Not sure what Tony Romo really means but I suspect he is differentiating between before and after the league's endorsement. There was no 'expectation' of how players performed, points scored per quarter, etc. in the past. Gamblers simply betted on outcomes they hoped would happen.Is Romo insinuating that the refs are in on the gambling racket? Is he saying the game is rigged?
Exactly and way hotter,even now.didn't people crap on us for having Jessica (who was hotter at the time) at the games?
"Gambling interests" have been anathema to the NFL - and most other organized sports (except for horse-racing) - for over a century. Athletes & other figures were summarily given the sporting equivalent of the death penalty for being anywhere near it.“Gambling interest” in deference to NFL football have existed for over 100 years, without any input from the League. Better to be directly involved than to find your league adversely affected by gambling interests in which you have no involvement.
You kinda said what what Romo was saying but then took it a bit too far down the conspiracy headlines lane which is what the article's title intended for clicks, IMO. Romo's actual quote was basically saying that now people might bet on his commentary and "affect their lives" by what he says whereas before he could just spitball on a team's strategy without thinking about betting lines, etc. Romo was saying it feels less pure TO HIM in commentating in how his words have an effect, not that the league is less pure or that results could be manipulated somehow, etc. That's what the article would like to stir up and it has to their intended targets.Not sure what Tony Romo really means but I suspect he is differentiating between before and after the league's endorsement. There was no 'expectation' of how players performed, points scored per quarter, etc. in the past. Gamblers simply betted on outcomes they hoped would happen.
That perception changed after the NFL basically said its association with gambling was okay. Example. Now, Romo can say he expects Tony Pollard should have his best rushing effort of the year against the Commanders. He may feel his words make the league less pure by gamblers taking his words as a sign that Pollard would definitely rush for more yards than he had against any other opponent all season long and place bets accordingly.
Then the opposite happens and gamblers, who are also fans, start perceiving the league manipulating what 'should' happen. Fans start seeing the game less AS a game and more like scripted entertainment like professional wrestling--except, in this case, betting on the game directly and intentionally hurt them financially. That would make the league look less spontaneously innocent and more engineered to some fans' detriment. Not exactly the right look for a supposed game to maintain.
Cool.You kinda said what what Romo was saying but then took it a bit too far down the conspiracy headlines lane which is what the article's title intended for clicks, IMO. Romo's actual quote was basically saying that now people might bet on his commentary and "affect their lives" by what he says whereas before he could just spitball on a team's strategy without thinking about betting lines, etc. Romo was saying it feels less pure TO HIM in commentating in how his words have an effect, not that the league is less pure or that results could be manipulated somehow, etc. That's what the article would like to stir up and it has to their intended targets.
Right lol lolSo we can expect a sports betting commercial from him soon?
Plus...Dez caught that ball.His bobbled snap in the 2006 playoffs was the ultimate Vegas move. Dude knows….
I don't think so.Is Romo insinuating that the refs are in on the gambling racket? Is he saying the game is rigged?
Except Jessica was way better lookingShe's the chiefs version of Jessica Simpson.
How so? She was on screen for 24 seconds during the last game.ill tell you what has made the NFL less pure - Taylor Swift.
It was a joke dude...How so? She was on screen for 24 seconds during the last game.