I think it's a tragedy to see so many college athletes involved in gambling situations. It's tough for athletes too, because they don't get paid to play, so it's hard to hold out for thousands of dollars to win for just a few, in point-shaving cases. While I was watching that movie "Blue Chips," which is about illegal college betting and buying athletes to come to school, there was a scene involving the coach and the point guard regarding a point-shaving incident three years ago. After the student was harassed by the coach, he finally confessed, saying, “We won the game, we just didn't beat the spread. It's only for those gamblers anyway.” He's right in what he said, but that's not the point. Many young athletes see point shaving as participating in an illegal and illegal event or don't believe much in it, morally. So people say if college players got paid, none of this would happen. I don't know if giving the players a salary will put an end to this because unless you pay the athletes thousands of dollars a week or per game, the salary will not be more than what they are offered. I think it might help, but I'm not sure that help will make a big enough difference. Likewise, if you eliminate spreads, you can be sure that it will make a difference when it comes to gambling. Don't get me wrong, eliminating spreads would reduce the number of point-scoring incidents, but it wouldn't necessarily stop them. Bookmakers can create their own spreads and ask players to reduce points regardless of whether the spread is not advertised. The bookmaker has an idea of ​​how much one team can beat another. I understand they will probably never "eliminate collegiate gambling" but they are trying to limit and reduce it and I agree too. Unfortunately there is the big problem of politicians and their campaign for funds and it will be difficult to control that too. I can understand why Congress isn't closing the Nevada loophole or at least delaying it, but I still disagree.