Will New Jersey prevail in their quest to allow sports betting?
Poll
 | 16 votes (84.21%) | ||
| | 3 votes (15.78%) |
19 members have voted
December 22nd, 2012 at 3:10:39 PM
permalink
Just curious as to whether the majority here would believe that sports betting will be allowed in New Jersey. Whether or not they should is a different question. Will they win?
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been written.
Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
December 22nd, 2012 at 3:17:47 PM
permalink
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp agreed Friday that the NBA, NHL, NFL, Major League Baseball and the NCAA have standing to sue the state because expanding legal sports betting to New Jersey would negatively affect perception of their games.
When's the last time the NFL did not get it's way ??
When's the last time the NFL did not get it's way ??
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
December 22nd, 2012 at 3:20:10 PM
permalink
Was the NFL opposed to sports betting being done in Nevada?
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been written.
Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
December 22nd, 2012 at 3:25:09 PM
permalink
Nevada had sports betting long before the NFL played the "greatest game ever " !
While casino-style gambling was deemed legal, sports betting was still illegal until a regulation was passed by Congress in 1951
While casino-style gambling was deemed legal, sports betting was still illegal until a regulation was passed by Congress in 1951
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
December 22nd, 2012 at 3:49:38 PM
permalink
I'm not sure that I got an answer. Did the NFL oppose sports betting in Nevada? I'm not being a smart a s s.....just wondering.
Personally I find it inconceivable that the Fed can deem it okay in certain states but not in others. Additionally, it seems that the US can take control of this industry if given a chance. We need the jobs and the revenue.
Couldn't the leagues change the business plan so they profit from a national expansion? For example, what would a league earn with 1% of the bets placed in their respective sports? I would think that it'd be substantial.............
Personally I find it inconceivable that the Fed can deem it okay in certain states but not in others. Additionally, it seems that the US can take control of this industry if given a chance. We need the jobs and the revenue.
Couldn't the leagues change the business plan so they profit from a national expansion? For example, what would a league earn with 1% of the bets placed in their respective sports? I would think that it'd be substantial.............
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been written.
Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
December 22nd, 2012 at 4:03:26 PM
permalink
Quote: steeldcoPersonally I find it inconceivable that the Fed can deem it okay in certain states but not in others.
Under the new federalism, it seems as if Nevada can do no wrong.
December 22nd, 2012 at 5:48:03 PM
permalink
I suppose the sports leagues are all okay with the illegal variety of sports betting that goes on in EVERY state? LOL
December 22nd, 2012 at 7:27:10 PM
permalink
I would think not. However, since New Jersey houses professional sports teams, I think the leagues will fight to have it not pass. That's why Vegas can't get a professional team out in the dessert. That's last thing anyone wants is athletes betting on themselves "legally."
Bang Biscuit!
December 22nd, 2012 at 7:37:08 PM
permalink
Quote: JamieVThat's why Vegas can't get a professional team out in the dessert.
Sweet!
December 22nd, 2012 at 9:05:17 PM
permalink
Come on people....100+ looked at this thread and only 6 voted? Sheesh........
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been written.
Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
December 23rd, 2012 at 5:12:33 AM
permalink
Quote: steeldcoCome on people....100+ looked at this thread and only 6 voted? Sheesh........
OK, I'll vote "prevail" but I would like to vote "not sure"... so let's call it an opinion that NJ will eventually prevail
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
December 23rd, 2012 at 6:00:46 AM
permalink
I can see them prevailing if they take the course that the Feds cannot let some states have sprotsbooks and some not. That seems clearly unconstitutional. I don't know what the leagues could say about having action on their games. If you allow fantasy leagues then it seems you need to allow anything based on a game. This is unless you force registration of each and every fnatasy provider. I base this on the doctrine that if you defend your trademark against one you must defend it against all, and if you allow some to use it you must allow all. This is why Disney famously made a preschool paint over their charachters years ago.
I still say the big reason the leagues are antibook is because they make nothing from it.
I still say the big reason the leagues are antibook is because they make nothing from it.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
December 23rd, 2012 at 7:35:41 AM
permalink
Lol gosh it must be nice to be smart.
Bang Biscuit!
December 23rd, 2012 at 7:39:54 AM
permalink
I think ultimately NJ will prevail in this case. The most egregious part of the whole thing though, is the massive hypocrisy of the NFL, NBA etc. They leagues are clearly more popular due to fantasy sports(which they actively promote), the easy betting of the games with point spreads. etc.etc. This has been going on legally and illegally for years. I would guess that for every dollar legally wagered on the NFL at least 10 are "illegally" wagered. The league clearly knows this. But acts like no one has ever bet on football in the history of the league. I understand their desire to keep gambling at arms length. But to put your head in the sand and act like it's not happening already, and that somehow legalizing it in NJ, will ruin the NFL, is ridiculous in the extreme.
