I agree with almost everything in this opinion piece by Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today:
Plain Talk By Al Neuharth
USA TODAY Founder
More than half of all adults across the USA, about 112 million of us, will bet on the Super Bowl this weekend. Most of the wagers will be illegal. Estimates from noted USA TODAY sports analyst and oddsmaker Danny Sheridan:
More than $8 billion will be bet, most with back-street bookies, offshore, on the Internet, all illegal.
Only between $90 million and $100 million will be bet legally in Nevada.
Laws against betting today are as silly as was the ban on booze before Prohibition ended with the 21st Amendment in 1933.
Legalizing booze means more of us drink in moderation now. I was only 9 when that ban ended, but I remember well the basement or backyard binges on home brew or moonshine by some of my grown-up relatives and neighbors during Prohibition.
My hunch is that if gambling on sports events were out in the open, more of us would bet for fun only. Now, too many recklessly and secretly risk the rent money.
The silliness of betting bans is illustrated when governors, mayors and even university presidents of teams involved in big games now usually publicly announce bets with each other. In some states, that’s not illegal. Same is true of office pools if the organizer doesn’t take a cut.
Politicians in Nevada take a bite for the state on all legal gambling. If Super Bowl betting there is around $100 million, the state tax take could be more than$1 million.
Back to the Super Bowl game itself: I agree with Sheridan that Indianapolis will win, even though I went against his oddsmaker’s advice and properly picked Florida to upset Ohio State in the BCS title game.
—————————–
Laws that are so widely violated and blatantly ignored do not make sense to have. History (and economics) tells us that it is typically better to use the price mechanism in the form of legalization with taxes to alter people’s behavior when that is society’s desired goal. Moralistic arguments against sports betting hold no sway when governments have so broadly institutionalized the lottery. Although the NFL might publicly be against sports betting, much of the popularity of the sport rests on the ability to bet on it.
There are a few things in the Neuharth article I don’t agree with.
First, legalization of gambling would almost certainly lead to an increase in the number of people who lose the rent money, just as more people die from smoking today than would be the case if we made tobacco illegal.
Second, I don’t understand why Neuharth and everyone else thinks Indianapolis is such a favorite to win the Super Bowl. Indianapolis is favored by 6.5. A good rule of thumb during the regular season is the spread is equal to half of the gap between the two teams’ point differentials in games so far, adjusted for the home field advantage. During the regular season, Indianapolis outscored its opponents by 67 points. Chicago outscored its opponents by 172 points. During the playoffs both teams outscored their opponents by 28 points (Indy in 3 games, Chicago in 2 games). By this usually reliable rule of thumb, Chicago should be favored by 2 or 3 points.
The answer that people will give, I suppose, is that the Super Bowl is different, whatever that means. For that same reason, the over/under is always much higher than one would expect based on regular season game outcomes. My own view, though, is that forty Super Bowls is too few to know whether the Super Bowl is different or not. Absent a good theory on why the Super Bowl should be different, I think it makes more sense to treat the Super Bowl like it is just another game, at least from a betting perspective.
So I’ve got my money on the Bears and the under.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Laws that are so widely violated and blatantly ignored do not make sense to have
It can be argued that having laws on the books that are widely flouted contributes to a decline in respect for all laws. The same is often said of arbitrarily low speed limits and an excessive number of stop signs, etc.
While I take a libertarian stance on both, I find comparisons between liquor prohibition and gambling prohibition strained at best. Even allowing that both can affect families, the damage done by drunk drivers (for example) has no analog in gambling.
But in the general case I agree. The societal costs of the prohibition of vices are far greater than the costs of the vices themselves. This goes for alcohol, gambling, drugs and prostitution. The amount of money we spend fighting human nature is staggering, and the effects — crime, corruption, etc — are corrosive.
Laws that are so widely violated and blatantly ignored do not make sense to have
It can be argued that having laws on the books that are widely flouted contributes to a decline in respect for all laws. The same is often said of arbitrarily low speed limits and an excessive number of stop signs, etc.
