Tommy Boy is angry!

[Wrestleknownothing]

And another another thing.

At both schools student-athletes are just under 2% of the student population. It makes sense then, in the NCAA study there were too few athletes to treat them as a separate category.

It also makes sense that it is possible to have 67% of all students betting, but only 3-4% of student-athletes betting.

[CHROMEBIRD]

That's probably right. Although sports betting has proliferated since the apps and crypto and what not make it frictionless and harder to trace. But it also begs the question, where students getting the money to gamble these days? School is so expensive and scholarship money is tight. NIL must be a real gravy train.

[jchapman]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

I haven't been in college for awhile but honestly I do specifically remember a meeting in the beginning of the year saying that...

We received the "no means no" talk every year.

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

That's probably right. Although sports betting has proliferated since the apps and crypto and what not make it frictionless and harder to trace. But it also begs the question, where students getting the money to gamble these days? School is so expensive and scholarship money is tight. NIL must be a real gravy train.

My brother in law, who doesn't have two nickels to rub together, bets in sub $1 increments.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Oh, and another thing.

The number of Iowa athletes affected was originally reported as 26. Googling the total number of student-athletes at University of Iowa yields "over 650", which I read to be in the 651 to 659 range. But assuming only 650, that is 4% of student-athletes who were swept up in this probe that seems, from the outside looking in, to have been rather exhaustive.

At Iowa State it was 15 athletes. Iowa State lists 556 total student-athletes. That comes to 2.7%.

Yeah, Tom, I am going to have to call BS on your 56% claim.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House General/Bills/S.223/Written Testimony/S.223~Wendy Koenig~NCAA Student-Athlete Gambling Behaviors and Attitudes- 2004-2012~4-13-2016.pdf

It was 26% in 2012.  They were doing a new survey this Fall.  Not sure if any data is public.

With technological advances and legalized wagering, I would be surprised if the % hasn't increased.

[1032004]

4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Oh, and another thing.

The number of Iowa athletes affected was originally reported as 26. Googling the total number of student-athletes at University of Iowa yields "over 650", which I read to be in the 651 to 659 range. But assuming only 650, that is 4% of student-athletes who were swept up in this probe that seems, from the outside looking in, to have been rather exhaustive.

At Iowa State it was 15 athletes. Iowa State lists 556 total student-athletes. That comes to 2.7%.

Yeah, Tom, I am going to have to call BS on your 56% claim.

Think it depends on how we’re defining gambling.  Do fantasy football and March madness pools count? I thought they did and if so then 56% of athletes could be low.

Of course it doesn’t seem that any of the Iowa wrestlers got in trouble for playing fantasy football or March madness pools…

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Think it depends on how we’re defining gambling.  Do fantasy football and March madness pools count? I thought they did and if so then 56% of athletes could be low.

Of course it doesn’t seem that any of the Iowa wrestlers got in trouble for playing fantasy football or March madness pools…

March Madness pools do count. 

[Hammerlock3]

this topic should be called, "lets insult tom brands for caring about his athletes."

 There are plenty of legitamite reasons to make fun of the guy, this isn't one of them.

[Wrestleknownothing]

27 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House General/Bills/S.223/Written Testimony/S.223~Wendy Koenig~NCAA Student-Athlete Gambling Behaviors and Attitudes- 2004-2012~4-13-2016.pdf

It was 26% in 2012.  They were doing a new survey this Fall.  Not sure if any data is public.

With technological advances and legalized wagering, I would be surprised if the % hasn't increased.

Given the hard advertising push and incentives offered to schools to sign students up I am surprised it isn't 75% or more. And yet investigators only found 3% to 4%. Almost seems like they went easy on them.

 

[ionel]

39 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

this topic should be called, "lets insult tom brands for caring about his athletes."

 

Did JRob care?

[1032004]

I think I cracked Tom’s code of “who should be asked the questions” with the help of BEG wrestling on YouTube (shoutout to their podcast).

They called out one specific segment of the rant where Tom mentions “the committee” and references a male AD, while asking why it was just Iowa and Iowa State that were targeted.

I’m pretty confident he’s referring to UNI AD David Harris.

The decision on the penalties was made by something called the “Division I Council Coordination Committee.”  I can’t seem to find who is on that specific committee, however it appears to be a subcommittee of the “Division I Council,” of which David Harris is a member and Iowa and Iowa State’s AD’s are not:

https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1COUNCIL

Obviously Iowa should still have accountability for their actions.  But it would be interesting if a competing school instigated this…

[JimmyBT]

I hear Brands say over and over, Control what you can control.  He has control over those kids and they still ***ducked** up. He should be blaming himself. Pay the piper and stfu. 
 

He is right though that there should be charges like this on campuses all over the country and there isn’t. Unfortunately for him he resides in the great state of Iowa where they decided it was a big enough problem to go after.  Most Other states have far bigger problems to deal with. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

7 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

I hear Brands say over and over, Control what you can control.  He has control over those kids and they still ***ducked** up. He should be blaming himself. Pay the piper and stfu. 
 

He is right though that there should be charges like this on campuses all over the country and there isn’t. Unfortunately for him he resides in the great state of Iowa where they decided it was a big enough problem to go after.  Most Other states have far bigger problems to deal with. 

Part of what he can control is the appeals process, and as he has said he is not quitting.  The process is still ongoing.

[JimmyBT]

33 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Part of what he can control is the appeals process, and as he has said he is not quitting.  The process is still ongoing.

Good Luck 

[TNwrestling]

13 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

this topic should be called, "lets insult tom brands for caring about his athletes."

