Hey Max: Three Sweet Sixteens and one elite Eight would indicate there is more to Lavin than the hair you have spoken so highly about. Lavin was in the pressure cooker of all, in college athletics. He will resurface in the ranks again, if he so desires. By the way, the $600,000 per that UCLA still pays him is a nice little rent maker while he hones his broadcasting skills.
Lavin is laughing all the way to the bank. The one thing I recall most about him was his holier than thou support of the Kyl bill when it was a hot topic a few years back. He struck me as being a stone cold hypocrite when discussing betting on college basketball. He was on a show with a few other coaches and one of the Gumbel brothers warning the country about the perils of offshore gambling.
wil.
wil.
Wil:
FYI: Every coach at the NCAA Level attends mandatory seminars re: Gambling. The student-athletes are also exposed to this topic yearly. Show me a D-1 coach, athlete, or administrator that would publicly sponsor "Betting is a Good Thing "and I'll show you a coach, who is no longer employed. Most coaches contracts also call for a pledge to never break the NCAA Bible of rules or suffer the consequence of job loss.
FYI: Every coach at the NCAA Level attends mandatory seminars re: Gambling. The student-athletes are also exposed to this topic yearly. Show me a D-1 coach, athlete, or administrator that would publicly sponsor "Betting is a Good Thing "and I'll show you a coach, who is no longer employed. Most coaches contracts also call for a pledge to never break the NCAA Bible of rules or suffer the consequence of job loss.
Max:
Lavin's biggest mistake at UCLA was to hire his cronies as assistants. His credibility was evaluated off that alone. The guy could recruit and was smooth as silk in term of the PR part of the job. He needed a hammer-like veteran assistant to play bad cop with the youngsters! The players took advantage of his nice guy approach big time.
Lavin's biggest mistake at UCLA was to hire his cronies as assistants. His credibility was evaluated off that alone. The guy could recruit and was smooth as silk in term of the PR part of the job. He needed a hammer-like veteran assistant to play bad cop with the youngsters! The players took advantage of his nice guy approach big time.
butt-kiss you are 100% right. I am just mentioning a show that imo went over the top with Lavin, Lute Olsen, (maybe Coach K) and a couple of others acting like betting on college hoops was in the same league as bank robbery. Laughable now but at the time a bit scary for offshore bettors.
wil.
wil.
Wil:
Ncaa guys can never acknowledge the point spreads and the why sports in general are so popular. EXACT Same M.O. as the NFL. Without gaming on these events the stands would still be half-full just like before the proliferation and access for public gambling. (for informational purposes only, of course) The hypocrisy re: the growth is a daily double take for any punter.
Ncaa guys can never acknowledge the point spreads and the why sports in general are so popular. EXACT Same M.O. as the NFL. Without gaming on these events the stands would still be half-full just like before the proliferation and access for public gambling. (for informational purposes only, of course) The hypocrisy re: the growth is a daily double take for any punter.
I think it's a situation where the coaches just want separation between the games and the gambling. The two can co-exist, but should remain far apart. I mean, coach K goes to Vegas and gambles at casinos. I really doubt that he looks at sportsbettors as immoral people. Hey, when he's done coaching, maybe he'll become a legendary bettor, who knows? But it does him no good to look at pointspreads or even act like the betting world exists while he's coaching. And we all know that coaches are forced to support the NCAA in everything, including the BCS, which is a complete joke, and only about money. My guess is that most coaches, privately, are fine with gambling, as long as their players don't get involved in it. I think also that we have to be honest and say that there are times when gambling gets in the way of sports, and takes away from the purity of the game. A couple of weeks ago, I was glued to the tv with 12 minutes left in a 69-3 game, hoping the game would go over 74. WTF? Who watches a 69-3 game? And during the NCAA tournament in 2003, I spent an afternoon at the Stardust to take in the games. At the end of a 10 or 12 point game, the book was going nuts, because the spread was right around 10 or 12. Moments later, the book was nearly silent at 12 point favorite Maryland hit a 3 at the buzzer to win by 2. It was one of the most exciting moments in the tournament, and nobody cared. There is something I respect about fans that root for their team, and have nothing but the risk of a broken heart at stake. I used to be one of those people. So while I love betting on sports in general, I can see some valid points in the purists' arguments. Just like they should see that there's probably nothing wrong with people not involved in the outcome of a game to bet on whatever they want.
