CU becomes first NCAA school to partner with sports betting company

[hawg1]

Edit- another (generally) related tweet-

Come on Superbook!!

 

[patebuff]

The overall revenues and expenses are disclosed, but I would think it would be possible to simply slide anything from this arrangement into a “sponsorships” sub category on the P&L and leave the exact amount ambiguous.

Or they could choose to break out the revenues as a separate line item. To my knowledge, there’s nothing that requires the AD to disclose where every dollar comes from.

Yeah, I am guessing it will be put under some type of sponsorship line item, which encompasses a lot of avenues. They do receive public money (from the School) so someone would have to dig in to find the actual figures.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Arizona has a specific social gambling exclusion, but from what I can tell, Wisconsin e.g. does not. I think it's jurisdictional, not blanket as you suggest.

The Supreme Court has actually ruled on this matter in making distinctions between games of chance versus games of skill. This has forced states to bring greater clarity to their prohibitions. Office pools (like March Madness) when selecting teams for points in a tournament in Wisconsin are permissible while raffle-like pools are prohibited.

 

[somebody]

The Supreme Court has actually ruled on this matter in making distinctions between games of chance versus games of skill. This has forced states to bring greater clarity to their prohibitions. Office pools (like March Madness) when selecting teams for points in a tournament in Wisconsin are permissible while raffle-like pools are prohibited.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was unconstitutional, giving the states freedom to pass their own gambling laws, not forcing them to do anything.

 

[manhattanbuff]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was unconstitutional, giving the states freedom to pass their own gambling laws, not forcing them to do anything.

The change in overturning PASPA forced states to reckon with their populations who like to gamble. Wisconsin doesn’t make March Madness/office pools illegal. They only prohibit games of chance. Your original argument about them being illegal is wrong. There aren’t any states that prohibit them as far as I can tell. I know you have some crusade against betting. I’m sorry you encountered a gambler who hurt you and makes you this way.

 

[somebody]

The change in overturning PASPA forced states to reckon with their populations who like to gamble. Wisconsin doesn’t make March Madness/office pools illegal. They only prohibit games of chance. Your original argument about them being illegal is wrong. There aren’t any states that prohibit them as far as I can tell. I know you have some crusade against betting. I’m sorry you encountered a gambler who hurt you and makes you this way.

Love the spin on the word "forced."

 

[manhattanbuff]

Love the spin on the word "forced."

I take it then you’re admitting that your original point about pools being illegal is wrong. Good talk.

 

[somebody]

I take it then you’re admitting that your original point about pools being illegal is wrong. Good talk.

Nope, thought I already quashed that. The Supreme Court didn't force anyone to do anything, and it's up to the states to define it for themselves, like it was before that act was passed. You give magical powers to the gambling community. Okay.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Nope, thought I already quashed that. The Supreme Court didn't force anyone to do anything, and it's up to the states to define it for themselves, like it was before that act was passed. You give magical powers to the gambling community. Okay.

And I corrected YOU. Wisconsin does not prohibit pools related to sports. They only prohibit raffles or other contests based on chance.

 

[somebody]

And I corrected YOU. Wisconsin does not prohibit pools related to sports. They only prohibit raffles or other contests based on chance.

Lol. You said office pools weren't illegal, because the Supreme Court forced states to make it legal. I proved that to be a false statement, with links to the decision. I brought up Wisconsin as a possible example after a 1 minute search. My only claim was that it's jurisdictional, which I proved. So all we know for sure is that it's jurisdictional. Oh, and that you want to shift the argument so you can be right about something.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Lol. You said office pools weren't illegal, because the Supreme Court forced states to make it legal. I proved that to be a false statement, with links to the decision. I brought up Wisconsin as a possible example after a 1 minute search. My only claim was that it's jurisdictional, which I proved. So all we know for sure is that it's jurisdictional. Oh, and that you want to shift the argument so you can be right about something.