 There are plenty of legitamite reasons to make fun of the guy, this isn't one of them.

If he cared about his athletes he'd be all for them reaping what they sow. He'd be for them facing the consequences of their actions. To learn from their mistakes. 

If he cared he wouldn't be blaming someone else. He cares about his teams points, he doesn't care about the athletes as people. Clearly

Edited November 17, 2023 by TNwrestling

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

18 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Good Luck 

For what?

Brands has do do his job and follow through all the way with this.  I wouldn't expect he gets what he is looking for.  I don't think he expects success.  But to suggest he just "shut up and take it" is a bit narrow minded.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 minute ago, TNwrestling said:

If he cared about his athletes he'd be all for them reaping what they sow. He'd be for them facing the consequences of their actions. To learn from their mistakes. 

If he cared he wouldn't be blaming someone else. He cares about his teams points, he doesn't care about the athletes as people. Clearly

Ask his athletes if they thinks he cares.

He cares enough to follow through on this.

I'm all for whatever consequence they get.  They knew what they did was verboten and did it anyway.  

But I don't expect the coach to quit on them, and I also think that he cares about the kids.  He's going to see this to the end and then go from there.

 

[TNwrestling]

6 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Ask his athletes if they thinks he cares.

He cares enough to follow through on this.

I'm all for whatever consequence they get.  They knew what they did was verboten and did it anyway.  

But I don't expect the coach to quit on them, and I also think that he cares about the kids.  He's going to see this to the end and then go from there.

 

How would that be quitting on them? They made mistakes and violated the rules and have to be held accountable. He's actively trying to prevent that from happening. 

Coaching wrestling isnt about winning matches. Its about creating good adults that are productive to society. If he cared about that, and truly wanted to set them up for success, he wouldn't be trying to get them out of trouble. 

[Idaho]

Tom avoided questions by being very adamant to ask the right questions to the right people. Has Tom even answered the questions about the things he had/has control over? I have not seen his response as to why he allowed athletes to sign off on a waiver that they had been trained/educated on betting when they did not attend. Has he addressed this? 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

6 minutes ago, TNwrestling said:

How would that be quitting on them? They made mistakes and violated the rules and have to be held accountable. He's actively trying to prevent that from happening. 

Coaching wrestling isnt about winning matches. Its about creating good adults that are productive to society. If he cared about that, and truly wanted to set them up for success, he wouldn't be trying to get them out of trouble. 

So if someone is accused of a crime, they should just plead guilty and submit to the punishment and not fight in court?

If someone sues you for a large amount, are you just going to pay them the money, or are you going to hire an attorney.  Of course you will just pay them what they are looking for! You want to be accountable!

Let's be real here, most of us would choose all the avenues available to us to lessen or diminish any negative consequences we are faced with, legally, civilly, at work, etc.  He is doing his due diligence, as we would expect.  Exhaust the appeals, even if there is little chance of success.  I don't blame him.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 minute ago, Idaho said:

Tom avoided questions by being very adamant to ask the right questions to the right people. Has Tom even answered the questions about the things he had/has control over? I have not seen his response as to why he allowed athletes to sign off on a waiver that they had been trained/educated on betting when they did not attend. Has he addressed this? 

My guess is that this one is on the athletic department.  I'm sure the athletic department administered the seminar, not the coaches.  Gotta give those 20+ Assistant Ads something to keep them busy!

https://hawkeyesports.com/staff-directory/

[TNwrestling]

3 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

So if someone is accused of a crime, they should just plead guilty and submit to the punishment and not fight in court?

If someone sues you for a large amount, are you just going to pay them the money, or are you going to hire an attorney.  Of course you will just pay them what they are looking for! You want to be accountable!

Let's be real here, most of us would choose all the avenues available to us to lessen or diminish any negative consequences we are faced with, legally, civilly, at work, etc.  He is doing his due diligence, as we would expect.  Exhaust the appeals, even if there is little chance of success.  I don't blame him.

Being sued for a large amount is apples to oranges. 

 

This would be as if they went to court knowing they had committed a crime (hypothetically here) and plead not guilty to something they, in fact, were guilty of. Its wrong and deceitful. 

 

Its as if he went to court and argued to the judge, "They're not guilty, its the justice departments fault for only investigating us and nobody else". 

 

And the fact anybody could even be on his side for that is asinine. 

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

So if someone is accused of a crime, they should just plead guilty and submit to the punishment and not fight in court?

If someone sues you for a large amount, are you just going to pay them the money, or are you going to hire an attorney.  Of course you will just pay them what they are looking for! You want to be accountable!

Let's be real here, most of us would choose all the avenues available to us to lessen or diminish any negative consequences we are faced with, legally, civilly, at work, etc.  He is doing his due diligence, as we would expect.  Exhaust the appeals, even if there is little chance of success.  I don't blame him.

IDK:  If in a duel are you going to throw away your first shot and take one in the hip or take the match serious and aim to win?  

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

IDK:  If in a duel are you going to throw away your first shot and take one in the hip or take the match serious and aim to win?  

Guilty as charged!

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 minute ago, TNwrestling said:

Being sued for a large amount is apples to oranges. 

 

This would be as if they went to court knowing they had committed a crime (hypothetically here) and plead not guilty to something they, in fact, were guilty of. Its wrong and deceitful. 

 

Its as if he went to court and argued to the judge, "They're not guilty, its the justice departments fault for only investigating us and nobody else". 

 

And the fact anybody could even be on his side for that is asinine. 

Don't you moonlight as a "pro wrestler?"