EPISODE 179 | LSR Podcast

New York Sports Bettors Need Help


31 min
Video preview

New York Sports Bettors Need Help | LSR Podcast 179

New York has made a lot of money from online sports betting, but help for problem sports bettors and gamblers does not appear to be adequately funded; can that change this year? We also talk about whether athletes under the age of 21 should be able to get endorsement deals from sports, and Bally’s pulls back on its online gambling staffing despite a lot of spending in the sector in recent years.

Full transcript

Matt Brown (00:08):

Hello, and welcome to episode number 179 of the LSR Podcast. My name is Matt Brown, joined each and every week by the brightest minds in all of the gaming industry. With me, I have two of the very best, Adam Candee and Dustin Gouker. You can follow them on the Twitter machine for free, and you should. Just smash the button @DustinGouker, @AdamCandee, two E’s, no Y. If you hate yourself, you can follow me @MattBrownM2. Everything we do, absolutely free. Do appreciate the support, however, in the form of just subscribe, rate, review, and if you’re over on the YouTube, the subscribe button down below also helps out a ton. Really do appreciate that. Give us a thumbs-up also, and let us know in the comments section, is there anything you want us to talk about here on the pod? Because we are taking suggestions. We will talk Massachusetts. We’re going to talk Bally’s. We’ll maybe have just a little discussion at the end just about overall where the industry is as we head here through the first month of 2023. But Dustin, let’s kick things off here, my friend, with New York.

Help for NY problem gamblers

Dustin Gouker (01:05):

Yeah. Interesting stuff coming out of New York around responsible gambling, and this has been an issue we’ve talked about on this podcast, and is going to continue to be an issue in states across the country. But responsible gambling is getting a little bit more of a spotlight in New York. The New York Council on Problem Gambling is calling for increased funding and awareness. And if I’m them, this is a great time to talk about this, when everybody is thinking about it. New York is getting a lot of money from online sports betting. Since its launch, the state famously taxed everything at 51%. Right now, $6 million goes to responsible gambling in the state, and what they’re asking for now is 3% of all tax revenues to go to their operations. For the past year, for instance, that would up the amount given to responsible gambling to $21 million, derived from online sports betting.


The crazy part for me is that they’re not currently able or capable of having a helpline on 24/7. They’re only on 9 to 5. So if that funding is only getting you 9 to 5 coverage on a helpline, you absolutely have to do this. And the other crazy part about this, New York is actually ahead of a lot of states on what it has earmarked for responsible gambling. The fact that it actually said, “This much money goes here,” this is not something a lot of states have done to deal with the influx of perhaps new bettors who are not currently using a regulated sportsbook when they open up online sports betting or casino. So it feels like a good moment to have this conversation, because the regulators in Ohio and Massachusetts are bringing this up. We have the now-infamous New York Times pieces.


This is coming to a head, and you really want to be ahead of responsible gambling. And New York is making so much money from this that earmarking more money for this only really makes sense. And then if we’re doing state hotlines and we’re saying, “Call this number,” and we all know most games in the sports world, other than on weekends, are starting at night, 9:00 to 5:00 isn’t doing anybody any good. If you’re thinking about betting or you’re having a problem at night, you should be able to go to a helpline. This seems like the bare minimum we should be doing, and this bare minimum is really probably not being met in a lot of states as well.

Matt Brown (03:16):

Well, Adam, as we know, the research does show that irresponsible gambling happens the majority of the time between the hours of 9 and 5 on your own business days. We’ve definitely seen the research that definitely during business hours is when the irresponsible gambling happens.

Adam Candee (03:33):

Well, government being government, they think, “All right. Well, this is when we’re open. Well, the government is open 9 to 5. This is when we can afford to staff it.” And then that’s what we end up with. Obviously, Matt’s being appropriately tongue-in-cheek about this. And we look at it now and say, “How is it that a state that has the amount of funding that New York does coming out of sports betting is not dedicating the resources that it needs?” And I can understand how, at the jump, maybe, maybe you don’t understand just how big the problem can become if it’s untouched. Michelle Hadden is the assistant executive director for the New York Council on Problem Gambling, and she told our Mike Mazzeo that, “I think we were pretty shocked last year at the amount that was lost and the people that were impacted.” But this really, guys, is the note that got my attention. “We definitely saw an increase in calls to our program and people looking for help, including a lot of moms of college-age students.”


