Im pretty sure Im in the minority on this board but its my opinion

[24fps]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

How many DUI's are there daily in MD?  How many Gambling charges are there?  

Is gambling under the influence a crime in MD?  All addictions are worrisome, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.  It is certainly possible that someone can have an alcohol problem but not a gambling problem and vice versa.  Addiction is a deeply individualized condition so I don't see the point of ranking the seriousness of one addiction versus another unless you are referring to a specific person, thus my question: to whom?

[Ohfan67]

3 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

The issue with players betting or throwing games like back in the early 1900s has been negated by the huge increase in salaries. No reason to risk permanent banning when the major league minimum is $720K a year.

I really don't care if people want to bet on games, just maybe tone down the advertising inundation we are under.

Two counter points: Rich people commit financial crimes all the time and a lot of pro athletes blow their money very quickly and are not rich for very long. I get your logic, but a lot of people do dumb things for illogical reasons. I'm not trying to really engage in the debate either way, but I just wanted to point out that increased salaries may reduce incentive for some people, but not everyone. 

[NCRaven]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

In fairness, he was answering a question that he was asked.

Gotcha.  But, he's also the one that brought alcohol abuse into this conversation in the first place.

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

How do you figure it wasn't their fault that it happened?  IIRC, the NFL was the first sports league to really embrace it...are you saying that it was a slippery slope and inevitable?

 

My point is that sports gambling would have become legal in most states regardless of MLB.   The interests lobbying for it were just too strong and too clever, and states are desperate for the revenue.  Once that bridge is crossed, it’s very tough for MLB to say it won’t accept advertising from a business that is legal in the state.   

A good podcast explaining how gambling interests got the states to legalize sports gambling can be found here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/podcasts/the-daily/sports-betting-lobbying-laws-states.html

[ShoelesJoe]

5 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

The issue with players betting or throwing games like back in the early 1900s has been negated by the huge increase in salaries. No reason to risk permanent banning when the major league minimum is $720K a year.

My prediction is that when (not if) there’s another gambling scandal in MLB it won’t be a player who gets caught, but an umpire. They make less than the players and have the power to impact the game in small but significant ways. Taking the ball / strike calls away from the home plate ump will be a huge step in eliminating potential Eric Gregg scenarios. 

[Frobby]

6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's what the Springsteen and Joel concerts are for. 

If you think only old people like those artists, you’re wrong.   My kids (late 20s/early 30s) and their friends like then (and many boomer-age artists) a lot.  

I will say, I went to see James Taylor/Carole King when I was about 54 and I was easily 10 years younger than the average person in attendance.  
 

 

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, 24fps said:

Is gambling under the influence a crime in MD?  All addictions are worrisome, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.  It is certainly possible that someone can have an alcohol problem but not a gambling problem and vice versa.  Addiction is a deeply individualized condition so I don't see the point of ranking the seriousness of one addiction versus another unless you are referring to a specific person, thus my question: to whom?

There was an amendment to the Constitution to bann Alcohol. There’s only been laws made against “illegal” gambling. 
 

So I’m sorry… I agree with the Phillies pitcher. Just because the games are shorter, doesn’t mean beer sales should be extended. So we’re upset about the integrity of the game. @Roy Firestone but we’re not upset about the integrity of allowing beer sales up until the last 20 mins of the game?  
 

Beer sales should be kicked back till the home half of the 6th inning to allow people to have at least 30-45 mins since their last drink. For the public good. Gambling doesn’t hurt the public good. Some keno addict isn’t going to T bone me on 295. 

[Teddy OBP]

6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's what the Springsteen and Joel concerts are for. 

Well they did get me on one of those for sure.

[rm5678]

8 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Then again MASN has done this for years. They always have about 3-4 main sponsors that they run those same commercials from. By May you are ready to poke your ear drums out.

 

At least the Tovala commercials seem to have stopped. Those had been airing constantly for the past few years.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

There was an amendment to the Constitution to bann Alcohol. There’s only been laws made against “illegal” gambling. 
 

So I’m sorry… I agree with the Phillies pitcher. Just because the games are shorter, doesn’t mean beer sales should be extended. So we’re upset about the integrity of the game. @Roy Firestone but we’re not upset about the integrity of allowing beer sales up until the last 20 mins of the game?  
 

Beer sales should be kicked back till the home half of the 6th inning to allow people to have at least 30-45 mins since their last drink. For the public good. Gambling doesn’t hurt the public good. Some keno addict isn’t going to T bone me on 295. 

This is a very confusing argument.  The constitutional ban on alcohol was repealed almost a century ago, and America has never looked back.  I don’t see what it has to do with alcohol sales at baseball games.  

Also, alcohol has nothing to do with the integrity of a baseball game.  Gambling potentially does, if players either bet on games they play in or become beholden to bookmakers.

As to which vice is worse, I’m not taking sides, but I don’t think it’s relevant to the question of when beer sales should be cut off at a game.  

Personally, I’d be in favor of a time limit.  No sales more than 2.5 hours after first pitch, or whatever.   Don’t tie it to what inning they’re in.  

 

[Just Regular]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

There was an amendment to the Constitution to bann Alcohol.

One of the best high school history memory tricks if you need to nail amendments on tests is you can't drink if you're 18, but you can if you're 21.

[Daddy-O's]

14 hours ago, EddeeEddee said:

I don't think this is necessarily true.  Gambling did not bring younger fans to horse racing for example, at least not for long.  Gamblers love gambling, but for everyone else it can quickly become off putting.  The majority of the population I think after awhile associates losers and desperation with gambling.  It will be popular until the novelty wears off.  Look at Las Vegas.  It had to reinvent itself to be something other than the gambling center of North America to prosper.  

The majority of the people voted to legalize gambling.  Society changes and evolves, you either adapt or you become like my father in-law who thinks the world should have stopped changing in 1965.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Daddy-O's said:

The majority of the people voted to legalize gambling.  Society changes and evolves, you either adapt or you become like my father in-law who thinks the world should have stopped changing in 1965.

I think in some cases, “devolves” is more accurate than “evolves.”  Not all changes are great.  Some are.   

[Tony-OH]

19 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

Two counter points: Rich people commit financial crimes all the time and a lot of pro athletes blow their money very quickly and are not rich for very long. I get your logic, but a lot of people do dumb things for illogical reasons. I'm not trying to really engage in the debate either way, but I just wanted to point out that increased salaries may reduce incentive for some people, but not everyone. 

Perhaps, but my point is that the financial strains of players are much less than they were in the early 1900s when players were basically indentured servants to the owners. Also, I could not imagine in today's age of electronic surveillence that we all carry around with his in our pockets, that there could ever be a secret meeting where players discussed throwing games. 

I'm not anti-gambling. Even though, I'm not a big gambler myself, I don't have an issue with sports betting. I just have an issue with being inundated wit the advertisements to BET during telecasts. Since I believe in personal responsibility, I don't think I should tell someone what they can and can't do with their money nor should I tell someone how they should enjoy the game. 

[mall-O-cup]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/36253087/wr-jameson-williams-four-lions-suspended-betting

Although this is football, here is Exhibit A.