Taking Issue with Nick Douglas

[Nick Douglas]

marine,

First of all, sports and public policy are two entirely different topics. In sports you are talking about 30 teams, in public policy you are talking about 260 million people.

Secondly, what the NFL does is in many ways on the level of communism. Everyone gets the same year in and year out no matter how poorly they've managed their team in previous years. I may be close to being (but not quite) a socialist, but I am not close to being as far out there as good ol' "Red" Tagliabue.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

***My comments follow:

Every successful major entertainment form is based on building stars. In boxing, movies or pro wrestling it is star people. In team sports it is star teams. Look at any major surge in popularity for any sport throughout the 20th Century and you will find this to be true.
***I agree. But shouldn't MINNESOTA and MILWAUKEE be entitled to create and KEEP their own stars, too? A few years ago it was possible for the Twins to develop and keep Kirby Puckett and the Brewers to do the same with Robin Yount. In today's market, once they hot a certain platitude, they would go off to LARGER MARKETS. This would happen because the MINN, MILW, and so forth can't afford to pay the big salaries. I think it's terrific that smaller market teams can create stars -- the problem is KEEPING them and allowing fans in ALL cities to have the opportunity to watch local stars. That IS NOT LONGER POSSIBLE in baseball. And, that's the problem.


NFL parity is ultimately counterproductive to the making of superstar teams. Forcing teams to be unable to retain their star players and therefore making it nearly impossible for any dominant teams to emerge is unique to the NFL. In every other sport there may be financial realities of the free market which prevent teams from keeping their stars, but the superstar teams all manage to keep their best players. This collection of great players eventually become a great team and a star attraction is born.
***I do not agree with you that parity is bad for a sport. I think it's (generall) a good thing. Having 21 teams still alive for the playoffs in December is good to ratings, attendance, and increases popularity. Of course, there has to be a balance -- the NHL and NBA have gone too far in that they allow sub-500 teams to get inot the playoffs and the NFL is dangerously close to going over the line. But still, to have a wide range of teams in the championship chase is generally good for the sport.


Of course there are problems with a free market system. You will always have that segment of misanthropes who point the finger at wealthy teams and cry about the injustice of it all. But guess what: Life ain't fair.
***Lide isn't fair -- you are right. That is why governing bodies are set up, to organize and create systems in place which help to establish some balance between haves and have nots. Using a political analogy -- if there was no government whatsoever, corporations would be paying workers slave wages, no oevertime, and would be violating safety issues. A system is in place (that essentially works) which guarantees a balance for the greater good of society. But in baseball, a laizze fairre (sp) system makes inequity a huge problem for those in at least half the MLB cities. The greater good is NOT being served, and the plummenting interest in this sport is proof that the system needs to be overhauled.


People always cry and say that the Yankees have an unfair advantage because they play in New York. Do these people even realize that when Steinbrenner bought the team in 1973 he had to pay just to get Yankees games broadcast on the radio? Do they realize that the Yankees were a middling franchise at the time? Steinbrenner had the will to build that team into a winner and he did so. Now they are the marquee attraction in their sport. Everywhere they go they draw crowds.
***No argument here. And, if baseball woudl adapt revenue sharing and salary caps, Steinbrenner would be the first to sue. So, there perhaps is no chance the system will change -- at least until the game becomes so imbalanced that it's only watched in large markets (which is close to happening).


Let's look at the marquee attractions in the other two "competitively unbalanced" sports. The Lakers were drawing less than 13,000 a game to the Forum in the early nineties and had no national TV appearances. They would not be the draw they are today if they were forced to assemble their team under the NFL's more stringent salary cap.
***It doesn't matter that the Lakers were a middle of the road team back in 1990-91. At the time, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and other teams were the marquee teams. What's wonderful about the NBA is that teams can compete in Utah and Portland with teams in NY, CHI, and LA. I don't know how anyone can say this is not good for the sport. The NBA has problems. But competitive balance is not one of them.

The Red Wings have a home grown core with some great players added in. They are dominant now but people may forget how inept they were until Mike Ilitch bought the team in the 90's.
***And if baseball's system were in place for the NHL, none of those players would be playing in Detroit -- they'd high tail it off to LA and NY.


