CFB execs "concerned" over ESPN's gambling content

Tortuga

COLLEGE FOOTBALL EXECUTIVES “CONCERNED” OVER ESPN’S “INAPPROPRIATE” GAMBLING COVERAGE
http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/college-football-executives-concerned-over-espns-inappropriate-gambling-coverage.html

Old-Timer

Stuff like this is just amazing to me.

MikeRAS

I'll be honest, I've waited for 15+ years to end the wink wink and vague references to spreads and totals on ESPN or other networks. Used to be Corso saying he likes Team X by 3 TDs + FG, or closer than the experts think, and then giggle fests like they were kids getting away with something. A huge portion of the viewership is gambling so time to grow up and treat everyone like the adults they are, sounds like a great idea.

That being said now that everyone is talking spreads/gambling on gameday, a part of me cringes. The Bear is now who we rely on to provide us great picks at stale long gone spreads with awful writeups, but we should trust him because he went to the Westgate for a conference with frauds.

I like the cover alerts though, great reason to break into a game to show a meaningless backdoor TD. Of course would be great if they could get a closing line in there and not some stale donk line from midweek.

I would say it almost feels like too much too soon. Too many clueless people talking about gambling and spreads and giving advice they have no business giving. But before I decide I want to see less of gambling on the air, I see the NCAA's athletic directors and administration people hate it . Well that settles that, I have to just say thumbs up , lets have more of it. F them.

blackbull

MikeRAS wrote: »

But before I decide I want to see less of gambling on the air, I see the NCAA's athletic directors and administration people hate it . Well that settles that, I have to just say thumbs up , lets have more of it. F them.

And anyone who has worked or been around an athletic department knows what Mike is talking about. I agree completely. F them.

groovinmahoovin

The pendulum swung pretty far the other way (from ESPN formerly ignoring gambling) today. ESPN published an article where a guy mentioned introducing his 9 year old to DFS and encouraged others to do the same. Then SI re-raised by publishing an article on their children's site (SI for KIds) obviously sponsored by FanDuel and supposedly written by a "kid reporter" talking about the big craze that is DFS and included a picture of a giant FanDuel check.

Ignoring any moral implications, when you're exploiting what's essentially a legal loophole, it seems like an incredibly bad idea to draw attention to yourself by advertising gambling to kids.

chuckh

Grooving if this is true then DFS will be shut down quickly. Just use Daddy's credit card he won't care (LOL) what a joke. There are still a few states that ban DFS. I just can't believe the industry is now targeting kids. Just let someone in political power get his credit card in mail where his kid has rung up debt from a DFS site.

Tortuga

groovinmahoovin wrote: »

The pendulum swung pretty far the other way (from ESPN formerly ignoring gambling) today. ESPN published an article where a guy mentioned introducing his 9 year old to DFS and encouraged others to do the same. Then SI re-raised by publishing an article on their children's site (SI for KIds) obviously sponsored by FanDuel and supposedly written by a "kid reporter" talking about the big craze that is DFS and included a picture of a giant FanDuel check.

Ignoring any moral implications, when you're exploiting what's essentially a legal loophole, it seems like an incredibly bad idea to draw attention to yourself by advertising gambling to kids.

This is pretty bizarre. I know most sites require the user to be at least 18. I thought it was a little more strictly enforced.

underwraps

I told you folks, DFS are legal racketeers. Only difference is they don't beat you up when you don't pay, since you need to put the money up first.
Any Parents who's kid 18 or younger charges up their card with out consent to play DFS is reversible.

chuckh

I understand underwraps but IMO all dfs sites should require a valid proof of age before allowing anyone to play. Any kid playing is a slippery slope that will lead to nothing but trouble for the industry.

underwraps

Your right Chuck, and that should be first on their priority list "to require proof of age", but for some strange reason it doesn't concern them much.
Some people out there will exploit this loophole soon and start taking free shots at DFS if they don't correct this problem quickly.

groovinmahoovin

It wasnt like the ESPN author suggested 9 year old kids take Daddy's credit card and deposit, but was something about how "daily fantasy is the new having a catch with your kid," and mentioned having your kid help you with your DFS lineup can help with the kid's cognitive abilities and such. The SI for Kids article was some kid writing about fantasy, mentioned she played in a fantasy league with her 11 and 12 year old friends, but then contained a giant $2 million FanDuel check right in the middle of the article. A blatant ad like that aimed at kids is no different than if a kid wrote about playing Go Fish with her friends and then SI inserted a giant Pokerstars check in the article.

Poking the bear is usually not a good thing; marketing this stuff at kids seems like a terrible idea on a pragmatic level.

kcburgh

guessing this is the article you are talking about..

http://www.sikids.com/blogs/2015/09/09/fantasy-football-2015-not-just-for-hardcore-fans-anymore