SCOTUS ruling and the Pistons

[theBigLip]

So sports gambling is going to be legal. How can that help the Pistons?

If Mark Cuban is correct, franchise values will go up because of more interest in games. That interet will bring more money flow, either through exist revenue streams (tickets, gear, refreshments, parking, etc) or new ones such as the NBAs proposed "integrity fee". Both of these helps the cap go up, so we can improve our salary cap situation and hide our mistakes a bit. We won't see that until next season, but it will certainly help us.

[Manocad]

I'm much more interested in how this ruling can help Manocad.

[theBigLip]

I'm much more interested in how this ruling can help Manocad.

Let me know if you have a secret betting method

[Billl]

eh - not so fast. The feds might well just pass a new law banning it outright vs calling on states to ban it. Currently, it's still illegal everywhere but nevada. A couple states are trying to quickly pass laws authorizing it, but most aren't. There is not indication that any of the states or casinos are just going to give the NBA a cut. The idea that way more people are going to go to games seems far fetched. It's not like you'll be able to bet in the arena or something. You might watch more out of market games at home, but honestly, it looks like most of the people interested in betting are already pirating games.

[Snakebites]

Hopefully the value will go up and Gores will sell the team soon after that happens.

[theBigLip]

A: After a modest increase in the cap this season, the NBA is projecting the salary cap to inflate by $7 million in 2019. The league hasn't explained the reason, but some of that projection might include some anticipated new gambling-related revenue.

[Manocad]

eh - not so fast. The feds might well just pass a new law banning it outright vs calling on states to ban it. Currently, it's still illegal everywhere but nevada. A couple states are trying to quickly pass laws authorizing it, but most aren't. There is not indication that any of the states or casinos are just going to give the NBA a cut. The idea that way more people are going to go to games seems far fetched. It's not like you'll be able to bet in the arena or something. You might watch more out of market games at home, but honestly, it looks like most of the people interested in betting are already pirating games.

Banning something and making it illegal are the same thing, dude. Any state can now decide to make sports betting illegal, but it's out of federal hands forever as the legal precedent is now established. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; legalizing and authorizing are the same thing, and nothing is illegal until there's a law making it illegal. Legalizing something is not saying "You're now authorized to do it," it's saying "It's now no longer illegal to do it." Something has to be made illegal first before it can be legalized. Basically stated, if there's no law stating that you can't do something, it's legal to do it. You don't need an "authorization."

Obviously no league or team is going to get a cut from sports betting profits. It's already being discussed that you won't even be able to bet on teams at sports books in casinos owned by the team owners (Cavs/Gilbert/MGM Grand Detroit, Tigers and Red Wings/Ilitch/MotorCity).

[Manocad]

I'm much more interested in how this ruling can help Manocad.

Let me know if you have a secret betting method

I am not a big sports bettor other than the NCAA tournament. I'd go out to Vegas with some friends every year for the first weekend of the tournament, make bets, watch a lot of games, play some craps, blackjack, etc. But about three years ago that trend got hot and now that weekend is BY FAR the biggest weekend in Vegas. I got to meet Derrick Stevens (owner of the D) last year and he said that Superbowl weekend is now a VERY distant second to the first weekend of the NCAA tournament. Obviously it didn't take Vegas and the airlines long to figure this out and now prices for flights and hotel are through the roof for that weekend. But now I can just book a room at one of the Detroit casinos for the weekend (MGM has already announced that they're ready to go with a sports book) and do pretty much the same thing minus the free drinks and hanging out at a pool. More money to bet with.

[Billl]

eh - not so fast. The feds might well just pass a new law banning it outright vs calling on states to ban it. Currently, it's still illegal everywhere but nevada. A couple states are trying to quickly pass laws authorizing it, but most aren't. There is not indication that any of the states or casinos are just going to give the NBA a cut. The idea that way more people are going to go to games seems far fetched. It's not like you'll be able to bet in the arena or something. You might watch more out of market games at home, but honestly, it looks like most of the people interested in betting are already pirating games.