December 23rd, 2012 at 7:58:39 AM
permalink
To those who voted or rendered comments, I thank you.
My 2 cents worth is that New Jersey should win. It would only be fair and even handed.
If nothing else, I learned that those who voted, overwhelmingly, have a sense of fairness. Good to see. Now if only our politicians were similarly inclined....
My 2 cents worth is that New Jersey should win. It would only be fair and even handed.
If nothing else, I learned that those who voted, overwhelmingly, have a sense of fairness. Good to see. Now if only our politicians were similarly inclined....
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been written.
Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
December 23rd, 2012 at 9:13:22 AM
permalink
Honestly (and I'm with y'all that say that these leagues are silly to even fight this, since it likely only helps them get more viewers) I'm more interested in online gambling in NJ, and if the Governor will sign it, and how soon it will be implemented - and whether or not PokerStars is going to buy The Atlantic Club Casino.
December 23rd, 2012 at 9:15:57 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanI can see them prevailing if they take the course that the Feds cannot let some states have sprotsbooks and some not. That seems clearly unconstitutional. I don't know what the leagues could say about having action on their games. If you allow fantasy leagues then it seems you need to allow anything based on a game. This is unless you force registration of each and every fnatasy provider. I base this on the doctrine that if you defend your trademark against one you must defend it against all, and if you allow some to use it you must allow all. This is why Disney famously made a preschool paint over their charachters years ago.
I still say the big reason the leagues are antibook is because they make nothing from it.
It is clearly unconstitutional. No question about it, if we ran the country by allowing laws to apply to some states and not others, the Liberals in California and New York would decide, as an example, the gun laws in Texas and Alaska.
The Founders realized that... it's just ludicrous to think that it should be legal to bet sports in Nevada, but that it should be a Federal Crime to do the same thing in NJ.
December 23rd, 2012 at 9:15:59 AM
permalink
You bet (pun intended) NJ will prevail.
Once they win other states will follow. NJ legalized casino gambling 35 years ago. Now almost every state has some form of casino gambling.
NJ said that you would not be allowed to bet on NJ schools.
I wonder if this applies to the New Jersey Giants and the New Jersey Jets.
Once they win other states will follow. NJ legalized casino gambling 35 years ago. Now almost every state has some form of casino gambling.
NJ said that you would not be allowed to bet on NJ schools.
I wonder if this applies to the New Jersey Giants and the New Jersey Jets.
December 23rd, 2012 at 11:29:57 AM
permalink
Quote: JamieVI would think not. However, since New Jersey houses professional sports teams, I think the leagues will fight to have it not pass. That's why Vegas can't get a professional team out in the dessert. That's last thing anyone wants is athletes betting on themselves "legally."
I don't agree with this.
They can't get a professional sports team in Vegas because the population demographics aren't there, and the minor league teams they've brought out there, like the professional sports franchises, have all folded. A part of that is due to the NFL's monopoly, though.
It is hypocritical for the NFL to oppose sports betting when they public and highlight fantasy football stats. Sports betting is the whole reason ESPN is as popular as it is, and also why college basketball is so big on television.
December 23rd, 2012 at 12:02:46 PM
permalink
Quote: Boney526It is clearly unconstitutional. No question about it, if we ran the country by allowing laws to apply to some states and not others, the Liberals in California and New York would decide, as an example, the gun laws in Texas and Alaska.
It's surely a good thing that there are no federal laws that are enforced only in states that are designated "covered jurisdictions" and not nationwide. If we had such laws as that, then forum members might declare those laws unconstitutional, and it could turn this into a really annoying political thread.
December 23rd, 2012 at 12:06:54 PM
permalink
" forum members might declare those laws unconstitutional, and it could turn this into a really annoying political thread. "
If only we had a monarchy to guide us, sigh.
If only we had a monarchy to guide us, sigh.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
December 23rd, 2012 at 12:36:31 PM
permalink
Quote: DocIt's surely a good thing that there are no federal laws that are enforced only in states that are designated "covered jurisdictions" and not nationwide. If we had such laws as that, then forum members might declare those laws unconstitutional, and it could turn this into a really annoying political thread.
Are you suggesting that it is Constitutional to have Federal Laws that apply to some states and not others? And that the Federal Law which only allows certain states to have sports books is legitimate?
Or that this thread isn't political in nature in the first place?
