DANKOCHIK’S DRAFTINGS: Court decision in NCAA presents a sports gambling crossroads

The wide-spread expansion of legalized sports gambling had been something I was looking forward to.

It felt goofy you couldn’t bet on single NFL games at Manitoba’s Sport Select and I thought it would be better to bring it into the light.

There certainly have been pains in the first few years of wide-spread legalized sports gambling, especially around advertising. I can’t imagine what it feels like to have a problem with gambling and be a sports fan nowadays, when nearly every league is plastered with temptations.

I was hopeful those were just growing pains and figured the ridiculous advertising would slow down once the big players had established themselves.

I still believe that at some level, but if the pendelum swings all the way back and sports gambling goes back to being nearly illegal, I can’t say I’d be upset about it.

A tipping point may have come June 8. Brendan Sorsby, a quarterback for Texas Tech in the NCAA, won a court injunction to allow him to play following admissions he bet on his team’s games while he was with Indiana.

ESPN reported the quarterback made nearly 3,000 bets during his time with the Hoosiers, including 40 on his own team (although not on games which he played in), using alternate accounts to avoid detection.

The NCAA, which had decided Sorsbry would be ineligible to play responded to the decision in a release, saying they were “deeply concerned about the damaging, far-reaching and broadly destabilizing ramifications of this outcome — which undermines and corrupts the integrity of sports,” in a statement.

This is different than baseball’s exile of Pete Rose, post playing career, which went a bit too far in my opinion. There’s no question he should have been removed and barred from being the manager of a team you bet on.

If Sorsby had just bet on other NCAA sports, that would be one thing. But to gamble on your own team’s games and have the only punishment is a two-game early season suspension? The line has been crossed.

It’s still possible to come back, and I feel for the player, who by all accounts had a serious problem and is now in treatment for a gambling addiction.

There needs to be a pull-back in the aftermath of this decision. People who can gamble responsibly and the gambling companies themselves should be against this decision, because it puts the entire ecosystem at risk.

I still think there is a path back to resonable, responsible legal sports gambling, but what we have now just isn’t it. If this ruling stands, that path gets more and more complicated to navigate.

And if you are gambling, realize there’s a reason the companies want you to make same-game parlays.