Banning something and making it illegal are the same thing, dude. Any state can now decide to make sports betting illegal, but it's out of federal hands forever as the legal precedent is now established. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; legalizing and authorizing are the same thing, and nothing is illegal until there's a law making it illegal. Legalizing something is not saying "You're now authorized to do it," it's saying "It's now no longer illegal to do it." Something has to be made illegal first before it can be legalized. Basically stated, if there's no law stating that you can't do something, it's legal to do it. You don't need an "authorization."

Obviously no league or team is going to get a cut from sports betting profits. It's already being discussed that you won't even be able to bet on teams at sports books in casinos owned by the team owners (Cavs/Gilbert/MGM Grand Detroit, Tigers and Red Wings/Ilitch/MotorCity).

I guess you didn't read the ruling. SCOTUS absolutely did not say that congress couldn't ban sports gambling. In fact, quite the opposite

"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., for the majority. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not.”

[theBigLip]

I'm much more interested in how this ruling can help Manocad.

Let me know if you have a secret betting method

I am not a big sports bettor other than the NCAA tournament. I'd go out to Vegas with some friends every year for the first weekend of the tournament, make bets, watch a lot of games, play some craps, blackjack, etc. But about three years ago that trend got hot and now that weekend is BY FAR the biggest weekend in Vegas. I got to meet Derrick Stevens (owner of the D) last year and he said that Superbowl weekend is now a VERY distant second to the first weekend of the NCAA tournament. Obviously it didn't take Vegas and the airlines long to figure this out and now prices for flights and hotel are through the roof for that weekend. But now I can just book a room at one of the Detroit casinos for the weekend (MGM has already announced that they're ready to go with a sports book) and do pretty much the same thing minus the free drinks and hanging out at a pool. More money to bet with.

Yup, done the Vegas thing a few times for March Madness - crazy fun but crazy. Lately been going to small casinos up by Tahoe - a lot more chill, good small sports book, and get to ski as well. But with the new ruling - no need to throw in a plane flight anymore. Vegas is probably going to take a hit with all this.

[buzzkilloton]

eh - not so fast. The feds might well just pass a new law banning it outright vs calling on states to ban it. Currently, it's still illegal everywhere but nevada. A couple states are trying to quickly pass laws authorizing it, but most aren't. There is not indication that any of the states or casinos are just going to give the NBA a cut. The idea that way more people are going to go to games seems far fetched. It's not like you'll be able to bet in the arena or something. You might watch more out of market games at home, but honestly, it looks like most of the people interested in betting are already pirating games.

Not to mention anyone whos into sports betting has been betting on games on the internet no problem for over a decade now.

[Manocad]

eh - not so fast. The feds might well just pass a new law banning it outright vs calling on states to ban it. Currently, it's still illegal everywhere but nevada. A couple states are trying to quickly pass laws authorizing it, but most aren't. There is not indication that any of the states or casinos are just going to give the NBA a cut. The idea that way more people are going to go to games seems far fetched. It's not like you'll be able to bet in the arena or something. You might watch more out of market games at home, but honestly, it looks like most of the people interested in betting are already pirating games.

Banning something and making it illegal are the same thing, dude. Any state can now decide to make sports betting illegal, but it's out of federal hands forever as the legal precedent is now established. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; legalizing and authorizing are the same thing, and nothing is illegal until there's a law making it illegal. Legalizing something is not saying "You're now authorized to do it," it's saying "It's now no longer illegal to do it." Something has to be made illegal first before it can be legalized. Basically stated, if there's no law stating that you can't do something, it's legal to do it. You don't need an "authorization."

Obviously no league or team is going to get a cut from sports betting profits. It's already being discussed that you won't even be able to bet on teams at sports books in casinos owned by the team owners (Cavs/Gilbert/MGM Grand Detroit, Tigers and Red Wings/Ilitch/MotorCity).