That is the part that needs to be addressed immediately, because that is the part that is getting the most attention nationally right now. We heard about marketing on college campuses. We heard about Barstool’s issues in Massachusetts with hosting the show in Toledo. On and on, we hear about the need to protect those who are underage, and not enough is being done with that. So anyway, whether it’s staffing appropriately with the helpline, whether it is taking more serious action in terms of making sure that college-aged students who are really not at the decision-making point of their life to be doing any of this responsibly are being addressed appropriately.

Matt Brown (05:22):

Adam, I do want to continue on here with you with, a topic that … listen, we’re happy to have legalized gambling in all these states. And we say though, every time something gets done, we can kind of pick at things and go, “I mean, guys, what are we doing here?” Of course, even when New Jersey went live, when they say, “OK, but no New Jersey colleges,” we’re just kind of like, “OK.” I mean, sure. Make them go bet on their hometown team with a bookie. I mean, what are you accomplishing by doing all this stuff? So there’s always these head-scratching things when it comes to what is allowed and what’s not, and what markets are allowed and what are not. State-by-state basis and things like that. And there is a question for New York, I think.

Adam Candee (06:06):

Yeah. We see this in every state, where regulators, and sometimes lawmakers, but often regulators decide what is OK and what isn’t. And it doesn’t always seem grounded in reality or grounded in any sort of factual basis. It seems grounded in the idea of what we think might be a best practice as opposed to what really might be an established best practice elsewhere. So in New York, there’s no betting allowed on awards futures, MVP, Cy Young, coach of the year, because of the regulations in New York state that no betting is allowed on anything that requires a vote. But let’s play this out for a second. Obviously, there are many other places in the country in which awards-voting is allowed. And if you really start to think this through, about the level of coordination that would have to go into rigging an awards market and/or someone with knowledge of that vote being able to get down any wager of any significant size without tipping off a sportsbook, it is an infinitesimal sort of idea. It’s really just not something that should be a serious concern.


Then again, there are states, like you said, like New Jersey, that ban in-state colleges. There are states like Pennsylvania that don’t allow betting on the NFL Draft. New York is one of those, as well. So there seems to me to be a need for a national regulatory discussion, and that was begun last year at the conference, in which they started to get together a group of regulators to discuss issues that were being had across different jurisdictions. And it seems to me that’s the sort of discussion that would really benefit the industry as a whole. For those who have certain practices to be able to talk to those who don’t and say, “Listen, this is how we did it. This is how we got comfortable with it. These are the regulations that we put in place to be able to offer the most possible markets in the legal US sportsbooks without causing us concern.”

Matt Brown (08:07):

Dustin, I think one of the things to drive home here that Adam did mention is, look, the whole voting thing and all that, in theory I get why it might spook some people or whatever. But again, to drive home here, you would not be able to get down the type of action on any of these types of markets to be able to fix any type of vote or any kind of anything like that. And then further, if you did get tipped off … let’s say it’s not even to fix something. Let’s say you just got tipped off, same difference. Once something starts flooding in or whatever, then again, this triggers things within that we’ve talked about. The whole point of the legalized market, the whole point of regulation and whatever is, we have these people monitoring these markets. And when things start getting all wacky, it puts up a red flag, and they get pulled, and investigations happen, and all the different things like that. So again, in theory I get why you might be a little worried about something that isn’t actually happening and played on the field. But in reality, it just doesn’t play out the worst-case scenario 99.9% of the time.

Dustin Gouker (09:13):

Yeah. The limits on these are much lower than on sides and things where you see the large bets. Like you said, you just can’t get that much money down on this to make it worth the squeeze. Yeah. I mean, although we have these examples of people kind of flouting the regulation and the fact that getting caught isn’t really worth it. … If you’re internal in any of these organizations and get information about this, if you’re taking that information and then trying to get that money down on it, that’s just such an awful idea. That you’re going to be out of a job and a career really quickly if you’re using inside information on awards to get down hundreds of dollars or spread it around to people. That stuff … yeah.


I mean, again, this is, again, why we have this. Because you’re going to get found out at this point. There’s no way of getting around this at this point. And again, the benefit. This is a feature, not a bug of the regulated market, is this stuff can be caught when and if it happens. And I don’t think we’ve really seen that. It’s the same as all inside information, though. Once something starts spreading around, the market adjusts, and it gets shut down quickly, or the odds gets taken off the board, or the odds adjust.