I haven’t shifted anything. My original position has always been that office pools are legal. Your original position was that they’re illegal. I made the comment that overturning PASPA forced states to make clarifications. You said it didn’t. I further clarified that statement to elucidate: gamblers, even ones in Wisconsin, want legal gambling. Plus, as a result of the SCOTUS overturning PASPA, Wisconsin has had to clarify that OFFICE POOLS are legal. (There was once a belief that they were illegal even as recent as 2009). You like to cherry pick my statements and ignore the context of the conversation. Thus far, your original absurd claim about office pools being illegal is untrue.

 

[somebody]

I haven’t shifted anything. My original position has always been that office pools are legal. Your original position was that they’re illegal. I made the comment that overturning PASPA forced states to make clarifications. You said it didn’t. I further clarified that statement to elucidate: gamblers, even ones in Wisconsin, want legal gambling. Plus, as a result of the SCOTUS overturning PASPA, Wisconsin has had to clarify that OFFICE POOLS are legal. (There was once a belief that they were illegal even as recent as 2009). You like to cherry pick my statements and ignore the context of the conversation. Thus far, your original absurd claim about office pools being illegal is untrue.

There you go again. I said they're up to the individual states, you said the Supreme Court forced it to be legal in all states. I proved you wrong. That is all.

 

[manhattanbuff]

There you go again. I said they're up to the individual states, you said the Supreme Court forced it to be legal in all states. I proved you wrong. That is all.

You seem to have selective amnesia about this conversation. There’s nothing else for me to add since you’re unwilling to defend the position you made that started this entire conversation. My last word on this to you.

 

[Jello Bear]

What a disgrace - I bet this ends up with the University in total disrepute.

Any takers? I'm giving 6/1 odds by the end of 2020.

 

[somebody]

You seem to have selective amnesia about this conversation. There’s nothing else for me to add since you’re unwilling to defend the position you made that started this entire conversation. My last word on this to you.

lol, I joked about office pools, you came down with your "knowledge" as Mr. Gambler. I schooled you. That is all.

 

[patebuff]

What a disgrace - I bet this ends up with the University in total disrepute.

Any takers? I'm giving 6/1 odds by the end of 2020.

Degenerate

 

[manhattanbuff]

lol, I joked about office pools, you came down with your "knowledge" as Mr. Gambler. I schooled you. That is all.

LOL. And, you accuse me of shifting! Just a joke! Good one. You wrote something wrong. Then, I explained why you were wrong. You continued to deflect about your wrongness and act like you’ve “schooled” me on a topic where now you’re acting like it is a joke. You have some bizarre crusade against betting. I’m sorry daddy gambled away the house when you were a little boy. I hope you and your therapist can find a way for you to heal.

 

[somebody]

LOL. And, you accuse me of shifting! Just a joke! Good one. You wrote something wrong. Then, I explained why you were wrong. You continued to deflect about your wrongness and act like you’ve “schooled” me on a topic where now you’re acting like it is a joke. You have some bizarre crusade against betting. I’m sorry daddy gambled away the house when you were a little boy. I hope you and your therapist can find a way for you to heal.

Haha, maybe you haven't paid attention to my posts, they're mostly jokes, and that was obviously one. You can't handle that, okay. The point is your cotrection was just wrong. Live with it.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Haha, maybe you haven't paid attention to my posts, they're mostly jokes, and that was obviously one. You can't handle that, okay. The point is your cotrection was just wrong. Live with it.

Nope. I’ve already told you why (i.e. Wisconsin clarified games of chance vs. skill to not prohibit vig free office pools), but you keep pumping your chest. Now it was a “joke.” Excellent spin.

 

[somebody]

Nope. I’ve already told you why (i.e. Wisconsin clarified games of chance vs. skill to not prohibit vig free office pools), but you keep pumping your chest. Now it was a “joke.” Excellent spin.

