A New Chance for Online Betting Sports in the U.S.
By ERIC PFANNER
PARIS — Is online gambling coming in from the cold?
When the U.S. Congress cracked down on Internet betting in 2006, the big, publicly traded European companies that had dominated the business closed up shop in the United States. Growth in the booming industry shifted away from these companies, once the darlings of the stock market, to private operators in offshore locations like Antigua and the Isle of Man.
But now, executives of some of the European companies whisper excitedly that they may soon get a second chance in the United States. Meanwhile, a number of European countries that have long maintained barriers are moving, under pressure from regulators, to legalize, and tax, online gambling.
“There’s still a lot of gambling going on, where there’s no revenue coming in to the governments,” said Gavin Kelleher, an analyst at the research firm H2 Gambling Capital in Ireland. “They realize they could use the revenue.”
The biggest potential change would be in the United States, where, perhaps this month, Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, is expected to introduce legislation aimed at overturning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.
“He supports the repeal and wants to move forward on it,” said Steve Adamske, communications director for the House Financial Services Committee, of which Mr. Frank is chairman.
Mr. Frank tried and failed to do so once before, in 2007. But advocates of liberalization think they might get a friendlier hearing in Washington this time around. President Barack Obama, they note, boasted of his poker prowess during the election campaign. And the Democrats, who are seen as less hostile to Internet gambling than the Republicans, have tightened their grip on Congress.
A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers says the U.S. government could raise more than $50 billion over 10 years from taxes on legalized online gambling.
“I’d be amazed if it didn’t happen over the next two or three years,” said Clive Hawkswood, chief executive of the Remote Gambling Association, a trade group based in London. “It’s just a question of what exactly the regulations will say.”
Some analysts say that may be getting a little bit ahead of the game. Opponents of a repeal, including the Christian Coalition of America and the National Football League, have vowed to fight any new effort to end the ban.
Michele Combs, a spokeswoman for the Christian Coalition, said the group was gearing up for a “massive campaign” of letter-writing and lobbying to try to prevent any loosening of the law.
“We’re not saying people shouldn’t go to Las Vegas,” she said. “But when it’s in your home, it’s too easy. It breaks up families.”
U.S. sports leagues, meanwhile, worry that the ease of online betting increases the chances of game-fixing. Even the most bullish advocates of online gambling acknowledge that Internet sports betting — as opposed to poker or casino games — is highly unlikely to be legalized.
“There’s a better chance now for some sort of gaming legislation to be approved,” said Nick Batram, an analyst at KBC Peel Hunt, a brokerage firm in London. “But it took longer than expected to put anti-gaming legislation in place, and it will probably will take longer than expected to remove it.”
Since the 2006 law was passed, North America, once the biggest market, has been passed by Europe and Asia, according to figures from H2 Gambling Capital. The law makes it illegal for financial institutions to handle payments to online gambling sites. But enough people have found ways around it, some by using overseas payment processors, to ensure that online gambling remains a thriving business. H2 says online gambling generated revenue of $6 billion last year in North America, more than a quarter the global total of $22.6 billion, up from $17.6 billion in 2006.
Pulling out of the United States cost PartyGaming about three-quarters of its business. Its position as the biggest online poker provider has been taken over by PokerStars, a privately held operator based on the Isle of Man.
This month, PartyGaming agreed to a $105 million settlement with the U.S. attorney’s office in New York, involving the period before 2006, when it acknowledged that its activities had been “contrary to certain U.S. laws.” In turn, the U.S. authorities agreed not to prosecute the company, which is listed on the London Stock Exchange, or its executives.
The agreement fueled speculation that PartyGaming might be trying to position itself for a return to the U.S. market, if online gambling were legalized.
Analysts say one possibility for European companies like PartyGaming, should the ban be lifted, would be to form partnerships with American casino operators. That would allow the European companies to share their online expertise. Operating alone, they might struggle to obtain licenses, given their history of run-ins with U.S. law enforcement, analysts said.
“It’s my feeling that even if the market were opened up, the U.S. government, in a palatable way, would probably find a way to give local companies a favorable position,” Mr. Batram said.
So far, Las Vegas executives have maintained a cautious stance about legalization of online gambling. Steve Wynn, chief executive of Wynn Resorts, said in an e-mail message that he thought it would be “impossible to regulate.”
“Even though it would be a benefit to our company, we are strongly opposed,” he said.
But speculation that Las Vegas casino operators were looking into the possibilities was fueled by recent reports that Harrah’s Entertainment, which owns Caesars Palace and other casinos, recently hired Mitch Garber, former chief executive of PartyGaming, for an unspecified role. Harrah’s did not return calls.
Mr. Ryan said that PartyGaming planned to focus on acquisition opportunities to increase its market share in Europe and elsewhere, something that was difficult as long as investors were worried about the U.S. litigation. “We think Mr. Frank’s efforts are quite meaningful to the sector,” he said.
Several other online gambling companies whose shares are traded in London, including 888 Holdings and Sportingbet, are still in talks with the U.S. Justice Department. Analysts expect them, along with companies like Bwin International, whose stock is traded in Vienna, to be involved in a round of consolidation in the industry — along with a possible eventual move back into the United States.
As they await developments in Washington, online gambling companies are looking for growth in Europe and Asia. Under pressure from regulators in Brussels, several European Union members, including France, Italy, Spain and Denmark, have been moving to legalize some kinds of online gambling, turning it into a regulated and taxed business. Britain was the first big European country to do so, in 2005.
Other countries, like Germany, Greece and the Netherlands, continue to hold out, though, in what the European Commission sees as an effort to protect government-sponsored gambling monopolies from private competition.
The commission in March published a report arguing that the United States was violating World Trade Organization rules by keeping out European online gambling companies, given that online betting on horse racing is permitted in the United States. But the commission said that it favored negotiations, rather than legal action, to end the dispute.
Also in March, however, the European Parliament adopted a separate measure supporting the right of individual E.U. member states to make their own rules on online gambling.
“It’s interesting that the European Commission is telling the U.S. it’s persecuting European companies when it can’t even get its own house sorted out,” Mr. Batram said.
A New Chance for Online Betting Sports in the U.S.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Support Building for Legal Online Sports Betting
Support Building for Legal Online Sports Betting
By David Stratton
Although it can hardly be called a groundswell, the movement to legalize online gambling in the U.S. seems to be gaining momentum.
Harrah’s Entertainment reportedly has hired the former top executive of an online poker company, apparently in anticipation of the possible repeal of the current ban on Internet gambling.
According to published reports, Mitch Garber, the former CEO of Party Poker, was hired to head Harrah’s Internet Operations and World Series of Poker Division.
Before the current crackdown on Internet gambling, Party Poker was a title sponsor of the World Series of Poker.
In the U.S. Congress, Rep. Barney Frank this month may introduce legislation that would effectively repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and create a complete licensing and regulatory framework for the online gambling industry.
The UIGEA was passed in late 2006 and requires U.S. financial institutions to block payments from U.S. citizens to Internet gambling companies. It didn’t go into effect until this year.
In California, elected officials aren’t waiting on Congress to act. They’re putting together a rough draft of a bill, The California Online Poker Law Enforcement Compliance and Consumer Protection Act, which would establish an intrastate, online poker network for California players.
But the critical legislation is Barney Frank’s Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which he originally introduced in 2007, but it was never acted upon.
In an interview with The Hill, Frank said he planned to re-introduce the bill "definitely" in April. Frank is chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, whose industry members are banks and credit card companies that have been charged with the nearly impossible task of interpreting how to enforce the UIGEA.
Although a final text of Frank’s bill has yet to be released, political insiders have said his bill would remove the ban on Internet gambling, and would regulate the practice as well as tax it, providing new revenues for the federal government.
A recent study released by PricewaterhouseCoopers revealed that taxing and regulating the Internet gambling industry could bring up to $52 billion in revenue for the U.S. government over a 10 year period.
The amount, however, would be contingent on whether professional sports leagues choose to allow betting on their games. Historically, the NFL, NBA and NCAA have been vehemently opposed to any form of betting on their contests.
Because of the opposition from college and most professional sports, some have argued that a bill that legalizes only online poker would stand a better chance of being passed than blanket legislation like Frank’s bill.
In 2007, Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida introduced the Skill Game Protection Act, which would have exempted poker, bridge, chess, mah jong and other player versus player games from the UIGEA and the Wire Act.
The bill underscored a key distinction between online casinos, in which the betting is mostly the player versus the house, and online poker, where contestants battle each other. Like Frank’s bill that year, Wexler’s bill was not acted upon.
The regulations of the UIGEA went into effect on Jan. 19, 2009, but the banks and other financial institutions have until Dec.1 to come into compliance.
Some members of the banking and credit card industry have complained that they’re not equipped to serve as a law enforcement agency, and that it’s nearly an impossible task determining which payments are legal and which aren’t.
For instance, the blocking of Visa and MasterCard payments has led to complications for state lotteries in North Dakota and New Hampshire, where customers trying to buy lottery tickets are often declined.
Support Building for Legal Online Sports Betting
By David Stratton
Although it can hardly be called a groundswell, the movement to legalize online gambling in the U.S. seems to be gaining momentum.
Harrah’s Entertainment reportedly has hired the former top executive of an online poker company, apparently in anticipation of the possible repeal of the current ban on Internet gambling.
According to published reports, Mitch Garber, the former CEO of Party Poker, was hired to head Harrah’s Internet Operations and World Series of Poker Division.
Before the current crackdown on Internet gambling, Party Poker was a title sponsor of the World Series of Poker.
In the U.S. Congress, Rep. Barney Frank this month may introduce legislation that would effectively repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and create a complete licensing and regulatory framework for the online gambling industry.
The UIGEA was passed in late 2006 and requires U.S. financial institutions to block payments from U.S. citizens to Internet gambling companies. It didn’t go into effect until this year.
In California, elected officials aren’t waiting on Congress to act. They’re putting together a rough draft of a bill, The California Online Poker Law Enforcement Compliance and Consumer Protection Act, which would establish an intrastate, online poker network for California players.
But the critical legislation is Barney Frank’s Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which he originally introduced in 2007, but it was never acted upon.
In an interview with The Hill, Frank said he planned to re-introduce the bill "definitely" in April. Frank is chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, whose industry members are banks and credit card companies that have been charged with the nearly impossible task of interpreting how to enforce the UIGEA.
