New Jersey Sports Wagering

[Nova09]

Meant to post this yesterday, never got around to it. New Jersey sports wagering legislation went into effect 10/15/2012. No portion of NCAA championship in any sport can be conducted in New Jersey:

"No predetermined or nonpredetermined session of an NCAA championship may be conducted in a state with legal wagering that is based on single game betting on the outcome of any event (i.e., high school, college or professional) in a sport in which the NCAA conducts a championship."

Princeton does not participate in playoffs anyway, Monmouth has no opportunity to host.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Meant to post this yesterday, never got around to it. New Jersey sports wagering legislation went into effect 10/15/2012. No portion of NCAA championship in any sport can be conducted in New Jersey:

"No predetermined or nonpredetermined session of an NCAA championship may be conducted in a state with legal wagering that is based on single game betting on the outcome of any event (i.e., high school, college or professional) in a sport in which the NCAA conducts a championship."

Princeton does not participate in playoffs anyway, Monmouth has no opportunity to host.

Ouch, I'll bet they didn't think about that in Newark or the Meadowlands Arena for NCAA regionals.

[superman7515]

Meant to post this yesterday, never got around to it. New Jersey sports wagering legislation went into effect 10/15/2012.

Doesn't take affect until January and that's only if they overcome the myriad of lawsuits filed against them from the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NCAA, and numerous private citizens groups and of course the federal ban which will lead to the government filing suit against them.

[superman7515]

Ouch, I'll bet they didn't think about that in Newark or the Meadowlands Arena for NCAA regionals.

They did, they just know they'll make innumerably more from sports wagering in a year then they would ever make off NCAA playoff events at those arenas.

[Nova09]

Doesn't take affect until January and that's only if they overcome the myriad of lawsuits filed against them from the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NCAA, and numerous private citizens groups and of course the federal ban which will lead to the government filing suit against them.

New Jersey will beginning licensing in January, so in effect no bets can be placed until then, but the law officially was enacted yesterday (as per previously signed legislation that stated October 15, 2012 as the date of publication in the state register). That's a lot more legal than practical, but the NCAA has decided that as of yesterday no NCAA championship events can be held in the state. And I am fully aware of the lawsuits, but as far as I know without an injunction from a judge the law stands while the litigation is pending.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Question: What about conference championships to determine, say, autobids in basketball? The CAA was thinking about bringing theirs to Atlantic City.

[DFW HOYA]

Outside of basketball, how many championship events are we talking about? Few, if any.

[Nova09]

Outside of basketball, how many championship events are we talking about? Few, if any.

5 scheduled for Spring 2013, or technically 4 to answer your question since one is women's basketball. That's 5 across all divisions. In addition to WBB Trenton regional, there is DI Swimming and Diving Regional in Piscataway, DIII Men's Volleyball Championship in Hoboken, and DII and DIII Women's Lacrosse Championship in Montclair.

Last one should remind you that postseason lacrosse is often played in NJ.

[Nova09]

Question: What about conference championships to determine, say, autobids in basketball? The CAA was thinking about bringing theirs to Atlantic City.

My understanding is conference championships would still be allowed. If not, that would create a huge disadvantages for New Jersey schools for sports where the top seed hosts conference championship.

[danefan]

5 scheduled for Spring 2013, or technically 4 to answer your question since one is women's basketball. That's 5 across all divisions. In addition to WBB Trenton regional, there is DI Swimming and Diving Regional in Piscataway, DIII Men's Volleyball Championship in Hoboken, and DII and DIII Women's Lacrosse Championship in Montclair.

Last one should remind you that postseason lacrosse is often played in NJ.


Could effect DIII Football Playoffs too. Rowan is ranked.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

My understanding is conference championships would still be allowed. If not, that would create a huge disadvantages for New Jersey schools for sports where the top seed hosts conference championship.

So it doesn't preclude that. But what should also be mentioned is that many regionals where the home school is in New Jersey would be affected. For example, Rutgers hosted the first two rounds of the women's NCAA tournament some years ago, that would be over. Same with Princeton, I think, for other Olympic sport regionals.