I guess you didn't read the ruling. SCOTUS absolutely did not say that congress couldn't ban sports gambling. In fact, quite the opposite

"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., for the majority. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not.”

When did "regulate" become equal to "can ban"? The whole point of the ruling was that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is not allowed to decide whether or not it's legal to bet on sports in any individual state. What are you missing here? How are you turning "can't illegalize it" into "but can still ban it"? Banning and illegalizing are the same thing.

[ImHeisenberg]

Off topic - we can use avatars again?

[Billl]

Banning something and making it illegal are the same thing, dude. Any state can now decide to make sports betting illegal, but it's out of federal hands forever as the legal precedent is now established. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; legalizing and authorizing are the same thing, and nothing is illegal until there's a law making it illegal. Legalizing something is not saying "You're now authorized to do it," it's saying "It's now no longer illegal to do it." Something has to be made illegal first before it can be legalized. Basically stated, if there's no law stating that you can't do something, it's legal to do it. You don't need an "authorization."

Obviously no league or team is going to get a cut from sports betting profits. It's already being discussed that you won't even be able to bet on teams at sports books in casinos owned by the team owners (Cavs/Gilbert/MGM Grand Detroit, Tigers and Red Wings/Ilitch/MotorCity).

I guess you didn't read the ruling. SCOTUS absolutely did not say that congress couldn't ban sports gambling. In fact, quite the opposite

"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., for the majority. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not.”

When did "regulate" become equal to "can ban"? The whole point of the ruling was that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is not allowed to decide whether or not it's legal to bet on sports in any individual state. What are you missing here? How are you turning "can't illegalize it" into "but can still ban it"? Banning and illegalizing are the same thing.

No, congress can ban it. You really need to read the ruling. This had nothing to do with whether congress can ban sports gambling. That was never in dispute. The case was about whether congress could compel states to ban it.

[Manocad]

I guess you didn't read the ruling. SCOTUS absolutely did not say that congress couldn't ban sports gambling. In fact, quite the opposite

"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., for the majority. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not.”

When did "regulate" become equal to "can ban"? The whole point of the ruling was that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is not allowed to decide whether or not it's legal to bet on sports in any individual state. What are you missing here? How are you turning "can't illegalize it" into "but can still ban it"? Banning and illegalizing are the same thing.

No, congress can ban it. You really need to read the ruling. This had nothing to do with whether congress can ban sports gambling. That was never in dispute. The case was about whether congress could compel states to ban it.

Wrong. The Supreme Court STRUCK DOWN THE 1992 FEDERAL LAW BANNING SPORTS BETTING IN MOST STATES. That's the end of the story right there. The federal government HAD BANNED IT, and now the ban has been lifted because the SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional. Now, if you know anything about the law--anything at all--once something was made illegal then made legal again, you can bet your ass it will never be illegal again. CAN Congress just throw another proposal out there to make sports betting illegal again? Sure. Will it ever PASS? Not in a million years if the voting Congressmen want to keep their jobs.

[Manocad]

Straight from the ruling:

"The PASPA provision at issue here—prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling—violates the anti-commandeering rule. That provision unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do. And this is true under either our interpretation or that advocated by respondents and the United States. In either event, state legislatures are put under the direct control of Congress. It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine."

That pretty clearly states that the federal government prohibiting the states from authorizing sports betting, which PASPA did and is the same thing as federally banning it, is unconstitutional. Like I said, can Congress propose a federal ban? Sure. Will it ever pass? Never. SCOTUS would rule it as unconstitutional using the same argument.

[Billl]

Seriously man, read the ruling. It was ruled unconstitutional because the US congress passed a law prohibiting state legislatures from acting in an area where there was no competing federal law. The feds can absolutely ban betting and sports betting. They didn't. They tried to compel state legislatures to effectively ban betting on their behalf. That was the unconstitutional part. The feds can't compel states to act.

