I've only ever seen or heard the DOJ mentioned once and that was in Tom's interview. Maybe he WANTS the DOJ to get involved since he claims that the investigation might have been illegal.
What was the DOJ doing in Iowa? -Tom Brands
- Thread starter AndEEss
- Start date
He hasn’t yet mentioned Jack-booted Thugs or Black Helicopters - maybe that’s in the next PC
Are UNI, Drake considered public institutions funded by the state? I am ignorant of how Iowa does this. If not, that could be an important distinction wrt the investigation.
Yes. I can’t put my finger on it, but yes. I want to dislike him but I know listening to him over beers (or white claws) would be great.
Tom is kinda the everyman of wrestling coaches/dads. Passionate, speaks his mind, love for his kids. Plenty to identify with and appreciate. Then again, that kinda also makes him the Willie Loman of wrestling too--so jealous, impotent, and ultimately, tragically unsuccessful (to his own standard).
Last edited:
Tom, how many years would you prefer your wrestlers stay in the program?Can you score 7? (prior to 3 pt take down).
He should say whatever he wants so we can mock him.
UNI is also pubic. Why no women being checked? Why only certain sports? The law was certainly not equally applied here. There will certainly end up being a big civil court settlement at some point. The directive being given to only check for people who happen to be males who play certain sports at certain institutions seems like probably more personal than normal practice.
Any volunteers?
That particular typo can get a lot of people in trouble. I've seen it first hand...
@James P. Whitters III Is the Iowa AG a UNI grad?
Thanks for the Willy Loman reference. I will have to re-visit Death of a Salesman. I love this Board for the variety of references thrown out there.
Asking seriously, not to be snarky, because I haven't followed this closely enough to know. Do we know that there was a explicit "directive" to only check for males and only in certain sports at certain schools? Or is it that they only found violations in those areas?
Ah, it is w/ a "y" isn't it? Must've been thinking about our head recruiter. . . . I love me some Arthur Miller.
You made some good points here and i don't agree with you much. Absolute B.S. what happend.
I recently brought up the fact that no women were targeted. I was met with a response of "Women don't gamble" LMAO.
Cherry picking all around.
Do you know any females, ages 18 - 23 years old? If so, ask them if they know any college age females that have an on-line sports betting account that they use. I have two girls that just recently graduated and neither of them know any girls that bet on sports.
Last edited:
Well, that sucks. Other than the entertainment factor of watching the current hand-wringing from Iowa wrestling fans, this was handled pretty much very poorly by everyone.
With the disclaimer that I too have not been following too closely: I get that it can seem like certain sports/universities were explicitly targeted, but could it not also have been the result of some sort of tip or something? If the police get a tip that someone in a particular home is dealing drugs, they might seek warrants and whatnot to search or surveil that house. They're not likely to go door to door in that neighborhood to see if anyone else was also dealing drugs, right? Or is that a bad analogy?
We don’t know you’re asking the wrong people .
The ROI for the state to sift through the female athletes was probably determined to be very low. Sometimes its not a conspiracy, just Occam's razor.
If you really want, maybe we could talk to the State of Iowa and have them reopen the investigation and check out the betting records of the Iowa women's basketball team players. Since they didn't go after females originally, I think that would only be fair.
You should be counting your lucky stars that the state of Iowa was lenient on the only championship caliber team. The state knew the targeted sports had zero chance of winning anything consequential and gave them the hammer.
it’s clear … quite clear that young woman now gamble on sports more than ever before.
If one listens to the press conference; brands mentions 56 percent of students bet on sports or some such stat . He is referencing studies done by the NCAA .
He also mentioned they still have 2 appeals left. Atleast that is how I heard it. I for one hope they win one one of those appeals . Sounded like he had the backing of his administration as well.
The kids need to be punished but full year suspensions is absurd , a shame on Assad for playing the victim in his media talk . I can partially blame the coach for that but not much else.
Stating the obvious, brands knows more than he is saying . He is in the meetings discussions that we are not .
If the NCAA really cared about gambling and quote un quote the integrity of college sports I could only imagine the number of athletes that would be banned for a year or more under the current rules if the universities just used the data they already had available to the them.. ie electronic data gathered by all those key strokes one uses when connected to someone elses network . The playing fields and mats would be sparse
Bottom line is there has always been selective prosecution of the law. The Iowa and ISU male athletes got caught and now have to live with the punishment. They are all told the rules.
The defense of everybody else is speeding while you are pulled over by the state trooper sitting in your red sports car isn't going to cut it.
Lots of people cheat on their taxes, only a few get prosecuted, and often they have something in common.
The defense of everybody else is speeding while you are pulled over by the state trooper sitting in your red sports car isn't going to cut it.
Lots of people cheat on their taxes, only a few get prosecuted, and often they have something in common.
Where did this info come from?
not being shitty but am not following closely enough to have seen where the details have come from.
Right. Selective prosecution sounds good to conspiracy theorists but it's next to impossible to prove in practice. b/c plaintiffs have to show discriminatory intent, which can't be inferred merely by the fact that you were charged and someone identically situated wasn't. AGs and DAs don't document their biases in, say, emails. Whenever I see someone cite selective prosecution, I know they have no actual defense.
Specific sports were not targeted. Football, baseball, basketball and wrestling were all pinched. From what I read online a few weeks ago is the STATE of IOWA has some specific gambling laws that triggered the investigation.
I guess you could say Franklin threw some assistants under the bus. Some of them should have been thrown on the bus. When was the last time PSU football had the best assistants? Manny Diaz was not thrown under the bus. When we do get top assistants the SEC poaches them. Alabama, LSU and MissSt have poached our assistants. It would be great if PSU could go out and buy an SEC OC. Georgia has three times the recruiting budget and probably pays coaches a lot more too.
PS. I believe Cael is the highest paid wrestling coach. He probably spends the most on recruiting too. Do you think PSU football should follow that blueprint?
