Three little words: "No sports pools"

Three little words: “No Sports Pools”
Key phrase missing from 10.3
By: Malamute, Posted 10 June 2003

There are more interpretations of 10.3 being served on the web these days than Baskin-Robins has flavors of ice cream. That’s because NCAA Rule 10.3 is ambiguously written, especially regarding friendly, neighborhood basketball pools.

The UW e-mail, crafted by Dana Richardson, was right on target, saying, "The bottom line of these rules is that if you have friends outside of ICA (Intercollegiate College Athletics) that have pools on any of the basketball tournaments, you can participate...You cannot place bets with a bookie or organize your own pool inside or outside of ICA."

That’s my interpretation of the rule, too. Big deal, everybody has his own interpretation, including big brother, the NCAA.

But that’s my point.

To remove all ambiguity, all the NCAA had to do was add something like this to its bloody rule, “no sports pools.”

So simple to say, so hard for those in the media to swallow--most of them, entrenched Husky haters, now caught waffling in their opinions like most pundits during the Clinton years, which were full of ambiguities regarding rules, morality and the breaking of laws.

You know there’s something dicey about the rule when the number one Husky hater, Art Thiel (Seattle P-I), ducked the issue in his column yesterday. He devoted a few paragraphs to the Richardson e-mail, failed to ante up and, then on in his way out of the casino, lambasted Rick Neuheisel and the University of Washington athletic department for the San Francisco 49ers interview, saying that Neuheisel lied about it and Barbara Hedges (UW AD) accepted his explanation for lying carte blanche. Thiel is becoming a master at bate and switch.

I am positive you have your own interpretation of the 10.3 rule, but that’s my point. As I said, just three little words: No Sports Pools.

An NCAA brochure written for the student athlete, titled, "Don't Bet On It," says, "No sports 'pools,' even those run by your friends in the dorm."

The NCAA needs to update 10.3 with its dormitory verbiage, only address it to athletic department personnel, who live in more palatial settings. At the same time, why not update all of its variations roaming the web, which is a tangled web of pages woven by someone practiced in deception.

One thing for sure, you can make book on the fact that the NCAA will update 10.3 with those three little words in it, after all the smoke clears and the suspicion of its ineptness fades away. Just don't solicit or accept any bets of any tangible value on the updating.

----------------

Here’s the way NCAA Bylaw 10.3 reads, along with my scholarly, er hum, interpretation. I'm not a lawyer, just a fan. But, really, you don't need a lawyer to interpret it, although a lawyer appearing on Fox NW gave me the inspiration and some courage to interpret this rule. He concentrated on the words solicit and accept as he parsed the rule, as I did with my parsing.

Staff members of a member conference, staff members of the athletics department of a member institution and student-athletes shall not knowingly: (Revised: 4/22/98 effective 8/1/98)

(a) Provide information to individuals involved in organized gambling activities concerning intercollegiate athletics competition;

Comment: Neueheisel did not provide information to individuals involved in gambling activities.

(b) Solicit a bet on any intercollegiate team;

Comment: If he had been running the pool, he would have solicited a bet. However, he was the person being solicited.

Comment: He did not accept a bet on any of Washington’s teams.

(d) Solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value; or (Revised: 9/15/97)

Comment: This part of the rule is no different than parts b and c as far as Neuheisel is concerned. The words solicit and accept are the relevant parts. So the fact that part d is missing on some of the web sites is irrelevant. Just the same, I'll parse the rule.

If he had been running the pool, had solicited a bet and accepted it, this part of the rule would apply. What he did do was accept an invitation to participate in a pool. That’s different than accepting a bet, which is usually thought of as an agreement between a gambler and a bookie to wager on a contest.

Examples:

1. Gambler: “I would like to place a bet on the Ohio State/Washington football game.”

Solicitor: “I accept your bet.”

2. Pool operator: “Would you like to participate in our March Madness pool?”

Neuheisel: “Yes, I would like to participate in your pool.”

3. Pool operator: “Would you like to place a bet in my March Madness pool?

Neuheisel: “Yes, I accept your invitation to place a bet.”

Pool Operator: “I accept your bet.”

(e) Participate in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics, through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by organized gambling.

Comment: Neuheisel is guilty of participating in a gambling activity involving intercollegiate athletics. However, he is not guilty of participating in a gambling activity employed by organized gambling, such as using a bookmaker or a parlay card.