Although a final text of Frank’s bill has yet to be released, political insiders have said his bill would remove the ban on Internet gambling, and would regulate the practice as well as tax it, providing new revenues for the federal government.
A recent study released by PricewaterhouseCoopers revealed that taxing and regulating the Internet gambling industry could bring up to $52 billion in revenue for the U.S. government over a 10 year period.
The amount, however, would be contingent on whether professional sports leagues choose to allow betting on their games. Historically, the NFL, NBA and NCAA have been vehemently opposed to any form of betting on their contests.
Because of the opposition from college and most professional sports, some have argued that a bill that legalizes only online poker would stand a better chance of being passed than blanket legislation like Frank’s bill.
In 2007, Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida introduced the Skill Game Protection Act, which would have exempted poker, bridge, chess, mah jong and other player versus player games from the UIGEA and the Wire Act.
The bill underscored a key distinction between online casinos, in which the betting is mostly the player versus the house, and online poker, where contestants battle each other. Like Frank’s bill that year, Wexler’s bill was not acted upon.
The regulations of the UIGEA went into effect on Jan. 19, 2009, but the banks and other financial institutions have until Dec.1 to come into compliance.
Some members of the banking and credit card industry have complained that they’re not equipped to serve as a law enforcement agency, and that it’s nearly an impossible task determining which payments are legal and which aren’t.
For instance, the blocking of Visa and MasterCard payments has led to complications for state lotteries in North Dakota and New Hampshire, where customers trying to buy lottery tickets are often declined.
Support Building for Legal Online Sports Betting
NCAA Hypocritical in Stance on Sports Betting
NCAA Hypocritical in Stance on Sports Betting
By Greg Couch
The NCAA will tell you that college students are in trouble. On campuses across the country, they are subject to a dangerous gambling culture.
Student bookies, gamblers and fixers are everywhere, knowing just how to tap into a poor victim. So college athletes can find themselves in trouble, and asked to shave points or throw games for money. It's not just a sports issue regarding the integrity of games, but also the NCAA will tell you it's a human issue.
So it's no shock, really, to see the point-shaving scandal at Toledo.
We've seen them in campuses everywhere, from Boston College to Northwestern, from Arizona State to Fresno State. From Maryland to Toledo. Big, small, east, west, north, south.
The FBI has been looking into point-shaving allegations at Toledo for at least four years. It now alleges that former running back Adam Cuomo, with the help of a Detroit-area gambler in 2003, recruited teammates to take part in a point-shaving scheme over a three-year period. He also is said to have recruited basketball players to fix Toledo hoops games.
Years ago, the NCAA started talking tough about the scourge of gambling. And years later, it's still talking, talking, talking, even putting up occasional fliers. At the same time, the latest trend at colleges across the country is to sell ads to casinos and place them in stadiums.
So the NCAA will tell you that kids are getting hurt from a gambling environment, but at the same time NCAA schools are in business with the gamblers.
Right side of mouth, meet left side. This is the NCAA's little con, arguing one point for the good of humanity and profiting from the opposite side.
How does this work? I asked Rachel Newman Baker, the NCAAs gambling czar, who passed my request onto a spokesperson, who answered this way in an email:
"Our position on sports wagering has not softened at all; we continue to be stridently opposed to any type of sports wagering. You are not likely to find anyone in the membership who doesn't agree.
"But we have come to understand that there are different perspectives within the membership about commercial activities, including the appropriateness of accepting casino advertising. What some institutions may see as acceptable, other may not. This is an evolving process.
"The NCAA does not interfere in the financial relationships/agreements of its institutions, as long as they do not violate NCAA legislation."
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS here. The NCAA is notorious for this type of doublespeak, a crafty way, basically, of blowing smoke when no legitimate explanation exists.
So the NCAA makes a moral argument, but then polices its morals with economics.
There is money to be made, so ethics are gone?
These are the people educating our kids.
Murray Sperber, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, who has written several books on the excesses of the NCAA, talks about the uncomfortable relationship the NCAA has with gambling.
"A huge part of the NCAA Tournament is the gambling, the office pools, or much-larger pools that [former Washington football coach] Rick Neuheisel was in. Because of gambling, they get good ratings. Who would watch first-round games if, in fact, gambling were outlawed on college basketball. What would happen to the $6 billion they get from CBS?
"At the very core of the NCAA, the mother's milk they live on, the March Madness money, is this deep, deep hypocrisy. I remember their own poll showed that one in five athletes had bet on college sports.
"Should they encourage gambling? Especially when one of the problem groups of gamblers, people who can't control their gambling, are college kids? They get in over their heads."
Meanwhile, last year, the University of New Mexico took $2.5 million for a five-year deal that made the Route 66 Casino Hotel its "exclusive gaming sponsor."
Whatever that means.
"Corporate sponsorships," UNM president David Schmidly said at the time, "are very important to the future growth and success of our athletic department."
Those vulnerable college students the NCAA will tell you about? Not as important.
Some schools have played sporting events in casinos.
And seven of the Pac-10 Conference's 10 schools take casino or lottery advertising, according to the Oregonian, Portland's newspaper. How prevalent is this nationally?
"I would say there are more schools that do have them now than don't," Tim Roberts, president of Oregon Sports Network, part owner of the University of Oregon's media rights, told the paper.
And here comes another problem with gambling and college sports, this time at Toledo.
Yet the NCAA tries to have it all ways at once. It did the same thing with the American Indian mascot issue, saying such images were "hostile and abusive," and basically forcing schools, such as Illinois, to drop the symbol. Meanwhile, Florida State got to keep its hostile and abusive image because it had a financial agreement with the tribe.
Is it hostile and abusive or not? The NCAA will tell you it is.
Look, if the NCAA doesn't care about gambling, then it should stop pretending.
But the guardian of your standards has to be your heart and your conscience. If gambling is hurting college students, then the relationship to gambling has to be cut. It's simple. And it doesn't matter what that does to the NCAA Tournament, or to a university's "financial relationships/agreements."
NCAA Hypocritical in Stance on Sports Betting
By Greg Couch
The NCAA will tell you that college students are in trouble. On campuses across the country, they are subject to a dangerous gambling culture.
Student bookies, gamblers and fixers are everywhere, knowing just how to tap into a poor victim. So college athletes can find themselves in trouble, and asked to shave points or throw games for money. It's not just a sports issue regarding the integrity of games, but also the NCAA will tell you it's a human issue.
So it's no shock, really, to see the point-shaving scandal at Toledo.
We've seen them in campuses everywhere, from Boston College to Northwestern, from Arizona State to Fresno State. From Maryland to Toledo. Big, small, east, west, north, south.
The FBI has been looking into point-shaving allegations at Toledo for at least four years. It now alleges that former running back Adam Cuomo, with the help of a Detroit-area gambler in 2003, recruited teammates to take part in a point-shaving scheme over a three-year period. He also is said to have recruited basketball players to fix Toledo hoops games.
Years ago, the NCAA started talking tough about the scourge of gambling. And years later, it's still talking, talking, talking, even putting up occasional fliers. At the same time, the latest trend at colleges across the country is to sell ads to casinos and place them in stadiums.
So the NCAA will tell you that kids are getting hurt from a gambling environment, but at the same time NCAA schools are in business with the gamblers.
Right side of mouth, meet left side. This is the NCAA's little con, arguing one point for the good of humanity and profiting from the opposite side.
How does this work? I asked Rachel Newman Baker, the NCAAs gambling czar, who passed my request onto a spokesperson, who answered this way in an email:
"Our position on sports wagering has not softened at all; we continue to be stridently opposed to any type of sports wagering. You are not likely to find anyone in the membership who doesn't agree.
"But we have come to understand that there are different perspectives within the membership about commercial activities, including the appropriateness of accepting casino advertising. What some institutions may see as acceptable, other may not. This is an evolving process.
"The NCAA does not interfere in the financial relationships/agreements of its institutions, as long as they do not violate NCAA legislation."
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS here. The NCAA is notorious for this type of doublespeak, a crafty way, basically, of blowing smoke when no legitimate explanation exists.
So the NCAA makes a moral argument, but then polices its morals with economics.
There is money to be made, so ethics are gone?
These are the people educating our kids.
Murray Sperber, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, who has written several books on the excesses of the NCAA, talks about the uncomfortable relationship the NCAA has with gambling.
"A huge part of the NCAA Tournament is the gambling, the office pools, or much-larger pools that [former Washington football coach] Rick Neuheisel was in. Because of gambling, they get good ratings. Who would watch first-round games if, in fact, gambling were outlawed on college basketball. What would happen to the $6 billion they get from CBS?
"At the very core of the NCAA, the mother's milk they live on, the March Madness money, is this deep, deep hypocrisy. I remember their own poll showed that one in five athletes had bet on college sports.
"Should they encourage gambling? Especially when one of the problem groups of gamblers, people who can't control their gambling, are college kids? They get in over their heads."
Meanwhile, last year, the University of New Mexico took $2.5 million for a five-year deal that made the Route 66 Casino Hotel its "exclusive gaming sponsor."
Whatever that means.
"Corporate sponsorships," UNM president David Schmidly said at the time, "are very important to the future growth and success of our athletic department."
Those vulnerable college students the NCAA will tell you about? Not as important.
Some schools have played sporting events in casinos.
And seven of the Pac-10 Conference's 10 schools take casino or lottery advertising, according to the Oregonian, Portland's newspaper. How prevalent is this nationally?
"I would say there are more schools that do have them now than don't," Tim Roberts, president of Oregon Sports Network, part owner of the University of Oregon's media rights, told the paper.
And here comes another problem with gambling and college sports, this time at Toledo.
Yet the NCAA tries to have it all ways at once. It did the same thing with the American Indian mascot issue, saying such images were "hostile and abusive," and basically forcing schools, such as Illinois, to drop the symbol. Meanwhile, Florida State got to keep its hostile and abusive image because it had a financial agreement with the tribe.
Is it hostile and abusive or not? The NCAA will tell you it is.
Look, if the NCAA doesn't care about gambling, then it should stop pretending.
But the guardian of your standards has to be your heart and your conscience. If gambling is hurting college students, then the relationship to gambling has to be cut. It's simple. And it doesn't matter what that does to the NCAA Tournament, or to a university's "financial relationships/agreements."
NCAA Hypocritical in Stance on Sports Betting
The Daily Grind of Betting Sports: It Ain't as Easy as it Used to Be...