[Nova09]

Another question is if the NCAA would allow New Jersey schools in sports that don't have predetermined host sites to use "surrogates." For example, suppose Monmouth is in the playoffs and bids to host in Wagner's stadium.

[GannonFan]

My understanding is conference championships would still be allowed. If not, that would create a huge disadvantages for New Jersey schools for sports where the top seed hosts conference championship.


Conference championships and the like are not NCAA run and therefore do not fall under this. There have been conference championships in Las Vegas right off of the Strip so it's been done before and will continue to be done.

In reality it affects very little. The Final Fours weren't going to come back to the Meadowlands anyway so the only thing they lose is hosting regional finals or even 1st or 2nd round games and the economic impact of those is pretty limited (and from a fan's perspective, those events could easily be held in neighboring Philly or NYC so not really much of an impact travel-wise. They're already talking about using Temple's Liacouras Center for the Trenton WBB regional that is going to be moved). Like the other poster said, they'll make far more money from sports gambling than they ever would by hosting NCAA events.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Well someone needed to tell the sports organizations that "You don't run this ****, we do". It will be an interesting test case in the courts. I'm pretty sure the federal ban will eventually be struck down, nobody wanted to run up against the Shield.

[superman7515]

I'm pretty sure the federal ban will eventually be struck down, nobody wanted to run up against the Shield.

I dunno, Delaware tried it just a couple of years ago and it was upheld by a Federal Appeals court.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

I dunno, Delaware tried it just a couple of years ago and it was upheld by a Federal Appeals court.

If someone wanted to run it all the way up the ladder, they would have to use some pretty tortured logic to call it constitutional.

[bluehenbillk]

I dunno, Delaware tried it just a couple of years ago and it was upheld by a Federal Appeals court.

Yes & no. Delaware is one of 4 states that has some kind of sports wagering - they were grandfathered in to allow parlay betting - you have to wager on a minimum of 3 games I think to win. Originally the uproar was Delaware, like New Jersey is now, wanted to offer what Nevada only offers - straight bets on sporting events & Delaware lost that.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Yes & no. Delaware is one of 4 states that has some kind of sports wagering - they were grandfathered in to allow parlay betting - you have to wager on a minimum of 3 games I think to win. Originally the uproar was Delaware, like New Jersey is now, wanted to offer what Nevada only offers - straight bets on sporting events & Delaware lost that.

Yeah, when it comes to Federal law and, in this case, the 10th amendment (applied correctly) you cannot treat different states differently. If you can place a bet in Las Vegas, you should be able to place a bet in New Jersey, Minnesota, Florida, or anywhere. There is no compelling national interest in the abolition of sports betting. If this gets to the Supreme Court, they would have to do some serious twisting to get it considered constitutional.

[superman7515]

Yes & no. Delaware is one of 4 states that has some kind of sports wagering - they were grandfathered in to allow parlay betting - you have to wager on a minimum of 3 games I think to win. Originally the uproar was Delaware, like New Jersey is now, wanted to offer what Nevada only offers - straight bets on sporting events & Delaware lost that.

No one is talking about parlay betting, New Jersey is doing straight bets, so yes that was upheld in court.

I've won 5 out of 6 weeks so far on the super teaser. Well ahead for the year.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

No one is talking about parlay betting, New Jersey is doing straight bets, so yes that was upheld in court.

and upon further review, it looks like SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal. Sometimes I think they just use a magic 8 ball to decide stuff.

[bluehenbillk]

No one is talking about parlay betting, New Jersey is doing straight bets, so yes that was upheld in court.

I've won 5 out of 6 weeks so far on the super teaser. Well ahead for the year.

Exactly, New Jersey is so far headed down the same exact path Delaware was. Delaware wanted straight bets on sports & was derailed by the federal courts. New Jersey isn't doing straight bets yet, if all goes to their plan they won't even issue licenses for casinos, etc to take sports wagers until January 2013, so maybe at the earliest you could place a bet on the Super Bowl. With the Delaware precedent just what 24 months old, New Jersey is going to have to come up with a different argument....