Matt Brown (10:20):

Adam, just to put a bow on this, I mean, further just from a revenue standpoint, let’s just be for real. I mean, unless the super-popular choice hits, I mean, these are great revenue drivers for the books as well. I mean, for these sportsbooks. I mean, people love to put in long-shot futures tickets on their favorite team, and their favorite player, and the different things, and stuff like that. And not having that piece of the pie in there … I mean, while it’s not near as big as a standalone NFL game or anything like that, or whatever, I mean, it’s significant money. Especially when you start to talk about all the different things that you just mentioned. I mean, it’s not just football, where we’re talking coach of the year, and MVP, and et cetera, et cetera. But that’s in every single sport across the whole gamut there. So it’s not insignificant, the amount of money that is actually being turned away here too.

Adam Candee (11:14):

Well, when you play it all the way through in a state like New York that has a 51% tax rate, and you say, “OK. Well, we’re going to be putting up a market that …” What would you say a theoretical hold is in one of those markets? Twenty to 25%?

Matt Brown (11:28):


Adam Candee (11:29):

Yeah. I mean, for the most part, in those awards markets, you’re not getting the greatest value. But people aren’t really looking at that. They don’t really care if Aaron Judge is 7-1 or 8-1. They’re going to place the bet for their $20 or whatever it is. And like we’ve been talking about, when that person walks in the door or turns on the app and tries to get five grand down on one of these things, someone immediately is going to say, “Huh, that’s a little weird. We probably should look into that more.” So the idea that a vote or something that isn’t decided by an objective outcome on the field can’t be monitored or appropriately regulated is just wrong.

Under 21 sportsbook endorsement?

Matt Brown (12:09):

Yeah. I agree. Agree. Hopefully, people are listening. Listen to us, New York. We know some things. We don’t know much, but we know some things. And some things we’re right about. We’re right about this. Dustin, I want to talk to you about Massachusetts. This is kind of an interesting story, because listen, we have been hyper-focused on … I mean, we were literally just talking about responsible gambling. We’ve been hyper-focused on all of that. And of course, some of that comes into play with underage gambling. We know that some of these sportsbooks have already been kind of slapped on the hand already in other states because of marketing to non-21-year-olds, et cetera, et cetera. Well, this is an interesting deal, because we are talking about an actual professional person doing this sport professionally, and what they can and can’t make money off from an outside endorsement deal.

Dustin Gouker (12:54):

Yeah. To start this, the most interesting thing to me is, we’re five years into this and we’re still coming up with … in these new states, Ohio and Massachusetts, we’re seeing new regulations and new thoughts coming out. And this is fascinating. That Massachusetts Gaming Commission engages with some players associations about whether professional athletes that are under the legal age of gambling, of 21, whether if you’re 18 to 20, that you should be able to participate in endorsement deals. And what happened is, basically the MLB and NBA players associations agree that this should not be something that’s happening. So, really good. I mean, it’s just, again, crazy that we had all these states legalized. We have it even self-regulated. It’s like, “Yes, let’s just make this a thing.” There’s no reason for somebody who’s underage to be endorsing a sportsbook, and the MLB and NBA over-index probably in players who are young, who come out early, and can be stars, and can do this.


So we haven’t had to deal with it, luckily, but there’s a very small handful of people who’ve had actual endorsements that are currently active in a sport. But this is obviously going to change. We haven’t even gotten into NIL, and whether college athletes should be able to do this, and things like that. But it’s, again, fascinating to me that none of this is solved. Regulation is not solved in the US by any stretch of the imagination. That we’re still identifying problems and coming up with them. And again, another feature of regulated sports betting is that we’re thinking about these things, and we’re not done.


It’s encouraging to me that we have these new states coming online that are bringing up these ideas and making sure that there’s a policy before anything gets out of hand, or we have a bet, or we have … again, I would not put it past a sportsbook to sign somebody between 18 and 20 without a rule saying that you can’t do this. Because it’s certainly possible. You got a number-one pick who just came out of school, who’s 19. “Oh, maybe they’re hot for a sportsbook.” Yeah. So it’s a good policy, I’d argue, and one that it’s just kind of crazy that we never really thought about before.