The Daily Grind of Betting Sports: It Ain't as Easy as it Used to Be...
By Jay Graziani
About a decade ago, in the heyday of the online gambling industry, would-be sharps seemingly sprouted from the woodwork. Banking a little coin through internet gambling was easy back then; making enough to support oneself was maybe a bit harder. But a relatively intelligent player could grab his fair share of the gambling pie with just a little bit of effort.
There were plenty of "outs" for players to pick up quick bonuses and loose lines, and anyone with access to the Don Best screen could pull in a decent side income just chasing steam, grabbing middles, and hammering slow-moving numbers. And if you got booted for being an undesirable, a steam-chaser or bonus whore? Just move on to the next shop, as new bookmakers were popping their heads up nearly daily.
Nowadays, it's significantly harder for a part-timer to pull in even a meager income consistently. While there are many possible reasons for the decreased profitability of online sportsbetting, a few significant ones stand out:
A more efficient market. Sports markets were once widely spread out, with little cross-talk between bookies. No matter how sharp a particular guy in Florida was, his betting activity had little effect on someone using a different bookie in New York or Los Angeles, especially on game day, where the morning paper was as good a source of lines as anything else. Lines were essentially static outside of Las Vegas. Even at the beginning of the internet age, things were spread out enough that real-time scalps and middles could be found. Now, all bets are essentially fed into the same global market, and sharp action can send ripples throughout the entire industry within seconds. The emergence of betting exchanges has made the sports markets even more interconnected, and the global reach of the internet has brought even more players into the mix. What all this means is increased competition for the best lines and, ultimately, tighter lines that are harder for the average player to beat.
A consolidated sportsbetting industry. At the peak of the industry there were dozens of different sportsbooks open for business, all with bonuses and their own set of lines. Even "clone" books would often be caught with their pants down on a big line move. Now, the power is consolidated in the hands of much fewer players, as the small fish got eaten up after the U.S. gambling crackdown. Less competition means fewer amenities for the players, which is one reason for the recent lack of bonuses, reduced juice, and other incentives. It also means less opportunity for line-shopping, a key factor in winning at sports gambling.
More efficient sportsbooks. Not only are there fewer sportsbooks, the ones that are left are leaner and meaner. They know how to manage lines, handle bonuses, and deal with sharp players. The books that have survived are going to make you work harder to take a profit away from them. They move their lines rapidly, they keep their thumbs on bonuses, and are quick to limit players who are too sharp for their liking. In other words, today's sportsbooks, unlike their predecessors, aren't giving anything away.
Easier access to stats and information. The internet is the greatest media tool in history, providing access to nearly limitless information at the click of a mouse. This information includes historical scores and lines, game and player stats, and reams of other statistical trivia. Anyone with the time and motivation to research an angle now has the power to do so. Spreadsheet and database software, with some versions available for free, have given novices the number-crunching power once reserved for mathematicians. And the advent of internet billboards and other online social networks have allowed knowledge to spread at an unprecedented pace. All of this makes for more-informed gamblers, and that translates into more accurate betting lines.
Increased statistical research. We see more and more sportsbetting-themed research coming out of economics and finance departments at universities, such as those by Prof. Justin Wolfers that have at times found a degree of notoriety. You might argue that not a lot of people read those papers, especially the more obscure ones, but it doesn't take a whole lot of smart money to move lines nowadays. In the widely-connected sports market that exists today, this newly discovered information can work its way into the lines quickly.
No matter what the reason, it sure seems a lot harder to grind out a side income betting sports nowadays. And don't expect it get easier. Ever. If legalized/regulated, the requisite taxes will squeeze the last drops of profit out of the industry, and the nature of the regulation process would mean more power consolidated among even fewer sportsbooks. If left unregulated, the industry is unlikely to ever achieve the same level of magnitude without coming under even more intense government regulation and policing.
Of course good handicappers, those that can make a line better than the oddsmakers, will always find a way to make money. But at some point, even for them, the tighter markets may not provide a good enough return on investment to justify the workload.
The Daily Grind of Betting Sports: It Ain't as Easy as it Used to Be...
By Jay Graziani
About a decade ago, in the heyday of the online gambling industry, would-be sharps seemingly sprouted from the woodwork. Banking a little coin through internet gambling was easy back then; making enough to support oneself was maybe a bit harder. But a relatively intelligent player could grab his fair share of the gambling pie with just a little bit of effort.
There were plenty of "outs" for players to pick up quick bonuses and loose lines, and anyone with access to the Don Best screen could pull in a decent side income just chasing steam, grabbing middles, and hammering slow-moving numbers. And if you got booted for being an undesirable, a steam-chaser or bonus whore? Just move on to the next shop, as new bookmakers were popping their heads up nearly daily.
Nowadays, it's significantly harder for a part-timer to pull in even a meager income consistently. While there are many possible reasons for the decreased profitability of online sportsbetting, a few significant ones stand out:
A more efficient market. Sports markets were once widely spread out, with little cross-talk between bookies. No matter how sharp a particular guy in Florida was, his betting activity had little effect on someone using a different bookie in New York or Los Angeles, especially on game day, where the morning paper was as good a source of lines as anything else. Lines were essentially static outside of Las Vegas. Even at the beginning of the internet age, things were spread out enough that real-time scalps and middles could be found. Now, all bets are essentially fed into the same global market, and sharp action can send ripples throughout the entire industry within seconds. The emergence of betting exchanges has made the sports markets even more interconnected, and the global reach of the internet has brought even more players into the mix. What all this means is increased competition for the best lines and, ultimately, tighter lines that are harder for the average player to beat.
A consolidated sportsbetting industry. At the peak of the industry there were dozens of different sportsbooks open for business, all with bonuses and their own set of lines. Even "clone" books would often be caught with their pants down on a big line move. Now, the power is consolidated in the hands of much fewer players, as the small fish got eaten up after the U.S. gambling crackdown. Less competition means fewer amenities for the players, which is one reason for the recent lack of bonuses, reduced juice, and other incentives. It also means less opportunity for line-shopping, a key factor in winning at sports gambling.
More efficient sportsbooks. Not only are there fewer sportsbooks, the ones that are left are leaner and meaner. They know how to manage lines, handle bonuses, and deal with sharp players. The books that have survived are going to make you work harder to take a profit away from them. They move their lines rapidly, they keep their thumbs on bonuses, and are quick to limit players who are too sharp for their liking. In other words, today's sportsbooks, unlike their predecessors, aren't giving anything away.
Easier access to stats and information. The internet is the greatest media tool in history, providing access to nearly limitless information at the click of a mouse. This information includes historical scores and lines, game and player stats, and reams of other statistical trivia. Anyone with the time and motivation to research an angle now has the power to do so. Spreadsheet and database software, with some versions available for free, have given novices the number-crunching power once reserved for mathematicians. And the advent of internet billboards and other online social networks have allowed knowledge to spread at an unprecedented pace. All of this makes for more-informed gamblers, and that translates into more accurate betting lines.
Increased statistical research. We see more and more sportsbetting-themed research coming out of economics and finance departments at universities, such as those by Prof. Justin Wolfers that have at times found a degree of notoriety. You might argue that not a lot of people read those papers, especially the more obscure ones, but it doesn't take a whole lot of smart money to move lines nowadays. In the widely-connected sports market that exists today, this newly discovered information can work its way into the lines quickly.
No matter what the reason, it sure seems a lot harder to grind out a side income betting sports nowadays. And don't expect it get easier. Ever. If legalized/regulated, the requisite taxes will squeeze the last drops of profit out of the industry, and the nature of the regulation process would mean more power consolidated among even fewer sportsbooks. If left unregulated, the industry is unlikely to ever achieve the same level of magnitude without coming under even more intense government regulation and policing.
Of course good handicappers, those that can make a line better than the oddsmakers, will always find a way to make money. But at some point, even for them, the tighter markets may not provide a good enough return on investment to justify the workload.
The Daily Grind of Betting Sports: It Ain't as Easy as it Used to Be...
Betting Sports: Is it Gambling or Gaming Entertainment or Exploitation
Betting Sports: Is it Gambling or Gaming Entertainment or Exploitation
Gambling is an exciting pastime, and there are many options for enjoying the many aspects of it whether you are at home or in a casino. Many people feel all gambling is wrong, and are quite firm in their belief.
The history of gambling is quite a storied one. Despite the evolution of this popular pastime, gambling isn’t always viewed as socially acceptable. The effects of gambling can be far reaching. Known as ‘gaming’ for around 265 years before the term ‘gambling’ was introduced, the entertainment value of the many types of wagering money or property continues to grow.
Back in 1994, the UK government approved a National Lottery, which helped to make gambling seem more mainstream to the public. The advent of gambling via the Internet, mobile phone and/or television also served to make the gambling laws that were passed in 1968 seem rather old-fashioned. As more people began to enjoy gambling from the comfort of their homes, and the impacts of Internet gambling became apparent, a change of rules was definitely needed!
The gambling industry in the UK was given a thorough review, approved by the government, during the year 2000. Gambling statistics were studied, and the follow-up to this review was dubbed the Bud Report. It recommended that gambling as a whole should be modernized. This report also suggested that current laws be relaxed to let communities have more freedom of choice concerning their gambling habits.
A new Gambling Act went into effect in 2007, and the reaction of a large number of people was anything but positive. They refused to recognize any benefits of gambling. The most vocal criticism of these liberal gambling laws came from the Methodist Church and the Salvation Army. Their concern was that the number of casinos in Britain would grow at an alarming rate. Nevertheless, the new laws remained, and served to regulate not only certain lotteries, bingo, casinos and gaming machines, but also remote gambling and betting.
More than ten various commissions and trade associations have been established to aid in the monitoring process of gambling. They also have the power to impose fines, pull licenses, assess penalties, and can see that those who cheat or gamble illegally are prosecuted. Among these are the National Lottery Commission, the Gambling Commission, British Casino Association, British Horseracing Board, and the Association of British Bookmakers.
Three categories of gambling are prevalent in the UK. These are betting, casino style gambling, and lotteries. In most cases, a person must be over age 18 in order to gamble. The exceptions are fruit machines which pay with tokens, which has no age limit, lotteries that are local, and football pools, with the latter two having an age limit of 16 and above.