Oh, so you didn't say the Supreme Court forced the states to make it legal. Gotcha.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Oh, so you didn't say the Supreme Court forced the states to make it legal. Gotcha.

I did not say that. This is how I know you don’t read what I post. I said that the SCOTUS decision forced states to rethink gambling laws. This is so because gamblers want to bet legally. No, the decision didn’t issue an edict, but it did change the gambling landscape and compelled action based upon citizen interest in expanded gaming.

BTW, I also explained why Wisconsin specifically changed course after PASPA was overturned. But again, you were busy not reading and puffing your chest and feeling bad about whatver problems you experienced because of gambling.

 

[somebody]

I did not say that. This is how I know you don’t read what I post. I said that the SCOTUS decision forced states to rethink gambling laws. This is so because gamblers want to bet legally. No, the decision didn’t issue an edict, but it did change the gambling landscape and compelled action based upon citizen interest in expanded gaming.

BTW, I also explained why Wisconsin specifically changed course after PASPA was overturned. But again, you were busy not reading and puffing your chest and feeling bad about whatver problems you experienced because of gambling.

Still with the Wisconsin. Here's my exact quote. I used Wisconsin as an example because it came up in a quick search, but I wasn't that sure of it, as is clear in my statement.

Arizona has a specific social gambling exclusion, but from what I can tell, Wisconsin e.g. does not. I think it's jurisdictional, not blanket as you suggest.

However, since you're so stuck on Wisconsin, I found the Wisconsin statute on gambling. Here is the relevant text.

(1) Bet. A bet is a bargain in which the parties agree that, dependent upon chance even though accompanied by some skill, one stands to win or lose something of value specified in the agreement. But a bet does not include:
(a) Bona fide business transactions which are valid under the law of contracts including without limitation:
1. Contracts for the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or other commodities, and
2. Agreements to compensate for loss caused by the happening of the chance including without limitation contracts of indemnity or guaranty and life or health and accident insurance;
(b) Offers of purses, prizes or premiums to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, or endurance or to the bona fide owners of animals or vehicles entered in such contest;
(cm) Participation in bingo or a raffle conducted under ch. 563.
(d) Pari-mutuel wagering subject to ch. 562.
(e) Participation in a lottery conducted under ch. 565.
(f) An agreement under which an employee is given an opportunity to win a prize, the award of which is determined by chance, in return for the employee making a referral or identification described in s. 945.01 (5) (b) 2. h.
(g) Participation in a savings promotion program under s. 186.114, 214.595, 215.137, or 221.0329 or a program sponsored by a federally chartered financial institution, or in which a federally chartered financial institution participates, that meets all requirements for a savings promotion program under s. 186.114, 214.595, 215.137, or 221.0329, including an agreement under which a person is given an opportunity to win a prize after depositing money in an account at a credit union, savings bank, savings and loan association, bank, or federally chartered financial institution.

Then it provides the penalty:

945.02  Gambling. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor:
(1) Makes a bet; or
(2) Enters or remains in a gambling place with intent to make a bet, to participate in a lottery, or to play a gambling machine; or
(3) Conducts a lottery, or with intent to conduct a lottery, possesses facilities to do so.
History: 1977 c. 173.
Games such as “Las Vegas nights" constitute illegal lotteries; the law does not exempt benevolent and nonprofit organizations. 70 Atty. Gen. 59.

I don't see any allowance for office pools, do you? Where did you get your information that says office pools are legal?

 

[Not Sure]

Another perfectly good thread gone in the ****ter.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Still with the Wisconsin. Here's my exact quote. I used Wisconsin as an example because it came up in a quick search, but I wasn't that sure of it, as is clear in my statement.


However, since you're so stuck on Wisconsin, I found the Wisconsin statute on gambling. Here is the relevant text.

Then it provides the penalty:

I don't see any allowance for office pools, do you? Where did you get your information that says office pools are legal?

Section 2B from the passage you quote makes a caveat for contests that reward “skill.” An office pool is a game of skill.