Matt Brown (14:59):

Yeah. Adam, I thought this one was pretty interesting as well. It seems cut and dried. It’s like, “Hey, look. You’re not 21. You can’t do the thing.” You can’t whatever and stuff. And then you start to equate it to where Budweiser would never get a guy to endorse their product, whatever. A liquor company would never if he wasn’t 21 yet, and all this. But again, it is at least something we should go ahead, get out in front of, talk about. Let’s put it on the table and make sure that something doesn’t happen where you and I and Dustin are hopping on this podcast six months from now, and somebody that gets taken in the draft in April doesn’t turn 21 for eight months. And it’s like, “Hey, they’re the new face of Sportsbook X, Y, Z.” It seems like it’s common sense, but sometimes common sense isn’t all that common.

Adam Candee (15:48):

It’s important for us to talk about in light of everything we’ve discussed with college partnerships. Right?

Matt Brown (15:53):


Adam Candee (15:54):

Because that is sort of the baseline for then talking about professional athletes of that 18-to-20 age range. Because this came out of a meeting with Massachusetts regulators with the players associations from Major League Baseball and the NBA, and those reps really tried to tiptoe on it and say, “Well, it’s not really our purview in marketing, but maybe it could be done in the right way,” and so on. I don’t know that it can be done in the right way in the environment that we’re in 2023 in the US market, because I think it would be latched onto almost immediately as problem.


Now, could that be legally challenged in some way when we talk about the NBA, where so many of the players are coming in at 18, 19, 20 years old? Could that be thought of as an illegal restraint on their ability to make money? I would assume you probably have an attorney out there who would be willing to make that argument. That there’s nothing that stops an 18-year-old from legally entering into a contract in any other sense. So, wouldn’t they be able to do that when it comes to a sportsbook? Is it in good taste? Is it in common sense? I’m not going to tell you it is. But would it be legal, and would some sportsbook, let’s just say not maybe the same sportsbook that thought it was a good idea to fake the death of a Hall of Fame quarterback, but another sportsbook looking for attention be willing to do it? I absolutely think they would.

Dustin Gouker (17:20):

I mean, that’s what I was going to bring up. “Oh, we trust the industry to stop this.” Yeah, we pretended to kill a quarterback. I don’t know if I trust everyone to not do this.

Bally’s cuts staff

Matt Brown (17:33):

It’s true. The best decisions are not always made. So I agree. I’m just glad we’re getting out in front of this too, because it’s just one of those things. Again, it seems obvious. Sometimes obvious isn’t actually obvious. Adam, I actually sent you a text message about a month ago, maybe three weeks to a month ago, and I said, “Man, we sure hadn’t heard from Bally’s in a while.” We were basically having weekly updates here on the podcast of some sort of plan for them, or some sort of acquisition that they had, and whatever was going on, and all that. And then it was real, real quiet there toward the end of 2022. And as we enter 2023, we do have some news, but it is not the news that I’m sure a lot of people would be hoping for. Specifically, if you’re within the company.

Adam Candee (18:20):

The time that I worry the most about what my dog is doing is when I can’t hear anything. I think to myself, “I should hear nails clicking, or tags rattling, or something.” And then I think to myself, “When I can’t hear anything, some expensive item of my clothing is probably being chewed right now.” So Matt, you bring up the idea of, it’s a little too quiet. And that definitely turned out to be the case with Bally’s. Our Matthew Waters was going through SEC filings and noticed that Bally’s had put in a note that it was going to cut up to 15% of its interactive workforce, and this is not all that long after they spent $2.8 billion to acquire Gamesys to bulk up their online gaming operations. And within the note that was in that filing, it essentially said, “We now realize it’s going to take a lot longer to make money in the US than we thought it was going to.” And when you’re in multiple states and you don’t have more than 1% market share of sports betting in any of those states, I’d say that reality becomes apparent pretty quickly.


So things are moving very slowly for Bally’s. Unfortunately, that means that a number of people are going to lose their jobs, and it’s the sort of thing we’re going to have to keep an eye on with earnings calls coming up for a number of both sports betting operators and gaming operators who are in sports betting. Because as we’ve discussed on this podcast, there are only so many operators that have attained significant market share in the first five years of the US market.

Matt Brown (19:49):

Yeah. Dustin, this is one of those things where I think we’ve looked at some of these and go, “What is reality?” What is realistic when it comes to, how big of a dent can they make in the market? What would their dent look like? How do they get to making that dent? So I think with Bally’s we saw a bunch of acquisitions, we saw some different things happen, but there was never the huge marketing blitz that you get from the big boys. There was never the plan of, “Oh, OK. Well, it’s because we already have an established fan base in what Fanatics says they’re going to do, or what Barstool did, and all that.”