Those who are employed within the gambling industry are held to high standards. Some must obtain certificates of approval before they can begin their jobs. Betting shops and bookmakers also play a big role in the UK gambling scene. Sports betting is quite popular, and betting shops offer a location to place a bet via betting terminals, seating to watch the events on television, and enjoy some refreshments as well. Bookmakers have many tasks. They accept the wagers, collect money from those who lost a wager, pay those who won, and turn a profit by striving for a ‘balanced book’. Gamblers can also place a bet on the Internet or by way of a telephone call. The types of sports betting in the UK include horse and dog racing.
Casinos are full of different types of gambling to attract visitors. Slot machines which can deliver a large jackpot, table games with playing cards such as Blackjack, and games of chance like roulette are all popular. The odds always favour the house in casinos. Millions of pounds flow through the coffers of the various British casinos each year. By law, the casinos cannot advertise their addresses, nor can they urge people to come in and gamble.
Fruit machines, also known as slot machines, seem to be very profitable for the casinos, and are hugely popular with the gambling public. Bingo is also popular, especially with institutes and clubs who hold bingo games so that a charity receives the proceeds. Lotteries continue to be a popular way to raise money, or to take a chance on winning a jackpot by buying a ticket. 70% of the UK population enjoy playing the lottery. The draw variety of lottery is well known, and there are also the raffles, scratch cards, sweepstakes, and those lotteries found on the Internet and interactive television. Lottery fraud is becoming a gambling problem that must be solved.
Internet and remote gambling have boosted the profits and also the problems relevant to UK gambling. The increased monetary benefits are seen by some as one of the benefits of gambling, along with giving people a social outlet. Another favorable benefit is the money gambling can raise to profit charity.
However, others are staunchly determined that all types of gambling exploit those who are addicted to the thrill of this pastime, and see this habit as one that is just as damaging as alcoholism. By creating gaming addicts, draining the bank accounts of those who can’t stop gambling, and damaging the lives of those family members who must live with the repercussions of having a gambler in their midst.
There is a big chance that the gambling statistics that zero in on those who have a problem with gambling are going to continue to grow. Many organizations have been formed to look into gambling’s social impact. They have revealed the four reasons people gamble are escapism, the idea that they are doing something glamorous, the thrill of risk taking, and the social aspect.
The liberal laws of the UK will more than likely increase gambling problems. According to the Church of England’s organization, all gambling should be avoided as the risks outweigh the benefits. The Church will not enter into investments with any company who gets more than a 25% turnover from gambling proceeds.
Betting Sports: Is it Gambling or Gaming Entertainment or Exploitation
Gambling is an exciting pastime, and there are many options for enjoying the many aspects of it whether you are at home or in a casino. Many people feel all gambling is wrong, and are quite firm in their belief.
The history of gambling is quite a storied one. Despite the evolution of this popular pastime, gambling isn’t always viewed as socially acceptable. The effects of gambling can be far reaching. Known as ‘gaming’ for around 265 years before the term ‘gambling’ was introduced, the entertainment value of the many types of wagering money or property continues to grow.
Back in 1994, the UK government approved a National Lottery, which helped to make gambling seem more mainstream to the public. The advent of gambling via the Internet, mobile phone and/or television also served to make the gambling laws that were passed in 1968 seem rather old-fashioned. As more people began to enjoy gambling from the comfort of their homes, and the impacts of Internet gambling became apparent, a change of rules was definitely needed!
The gambling industry in the UK was given a thorough review, approved by the government, during the year 2000. Gambling statistics were studied, and the follow-up to this review was dubbed the Bud Report. It recommended that gambling as a whole should be modernized. This report also suggested that current laws be relaxed to let communities have more freedom of choice concerning their gambling habits.
A new Gambling Act went into effect in 2007, and the reaction of a large number of people was anything but positive. They refused to recognize any benefits of gambling. The most vocal criticism of these liberal gambling laws came from the Methodist Church and the Salvation Army. Their concern was that the number of casinos in Britain would grow at an alarming rate. Nevertheless, the new laws remained, and served to regulate not only certain lotteries, bingo, casinos and gaming machines, but also remote gambling and betting.
More than ten various commissions and trade associations have been established to aid in the monitoring process of gambling. They also have the power to impose fines, pull licenses, assess penalties, and can see that those who cheat or gamble illegally are prosecuted. Among these are the National Lottery Commission, the Gambling Commission, British Casino Association, British Horseracing Board, and the Association of British Bookmakers.
Three categories of gambling are prevalent in the UK. These are betting, casino style gambling, and lotteries. In most cases, a person must be over age 18 in order to gamble. The exceptions are fruit machines which pay with tokens, which has no age limit, lotteries that are local, and football pools, with the latter two having an age limit of 16 and above.
Those who are employed within the gambling industry are held to high standards. Some must obtain certificates of approval before they can begin their jobs. Betting shops and bookmakers also play a big role in the UK gambling scene. Sports betting is quite popular, and betting shops offer a location to place a bet via betting terminals, seating to watch the events on television, and enjoy some refreshments as well. Bookmakers have many tasks. They accept the wagers, collect money from those who lost a wager, pay those who won, and turn a profit by striving for a ‘balanced book’. Gamblers can also place a bet on the Internet or by way of a telephone call. The types of sports betting in the UK include horse and dog racing.
Casinos are full of different types of gambling to attract visitors. Slot machines which can deliver a large jackpot, table games with playing cards such as Blackjack, and games of chance like roulette are all popular. The odds always favour the house in casinos. Millions of pounds flow through the coffers of the various British casinos each year. By law, the casinos cannot advertise their addresses, nor can they urge people to come in and gamble.
Fruit machines, also known as slot machines, seem to be very profitable for the casinos, and are hugely popular with the gambling public. Bingo is also popular, especially with institutes and clubs who hold bingo games so that a charity receives the proceeds. Lotteries continue to be a popular way to raise money, or to take a chance on winning a jackpot by buying a ticket. 70% of the UK population enjoy playing the lottery. The draw variety of lottery is well known, and there are also the raffles, scratch cards, sweepstakes, and those lotteries found on the Internet and interactive television. Lottery fraud is becoming a gambling problem that must be solved.
Internet and remote gambling have boosted the profits and also the problems relevant to UK gambling. The increased monetary benefits are seen by some as one of the benefits of gambling, along with giving people a social outlet. Another favorable benefit is the money gambling can raise to profit charity.
However, others are staunchly determined that all types of gambling exploit those who are addicted to the thrill of this pastime, and see this habit as one that is just as damaging as alcoholism. By creating gaming addicts, draining the bank accounts of those who can’t stop gambling, and damaging the lives of those family members who must live with the repercussions of having a gambler in their midst.
There is a big chance that the gambling statistics that zero in on those who have a problem with gambling are going to continue to grow. Many organizations have been formed to look into gambling’s social impact. They have revealed the four reasons people gamble are escapism, the idea that they are doing something glamorous, the thrill of risk taking, and the social aspect.
The liberal laws of the UK will more than likely increase gambling problems. According to the Church of England’s organization, all gambling should be avoided as the risks outweigh the benefits. The Church will not enter into investments with any company who gets more than a 25% turnover from gambling proceeds.
Betting Sports: Is it Gambling or Gaming Entertainment or Exploitation
Kentucky Derby tests your Betting Odds in Sports
Kentucky Derby tests your Betting Odds in Sports
By Melissa Francis
Reporter/CNBC
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - It is America’s longest-running sporting event, the centerpiece of a multi-billion-dollar industry.
But as a crowd of 150,000 gathered last week at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Ky. for this year’s “Run for the Roses,” the sport of horseracing faces some of the biggest financial and economic challenges in the Kentucky Derby's 135-year history.
Often called the “most exciting two minutes in sports,” the event is also expected to draw some 14 million television viewers to cheer on 20 of the fastest three-year old thoroughbreds as they hit the racetrack.
Horseracing is one of America’s oldest and favorite past times. What started years ago as a small race in a small town, has become one of the most famous horse races in the country.
But a tough economy and increased competition from online gambling sites and casinos has forced changes on the industry. In March 2009, racing giant Magna Entertainment Corporation, filed for bankruptcy protection with plans to sell some of its tracks, including Pimlico, host of the Preakness Stakes. To attract more business, Churchill Downs is experimenting with night races for the first time.
The Derby is Churchill Downs’ biggest moneymaker by far. On most days, live business at the racetrack is at a steady decline. With the exception of days like Derby Day there just aren't that many people at the racetrack anymore.
"So we have these huge coliseums like Church Hill Downs or Hollywood Park or Belmont Park where there might on a weekday only be 2,000 or 3,000 people rattling around a place built for 50,000,” said Steve Crist, publisher and a columnist for Daily Racing Form.
Despite the decline in everyday traffic, the Derby and remains an American sports icon and a major draws for the gambling revenues that fuel the multi-billion dollar horseracing industry. More than $100 million worth of bets are placed each year on the Kentucky Derby alone.
Though racetrack attendance is down overall, tickets to the Kentucky Derby are still some of the toughest tickets to come by. Grandstand and bleacher tickets go for $40 to $200 and sell out within weeks of going on sale. There are also the coveted seats in what’s known as ‘Millionaires Row’, where prices start at $1,000 for a two-day package.
The derby is marketed not only as a famous horse race, but also as “an experience.” Mike Iavarone, co-owner of 2008 winner, Big Brown, says the feeling of winning the Derby “is unexplainable. It is like going to the Super Bowl, winning it and hoisting the trophy over your head.”
It’s also a winning experience for the local economy. In 1956, author John Steinbeck wrote that during Derby week, Louisville is the capital of the world, and for many that still rings true today.
The revenue generated during Derby weekend pumps more than $75 million into Louisville’s economy. That economic boost does not go unnoticed by Louisville-based Yum brands, the parent company of well-known restaurants like Pizza Hut, KFC, and Taco Bell. In 2006, Yum signed on to sponsor the Derby.
"I don’t think that the Yum Brands is going to sell one more piece of chicken because they’re involved with the Kentucky Derby,” said Michael Trager, a television sports consultant. “But what it does do is it – it establishes a relationship between the brand and a major event that’s also nationally televised.
For breeders, raising a Kentucky Derby winner is a bet with the longest odds in sport. Nearly 40,000 thoroughbreds are born in the United States each year. Of those approximately 23,000 will become racehorses, and of those only about 20 will make it to the Kentucky Derby. At their peak, these horses can run up to 40 mph.
"The thoroughbred business is all about dreams,” said Anne Peters at Three Chimneys Farm, a commercial breeding farm in central Kentucky. “Everybody's hoping to breed the next great race horse so every foal that hits the ground could be the one. This could be the one that wins the Kentucky Derby."