While I take a libertarian stance on both, I find comparisons between liquor prohibition and gambling prohibition strained at best. Even allowing that both can affect families, the damage done by drunk drivers (for example) has no analog in gambling.
But in the general case I agree. The societal costs of the prohibition of vices are far greater than the costs of the vices themselves. This goes for alcohol, gambling, drugs and prostitution. The amount of money we spend fighting human nature is staggering, and the effects — crime, corruption, etc — are corrosive.
Compulsion rests on the assumption of odds being the law. Betting could be against the law and illegal. Even semi/legal, as one may have it.
But betting is compulsive or non-compulsive according to each person’s assumptions on what the odds would turn, motivated by a more complex set of social and psychological factors.
So I’d go with poster Mack above in that societal costs exceed vices as such.
Compulsion rests on the assumption of odds being the law. Betting could be against the law and illegal. Even semi/legal, as one may have it.
But betting is compulsive or non-compulsive according to each person’s assumptions on what the odds would turn, motivated by a more complex set of social and psychological factors.
So I’d go with poster Mack above in that societal costs exceed vices as such.
I think the reason the line is so high is twofold. On one hand, the AFC is much better than the NFC this year. This is evidenced by the 40-24 record of AFC teams vs. NFC teams, and can be seen in the Bears’ 2-2 record vs. AFC teams compared to their 11-1 (regular season) record vs. NFC teams. Because most of the games teams play are within conference, a team in the stronger conference might appear weaker simply because they played better competition.
On the other hand, once a line is set for the Super Bowl, it doesn’t move much, if at all. The bookies learned their lesson from Super Bowl XIII, where the line moved from Steelers -3.5 to -4.5 and the game ended with a 4 point Pittsburgh victory – meaning both Pittsburgh -3.5 (where all the betting was early) and Dallas +4.5 (where all the betting was late) paid out.
This means that a very high 7 point line conceived in the heat of the AFC title game and the perceived AFC dominance might seem excessive after further analysis, but it’s not going to change.
I think the reason the line is so high is twofold. On one hand, the AFC is much better than the NFC this year. This is evidenced by the 40-24 record of AFC teams vs. NFC teams, and can be seen in the Bears’ 2-2 record vs. AFC teams compared to their 11-1 (regular season) record vs. NFC teams. Because most of the games teams play are within conference, a team in the stronger conference might appear weaker simply because they played better competition.
On the other hand, once a line is set for the Super Bowl, it doesn’t move much, if at all. The bookies learned their lesson from Super Bowl XIII, where the line moved from Steelers -3.5 to -4.5 and the game ended with a 4 point Pittsburgh victory – meaning both Pittsburgh -3.5 (where all the betting was early) and Dallas +4.5 (where all the betting was late) paid out.
This means that a very high 7 point line conceived in the heat of the AFC title game and the perceived AFC dominance might seem excessive after further analysis, but it’s not going to change.
Excellent post as always; I just have one thing I disagree with:
First, legalization of gambling would almost certainly lead to an increase in the number of people who lose the rent money, just as more people die from smoking today than would be the case if we made tobacco illegal.
I really don’t see how you can conclude that. In Prohibition, the death rate from alcohol increased; more people are dying from cocaine and heroin overdose now than they were before the War on Drugs. Also, alcohol poisoning is a huge problem among those under 21, who cannot legally drink.
I suspect if you make tobacco or even caffeine illegal, people will simply turn to the black market to get them–and there won’t be the checks on safety levels etc. or the guarantee that you’re actually getting what you paid for.
Excellent post as always; I just have one thing I disagree with:
First, legalization of gambling would almost certainly lead to an increase in the number of people who lose the rent money, just as more people die from smoking today than would be the case if we made tobacco illegal.
I really don’t see how you can conclude that. In Prohibition, the death rate from alcohol increased; more people are dying from cocaine and heroin overdose now than they were before the War on Drugs. Also, alcohol poisoning is a huge problem among those under 21, who cannot legally drink.
I suspect if you make tobacco or even caffeine illegal, people will simply turn to the black market to get them–and there won’t be the checks on safety levels etc. or the guarantee that you’re actually getting what you paid for.