The Yankees were a laughingstock in the mid-to-late eighties and early nineties but built their team from within into a winner.
***I think you are exaggertaing here. The Yankees have never been a laughing stock. Perhaps in the mid 60s when they fielded some bad teams, there were critics. But this organization has never been on the level of other dismal franchises.


Both of those teams would be shedding players rather than adding them each offseason if football's ass-backwards rules were in effect.

You can go down the line to college sports, European soccer and any other major sport. Popular interest in the sport comes from marquee teams playing each other and ancillary interest in other major league matchups feeds off of that. I give the NFL some credit for having the balls to try the formula of making the league the only star and having the teams rotate as second tier stars each year. In my opinion, however, this formula will not succeed over the course of 30 years or more. I believe the public will begin to tire of middling franchises being handed players while great franchises are forcibly brought back to the pack. Only time will tell if I am right.
***Your prediction would be proven by a decline in the NFL's popularity, and an increase (or stable) in baseball's popularity. I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[Nick Douglas]

Nolan, some of your comments are laughable. You bring up the Bulls as draws while the Lakers were down. When is the last time an NFL team won 6 Championships in eight years or even 4 Championships in a decade? The 80's. I don't know if you know this or not, but that was before the NFL had "competitive balance". There is no chance a team like the Bulls could have won 6 Championships under the NFL's rules. They would have lost too many players. Their existence proves *my* point. It is true that the Patriots have two Championships in three seasons, but there is a legitimate chance that they won't even be a playoff team next season.

You also assert that if the NHL had baseball's system that the Red Wings could not be as dominant. That is so rediculous it hardly merits comment. In both the NHL and MLB the size of the market matters, but what matters far more is how management markets their team. These crappy franchises like my beloved Brewers could be winners, but they make mistake after mistake. Their failures are no different than the failure of the New York Rangers, except the Rangers fail on a larger scale.

Your last comment was that my prediction "would be" proven right by a tumble in the NFL's popularity. HELLO! Have you paid any attention to the NFL's television ratings? Have you checked out all the half empty stadiums near a season's end as corporate tickets go unused by apathetic fans?

I freely admit that the NFL's popularity has declined far less than that of the NHL, NBA or MLB. I believe that, unless the salary cap is altered to allow teams to keep their players, the NFL will have a more precipitous slide while the other sports begin to level out.

 

[SixFive]

I think marine made a good point, Nick!


my view is this. I don't like how it sounds on the surface, BUT, I don't think it can be argued that the NFL is the best sport with by far the most parity. Seems like a 40-1 dog or more for preseason superbowl odds is always in the mix. Seems like a good system to me, and in no way is the NFL handicapped since there aren't dynasties! Who cares if there are dynasties, I want competitive games that are fun to bet on and watch even if my money isn't involved!

MLB sucks now, and that is a shame because it once was the Nation's pasttime. Growing up with the Big Red Machine close by I was a huge fan. Now, I'll watch an inning or 2 if the Reds are playing and I'll watch some of the playoffs and Series, and that's it.

I've enjoyed the NHL more and more (since I can go see the Predators anytime and sit below the glass for free ) as seeing it live is a totally different thing than on the TV which had been my only exposure. I'm not sure how the caps work in the NHL, but the sad thing is it sounds like there will at least be a very abbreviated 04-05 NHL season or maybe none at all since the lockout is already almost a certainty. I start enjoying a new sport, and now it's going to be at least partially taken away, and that sucks!

The NBA is still enjoyable too. Thought provoking thread, thanks.

Nick, you need to get back to the heartland, that left coast has severely handicapped your politics!! You are left of Dean now, and you used to not be like that, lol! :tongue

 

[djv]

When I look back at the Yankes from last year. What a team. Had everything and still lost the WS. Now they have A-money at third. Thats funny there third baseman was not so bad. And I here a fellow from ESPN say they ran numbers. And A-money did not hit on the road as well as the yankes third baseman has last two years. A-money is no sure WS win for the yankes. Not in a sport where Pitching means more. You either have pitching and some dam good D or you dont win the WS.

 

[loudog]

It is true that the Patriots have two Championships in three seasons, but there is a legitimate chance that they won't even be a playoff team next season.