It's the same argument that got the medicaid expansion shot down. If the feds want to give health insurance to every US citizen, they can. They can't pass a law requiring states to do so.

[Manocad]

Seriously man, read the ruling. It was ruled unconstitutional because the US congress passed a law prohibiting state legislatures from acting in an area where there was no competing federal law. The feds can absolutely ban betting and sports betting. They didn't. They tried to compel state legislatures to effectively ban betting on their behalf. That was the unconstitutional part. The feds can't compel states to act.

It's the same argument that got the medicaid expansion shot down. If the feds want to give health insurance to every US citizen, they can. They can't pass a law requiring states to do so.

I did read the ruling. I posted that excerpt straight from it. I think you're angling for a semantics argument at this point. The federal government not allowing the states to make their own choice on legalizing gambling is prohibition. Shoot, half the media headlines read "Supreme Court strikes down federal law prohibiting sports betting."

But enough about that; let's go this route--I'll bet you a bar tab that MANY states are going to establish sports betting in a big hurry, and your "hold up, not so fast, the feds can still ban it" logic never sees the light of day. If you read the excerpt from the ruling the gist of it is very clear--there are some decisions the feds can't make for the states, and this is one of them.

That's really what you're arguing; that the states can't quickly legalize sports betting because the feds can still kill it, and I'm arguing that you're 100% wrong--that states quickly establishing sports betting is EXACTLY what's going to happen with no resistance from the feds. So I guess we'll just see what happens.

[Billl]

No, i'm not arguing states can't quickly establish sports betting. They can - at least if they have a functional legislature. There is nothing currently prohibiting them from legalizing betting in their state.

The feds at any point can ban sports betting nationwide though. They can make it a federal crime. They have virtually unlimited authority in this area under the commerce clause. Whether they do that is entirely up in the air. What isn't up in the air is the federal governments authority to regulate and even ban certain forms of commerce.

" The federal government not allowing the states to make their own choice on legalizing gambling is prohibition."

Yes. It is. Just like all federal laws that prohibit thing. You can't legally sell crack anywhere in the US by federal law. You can't sell human organs. You can't sell any medicines that the feds don't approve. If the feds want to prohibit sports betting for the entire nation, they can.

[Manocad]

No, i'm not arguing states can't quickly establish sports betting. They can - at least if they have a functional legislature. There is nothing currently prohibiting them from legalizing betting in their state.

The feds at any point can ban sports betting nationwide though. They can make it a federal crime. They have virtually unlimited authority in this area under the commerce clause. Whether they do that is entirely up in the air. What isn't up in the air is the federal governments authority to regulate and even ban certain forms of commerce.

" The federal government not allowing the states to make their own choice on legalizing gambling is prohibition."

Yes. It is. Just like all federal laws that prohibit thing. You can't legally sell crack anywhere in the US by federal law. You can't sell human organs. You can't sell any medicines that the feds don't approve. If the feds want to prohibit sports betting for the entire nation, they can.

And the SCOTUS will strike it down in the same manner. You seem to be glossing over the true gist of the ruling, which was that it was deemed unconstitutional for the federal government to decide for the states that they couldn’t have sports betting vs. letting the states make that decision for themselves. Read my excerpt again. The SCOTUS ruled that the PASPA was the equivalent of having a federal officer inside each state government reading over all proposals and striking down the ones it didn’t like, a most egregious example of the federal government overstepping its bounds. That argument still holds true if the feds wanted to institute an outright federal ban. All they can do is TRY to ban sports betting, and based on the SCOTUS’ language in this ruling, a ban will never succeed.

You can’t sell any drug you want without approval from the feds because the FDA is an established federal regulating authority. There is no Federal Sports Betting Administration that has been given the authority to decide who gets to bet on sports and who doesn’t—THAT’S WHY THE PASPA WAS STRUCK DOWN.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app