There was an acquisition of a DFS company, and there was that, at least, on the Bally side of things. But really, we never really understood what the straight path was to some sort of real liquidity within the market and stuff. So I think they probably all got together and said, “Oh, we probably should have had that plan if we entered into all of this, and here we are.” Again, I mean, 15%, I get it. It’s not like we’re saying 50%. But 15% is 15% that could maybe lead to another 15%, or whatever it might be. So I’m not saying it’s a sign of things to come. All I’m saying is, it’s not great.

Dustin Gouker (21:02):

Yeah, I mean, if the people at Bally’s are listening to this podcast, I’m pretty sure you could have gleaned this is not as easy as you think it is. And you mentioned the DFS. They purchased Monkey Knife Fight, DFS/prop betting. Whatever platform you want to call it. They thought that database, I think, would instantly translate into, “Oh, we’re going to start getting sports betters in the door immediately.” And that’s clearly not happened to any great extent, because as we sit here, they have very little market share in any state.

Matt Brown (21:32):

Well, and one thing too, Dustin, is if you found Monkey Knife Fight, you were definitely a DraftKings or FanDuel customer already as it was anyway. So you were already getting bombarded by those guys, and with their big promotional dollars, and all of the stuff that they were running and things. So, it’s like you were kind of fighting against them. Right? It’s not like this unique fan base or database that we think maybe Fanatics might possess, where it’s just a whole bunch of sports fans in general because they bought memorabilia and different things, stuff like that. This was a big crossover with the database that they got going up against the two behemoths in the industry.

Dustin Gouker (22:13):

Yeah. That was what I was going to get to next, is what is the value of a database that’s not FanDuel and DraftKings? We know those databases were prime from day one. That is the value that FanDuel and DraftKings had. They had these people who were ready, who were engaged with their brands, all of that with a quasi-betting product in DFS. Is that database that Fanatics has, is that going to instantly … yeah. Again, we question that. That Monkey Knife Fight, until recently, was, like you said, a clone of a DraftKings or a FanDuel. They were just looking for some other way to get down at that point. Maybe in the last two years, as these products have gotten more attention, maybe they’ve raised their profile and gotten more users.


But yeah, it’s the same story. When Bally’s acquired this database, I think they thought it would just translate into, “Oh, this Monkey Knife Fight, we’re going to give them an offer. They’re going to go over here, and now they’re going to be a Bally’s sportsbook customer.” And it’s pretty clear at this point that didn’t happen, because we certainly would’ve seen larger market share for any of the states that Bally’s is in for sports betting already.

MGM / Nevada

Matt Brown (23:18):

Adam, I do want to end this one real quick with just going back to something we mentioned on the podcast probably eight months ago, in which we saw that MGM had … we’ve talked numerous occasions here about how the rest-of-country apps are different from the Nevada apps, and that for whatever reason what you see from BetMGM in every other state other than Nevada is completely different. What you see whenever you open up William Hill by Caesars rest-of-country is completely different from what you see when you open up the William Hill app in Nevada. Well, we got word that MGM was at least trying to get that app into Nevada. And you and I were kind of joking back and forth, “Would it be in time for football season? Would it be in time for the Super Bowl? Would it be in time for whatever?” And then we’ve actually heard absolutely nothing about that really since.


I understand the numbers in Nevada still are not dying or anything, but they’re not growing, and these other states are certainly catching up to Nevada. And I think if we continue with this trend, and they don’t let these other guys in, and they don’t want to adapt and don’t want to innovate, I think we could be doing this podcast 18 months from now, 24 months from now, and Nevada’s like 10th in the country when it comes to handling all the different stuff like that. Because these other markets are just going to continue to mature, continue to innovate, continue to have options for their bettors that are just not allowed here.

Adam Candee (24:49):

I think this is probably a larger discussion for another podcast for us to really dig into. I’m not sure I’m 100% there on how far Nevada will drop in terms of handle, just because of the size of the wagers that come through Nevada that don’t tend to come through other places, but I understand exactly what you’re saying. I actually thought you were going to reference the new governor’s State of the State speech in Nevada, in which he mentioned, not related to sports betting, but related to other gaming products, that he feels like that the speed of the test labs is not fast enough for getting new products into Nevada. And I think that there’s a trickle effect there that could be applied to sports betting. So, it’s something worth keeping an eye on. Because if it has the governor’s attention, it’s at least something that might be something that someone with influence is pitching to him as something that needs attention.