December 23rd, 2012 at 12:50:59 PM
permalink
I was just suggesting that we already have federal laws that apply to some states and not to others. I provided a link to the Wiki site that discusses one of them, noting that some states are designated as "covered jurisdictions." It seems plausible to me, if such laws are indeed constitutional, then congress could pass other laws noting that Nevada has a history of regulating sports wagering while other states do not. On that basis, perhaps the law could declare that the other 49 (plus D.C.) are covered jurisdictions in which a prohibition of sports wagering could be enforced. There appears to be legal precedent. IANAL.
I only noted the risk of "political" aspects of the thread, because some members might be adamant that the cited law's non-uniform enforcement is appropriate because of the history that was used to justify it.
I only noted the risk of "political" aspects of the thread, because some members might be adamant that the cited law's non-uniform enforcement is appropriate because of the history that was used to justify it.
December 23rd, 2012 at 2:58:54 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanI still say the big reason the leagues are antibook is because they make nothing from it.
You're telling me that the number of people who have DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket primarily to keep an eye on the games they have bets on that Sunday is zero?
I believe in the "old school" theory that the NFL and NBA are anti-book primarily because they feel there's a real possibility that throwing games, or at least point shaving, would become more commonplace if betting was "legitimate" nationwide. However, I still wonder why David Stern had the Nevada Gaming Commission ban betting on the three-point shooting contest when the NBA All-Star Game was in Vegas. Do any books even take bets on that?
December 23rd, 2012 at 3:45:19 PM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyI still wonder why David Stern had the Nevada Gaming Commission ban betting on the three-point shooting contest when the NBA All-Star Game was in Vegas. Do any books even take bets on that?
If they do, then maybe the question should focus on who were the contestants, and was there concern for a possible point-shaving incident there. If Pete Rose's gambling interests had been widely-known during his managing career, do you think there would have been concern by others who were considering betting on his team's games? Or setting the lines? MLB showed their concern, though a bit after the fact.
December 24th, 2012 at 12:52:56 AM
permalink
Quote: DocI was just suggesting that we already have federal laws that apply to some states and not to others. I provided a link to the Wiki site that discusses one of them, noting that some states are designated as "covered jurisdictions." It seems plausible to me, if such laws are indeed constitutional, then congress could pass other laws noting that Nevada has a history of regulating sports wagering while other states do not. On that basis, perhaps the law could declare that the other 49 (plus D.C.) are covered jurisdictions in which a prohibition of sports wagering could be enforced. There appears to be legal precedent. IANAL.
I only noted the risk of "political" aspects of the thread, because some members might be adamant that the cited law's non-uniform enforcement is appropriate because of the history that was used to justify it.
The Bradley Act exempts four states, they are DE, MT, NV and OR. All four of these states had some form of legalized sports gambling in the 15 years prior to its passage. Delaware already lost their Bradley Act challenge. Delaware had sports betting on parlay cards in 1976 on the NFL. That lasted one year. The state tried to come back with full fledged sports betting. They won some early rounds but eventually lost on appeal. The sports leagues contended that Delaware could only offer 3+ team parlay cards like they did in 1976. Maybe DE and NJ are fighting from different angles, but DE clearly lost their Bradley Act challenge. Also, NJ could have been exempted but they failed to act within one year of the passage.
Also, does anyone think the timing was not a coincidence? Get Meadowlands built and finished, get awarded the Super Bowl and then try to ram this through. I would like to think the Bradley Act is unconstitutional but I thought Obamacare was too so what do I know?
December 24th, 2012 at 2:52:25 AM
permalink
You know enough. NJ is not one of the 4 States exempted from the Bradley Act. NO SPORTS BETTING.
Now, as to the ultimate legality (Constitutionality) of the Bradley Act, IMHO it is not legal. This is a State issue, and such law needs arguement to the U.S. Supreme Court. Either 3/4 of the Several States need to support a Constitutional Amendment allowing federal regulation of all Gaming, or the Several States need to produce a coherent body of law within and specifically for their own jurisdiction. Sports Betting is no different than buying or selling a derivitive security (OPTIONS for a Stock or Bond, for example). The idea that a wager that the Yankees will win or lose 95 games is illegal, but I can bet that IBM will gain or lose $10 a share, is total manipulation of the Constitution against the Several States. /mho
Now, as to the ultimate legality (Constitutionality) of the Bradley Act, IMHO it is not legal. This is a State issue, and such law needs arguement to the U.S. Supreme Court. Either 3/4 of the Several States need to support a Constitutional Amendment allowing federal regulation of all Gaming, or the Several States need to produce a coherent body of law within and specifically for their own jurisdiction. Sports Betting is no different than buying or selling a derivitive security (OPTIONS for a Stock or Bond, for example). The idea that a wager that the Yankees will win or lose 95 games is illegal, but I can bet that IBM will gain or lose $10 a share, is total manipulation of the Constitution against the Several States. /mho
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
