From: darkstar7646@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 1:31:50 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:   
   > > I disagree. Cal-Berkeley has a culture most people find... weird. And then   
   you have the culture in California that if you aren't some form of a pro team   
   (HS football counts for the sports factories), no one cares. Which see, again,   
   the vote to    
   disallow sports gambling.   
   > Cal and Stanford have one advantage when it comes to the minor sports.   
   Nobody plays a minor sport expecting to make it their professional career,   
   which means a scholarship is pretty much a free ticket into a school where a   
   degree just might be worth    
   something.    
      
   The problem being, even if those sports survive, they will only survive as   
   long as it would take for the sport to be shown non-self-sufficient.   
      
   > And refresh my memory - you're not from California? I am, and I saw the   
   politics behind this vote first hand, starting long before the ballot   
   propositions even had numbers.    
      
   I actually AM from California.   
      
   > One problem with the vote was, there were two competing propositions. One   
   would limit it to being physically in a tribal casino, or one of the four   
   (oops - now three, now that Golden Gate Fields is being sold) major horse   
   racing tracks in California;    
   the other would allow for online betting, but while technically it had to be   
   run by the tribes, they could (and would) outsource it to companies like   
   DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM (which, in fact, were the main contributors to   
   that proposition). The TV    
   commercials weren't so much "vote for me" as they were "don't vote for my   
   opponent" - and the TV commercials started LONG before there were enough   
   signatures for either one to qualify for the ballot.   
      
   That is correct, but there are two other things you need to keep in mind.   
      
   1) Especially in the Bay Area, no one gives a tinker's fuck about any sports   
   unless the team is winning AND usually also it's one of the pro teams (usually   
   49ers/Giants/Warriors).   
      
   2) Though you are correct in the idea:  If there was interest in sports   
   betting _in any form_ in California, ONE of the two (at minimum) would've   
   ended up with some support, and not lose the tribes by 2 or 3 to 1, and the   
   online apps by 5 to 1.  Those    
   are numbers indicating not only "We don't want you doing it" nor "We don't   
   want sports betting in this state." but "Don't you DARE waste our time coming   
   back and trying again!"   
      
   > The commercials for the "no online betting" ones pretty much consisted of   
   two kinds: (a) "DraftKings and FanDuel will pocket most of the money, and   
   California will get very little of it!", and (b) "Do you honestly think your   
   teenagers won't be able to    
   place bets?" Meanwhile,    
      
   That b) argument was a very compelling one -- and, facts be facts, you're   
   seeing some of that argument come to fruition in the Iowa/Iowa State   
   investigation, with at least seven athletes or former athletes arrested for   
   deliberate misrepresentation to bet    
   on those apps.   
      
   > the ones supporting online betting also had two kinds; the ones that aired   
   outside of sporting events touted how some of the profits would go towards   
   supporting the state's homeless,   
      
   Which, speaking as one formerly and soon-to-be-future, is a complete laugh.    
   The only way you're dealing with the homeless problem in CA now is to   
   basically raise a militia and liquidate the cities.   
      
   The time for non-punitive (which, in this case, does mean non-lethal -- jail   
   or prison is often a significant improvement for a homeless person -- there's   
   no deterrent whatsoever, save prison rape or direct death) action was 20 years   
   ago, and even I told    
   a member of the SFPD they were gonna have to turn Golden Gate Park into a mass   
   processing center and bring in the National Guard _then_.   
      
   > while the ones that aired during sporting events (literally, one aired for   
   the first time in the first 10 minutes of Fox's first NFL pregame show of   
   2022) said, "Online betting in California if you vote for us. Enough said."   
   Between each side's    
   detractors and the people against sports betting in California in general   
   (plus who knows how much money from various Vegas/Reno/Tahoe casino   
   interests), both were doomed to defeat.    
      
   ... because the only sports fans in California are some of the worst   
   bandwagoners in history, doubly so in the Bay Area.  (Hence my comment about   
   Cal-Berkeley)   
      
   > Note that, under California law, the next chance to change the law to allow   
   for sports betting of any sort (besides horse racing) is in November, 2024.   
      
   Not happening, as I said above.   
      
   Mike   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)