From a Wisconsin firm making the distinction:

Who Has the Golden Ticket? Office Pools, Lotteries, & Gambling in Wisconsin - Axley Brynelson, LLP

Fantasy football tournaments and March Madness brackets are common in many Wisconsin workplaces. Typically, employees pay a small fee to participate, and

www.axley.com

“
The definitions of both “bet” and “lotteries” require that the results be “dependent on chance even though accompanied by some skill.” Wisconsin courts have interpreted that phrase to mean “chance, rather than award.” Therefore, under Wisconsin law, only “games of chance” are prohibited. What does that mean in a practical sense? Let’s look at an example.

Employees at Company A each pay $10 and receive a number between 1 and 100. At the end of the day, one employee draws a number from a hat. The employee who is closest to the number that is picked, without going over, wins the pool of money. The employees exerted no skill whatsoever when they participated in the office pool. Rather, they paid money for the opportunity to win a prize, and winning was entirely dependent on chance. There was no strategy in picking the numbers; it was a random act of chance. This is a classic example of a lottery prohibited under Wisconsin law.”

 

[somebody]

Section 2B from the passage you quote makes a caveat for contests that reward “skill.” An office pool is a game of skill.

From a Wisconsin firm making the distinction:

Who Has the Golden Ticket? Office Pools, Lotteries, & Gambling in Wisconsin - Axley Brynelson, LLP

Fantasy football tournaments and March Madness brackets are common in many Wisconsin workplaces. Typically, employees pay a small fee to participate, and

www.axley.com

“
The definitions of both “bet” and “lotteries” require that the results be “dependent on chance even though accompanied by some skill.” Wisconsin courts have interpreted that phrase to mean “chance, rather than award.” Therefore, under Wisconsin law, only “games of chance” are prohibited.

I can't find anything online about court decisions for or against office pools in Wisconsin. The only links I can find say it's illegal but predate or are just after the SCOTUS decision, except for this article from late last year that says it's still illegal there. Based on the statute wording, they appear to be illegal. I think you need to double check (and maybe post) your sources.

 

[manhattanbuff]

I can't find anything online about court decisions for or against office pools in Wisconsin. The only links I can find say it's illegal but predate or are just after the SCOTUS decision, except for this article from late last year that says it's still illegal there. Based on the statute wording, they appear to be illegal. I think you need to double check (and maybe post) your sources.

I literally pointed out from the statute YOU POSTED the distinction and a source. But ok.

 

[somebody]

I literally pointed out from the statute YOU POSTED the distinction and a source. But ok.

And the link I posted is eight months later and disagrees. But okay.

 

[manhattanbuff]

And the link I posted is eight months later and disagrees. But okay.

The link you posted says nothing about office pools. It says that gambling is still illegal based upon their definition, which is money won related to contests of chance.

Gambling = games of chance.
Office pool = games of skill.

This is literally what I’ve been saying for ten posts.

 

[somebody]

The link you posted says nothing about office pools. It says that gambling is still illegal based upon their definition, which is money won related to contests of chance.

Gambling = games of chance.
Office pool = games of skill.

This is literally what I’ve been saying for ten posts.

And the link you posted doesn't quote any court opinions, just says they exist. Maybe, maybe not. Why can't any references be found online? Probably because they don't exist. Otherwise, all of the gambling public you're talking about would be quoting them left and right. So basically, I've quoted the law, and you got nuthin'. Since you can't do any better than that, i think we're done here.

 

[manhattanbuff]

And the link you posted doesn't quote any court opinions, just says they exist. Maybe, maybe not. Why can't any references be found online? Probably because they don't exist. Otherwise, all of the gambling public you're talking about would be quoting them left and right. So basically, I've quoted the law, and you got nuthin'. Since you can't do any better than that, i think we're done here.

Dude. I’ve taken your material and shown you why pools are legal. You’re right: we’re done.