If it's craps, roulette, blackjack, 7 card stud, slots, PowerBall or $1,000 in $1 scratchers etc...then no, I really don't have a problem with that. Betting on games is a different story IMO.

There are two issues of concern when it comes to athletes, coaches, and officials gambling.

1. Betting on the sport in which they participate. They would have to be Pete Rose stupid in order to do this, and it's easier to regulate against.

2. Betting too much money and getting into gambling debt. This is a much bigger and more realistic fear. It's the kind of thing that leads to point shaving and Tim Donaghy scandals. It's also harder to regulate against without a zero-tolerance policy.

Wow, you'd think that NBA players, with all their money, could get some good-looking women.

I have a friend who was a whitehat in the Big 12 and he said that at their pre-season meetings, the FBI came in and told them which restaurants in various Big 12 cities had connections to the mob and to stay out of them.

As for the NCAA imposing restrictions on the players' gambling, you have to be aware that the NCAA is a control-freak organization. They told people not to talk about the U-Conn situation at the Final Four. In their mind, they want us to believe that all college athletes are students and go to class and never get arrested.

As long as the person is not participating in THAT PARTICULAR GAME, then what difference does it make?

To use the Pete Rose example, as long as he didn't bet on games involving the Reds, then what is the problem? He doesn't have any more control over such a contest than some random guy in Vegas, right?

Nevada - I agree in principle, especially now. However, "back in the day" before the internet, ESPN, etc., a person with insider knowledge over who was injured or had a death in the family and would not play, may certainly have an advantage on the spread, over and under, or runs scored, etc....just sayin.

PS - I'm no Pete Rose fan. Go O's! Boo Big Red Machine!