[GannonFan]

Exactly, New Jersey is so far headed down the same exact path Delaware was. Delaware wanted straight bets on sports & was derailed by the federal courts. New Jersey isn't doing straight bets yet, if all goes to their plan they won't even issue licenses for casinos, etc to take sports wagers until January 2013, so maybe at the earliest you could place a bet on the Super Bowl. With the Delaware precedent just what 24 months old, New Jersey is going to have to come up with a different argument....


It was my understanding that Delaware was trying to use their grandfathered status (they had allowed parlay betting before the national ban on sports betting came into being so they were, by the letter of that law, allowed to do the same type of betting anytime they wanted to) of parlay betting to allow them to do straight betting on single games. That didn't fly and was easily dismissed. New Jersey, though, isn't arguing about any grandfathered status, their's is a more direct suit against the law. It may not work this time, but New Jersey has more resources to throw into this and eventually the dam is going to break and they'll allow sports betting everywhere. I mean, you can do it now, it just isn't officially legal.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It was my understanding that Delaware was trying to use their grandfathered status (they had allowed parlay betting before the national ban on sports betting came into being so they were, by the letter of that law, allowed to do the same type of betting anytime they wanted to) of parlay betting to allow them to do straight betting on single games. That didn't fly and was easily dismissed. New Jersey, though, isn't arguing about any grandfathered status, their's is a more direct suit against the law. It may not work this time, but New Jersey has more resources to throw into this and eventually the dam is going to break and they'll allow sports betting everywhere. I mean, you can do it now, it just isn't officially legal.

Yeah, it's not as if there's anything more pressing in the state of new Jersey or anything. xrolleyesx

[bluehenbillk]

I do agree that there is no reason why sports betting isn't legal in all 50 states. Completely ridiculous.

[GannonFan]

Yeah, it's not as if there's anything more pressing in the state of new Jersey or anything. xrolleyesx

Not living in NJ myself, are you saying that they've ceased doing anything else legistlatively or otherwise and are focusing entirely, 24/7, on the sports wagering effort?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You seriously think the time and energy wasted on this effort, that will likely be shot down by courts at a multitude of levels, wouldn't be better spent focusing on, say, improving traffic flow between NY and NJ?

[danefan]

You seriously think the time and energy wasted on this effort, that will likely be shot down by courts at a multitude of levels, wouldn't be better spent focusing on, say, improving traffic flow between NY and NJ?

One is a revenue driver. The other would be an added expense. Can't pay the expense if you don't have any revenue. I'd say they need to focus on revenue driver first.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It's not a revenue driver if the case if thrown out.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

It's not a revenue driver if the case if thrown out.

I'll bet NJ will fight harder, especially if Obama gets reelected. Christie will do anything to put a thumb in the eye of the administration and they have no fallback position like Delaware did with the parlay.

[Hawk98]

OT --- but Princeton is pretty good in lacrosse. Does the ban only impact sports that have gambling, or would Princeton not be allowed to host lacrosse playoff games?

[DSUrocks07]

Yes & no. Delaware is one of 4 states that has some kind of sports wagering - they were grandfathered in to allow parlay betting - you have to wager on a minimum of 3 games I think to win. Originally the uproar was Delaware, like New Jersey is now, wanted to offer what Nevada only offers - straight bets on sporting events & Delaware lost that.

Funny thing is that parlay betting was allowed in the DE constitution on ALL sports, not just NFL. But only the NFL parlay bets were running in 1974 (IIRC). SO the state could have pursued having parlay bets in all sports but I guess they weren't up for that fight.

[Bill]

Hawk

All sports have gambling!

There would be no NCAA tournament/playoff events held in NJ in any sport at any division!

[Nova09]

A question I asked either got lost in the legal discussion or no one knows the answer, but I'll throw it out there again: Does anyone think the NCAA would allow a NJ school that should have the right to host the opportunity to "host" at a nearby school across state lines? I know of instances where a conference champion could not host the conference tournament because their facilities were subpar, but they have been allowed to choose the host rather than going to the 2nd seed by default and thereby swinging the advantage. I wonder if the NCAA would view this the same way.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Note to Princeton: Lehigh has pretty good lacrosse facilities. Just sayin'.

