Professional sports make losing bet with gambling partnerships

America's professional sports leagues are making a bad bet.

A hearty embrace of gambling – with gambling companies as sponsors, designated gambling areas at stadiums, the ability to bet within the league-run apps (hello, NBA!) – has created a new major revenue stream that will eventually cost the leagues dearly.

They're headed to a cliff, but are too busy counting money to see it.

Gambling has always been a part of sports. At the dawn of man, two guys raced each other while other members of the communities likely bet on who would win. Gambling endured through time and when pro sports became a major part of American life in the early 20th century, gambling was a shadow partner. But it was in the shadows.

The people who ran sports railed against gambling (at least publicly). Athletes who gambled were suspended. The worst-case scenario for a sports league was the gamblers getting involved and athletes being more interested in ensuring that a bet paid off (by point-shaving or even losing games on purpose) than in winning.

From the 1920 Black Sox scandal in baseball, gambling has been forbidden. The NFL suspended Paul Hornung and Alex Karras for the entire 1963 for gambling. Pete Rose has a lifetime ban from baseball for gambling on the game. It took more than a generation for college basketball to recover from the 1950s point-shaving scandals that rocked the game.

Pro sports kept gambling at a distance. They couldn't deny it was happening, but rules prohibited participation by athletes and coaches.

Then . . .

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that states other than Nevada could have gambling if they chose. The stigma was gone. The FanDuels and DraftKings and BetMGMs of the world emerged. Technology met big money met pro sports.

And sports leagues ultimately embraced gambling. Leagues and teams formed partnerships with gambling sites and apps. ESPN, maybe the most powerful organization in American sports, created ESPN Bet, so it could entice users into betting on games without leaving the website.

The biggest problem is that sports leagues can no longer criticize gambling because the gambling companies are now their partners. Leagues and teams encourage gambling. They want you to gamble.

What happened? Well, at least 10 NFL players were suspended last year for gambling, a statistic that should be shocking. A few weeks ago, Jontay Porter, a player for the NBA's Toronto Raptors, was handed a lifetime suspension for his role in a gambling scandal. The interpreter and friend of baseball's greatest player, Shohei Ohtani, stands accused of stealing more than $16 million from Ohtani to cover his gambling losses.

The sports leagues can only say they're shocked – shocked! – that this is happening.

They can't say gambling is bad, because that's bad for business.

Sometime soon, sports will be rocked by a huge gambling scandal. It won't be like Ohtani's, where the star player apparently was unaware of his friend's stealing his money. It won't be like Porter, who is a largely unknown player. It won't be like the 10 suspended NFL players last year, who were largely overlooked (including by ESPN, which wants to remind you that you can bet on that next game!).

Public, legal gambling is (probably unfortunately) here to stay. Athletes would gamble regardless.

But pro sports' embrace of gambling is the problem.

We'll sometime soon see a scandal that is bigger than what we've seen so far. We'll have a scandal that brings into question the integrity of the game.

But the leaders of major league baseball, the NFL, the NBA or the NHL will be left to shake their heads, while being unable to condemn the action while being interviewed on the DraftKings postgame show with a huge BetMGM banner behind them.

When pro sports got in bed with the gambling industry, it eliminated its ability to criticize gambling. That ensured problems.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Meet the beetles, the world's most successful insects

There's a lot we can learn from beetles.

Of course, we can learn that the love you take is equal to the love you take. (Although that was something we could learn from a Beatle – in this case, Paul McCartney, who wrote "The End").

We could also learn that life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friend. (Although that was from two Beatles, McCartney and John Lennon, who collaborated on "We Can Work It Out.")

But we can learn from beetles, too. We can learn from those little bugs that survived two mass extinctions.

Two. Mass. Extinctions.

How do they do it? Well, for starters, they thrive even though for one stage of life, they're called pupa.

Pupa!

Having an easy-to-make-fun-of name probably makes you tougher. NFL players Dick Butkus and Harry Colon were tough, probably due to having unfortunate names. It's probable that other insects make fun of beetles in the pupa stage because . . . that stage has a funny name. And still, beetles get the last laugh on insects. Actually, on all animals.

Did you know that of the world's estimated 1 million insect species, 400,000 (40%) are beetles species?

Even more dramatic: About 25% of all animal species are beetles. In other words, beetles comprise the same percentage of all animal species that George Harrison made up of the Beatles.

Think about that the next time you look at the floor and see it needs sweeping while your guitar gently weeps. (Although that's the word of a Beatle – in this case, the aforementioned Harrison).

How did that happen? (The breadth of beetles species, not Beatles thoughts sneaking into this column.)

Scientists aren't sure.

I assume most scientists get sidetracked by thinking of the rock band from Liverpool rather than the insect when they hear the word "beetle." I presume they joke that the insects will live in strawberry fields forever and can be found here, there and everywhere. I assume that the scientists then begin laughing uncontrollably.

But once they get a chance to think deeper, they're unsure.

“We don’t know the precise answer,” says Carolyn Chaboo, an entomologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln in an article in Knowable Magazine about the magnitude of beetles species.

We just know that beetles have shown a remarkable ability to adapt, a challenge they continue to face during this period of human dominance. Beetles survive and advance, like a feisty college basketball team in the NCAA tournament. They outlive their competitors, like McCartney and Ringo Starr have done. In a world where we talk about humans at the top of the food chain and wonder at the diversity of animal life, there is one animal still doing well after all these years.

One day, it's possible the beetles will reflect on the words of the only Beatle I haven't quoted yet and say, "Now you're expecting me to live without you, but that's not something that I'm lookin' forward to."

Of course, it's Ringo Starr's "Photograph," but it might as well be a literal beetle.