How do you figure there's a legimate chance the pats won't be in the playoffs next season? They have more 1st and 2nd round picks than anyone in the leauge, their biggest loss thus far was a mediocre running back, their defense will remain the same, roosevelt colvin coming of injure reserve, and the most winningest qb in his first 3 years...but there's a legitamite chance they won't be in the playoffs?

point is good managment and planning in the off-season can produce good teams year after year in the NFL.

 

[Nick Douglas]

SixFive,

You *can't* be serious. Marine made a good point comparing the economics of a 30 team sports league to the econimics of a 260 million person comment? Apples and oranges, my friend.

I still am as conservative as can be on the issues we've discussed before, but when it comes to taxation, I stay left.

 

[marine]

Nick, Actually the more I think about what I said the more I think it applies.

You are swinging from both sides of the plate in your thinking.

Be it football or sports or the common man. You want parity in one and dyansties in the other.


Compare the NY Yanks and Bill Gates. You want one to flourish and the other to be held down more.

 

[Pujo21]

Nick,
What do you think about the Yankees Riches. Do you think they are buying the World Series?

If your answer is yes, just be prepared for Mr. Hockeys drivel :thefinger .

 

[gman2]

How do you figure there's a legimate chance the pats won't be in the playoffs next season? They have more 1st and 2nd round picks than anyone in the leauge, their biggest loss thus far was a mediocre running back, their defense will remain the same, roosevelt colvin coming of injure reserve, and the most winningest qb in his first 3 years...but there's a legitamite chance they won't be in the playoffs?

point is good managment and planning in the off-season can produce good teams year after year in the NFL.

im not really interested in the original topic of this thread. seems like it could go on forever.

but as for the pats not making the playoffs- its ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. not because new england will regress, but because other teams will improve and sometimes "the ball just doesnt bounce your way" in back to back years

explain how new england goes from "super bowl to out of the playoffs to super bowl again" in 3 straight years

and who would have thought that tampa- after SMASHING the raiders last season in the super bowl- would go from that level of play to a sub .500 record

sometimes, nfl is just weird like that.

its entirely possible new england could sit home next year, and not because i dont think theyre a good team. theyre damn good. but damn good teams have sat home in the past

 

[dawgball]

I think the NFL's success speaks for itself. Baseball continues it's downward trend in popularity across the nation, and I feel that it is due to the way the league is run.

I think it's incredible that a league can be created in today's market where ANY team can be competitive if given 2-3 years to build (with the right management, of course).

 

[Pujo21]

Gman makes good points.

Gman makes good points.

and this seems to bolster Nolans assessment of equity in the NFL.

it would be hard to believe Pats don't make playoffs.. but not impossible these days.

It would also be hard to think the Yankees don't make at least a Wild Card especially with The Yankees financial ability to re-tool in mid-season if necessary.

 

[Nick Douglas]

Marine,

Again, you are giving absolutely no reasoning why comparing a nation of 260 million people to a sports league of 30 teams owned by the richest of the rich are comparable. If you honestly feel that way then you should stick to arguments outside of public policy. Otherwise people with any clue about economics will laugh you out the door.

 

[bjfinste]

It is very much possible the Pats won't make the playoffs. Of course, they could win the whole damn thing again, too. That's the beauty of football.

Like Gman said, a big factor that could see the Pats not making the playoffs is the bounces. To steal a line from Al Pacino in "Any Given Sunday":

"Llife's this game of inches, and so is football. Because in either game - life or football - the margin for error is so small. I mean, one half a step too late or too early and you don't quite make it. One half second too slow, too fast and you don't quite catch it.... Because we know when add up all those inches, that's gonna make the f'king difference between winning and losing!"

 

[madjack sr]

Re: Taking Issue with Nick Douglas

First, let me say that I respect Nick Douglas' ideas and work ethic. Anyone who puts forth a consistent point-of-view and backs it up deserves to be commended. That said, I take serious issue with what Nick Douglas wrote in his recent report about the Alex Rodriguez trade and the latest transgression of imbalance in major league baseball. Nick Douglas, and others can chime in, if they wish. Note that my comments will be prefaced by astricks:

DOUGLAS' COMMENTS BEGIN: hey Nolan sorry but this is not about baseball lol... I was glad to see ya at the Party ,, and your wife...needless too say ,, is a doll Bring her when ever you do it again!! I just wanted too ask you ,, Tell me ,,, what exactly do you think of ,,, Party Poker ?? thanks babe ,, jack sr.