When the bet pays off, breeding a derby winner brings prestige - and lots of money.
“If you have a horse that wins the Kentucky Derby, the value of that racehorse exceeds your wildest imagination,” said Iavarone.
A horse that wins the Kentucky Derby can earn millions as its second career as a stallion, because horse owners are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to have their mares mate with a derby winner. These horses are expected to mate with up to 100 to 120 mares each year for the next twenty years following their win.
“For most American breeders, breeding a Kentucky Derby winner is the ultimate goal,” said Peters.
But the long-term pay-off – the increase of a Derby winner’s market value - comes with no guarantees plays a major. In 2004, with the economy strong, Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Smarty Jones earned stud fees of $100,000. By 2008, Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Big Brown's stud fee was assessed at just $65,000.
Kentucky Derby tests your Betting Odds in Sports
By Melissa Francis
Reporter/CNBC
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - It is America’s longest-running sporting event, the centerpiece of a multi-billion-dollar industry.
But as a crowd of 150,000 gathered last week at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Ky. for this year’s “Run for the Roses,” the sport of horseracing faces some of the biggest financial and economic challenges in the Kentucky Derby's 135-year history.
Often called the “most exciting two minutes in sports,” the event is also expected to draw some 14 million television viewers to cheer on 20 of the fastest three-year old thoroughbreds as they hit the racetrack.
Horseracing is one of America’s oldest and favorite past times. What started years ago as a small race in a small town, has become one of the most famous horse races in the country.
But a tough economy and increased competition from online gambling sites and casinos has forced changes on the industry. In March 2009, racing giant Magna Entertainment Corporation, filed for bankruptcy protection with plans to sell some of its tracks, including Pimlico, host of the Preakness Stakes. To attract more business, Churchill Downs is experimenting with night races for the first time.
The Derby is Churchill Downs’ biggest moneymaker by far. On most days, live business at the racetrack is at a steady decline. With the exception of days like Derby Day there just aren't that many people at the racetrack anymore.
"So we have these huge coliseums like Church Hill Downs or Hollywood Park or Belmont Park where there might on a weekday only be 2,000 or 3,000 people rattling around a place built for 50,000,” said Steve Crist, publisher and a columnist for Daily Racing Form.
Despite the decline in everyday traffic, the Derby and remains an American sports icon and a major draws for the gambling revenues that fuel the multi-billion dollar horseracing industry. More than $100 million worth of bets are placed each year on the Kentucky Derby alone.
Though racetrack attendance is down overall, tickets to the Kentucky Derby are still some of the toughest tickets to come by. Grandstand and bleacher tickets go for $40 to $200 and sell out within weeks of going on sale. There are also the coveted seats in what’s known as ‘Millionaires Row’, where prices start at $1,000 for a two-day package.
The derby is marketed not only as a famous horse race, but also as “an experience.” Mike Iavarone, co-owner of 2008 winner, Big Brown, says the feeling of winning the Derby “is unexplainable. It is like going to the Super Bowl, winning it and hoisting the trophy over your head.”
It’s also a winning experience for the local economy. In 1956, author John Steinbeck wrote that during Derby week, Louisville is the capital of the world, and for many that still rings true today.
The revenue generated during Derby weekend pumps more than $75 million into Louisville’s economy. That economic boost does not go unnoticed by Louisville-based Yum brands, the parent company of well-known restaurants like Pizza Hut, KFC, and Taco Bell. In 2006, Yum signed on to sponsor the Derby.
"I don’t think that the Yum Brands is going to sell one more piece of chicken because they’re involved with the Kentucky Derby,” said Michael Trager, a television sports consultant. “But what it does do is it – it establishes a relationship between the brand and a major event that’s also nationally televised.
For breeders, raising a Kentucky Derby winner is a bet with the longest odds in sport. Nearly 40,000 thoroughbreds are born in the United States each year. Of those approximately 23,000 will become racehorses, and of those only about 20 will make it to the Kentucky Derby. At their peak, these horses can run up to 40 mph.
"The thoroughbred business is all about dreams,” said Anne Peters at Three Chimneys Farm, a commercial breeding farm in central Kentucky. “Everybody's hoping to breed the next great race horse so every foal that hits the ground could be the one. This could be the one that wins the Kentucky Derby."
When the bet pays off, breeding a derby winner brings prestige - and lots of money.
“If you have a horse that wins the Kentucky Derby, the value of that racehorse exceeds your wildest imagination,” said Iavarone.
A horse that wins the Kentucky Derby can earn millions as its second career as a stallion, because horse owners are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to have their mares mate with a derby winner. These horses are expected to mate with up to 100 to 120 mares each year for the next twenty years following their win.
“For most American breeders, breeding a Kentucky Derby winner is the ultimate goal,” said Peters.
But the long-term pay-off – the increase of a Derby winner’s market value - comes with no guarantees plays a major. In 2004, with the economy strong, Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Smarty Jones earned stud fees of $100,000. By 2008, Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner Big Brown's stud fee was assessed at just $65,000.
Kentucky Derby tests your Betting Odds in Sports
Monday, April 27, 2009
Betting Sports Forum: 11 Questions With Chuck Todd
Betting Sports Forum: 11 Questions With Chuck Todd
By RealClearSports Staff
RealClearSports recently interviewed Chuck Todd, Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director for NBC. He also serves as contributing editor to "Meet the Press." Formerly, Todd served as the editor-in-chief of National Journal's The Hotline.
RCS: Many of our readers will recognize you as the NBC Political Director and White House Correspondent, as well as the former Editor-in-Chief of National Journal’s Hotline. What fewer readers might not know, however, is that at only 24-years old, you were a co-founder and the first managing editor of the Sports Business Daily.
How did your experience in sports media prepare you for a career in political media?
Todd: There’s the same amount of quid pro quos. Everything is done on the side. There’s sports agents and lobbyists, who probably come from the same DNA. There’s probably the same original Adam for lobbyists; there’s probably the same original Adam for sports agents. Politicians and players, they’re both very good at saying clichés all the time: Just one game at a time; just one piece of legislation at a time.
There’s a lot of differences I think in covering it. But in elections, it’s amazing how many political experts you find that are very into baseball. The statistical aspect of it all and the way elections work, and the way baseball works -- all the sports in general, but particularly baseball. There’s the same amount of passion. It comes with people. Hardcore Republicans or hardcore Democrats have a pretty similar passion for sports, similar to, for instance, college football.
RCS: 47 states out of 50 are running deficits. In the same interview with the Sports Business Journal, you said “[T]he next great revenue generator for government is sports gambling.” A few weeks ago we had a discussion with Governor Jack Markell about his proposal to legalize sport betting in Delaware. He said, “Should we be successful, might other states try to emulate us in their state? They might.”
Do you believe legalized sports betting will spread to other states in the near future?
Todd: It’s going to spread like a virus. The New Jersey government essentially is suing. What they believe is they know Congress isn’t going to change the law when it comes to sports gambling, and New Jersey wants to have a sports book. Right now they can’t have a sports book. So what they want to do is say that that law is unconstitutional. This law that creates that somehow there’s an exception that allows sports betting for four states including Delaware and Nevada.
Now, I’ve interviewed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine about this. It was the quick question I threw at him one morning on Morning Joe a couple of weeks ago. I asked him about it and he said we can’t get Congress to change the law. I said, “Why? Because Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader who happens to be from Nevada, would never support it?” But Reid’s not going to support some sort of change to law that’s going to hurt Nevada’s monopoly essentially on sports books. But with everybody capped out on the legalized gambling front: lotteries and even casino gambling feels a little bit saturated.
Where is money not staying in the United States? Well it’s in sports gambling, because if you’re not in Nevada you might be gambling with three sites that are based in the Caribbean or in Europe or whatever, and that’s where millions of dollars are going. That’s a potential revenue generator. With so many politicians afraid to raise taxes, or even fees, you go the gambling route. Slots is tapped out, lottery is tapped out, Card games tapped out. So it’s sports betting. It’s going to spread. They’re all going to figure out ways around this federal law or the Supreme Court is going to say what Congress passed is unconstitutional -- that somehow it’s in violation of the 10th Amendment; violation of a States right.
Now with the sports leagues, particularly the NCAA, but also the sports in professional leagues, they’re going to fight this like crazy because they’re fearful of it. But on the other hand, where would the NFL be without gambling? They’ll never admit it, but where would the NFL’s popularity be without gambling? I also consider Fantasy a version of gambling.
RCS: Are there still sports writers you make a habit of reading? And who are the ones, past or present, you most admire?
Todd: Well I grew up reading a guy named Edwin Pope of the Miami Herald. He was a legend down there. Everything for me began and ended with him. Then I came up here, and we were spoiled for a while between Kornheiser, Wilbon and Thomas Boswell. We had Shirley Povich. So with the Washington Post, we were really spoiled. I still try to read Boswell.
RCS: In your book, How Barack Obama Won, you paid tribute to Tim Russert, the man who brought you to NBC. “I kinda feel like Clete Boyer, the not so well-known third baseman for the New York Yankees in the early 1960s. Because the one thing you can’t take away from Boyer is this: he got to bat in the same lineup as Mickey Mantle. Well, I got to work with Tim Russert for a brief period of time; you can’t take that away from me.”
What is it about a good sports analogy that can accomplish so many things, from explaining a political strategy to providing comfort?
Todd: The thing is with sports –- even though and I’ll get an occasional complaint from women in my life: there are too many sports analogies out there and it’s not fair -- it is universal. People get it. It’s the ultimate escapism that Americans still have, even more so than the movies and television.
In politics there are winners and losers and in sports there are winners and losers. It’s just simple winners and losers sometimes. There’s immediate heartache, there’s drama and there’s all that stuff. It’s the ultimate reality show. It’s like politics. It works easily. People who are political junkies are sports junkies. Even if they’re not they have to pretend to be because it’s politically unpopular not to be a sports fan.
I really miss the Peter Gammons column from his Boston Globe days. I remember I would go out and buy the Sunday Boston Globe on Monday. They had Will McDonough doing their NFL column, which always had a bunch of news in it. You had Peter Gammons doing his baseball column. You had Bob Ryan. All these guys have now been swallowed up by television. None of them write as much as they used to anymore.