[danefan]

I forgot about Princeton lacrosse. That will hurt.

I'm sure they can find a suitable surrogate home, but its not the same.

[Bill]

nova

I suppose it's uncharted water, but I think the NCAA will let a team "host" at a neutral site, assuming one can be found. While it might not happen this year, you could have a playoff game of Rowan and Kean played at a neutral site of Widener, for example. Either way, it's very interesting...

[Jacked_Rabbit]

FWIW, this story from the Sporting News just made its way onto my Twitter feed. Thought I'd share with those interested.

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/sport/2012-10-18/new-jersey-sports-betting-law-nfl-underdogs-cantor-gaming-mike-colbert

Colbert visited with The Linemakers’ David Purdum this week about the future of sports betting in New Jersey and in Las Vegas, as well as NFL underdogs’ amazing start to the season.

Q: Do you believe sports betting will be legalized in New Jersey?
A: I do think they’ll get it. I think it may take some time. It won’t happen as fast as people thought at first, but I think it’ll happen.

Q: Why do you believe New Jersey will win?
A: I don’t think the leagues have a good argument. In fact, I don’t even know what they’re argument really is. They’re going to say that it compromises the game. That doesn’t make any sense. For them to even put that out there is an embarrassment. I think there’s an underlying reason.

The integrity argument, to me, is a complete facade. It’s a smokescreen that they’re putting up there, because it sounds good to maybe the average guy who doesn’t understand the business. But if you’re in the business and know what’s going on, you know that if there is ever anything close to something shady that we will be the ones that are able to point it out. That argument is so bad, and they continue to say it. It’s kind of silly.

[Nova09]

It's an absurd argument. No integrity is compromised if two (or more) people from the outside are wagering on what they believe will happen. I would even argue that no integrity is compromised if those on the inside are wagering, as long as they are not unduly altering results based on their wager. I could see why this would be banned though, and I have no problem with that being a compromise of accepting employment within athletics.

The idea that betting in general detracts from the product is intentionally deceitful. To give a mundane example, it should not be illegal for a publishing company sales rep pushing text books to give a free vacation to someone in general, but it should be illegal to make that offer to a purchasing agent with undue influence--a professor, school administrators, business office personnel, etc. Likewise, the act of betting should not be illegal, only attempts to sway results.

Also, if there is such risk of athletes point shaving or outright throwing events for gambling gains, wouldn't that risk be much higher for a corporate executive to short sell his company's stock and then run it to the ground? And yet stock trading is legal, we just have laws against doing that. And the laws are usually unnecessary because most realize much greater gains by doing well in the long run than a payout from one's own failure.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Also, if there is such risk of athletes point shaving or outright throwing events for gambling gains, wouldn't that risk be much higher for a corporate executive to short sell his company's stock and then run it to the ground? And yet stock trading is legal, we just have laws against doing that. And the laws are usually unnecessary because most realize much greater gains by doing well in the long run than a payout from one's own failure.

So you're arguing that we should.... have laws against gambling? Or they're unnecessary? xconfusedx

Asking that college kids "recognize that much greater gains are available by doing better in the long run" seems to indicate that you've forgotten what college is like. If all college students acted in this way, sure, there'd be no need for laws, but that's, um, unrealistic, let's just say.

[Nova09]

So you're arguing that we should.... have laws against gambling? Or they're unnecessary? xconfusedx

Asking that college kids "recognize that much greater gains are available by doing better in the long run" seems to indicate that you've forgotten what college is like. If all college students acted in this way, sure, there'd be no need for laws, but that's, um, unrealistic, let's just say.

I'm saying sports gambling should be legal the same way stock trading is legal, and should be regulated, just as stock trading is regulated. I agree to an extent that college kids are susceptible to influence, especially with the promise of short-term gains, but I would need to see some convincing evidence of once in history where a culture had a systemic problem of people acting against their own self interests for gambling gains to believe it was a real threat.