The Alex Rodriguez trade is being touted as being bad for baseball by many folks. The most common argument is how baseball?s unlevel financial playing field makes it unfair for lower revenue teams.
***This is a fact. I don't think, even you, will deny this.


In the NFL, critics say, the hard salary cap allows every team to compete because every team?s salary structure must be very similar. Personlly, I find that argument to be poppycock.
***Why? Can you imagine a Green Bay baseball team competing with the Yankees? THE BFL "got it right" when Pete Rozzell and Tex Schram designed the revenue sharing agreements in the 1960s. Furthermore, the cap ensures that the players will not totally run roughshod over this league, as they have done in the NHL and MLB. Keep in mind that in the NHL, player salaries account for 75 percent of the grss receipts. SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT! It's damn near impossible to make money in that sport as an owner, unless you own a big market team -- and even that is difficult. The comment you made is that "every team (can) compete) becasue the salary structure is similar." That's not "poppycock." That's very much a true statement, particularly if you contrast the NFL's policy versus that of MLB.


The NFL?s structure has produced good popularity for the game, but I am unconvinced that the NFL?s popularity is any greater than it would be if its competitive balance resembled baseball?s.
***You are GROSSLY underestimating the popularity of the NFL, versus baseball. The NFL is a truly "national" pastime, whereas baseball has been reduced to regional game. For example, 30 million sports fans will watch Green Bay play Oakland, despite the fact that most of them live no where close to those cities. In baseball, of Oakland plays the Brewers, no one outside those two cities, other than gamblers gives a damn. That's why NBC's "Game of the Week" and "Monday Night Baseball" were dismal failures. Unlike football, fans in other cities don't really care much about other teams. While every American male watches MNF, very few people watch basebal by comparison. One of the main reasons is the financial structure of the NFL, which allows all teams to compete.


The NFL is handicapped every year by the fact that there are no marquee teams anymore.
***You see the glass half-empty and I see it half-full. There was building resentment agaisnt the game at times when the Steelers, Cowboys, and 49ers seemed to be going through their respective dynasties. I recall lots of fan sentiment rooting AGAINST these teams, becasue they were always one TV and always in the playoffs. If there was a "super team" in the NFL on par with the Yankees, that would hurt the game of football. Just about every NFL game is a sellout (except in Phoenix) largely becasue at the start of each season, EVERY team has hope they can be the Cinderella story. I don't think marguee teams do much for the game's popularity. Hoever, marquee "players: do -- as we have seen with the retirement of Dr J, Jordan, Johnson, and Bird. The NBA is not the same league with those stars gone.


Even when a matchup like Patriots vs. Dolphins happens (success vs. superstars) its hardly the kind of must-see game that will draw large national interest.
***MNF ratings were higher than Major League Baseball's playoff games -- that's been the case for over a decade. I recall the ultimate humiliation for baseball when two seasons ago the 0-5 Dallas Cowboys played the 0-5 Washington Redskins, and that woeful MNF game outdrew the ALCS game on the opposite channel. That was big news at the time. So, what you are saying about key NFL matchups is not true. Most, if not all NFL games, garner national interst (I attribute much of this to gambling -- but that's another issue).


It is true that the playoffs and Super Bowl draw interest, but ask heavyweight boxing what a thin rope you walk when you rely on the championship to be the draw rather than the star.
***NFL regular season games saw a slight decline in ratings over the past ten years. By comparison, major league baseball games have fallen off the chart. Some of this is due to many more cable choices now than 15-20 years ago. But football has not lost nearly as many fans as football. The World Series of Baseball has struggled with ratings in recent years, also. By contrast, the Super Bowl holds 9 out of the top 10 spots on the all time TV ratings list.


In baseball, not only is the World Series a draw, but superstar teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs are draws as well.
***All of these teams are coming off huge seasons, so your comment is well-timed. But let's look at these teams in a larger time span. The Cubs have been a dismal franchise for decades and do not draw significant ratings, despite being linked to WGN with national cable presence. I don't know anyone who watches the Cubs games, unless they have money on the game (surely, Chicago is the exception). The Red Sox are a big draw in New England, but they get little or no interest beyond that region of the country. I agree that the Yankees are a big draw whereever they play and are shown, in part because of large expatriot New Yorkers living in other regions of the country.