I’d say I read Bill Simmons, but he’s doing less columns. It always seems he’s doing some damn podcast or videocast this or whatever the hell it is. I just want to read a column again –- his rambling column. Not seven hour chat sessions. Just a 2500-word sports column. As they say, and I’ll leave it at this, something we can get through in one sitting.
RCS: With regards to online media, you’ve said that the ideal news site would in many ways emulate ESPN.com. What does ESPN do better than the typical news site?
Todd: Well I used to say that about ESPN.com two years ago. I’ll be honest. I don’t like the new format. It doesn’t feel as user friendly. It’s trying too hard to incorporate video. That’s just my opinion.
On a total side note here, a lot of websites are trying to incorporate video and text as one in the same. And everybody is waiting for this convergence. Obviously more and more people have broadband and more and more people are comfortable viewing video on the web, but it’s still really the secondary thing to do on the web, not the primary thing, which is to read.
That said, I still think the way ESPN.com is organized is still the best way to design a political site. If I were designing a political website for me I would still model it after some version of ESPN.com. Not quite the current version, but that’s OK.
RCS: A few months ago, RealClearSports conducted an interview with Tony Kornheiser in which he described the vision of Pardon The Interruption’s creator Erik Rydholm."[He]’s a genius. He created everything you see on the screen that’s being borrowed, and I use the word borrowed kindly -- that’s being lifted and stolen by every single network in the world. Erik Rydholm invented that. PTI is a great TV show…Now every network does it in every show they have. All the sports shows do it. The news shows do it. Everybody: MSNBC, CNBC, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS. They put people on clocks. They try and do games with people. They run a crawl. They run stuff on the screen. It’s too bad he didn’t patent it. It’s too bad he didn’t get paid for it, because he’d be a zillionaire."
You’re affiliated with three of the stations Kornheiser mentioned. How accurate is his statement? How much of the innovation in political media is driven by innovation in sports media?
Todd: Well, I certainly think he’s over-congratulating himself on that front, but I have heard that quite a few times.
I actually think that cable has failed to recreate PTI and what PTI does well. Trust me I know of couple of instances where we tried at MSNBC and it hasn’t worked. I think we could have done some things differently that maybe possibly would have made it work. There is an aspect that at least in Washington intelligence would respond well to a political Washington show that is truly modeled after PTI. But I actually think the problem is you haven’t seen, and there actually hasn’t been an exact copy. The fact is we haven’t done it. We’ve tried and failed so we’ve gone another way on that front when it comes to supposedly copying PTI. But I do think what sports media did -- and obviously ESPN was the first successful cable show to figure out how to make money and use business and all this stuff -- So of course anybody worth their salt is going to try to look at ESPN and see what works.
ESPN, on television, has always seemed to be ahead in dealing with societies ADD issue. We’re an ADD society now. We’re entering an age in which there’s no more context. Look at the stuff that’s not working on ESPN. E:60, their version of 60 Minutes. All their long form stuff isn’t quite working. But what worked was when they started ESPNEWS, or when they started PTI, or when they started stuff that moves, adding HD information bars that are all over the place and all over the TV. They’ve been very good at dealing with the ADD issue of television audiences. Which of course is a challenge for all cable news audiences.
In many ways though I think as much as these people may want to say it was CNBC that ripped this stuff, I think they ripped some stuff from CNBC. CNBC had to do it because of statistics. And just the tickers and all that stuff. I think that’s where some of that stuff gets started and some of the news programs do try to borrow a little bit from that.
RCS: You gave an interview with TV Guide in which you said, “For a few years I worked at a sports publication. I realized that I missed politics and that you shouldn't make your hobby your full time job.” But there are guys out there who have had success commenting on both. Gregg Easterbrook, George Will and Keith Olbermann come to mind. So is there part of you that’s tempted to put your sports background and knowledge into an occasional column?
Todd: Absolutely. I wrote one a few years ago. I had this idea of entirely remaking the competitiveness of baseball. If baseball wasn’t going to go to the NFL socialized system of fully sharing revenue so that the Yankees and the Kansas City Royals had the same amount of revenue coming in, then I had this idea that, because baseball is about statistics meets strategy, if you have a payroll of a certain amount of money, you end up in a certain division, and you have to compete more often with folks that have this similar amount of payroll. So you force the competitiveness and you force the strategy. There’s a lot more strategy now behind contracts, and how much money you’re going to spend in free agents and all this stuff. And also it decides which division you end up in and who you end up playing. That way the Pittsburgh Pirates, and the Oakland A’s, and the Kansas City Royals might have shots to make the playoffs more often than now.
So bottom line, yes, I do like to slip in an occasional sports thing every now and then. But I keep it occasional.
When I did it full time at Sports Business Daily, what I found was that it was the same story over and over again in the early 90’s when I was doing it. Is so-and-so going to get a new stadium? Are they going to get taxpayer funding? And when they get the new stadium, is it going be Miller or Bud? Is it going to be Coke or Pepsi? You just realized it was just really the same stories on the sports business world over and over again. The market would change, my line would change, the tagline would change, but the stories were the same. And now I went to a ballpark and that’s all I would look at. How much signage they had, who had the pour, who was doing anything original and innovative. So I stopped enjoying sports, and I realized politics is more what I want to throw myself into and sports would be my decompression.
RCS: Not sure you’re aware, but Bert Blyleven has recently started writing for NBCSports.com. With more shutouts than Bob Gibson; more strikeouts than Tom Seaver; more complete games with four hits or less than Jim Palmer, Blyleven has been campaigning for over a decade to be elected into the Hall of Fame.
Todd: Which makes me uncomfortable.
RCS: You are an expert on campaigns. As a player on the Hall of Fame bubble for 11 years, is it possible that Bert Blyleven’s candidacy suffers from a tragically unmarketable name?
Todd: The thing is you can’t campaign for yourself. You know Jim Rice had others campaigning for him. That’s what I think finally got Jim Rice in.
You have to have others do it for you, number one. I am surprised for instance that there isn’t more of a campaign for all of these power hitters of the 80’s to get new respect, in that their numbers in the pre-steroid era are pretty impressive now when you look back on it. The problem those guys suffered from, these power hitters from the 70’s and 80’s, is that when the time came up for the voting in the early 90’s their 32-home run, 100-RBI seasons that they had didn’t seem that impressive when we saw Brady Anderson pop 50 home runs.
Blyleven shouldn’t be doing his own campaigning, but I do think there should be different campaigns out there for how to deal with the hall of fame. For instance, I like Bill Simmons' idea for the Hall of Fame, which is to create that whole pyramid idea. The Hall of Fame is to honor the most interesting, and sometimes it’s the best moments in baseball but the biggest moments, and it’s the history. The Baseball Hall of Fame is the history of baseball. They either have to figure out how to deal with the steroid era or how to also keep people within their eras.
And this is totally biased, but I want my boy Steve Garvey in the Hall of Fame. It kills me. That’s who I grew up idolizing. There was no better clutch hitter in the late 70’s and early 80’s than Steve Garvey, other than Johnny Bench. I’ve been to the Hall of Fame. How is Garvey not there? He was one of the most feared hitters. It kills me as a Dodgers fan that he’s not in the Hall of Fame because he was the best player on the Dodgers. Don Sutton is in the Hall of Fame simply because he kept getting wins. The best player on the Dodgers, on a team that had an incredible run from ‘74 to ‘83, which is basically the years that Garvey was there. And, by the way, Garvey played for the San Diego Padres and somehow helped them get to their first world series back in ’84. And why is he not in the Hall of Fame?
You know sometimes numbers do lie. They sit there and they just judge him by the numbers, and his numbers are ok but his playoff numbers are great. So he deserves it. The problem with campaigning is you can’t do it by yourself. I think everybody gets turned off when somebody tries campaigning for themselves. Other than politics, which seems like the only place where it’s accepted.
Another campaign I’d like to start in baseball is that somebody needs to rethink Greg Maddux’s place in major league baseball history. When you think about what he did and accomplished in the steroids era for a guy that never threw more than 92 miles-per-hour, we need to rethink it. Everyone knows he’s a great pitcher and a Hall of Fame pitcher, but he may be one of the five greatest pitchers of all time, but he was stuck behind the shadow of Roger Clemens who now it turns out might be a phony. It’s been unfair to Maddux his whole career. I think we need to go back and re-appreciate how great Greg Maddux was.
RCS: In the last two years, two sports-related issues have permeated the national political agenda: steroids in baseball and the BCS. Do you think political intervention has helped to bring resolution to the problems?
Todd: Clearly it helped in baseball. As much as I was a cynic about it -- like I guess I didn’t like politicians grandstanding about it, who were they to do this? Don’t get involved -- there’s a lot more serious issues. You know what, I feel better about baseball today than I have in ten years. As somebody who witnessed Mark McGwire’s 61st home run, the one that tied Maris, I feel like that whole moment was snatched away for me. It’s a phony memory now. At the time I thought, oh, isn’t this great. I’m at Busch Stadium and I get to witness that moment and now it’s a moment I wish I didn’t witness and pretend it never happened. So in that respect I think that the intervention worked.
In college football, I don’t know. There’s actually a legitimate reason for Congress to get involved, since a lot of these institutions are public. The government could get involved a little bit here and perhaps claim some version of jurisdiction. Other than gaining access to the BCS I don’t think they can mandate a playoff. Obviously university presidents have always been completely hypocritical about college football versus college basketball when it comes to the playoff idea. But that’s for university presidents to have to reconcile.
RCS: In an interview with the Sports Business Journal, you said fans should care about “the anti-government tide and an anti-business populist movement. There is a lot of anger out there. I would think people in the sports industry should be very attuned to the idea that government is not going to be handing our money, tax breaks or land for teams to build stadiums.”
To what degree has the sports industry been insulated from the economic recession, and to what degree do you think it’s still going to get hit?
Todd: Well , it’s been insulated a little bit, I mean for instance, the NFL is lucky that it’s TV contract isn’t up this year or next year. It’s still a couple more years until it’s up.
I think that baseball is the one that’s going to get hit first. They’re going to get hit hard on this, because it is such a daily grind. Baseball clubs are more reliant on ticket sales. So the economic downturn is going to hurt them.
Now, as far as new stadiums, I think it’s going to be a very tough time. The idea that somehow state governments in some cases, or sometimes city governments, it’s not going to be politically feasible for them to grant tax breaks or give free land or something like these sweetheart deals that some of these people got for their stadiums over the last few years. It’s not going to be the same. It’s not going to happen. They’re going to have to be more innovative with their stadium proposals. In some cases do it themselves. In some cases just be a little more of a friend to the taxpayer about it.