The Beatles are the most successful rock band in history and the beetles are the most successful species-creator in history. Imagine how they endured two mass extinction events and continued to thrive.

They took a sad song and made it better.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Driving in Hawaii brings renewed appreciation for GPS navigation

We love to knock technology. To complain that social media is making us all cultivate images. Or to say that emojis are killing actual language or that constant access to information makes us slaves to the moment. We love to state that an overabundance of data makes it difficult to know the truth.

It seems terrible and begs the question of whether there's anything that's made better by technology.

In addition to the obvious answer (Yes. Almost everything is better: Imagine having to turn on a radio to hear music or doing all your banking in person or having to talk to someone on the phone when you just need a quick "OK" from them), allow me to point out my favorite technological tool.

GPS navigation.

The mobile mapping software in your phone (and maybe in your car) is a miracle. It's how we all get around without old-timey directions ("Turn off Village Drive at the white picket fence" was included in the standard directions to find our Suisun City house for more than two decades.)

The beauty of GPS was brought home when Mrs. Brad and I visited Hawaii.

Hawaii is paradise. It's 80 degrees every day. It's a wonderland.

But it's confusing to navigate

Of course, almost every unfamiliar area is difficult to navigate. Try going to Southern California or Seattle or Boise or Vacaville and driving around. It's not easy (especially Vacaville, with different onramps and offramps depending on which direction you're headed on Interstate 80).

But Hawaii? Much harder, even than Vacaville.

For starters, there are just 13 letters in the Hawaiian alphabet. Secondly, Hawaiian words are different. There are few Ohio Streets or Travis Boulevards in Hawaii. You know what there are a lot of? Street and city names that seem similar (again, just 13 letters!), with a lot of vowels.

When you're driving, you see Ka'la'aa Street next to Ka'la'ea Street next to La'ka'ea Street next to La'la'ea Street.

Residents can tell the difference. I can't.

Which is why GPS is so great. On our recent trip, we got our rental car, punched in our address (on Ha'le'iwa Road) and followed directions. The GPS told us when to turn. We didn't have to read road signs and discern the differences.

Back in the day, it was different. We bought paper maps and navigated by sight. If this were 40 years ago, I would have told Mrs. Brad, "OK, we just passed Ka'la'ea Street . . . or was that La'ka'ea? If it's the K one, we go three more blocks and turn on . . . Wait a second . . . where we turn is a long word that starts with M."

She would demand better answers. I'd be unable to deliver. We'd fight. I'd say something unfortunate about how stupid I find Hawaiian words. We'd ultimately find the place, but only after being angry at the sign-makers, the Hawaiian language and each other.

Now? We punch in the address and obey.

I still can read maps, so if there's an apocalypse and the GPS systems go down, I'll have a marketable skill – if paper maps still exist. I'll regale survivors with tales of Rand McNally atlases and Thompson Street Guides as I find landmarks and tell them when to turn.

But that seems unlikely. Instead, for the rest of my life, I'll be grateful for GPS navigation.

Especially in Hawaii, where G and S are not part of the alphabet.

Thirteen letters!

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

 

Want to seem younger? Turn on the closed captioning on your TV

If you've ever complained about the sound on movies or TV shows – that the dialogue is too soft or the actors' accents make it difficult to understand them – I've got good news.

You're not old. In fact, trouble hearing characters may be a sign that you're youthful.

Yes!

A survey by research and analytics company YouGov last year revealed this stunning fact: The younger you are, the more likely you are to use subtitles while watching a film on Netflix or Amazon or Max or wherever you watch TV (or movies). Younger people use subtitles the most!

YouGov surveyed 1,000 adults and found that people aged 18 to 29 used subtitles 63% of the time while watching shows in their native language. And the older you get, the less likely you are to use subtitles: Those aged 30 to 44 use subtitles 37% of the time, those aged 45 to 64 use them 29% of the time and those 65 and older use them 30% of the time.

It's a downward slope when comparing use to age, which leads to three possible conclusions:

1. Young people aren't worried that their spouse will think they have a hearing problem if they use subtitles.
2. Young people are smarter.
3. The older you get, the less likely you are to know how to turn on subtitles or even be aware that such an option exists.

I don't know about you, but this brings me comfort. While Mrs. Brad and I occasionally use subtitles, it's often on shows where the English is spoken with an accent (I'm looking at you, Great Britain. Not only do you talk funny, but you have a lot of variations, making it complicated for me to understand what you're bloody talkin' about, Nigel!).

However, the explosion of content (the number of TV shows and movies produced annually has exploded during the streaming era, likely leading to a decrease in quality control) and stylistic changes in movies led to two things that irritate this aging baby boomer.

The first is that many shows or movies need better sound mixing. For example, there's often background music that's so loud, it drowns out the dialogue. Somebody didn't do their job!

The second factor is the emergence of actors who mumble their lines. Maybe it's a great affectation if you're an actor ("my character lacks confidence and therefore mumbles"), but it's terrible for the audience, who can't understand what you're saying.

Except those 25-year-olds, who confidently turned on the close captioning so they could follow the plot.

All I know is that I'm in the group that uses subtitles less than the youngsters, but this makes me more likely use the function, even when the show isn't some Brit mumbling about a "dipper in Walham Green."

The next time Mrs. Brad (who won't likely see this column) asks why I want to turn on the subtitles, I'll explain that the actors are mumbling, the accents are hard to understand and that I'm "adulting" like the 25-year-olds who complain about how my generation ruined the world while they use subtitles to watch ancient shows like "The Big Bang Theory."

It's good to seem young, isn't it? What? Can you turn on the closed captioning while speaking? I'm not deaf, I'm youthful!

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.