It is true that middling franchises like my beloved Brewers sometimes pay the price. An incompetent franchise can stay bad for a period of a decade or more rather than having great players fall into its lap like the Bengals or Falcons of the NFL do. It is unforntuate for those teams, but for the sport as a whole, this situation is a healthy one.
***I don't know how you can say basebal is healthy, when 1/3 of the teams can't compete. Another third have NO MARGIN for error -- everything must go perfect for them to win. Then, there are the other third who have the money and resources. Then, there are the Yankees in the superclass of teams, which could lose half their pitching and roster and would still be a favorite to win the division (they'd quickly make up for deficiencies through trades -- where no other teams can do that). About 5-6 years ago, the Yankess were to be commended for being a TEAM, of mostly home grown athletes. I actually liked and admired this team. But they abandoned that philopsophy and are now back to "buying championships."


There will be plenty of other contending teams besides the Yankees and Red Sox this season.
***I would not say "plenty." There are the Yankees, then a subclass of decent teams which includes Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Florida, San Franciscio, and Anaheim. The rest of the teams have NO MARGIN for error, and are longshots. Contrast this with the NFL, where probably 20 teams could potentially win the Super Bowl next season.


And, believe it or not, both teams have legitimate holes that could prevent either from even reaching the playoffs or World Series. Other teams? quest to exploit those holes and topple the Goliaths of baseball will be what makes the 2004 baseball season so much fun.
***I don't think it's fun to watch any game where my team is at a consistent DIS-ADVANTAGE. I agree that every new season brings optimism. But the anger factor towards baseball -- both players and owners -- has reached epidemic proportions. I don't think it's "fun" to be a fan of the Indians and have to watch your entire roster shipped off to New York and Boston every season. Free agency has killed this game ( irealize the courts made that horrendous decision to allow players to pimp themselves to th highest bidder every season). That would be bad enough to kill fan loyalty, but to add the fact of the horrific team imbalance, creates an hierachy that makes the sport NON-COMPETITIVE. Pretty soon, it's going to be like watching Harlem Globtrotter games.


***One more point -- when both New York teams played in the World Series (two big market marquee teams) back a few years ago, that was the LOWEST rated WS telecast of all-time. So, most fans DO NOT want to see dynasty teams and the big money makers getting all the victories and titles.


I'm sure you will have some feedback, and I look forward to it.


-- Nolan Dalla

 

[ocelot]

Give me the NFL system anyday. I would like to see a little more continuity from year to year as far as team personnel go but that may be some of the price one has to pay when there is a meaningful salary cap system being used.

NFL parity is great as far as I'm concerned and I couldn't care less about baseball. The only time I followed it was when I had a rotisserie team and then I only followed my players. Its not based on any realistic competitive model. It's simply incompetent the way the owners have managed the product. I can't understand why they are even still in business. If I were Steinbrenner I would much rather compete and win in a fair league than win every year in an unfair league. But then George doesn't really care about baseball. Incidentally, how did he make all his money anyway?

 

[THE KOD]

Incidentally, how did he make all his money anyway?

........................................................................

He is complicated. He is temperamental. He is contradictory. Many people have differing opinions when it comes to Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, probably as differing as his moods. Love him or hate him, Steinbrenner didn't get to where he is today by chance.

His "Yankee" status revealed even by his birth date, George Michael Steinbrenner III was born July 4th, 1930, in Rocky River, Ohio. Before becoming owner and chief operating officer of the American Shipbuilding Company, Steinbrenner was an assistant football coach at Northwestern and Purdue.

Working in the family business, Steinbrenner earned his fortune by heading the Cleveland-based American Shipbuilding Company.

In 1973, he became the principal owner of what is considered the best baseball team in the league: the New York Yankees. Despite the fact that Steinbrenner knew nothing about baseball at the time, the investor group that Steinbrenner assembled bought the team from CBS.

His time with the Yankees has been marked by controversy, disagreements and success. As club president from 1979 to 1990, Steinbrenner believed in the pursuit of free agent players as the key to filling up the stadium's seats, and it was this pursuit that led to the Yankees' World Series win in 1979.