The NFL is insulated from it somewhat because they don’t rely as heavily on ticket sales. You know, eight games a year, not 41. But baseball, basketball, and hockey I think are really going to get hit in the next year. I think you’re really going to start seeing next year.
I look at Washington and I think it’s happened in a lot of the bigger cities -- the good season tickets were never even marketed to individuals. They were only trying to market it to companies, so that they would buy these nice seats and use them as some sort of business expense. Well with businesses cutting back their expenses the first thing to go is stuff like that. And they’re going to have a hard time trying to figure out where to sell these things.
They’re going to have to drop their prices to a more reasonable level. It’s unbelievable. 20 rows back at the Verizon Center is a $160 seat. 20 rows back! It’s a $160! So my brother-in-law and his son really wanted to see Lebron James, so at face value the two of them together spent $320 for a father and son, one basketball game, and we didn’t even start in on the $20 or $40 parking. It costs $40 to park for the Nationals. They actually charge $40. It’s outrageous. It’s just crazy money and they’ve gotten away with it over the last few years because they figure, particularly here in Washington, that everybody is using other people’s money. Well, that isn’t going to work anymore and I think franchises are going to have to realize that they have to see that the fan is going to use their own money, their own power.
RCS: One last question about sports betting. You’re a pretty good basketball player, so hypothetically, if President Obama challenged you to a game of one-on-one under the conditions that if you won, you’d get a 30-minute exclusive interview; but if he won, you’d have to shave your goatee.
Would you accept the bet?
Todd: Oh man, I don’t know. He’s got a secret that is very difficult. I haven’t been able to play with him yet. He said he wants to. We’re just trying to figure out how we can do it so it’s off the record -- this feeling that you can’t do anything with the president anymore.
He’s got a left-handed jumper and he goes left and when you don’t play against a lot of lefties on the basketball court it’s tough. I’m sure a lot of people out there agree. He’s got old guy game and I mean that as a compliment. Old guy game. How many people have gone out there, like some of the 20-something’s that are going to read this -- they go out there and see the guy with grey hair on the court and think, Oh, I’m going to get him. Then they realize the guy passes smarter, gets someplace A to B faster, and then has that annoying set shot that can’t miss. Then, throw in the fact that he’s left handed… forget it.
So, I don’t know. I don’t know if I could risk the goatee.
Plus, are you really allowed to beat the President? Does that work? I think only Reggie Love is allowed to beat the President. Because he would get too much crap from Coach K if he lost to the President.
Betting Sports Forum: 11 Questions With Chuck Todd
By RealClearSports Staff
RealClearSports recently interviewed Chuck Todd, Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director for NBC. He also serves as contributing editor to "Meet the Press." Formerly, Todd served as the editor-in-chief of National Journal's The Hotline.
RCS: Many of our readers will recognize you as the NBC Political Director and White House Correspondent, as well as the former Editor-in-Chief of National Journal’s Hotline. What fewer readers might not know, however, is that at only 24-years old, you were a co-founder and the first managing editor of the Sports Business Daily.
How did your experience in sports media prepare you for a career in political media?
Todd: There’s the same amount of quid pro quos. Everything is done on the side. There’s sports agents and lobbyists, who probably come from the same DNA. There’s probably the same original Adam for lobbyists; there’s probably the same original Adam for sports agents. Politicians and players, they’re both very good at saying clichés all the time: Just one game at a time; just one piece of legislation at a time.
There’s a lot of differences I think in covering it. But in elections, it’s amazing how many political experts you find that are very into baseball. The statistical aspect of it all and the way elections work, and the way baseball works -- all the sports in general, but particularly baseball. There’s the same amount of passion. It comes with people. Hardcore Republicans or hardcore Democrats have a pretty similar passion for sports, similar to, for instance, college football.
RCS: 47 states out of 50 are running deficits. In the same interview with the Sports Business Journal, you said “[T]he next great revenue generator for government is sports gambling.” A few weeks ago we had a discussion with Governor Jack Markell about his proposal to legalize sport betting in Delaware. He said, “Should we be successful, might other states try to emulate us in their state? They might.”
Do you believe legalized sports betting will spread to other states in the near future?
Todd: It’s going to spread like a virus. The New Jersey government essentially is suing. What they believe is they know Congress isn’t going to change the law when it comes to sports gambling, and New Jersey wants to have a sports book. Right now they can’t have a sports book. So what they want to do is say that that law is unconstitutional. This law that creates that somehow there’s an exception that allows sports betting for four states including Delaware and Nevada.
Now, I’ve interviewed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine about this. It was the quick question I threw at him one morning on Morning Joe a couple of weeks ago. I asked him about it and he said we can’t get Congress to change the law. I said, “Why? Because Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader who happens to be from Nevada, would never support it?” But Reid’s not going to support some sort of change to law that’s going to hurt Nevada’s monopoly essentially on sports books. But with everybody capped out on the legalized gambling front: lotteries and even casino gambling feels a little bit saturated.
Where is money not staying in the United States? Well it’s in sports gambling, because if you’re not in Nevada you might be gambling with three sites that are based in the Caribbean or in Europe or whatever, and that’s where millions of dollars are going. That’s a potential revenue generator. With so many politicians afraid to raise taxes, or even fees, you go the gambling route. Slots is tapped out, lottery is tapped out, Card games tapped out. So it’s sports betting. It’s going to spread. They’re all going to figure out ways around this federal law or the Supreme Court is going to say what Congress passed is unconstitutional -- that somehow it’s in violation of the 10th Amendment; violation of a States right.
Now with the sports leagues, particularly the NCAA, but also the sports in professional leagues, they’re going to fight this like crazy because they’re fearful of it. But on the other hand, where would the NFL be without gambling? They’ll never admit it, but where would the NFL’s popularity be without gambling? I also consider Fantasy a version of gambling.
RCS: Are there still sports writers you make a habit of reading? And who are the ones, past or present, you most admire?
Todd: Well I grew up reading a guy named Edwin Pope of the Miami Herald. He was a legend down there. Everything for me began and ended with him. Then I came up here, and we were spoiled for a while between Kornheiser, Wilbon and Thomas Boswell. We had Shirley Povich. So with the Washington Post, we were really spoiled. I still try to read Boswell.
RCS: In your book, How Barack Obama Won, you paid tribute to Tim Russert, the man who brought you to NBC. “I kinda feel like Clete Boyer, the not so well-known third baseman for the New York Yankees in the early 1960s. Because the one thing you can’t take away from Boyer is this: he got to bat in the same lineup as Mickey Mantle. Well, I got to work with Tim Russert for a brief period of time; you can’t take that away from me.”
What is it about a good sports analogy that can accomplish so many things, from explaining a political strategy to providing comfort?
Todd: The thing is with sports –- even though and I’ll get an occasional complaint from women in my life: there are too many sports analogies out there and it’s not fair -- it is universal. People get it. It’s the ultimate escapism that Americans still have, even more so than the movies and television.
In politics there are winners and losers and in sports there are winners and losers. It’s just simple winners and losers sometimes. There’s immediate heartache, there’s drama and there’s all that stuff. It’s the ultimate reality show. It’s like politics. It works easily. People who are political junkies are sports junkies. Even if they’re not they have to pretend to be because it’s politically unpopular not to be a sports fan.
I really miss the Peter Gammons column from his Boston Globe days. I remember I would go out and buy the Sunday Boston Globe on Monday. They had Will McDonough doing their NFL column, which always had a bunch of news in it. You had Peter Gammons doing his baseball column. You had Bob Ryan. All these guys have now been swallowed up by television. None of them write as much as they used to anymore.
I’d say I read Bill Simmons, but he’s doing less columns. It always seems he’s doing some damn podcast or videocast this or whatever the hell it is. I just want to read a column again –- his rambling column. Not seven hour chat sessions. Just a 2500-word sports column. As they say, and I’ll leave it at this, something we can get through in one sitting.
RCS: With regards to online media, you’ve said that the ideal news site would in many ways emulate ESPN.com. What does ESPN do better than the typical news site?
Todd: Well I used to say that about ESPN.com two years ago. I’ll be honest. I don’t like the new format. It doesn’t feel as user friendly. It’s trying too hard to incorporate video. That’s just my opinion.
On a total side note here, a lot of websites are trying to incorporate video and text as one in the same. And everybody is waiting for this convergence. Obviously more and more people have broadband and more and more people are comfortable viewing video on the web, but it’s still really the secondary thing to do on the web, not the primary thing, which is to read.
That said, I still think the way ESPN.com is organized is still the best way to design a political site. If I were designing a political website for me I would still model it after some version of ESPN.com. Not quite the current version, but that’s OK.
RCS: A few months ago, RealClearSports conducted an interview with Tony Kornheiser in which he described the vision of Pardon The Interruption’s creator Erik Rydholm."[He]’s a genius. He created everything you see on the screen that’s being borrowed, and I use the word borrowed kindly -- that’s being lifted and stolen by every single network in the world. Erik Rydholm invented that. PTI is a great TV show…Now every network does it in every show they have. All the sports shows do it. The news shows do it. Everybody: MSNBC, CNBC, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS. They put people on clocks. They try and do games with people. They run a crawl. They run stuff on the screen. It’s too bad he didn’t patent it. It’s too bad he didn’t get paid for it, because he’d be a zillionaire."
You’re affiliated with three of the stations Kornheiser mentioned. How accurate is his statement? How much of the innovation in political media is driven by innovation in sports media?
Todd: Well, I certainly think he’s over-congratulating himself on that front, but I have heard that quite a few times.
I actually think that cable has failed to recreate PTI and what PTI does well. Trust me I know of couple of instances where we tried at MSNBC and it hasn’t worked. I think we could have done some things differently that maybe possibly would have made it work. There is an aspect that at least in Washington intelligence would respond well to a political Washington show that is truly modeled after PTI. But I actually think the problem is you haven’t seen, and there actually hasn’t been an exact copy. The fact is we haven’t done it. We’ve tried and failed so we’ve gone another way on that front when it comes to supposedly copying PTI. But I do think what sports media did -- and obviously ESPN was the first successful cable show to figure out how to make money and use business and all this stuff -- So of course anybody worth their salt is going to try to look at ESPN and see what works.