Matt Brown (25:40):


Adam Candee (25:41):

And just put a bow on the Bally’s thing here for a second. I think it also shows that branding yourself with every RSN in the country is also not a direct path to sports betting success. Because I can’t tell you how many people have asked the question, “What is a Bally,” when it comes to Bally Sports Southwest or whatever the case might be. And the answer is, clearly, they’ve not used that to define themselves well enough to translate it into customer acquisition.

Matt Brown (26:07):

Yeah. We’ve already seen too, I mean, they’re not getting any free promotion from Caesars anymore. Bally’s on the strip has now made the flip. It is Horseshoe. So that brand is dead within the Caesars umbrella and all of that, and so it’s kind of like Bally’s truly is on their own now with all of this. So, look, when they opened, I think we all maybe did. Dustin, I think definitely you did. I downloaded the app and messed around with it, looked around with it. I thought it was fine. I mean, I didn’t think it was great, but I thought it was fine. I certainly thought the menu could be bigger, certainly compared to some of the other ones out there. But I thought it functioned all right, and it looked all right, and all the stuff like that.


I just truly believe, when it comes down to it … and whether people want to agree with it or not, and there’s a lot of people who don’t. But I truly believe it’s all going to come down to options, and what you allow, and promotions, and things like that. And listen, I’m a big-time sports bettor. I’m a big-time sports bettor, and I just don’t know if best price and all that all the time is really, at the end of the day, going to win out here in the States. I honest to God don’t. I mean, I think there will be a niche for that for sure amongst the 0.1% of betters where that is a critical, crucial thing to their bottom line. They’re doing it for a living, or they’re doing it for a bulk of their income, or all the different stuff like that. But I think the 99.9%, it’s really just, “Give me all the stuff to bet on. Give me everything to look at. Flash the lights at me. Throw me a free bet every now and then. Do the different things like that.” I honestly think that’s probably going to be what wins out.

Dustin Gouker (27:54):

Yeah. Another topic for another day where we get into it more. But yeah, it’s like people just want … again, we can rail against same-game parlays, things like that, because they’re awful value. But that’s what people want. They want the lottery ticket. We saw one, some guy bet all the first-down touchdown scorers in five bucks and won tens of thousands of dollars. That’s the dream. Most people, most casuals, don’t want to grind out -110 sides for larger amounts. That’s not what they want. Yes, they want different things. They want different options. I mean, again, yeah, I’m with you on the price sensitivity. As long as we’re sort of in line with offshore and we’re not ridiculous. We saw, of course, the example of Montana is offering -141 sides on women’s basketball. That’s ridiculous. I don’t know.

Matt Brown (28:40):

That’s why we can’t defend it. Right?

Dustin Gouker (28:44):


Matt Brown (28:44):

At that point we’re kind of like, “All right. Go-”

Dustin Gouker (28:45):

Go offshore.

Matt Brown (28:46):

Bet offshore. Yeah. I mean, seriously. At that point, can’t defend it.

Dustin Gouker (28:50):

But yeah, I mean … yeah. At the end of the day, it’s giving people what they want. And we’ve started to see that this is what people want. They want options. They want be able to make their own little crazy lottery tickets. I think most people understand they’re lottery tickets. But that is what the market wants right now. It is chicken-and-the-egg. Obviously, the sportsbooks want you to bet these things because they make them a lot of money, but this is also what people want to bet on. They want to do this, so give them the opportunity to do it. Obviously, with the understanding, I think, these are not bets that are going to win a lot. So when we see these I shudder a little bit, because people then get the idea, “Oh, I can do this too.” But no, you’re not. You’re punching a lottery ticket, and this is not a long-term winning strategy for anyone.

Matt Brown (29:42):

Guys, everything we do, absolutely free here. So head on over to LegalSportsReport.com and check out all of the awesome words that go along with all the topics we’re talking about. And of course, subscribe, rate, review, hit the little button down there. Everything, absolutely free. That’s all we’re asking from a support side from you guys, is helping us out right there. If you want to follow Adam on the Twitter machine, @AdamCandee, two E’s, no Y. You want to follow Dustin, @DustinGouker. For Dustin, for Adam. I’m Matt. Talk to you guys next week.

More Episodes