Steinbrenner was eventually suspended from the sport from 1990 until 1992 for his negative behavior. One of the promises the Boss made upon purchasing the team was that he would not meddle too much in the goings-on of the team. For better or for worse, that was not a well-kept promise.

In 1993, he returned to head the team and has since been involved in talks about whether or not to relocate Yankee Stadium, as well as refusing offers to sell the team. Steinbrenner tried to groom one of his sons to take over the baseball "family business", but that plan failed after his son and son-in-law quit the team.

Still, another son and son-in-law do work for the Yankees, but the question remains whether or not Steinbrenner, who has been the boss for 27 years, will step down.

Known for his fondness of firing managers and players whenever a controversy arises (he has fired at least 17 managers in his day), NBC sitcoms Saturday Night Live and Seinfeld have poked fun at the moody team owner.

Steinbrenner was even involved in political controversy when he illegally participated in President Nixon's campaign for presidency.

Although Steinbrenner is seen as unpredictable and spontaneous, he does in fact do a lot of research, and his decision-making is not as spur-of-the-moment as it seems.

Whatever he does, this business man with boundless energy and a penchant for controversy is still heading the most valuable American sports franchise, and after 27 years, he's still going strong.

 

[beantownjim]

NICK I DONT KNOW IF THE GREEK SENDS YOU A KICK BACK TO BRING HIM IN NEW CUSTOMERS BUT YOU ARE WAY OFF BASE ON THIS ONE.THE GREEK SUCKS I KNOW YOU BET A LOT OF HOCKEY GAMES JUST GIVE ME ONE REASON WHY YOU WOULD PLAY AT OLYMPIC RATHER THAN PINNACLE.GREEK GIVES YOU 20 CENT HOCKEY LINES PINNACLE GIVES YOU 10 CENT LINES ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE YET YOU CONTINUE TO PUSH THE GREEK DOWN OUR THROATS.OLYPIC SUCKS COMPARED TO OTHER BOOKS TAKE A LOOK AT PINNACLES HOCKEY LINES THEN LOOK AT THE GREEKS NICKY BOY AND TELL US HOW SMART YOU ARE FOR PLAYING AT OLYMPIC RATHER THAN PINNACLE:shrug: WHAT THE F-CK IS THE MATTER WITH THIS NIT WIT NICK DOUGLAS DOES HE ENJOY BEING GOUGED BY THE GREEK.EVERYTHING IS 20 CENTS AT THE GREEKS I MYSELF LIKE THE 10 CENT STORES

NICK DOUGLAS ALWAYS SLEEP WITH YOUR HANDS ABOVE THE COVERS THIS WAY YOU WONT BE TEMPET TO TOUCH SPIROS WEINER

 

[beantownjim]

NICK HOW DO YOU LIKE THESE NUMBERS TONIGHT I DIDNT EVEN CHECK THE TOTALS THE GREEK HAS 20 CENT TOTALS AND PINNACLE USES 10 CENTS I JUST CANT AGREE WITH YOU NICK ABOUT THE CROOKS AND GOUGES AT OLYMPIC.YOU TELL ME WHERE THE SMART BETTORS PLAY NICK LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS TONIGHT IN HOCKEY

OLYMPIC LINES (DETROIT -150 CALGARY +130)
OLYMPIC LINES (VANCOUVER -140 SAN JOSE +120)

NICE NUMBERS NICK NOW LOOK AT WHAT PINNACLE HAS THE SAME GAMES AT AND TELL ME THE GREEK DOESNT GOUGE HIS PLAYERS YOU FOOL.

PINNACLE (DETROIT -140 CALGARY +130)
PINNACLE (VANCOUVER -140 SAN JOSE +130)

WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD ANYBODY PLAY AT OLMPIC SPORTSBOOK THEY GOUGE YOU ON EVERY GAME WITH 20 CENT LINES AND OFF COURSE MR. KNOW IT ALL NICK DOUGLAS CANT SEE IT.BE CAREFULL OF NICK HE HAS TO BE ON OLYPICS PAYROLL WHY ELSE COULD HE ENDORSE SUCH BLATENT GOUGING:thefinger

 

[beantownjim]

NICK I SEE YOU ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE WOULD YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON THESE LINES TONIGHT.HOW YOU CAN ENDORSE A KNOWN GOUGING SPORTSBOOK LIKE OLYMPIC I WILL NEVER KNOW