ESPN, on television, has always seemed to be ahead in dealing with societies ADD issue. We’re an ADD society now. We’re entering an age in which there’s no more context. Look at the stuff that’s not working on ESPN. E:60, their version of 60 Minutes. All their long form stuff isn’t quite working. But what worked was when they started ESPNEWS, or when they started PTI, or when they started stuff that moves, adding HD information bars that are all over the place and all over the TV. They’ve been very good at dealing with the ADD issue of television audiences. Which of course is a challenge for all cable news audiences.
In many ways though I think as much as these people may want to say it was CNBC that ripped this stuff, I think they ripped some stuff from CNBC. CNBC had to do it because of statistics. And just the tickers and all that stuff. I think that’s where some of that stuff gets started and some of the news programs do try to borrow a little bit from that.
RCS: You gave an interview with TV Guide in which you said, “For a few years I worked at a sports publication. I realized that I missed politics and that you shouldn't make your hobby your full time job.” But there are guys out there who have had success commenting on both. Gregg Easterbrook, George Will and Keith Olbermann come to mind. So is there part of you that’s tempted to put your sports background and knowledge into an occasional column?
Todd: Absolutely. I wrote one a few years ago. I had this idea of entirely remaking the competitiveness of baseball. If baseball wasn’t going to go to the NFL socialized system of fully sharing revenue so that the Yankees and the Kansas City Royals had the same amount of revenue coming in, then I had this idea that, because baseball is about statistics meets strategy, if you have a payroll of a certain amount of money, you end up in a certain division, and you have to compete more often with folks that have this similar amount of payroll. So you force the competitiveness and you force the strategy. There’s a lot more strategy now behind contracts, and how much money you’re going to spend in free agents and all this stuff. And also it decides which division you end up in and who you end up playing. That way the Pittsburgh Pirates, and the Oakland A’s, and the Kansas City Royals might have shots to make the playoffs more often than now.
So bottom line, yes, I do like to slip in an occasional sports thing every now and then. But I keep it occasional.
When I did it full time at Sports Business Daily, what I found was that it was the same story over and over again in the early 90’s when I was doing it. Is so-and-so going to get a new stadium? Are they going to get taxpayer funding? And when they get the new stadium, is it going be Miller or Bud? Is it going to be Coke or Pepsi? You just realized it was just really the same stories on the sports business world over and over again. The market would change, my line would change, the tagline would change, but the stories were the same. And now I went to a ballpark and that’s all I would look at. How much signage they had, who had the pour, who was doing anything original and innovative. So I stopped enjoying sports, and I realized politics is more what I want to throw myself into and sports would be my decompression.
RCS: Not sure you’re aware, but Bert Blyleven has recently started writing for NBCSports.com. With more shutouts than Bob Gibson; more strikeouts than Tom Seaver; more complete games with four hits or less than Jim Palmer, Blyleven has been campaigning for over a decade to be elected into the Hall of Fame.
Todd: Which makes me uncomfortable.
RCS: You are an expert on campaigns. As a player on the Hall of Fame bubble for 11 years, is it possible that Bert Blyleven’s candidacy suffers from a tragically unmarketable name?
Todd: The thing is you can’t campaign for yourself. You know Jim Rice had others campaigning for him. That’s what I think finally got Jim Rice in.
You have to have others do it for you, number one. I am surprised for instance that there isn’t more of a campaign for all of these power hitters of the 80’s to get new respect, in that their numbers in the pre-steroid era are pretty impressive now when you look back on it. The problem those guys suffered from, these power hitters from the 70’s and 80’s, is that when the time came up for the voting in the early 90’s their 32-home run, 100-RBI seasons that they had didn’t seem that impressive when we saw Brady Anderson pop 50 home runs.
Blyleven shouldn’t be doing his own campaigning, but I do think there should be different campaigns out there for how to deal with the hall of fame. For instance, I like Bill Simmons' idea for the Hall of Fame, which is to create that whole pyramid idea. The Hall of Fame is to honor the most interesting, and sometimes it’s the best moments in baseball but the biggest moments, and it’s the history. The Baseball Hall of Fame is the history of baseball. They either have to figure out how to deal with the steroid era or how to also keep people within their eras.
And this is totally biased, but I want my boy Steve Garvey in the Hall of Fame. It kills me. That’s who I grew up idolizing. There was no better clutch hitter in the late 70’s and early 80’s than Steve Garvey, other than Johnny Bench. I’ve been to the Hall of Fame. How is Garvey not there? He was one of the most feared hitters. It kills me as a Dodgers fan that he’s not in the Hall of Fame because he was the best player on the Dodgers. Don Sutton is in the Hall of Fame simply because he kept getting wins. The best player on the Dodgers, on a team that had an incredible run from ‘74 to ‘83, which is basically the years that Garvey was there. And, by the way, Garvey played for the San Diego Padres and somehow helped them get to their first world series back in ’84. And why is he not in the Hall of Fame?
You know sometimes numbers do lie. They sit there and they just judge him by the numbers, and his numbers are ok but his playoff numbers are great. So he deserves it. The problem with campaigning is you can’t do it by yourself. I think everybody gets turned off when somebody tries campaigning for themselves. Other than politics, which seems like the only place where it’s accepted.
Another campaign I’d like to start in baseball is that somebody needs to rethink Greg Maddux’s place in major league baseball history. When you think about what he did and accomplished in the steroids era for a guy that never threw more than 92 miles-per-hour, we need to rethink it. Everyone knows he’s a great pitcher and a Hall of Fame pitcher, but he may be one of the five greatest pitchers of all time, but he was stuck behind the shadow of Roger Clemens who now it turns out might be a phony. It’s been unfair to Maddux his whole career. I think we need to go back and re-appreciate how great Greg Maddux was.
RCS: In the last two years, two sports-related issues have permeated the national political agenda: steroids in baseball and the BCS. Do you think political intervention has helped to bring resolution to the problems?
Todd: Clearly it helped in baseball. As much as I was a cynic about it -- like I guess I didn’t like politicians grandstanding about it, who were they to do this? Don’t get involved -- there’s a lot more serious issues. You know what, I feel better about baseball today than I have in ten years. As somebody who witnessed Mark McGwire’s 61st home run, the one that tied Maris, I feel like that whole moment was snatched away for me. It’s a phony memory now. At the time I thought, oh, isn’t this great. I’m at Busch Stadium and I get to witness that moment and now it’s a moment I wish I didn’t witness and pretend it never happened. So in that respect I think that the intervention worked.
In college football, I don’t know. There’s actually a legitimate reason for Congress to get involved, since a lot of these institutions are public. The government could get involved a little bit here and perhaps claim some version of jurisdiction. Other than gaining access to the BCS I don’t think they can mandate a playoff. Obviously university presidents have always been completely hypocritical about college football versus college basketball when it comes to the playoff idea. But that’s for university presidents to have to reconcile.
RCS: In an interview with the Sports Business Journal, you said fans should care about “the anti-government tide and an anti-business populist movement. There is a lot of anger out there. I would think people in the sports industry should be very attuned to the idea that government is not going to be handing our money, tax breaks or land for teams to build stadiums.”
To what degree has the sports industry been insulated from the economic recession, and to what degree do you think it’s still going to get hit?
Todd: Well , it’s been insulated a little bit, I mean for instance, the NFL is lucky that it’s TV contract isn’t up this year or next year. It’s still a couple more years until it’s up.
I think that baseball is the one that’s going to get hit first. They’re going to get hit hard on this, because it is such a daily grind. Baseball clubs are more reliant on ticket sales. So the economic downturn is going to hurt them.
Now, as far as new stadiums, I think it’s going to be a very tough time. The idea that somehow state governments in some cases, or sometimes city governments, it’s not going to be politically feasible for them to grant tax breaks or give free land or something like these sweetheart deals that some of these people got for their stadiums over the last few years. It’s not going to be the same. It’s not going to happen. They’re going to have to be more innovative with their stadium proposals. In some cases do it themselves. In some cases just be a little more of a friend to the taxpayer about it.
The NFL is insulated from it somewhat because they don’t rely as heavily on ticket sales. You know, eight games a year, not 41. But baseball, basketball, and hockey I think are really going to get hit in the next year. I think you’re really going to start seeing next year.
I look at Washington and I think it’s happened in a lot of the bigger cities -- the good season tickets were never even marketed to individuals. They were only trying to market it to companies, so that they would buy these nice seats and use them as some sort of business expense. Well with businesses cutting back their expenses the first thing to go is stuff like that. And they’re going to have a hard time trying to figure out where to sell these things.
They’re going to have to drop their prices to a more reasonable level. It’s unbelievable. 20 rows back at the Verizon Center is a $160 seat. 20 rows back! It’s a $160! So my brother-in-law and his son really wanted to see Lebron James, so at face value the two of them together spent $320 for a father and son, one basketball game, and we didn’t even start in on the $20 or $40 parking. It costs $40 to park for the Nationals. They actually charge $40. It’s outrageous. It’s just crazy money and they’ve gotten away with it over the last few years because they figure, particularly here in Washington, that everybody is using other people’s money. Well, that isn’t going to work anymore and I think franchises are going to have to realize that they have to see that the fan is going to use their own money, their own power.
RCS: One last question about sports betting. You’re a pretty good basketball player, so hypothetically, if President Obama challenged you to a game of one-on-one under the conditions that if you won, you’d get a 30-minute exclusive interview; but if he won, you’d have to shave your goatee.
Would you accept the bet?
Todd: Oh man, I don’t know. He’s got a secret that is very difficult. I haven’t been able to play with him yet. He said he wants to. We’re just trying to figure out how we can do it so it’s off the record -- this feeling that you can’t do anything with the president anymore.
He’s got a left-handed jumper and he goes left and when you don’t play against a lot of lefties on the basketball court it’s tough. I’m sure a lot of people out there agree. He’s got old guy game and I mean that as a compliment. Old guy game. How many people have gone out there, like some of the 20-something’s that are going to read this -- they go out there and see the guy with grey hair on the court and think, Oh, I’m going to get him. Then they realize the guy passes smarter, gets someplace A to B faster, and then has that annoying set shot that can’t miss. Then, throw in the fact that he’s left handed… forget it.
So, I don’t know. I don’t know if I could risk the goatee.
Plus, are you really allowed to beat the President? Does that work? I think only Reggie Love is allowed to beat the President. Because he would get too much crap from Coach K if he lost to the President.
Betting Sports Forum: 11 Questions With Chuck Todd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
