worded that poorly. What I was getting at is I think it would be interesting to see how the team would handle a similar violation from a more critical player.

They could lose in theory. If someone with inside info placed a large bet right before the event, before sportsbooks have a chance to adjust the line and cushion themselves, it could be very costly.

In general I agree. The impact of the player will always be a factor. But Rodgers isn't a JAG, he was almost a critical piece, and they didn't hesitate. In fact, he wasn't around for other offseason events, so the team seems to have made their mind up on this before today's events. I find it hard to believe that they would have cut Buckner, but it makes me wonder. And I mentioned this in an earlier post, but the league (and apparently the Colts) are not viewing ethical/moral issues on the same level as gambling. If gambling isn't heavily regulated, it could easily destroy the league, and the powers that be are setting a strong standard with it. Conflating this with Watson or others is missing the point.

Big Ben was a long time ago... The league wanted to suspend Watson for at least a year, and the arbitrator reduced the suspension because they ruled that you can't drastically increase the penalty for a violation of the conduct policy, post-hoc. If your precedent is 6-8 games for a violation (non-violent, I believe), you can't come back and say 'this one is so unacceptable to us that we're going to double the typical suspension.' That was the ruling. It's also important to note that Watson's suspension didn't have the potential to undermine the competitive integrity of the league. They're going to continue to take an aggressive hardline against gambling, for this reason.

It's not surprising to me. There's really nothing to talk about. Minicamp was uneventful, there are no injury updates, no serious contract issues. Aside from the gambling, it seems like the typical doldrums of the offseason. The quieter, the better, IMO. There's generally not much good NFL news in late June/July.

Yeah, I was looking for more details on the bets placed. The article says at least one bet on the Colts, the RB prop, which is silly. I wonder what the payout was... I get the team's stance. If you violate the gambling policy, they're going to take a hard line. I hope no one else gets implicated at any point, but if this is the standard, you have to apply it equally. So if Buckner violates the gambling policy, what's the outcome?? While I understand it, I don't know if it's absolutely necessary to get rid of the player. Especially a young player. But I can't argue that they are going overboard or doing him wrong.

The truth is that Tom Brady would not gamble on NFL games.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37934061/nfl-suspends-four-players-gambling-violations Really dumb on his part. His friends had him do it because it's not legal in Florida, so he breaks NFL rules and gets suspended over it.

Not really, but then again, I don't typically find myself encouraged by offseason/OTA reports about player performance. Especially rookie QBs. I'm pretty dismissive of anything that happens on the field between February and August. But as it relates to Richardson, I have been very upfront that I think his odds are long, specifically as a passer. He's very far away, he has a ton of work to do and improvement to make, and statistically it's unlikely that he ever develops into a refined, efficient passer. But he's a hard worker with a great attitude, and he's in a situation that's highly favorable for a player with his profile -- assuming Steichen is what we think he is as a HC. So he can potentially be productive in the offense even as he works through his issues as a passer. And his real talents won't really show in offseason passing drills. I think Richardson is going to look really rough as a passer right away. If we see improvement as the season goes along, that's when I'll be encouraged.

Bryce Young is a solid bet. I didn't want to draft him because I think his upside is limited, but his ability to handle a pro passing game right away should help him have a solid rookie season. And I have my problems with Reich, but he's overall pretty QB friendly, so it should be a good match. For at least a couple seasons, hopefully. I also like Stroud, but his circumstances are not quite as good. Defensive HC who is in his first year on the job, average-at-best offensive roster, including OL. But I like his throwing ability, I think he's the best passer among all the rookies.

Agreed. I don't get too caught up in any camp reports, especially for young players. Even more so for QBs.

You're right. I was thinking hundreds of bets on Colts games only...

To me, he was easily the best passer in the draft, so I'm not surprised by the last part. There were pre-draft questions about some intangibles, so the first part should be considered good news for the Texans. Then again, it's the offseason and nothing should be taken too seriously.

Players should know the rules. I don't believe the league or the teams have been negligent in this regard. But some of the finer details -- no bets in the team hotel, on the road, no bets on the draft or the Combine, etc. -- might have been misunderstood. Doesn't really apply in Rodgers case, he was apparently betting on NFL games, which is prohibited no matter what. And still, they should know the rules, so ignorance is not an acceptable excuse in any event. It is not my intention to create an excuse for anyone. I'm simply wondering about some of the details, which have not been published. It's not helpful, but I wasn't really trying to help. Not something I'm in position to do anyway. Just thinking out loud, given the info that Rapoport shared yesterday, which I found interesting.