Is Nevada being hypocritical by disallowing betting on its own college sports?
The ban, in effect for 50 years, dates back to a time when Nevada was a much-less-populated place, and the fear was that insider information or undue pressure from high-stakes gamblers might influence the athletes.
Now that some congressmen have been making noise about a federal law against all collegiate sports betting, some critics have suggested Nevada's leaders are talking out of both sides of their mouths. It's OK to bet on other college athletes, they say, but not your own?
Frankly, this argument is a bit specious. Nevada pioneered gambling regulations, and at the time this particular rule went into effect there was no other legal gambling in the nation.
There remains no legal gambling on college sports outside of Nevada. So who's to say if every state allowed such betting, it wouldn't be a good idea to outlaw wagers in the home state? But nobody is suggesting that every state legalize college-sports betting. They only want to outlaw Nevada's.
We must point out that there are laws against point-shaving and other ways of trying to influence the outcome of a sporting event. The argument still holds true: Enforce the laws that already are on the books.
Regardless of what the future holds nationally, Gov. Kenny Guinn has floated the idea of dropping Nevada's ban on betting on the home teams. If critics think Nevada is being hypocritical, he reasons, then perhaps we should just drop it.
It would be a fitting irony if the national move to restrict collegiate-sports wagering has the effect of opening up Nevada to more gambling.
But Nevada should only make the change if it makes sense for Nevada. Making a decision to alter the state's gaming regulations because of someone else's opinion of them - now, that would be hypocritical.
