Cover story today, Nov 10, in USA, asks that question. I don't mean sports cover story, but the first page of the newspaper.
The sports section does have the salaries of al the Div 1-A coaches, witht he exception of some private schools, which are not obligated to release that info.
Pete Carroll is on top at 4.4 mil a year. Bob Stoops just a hundred grand less. And Urban Meyer at an even 4 mil.
The point that the story is making is that with colleges tightening belts all around, with this recession/depression, should athletic programs be paid these huge sums?
I would have agreed with Vol coach Lane Kiffen, who was quoted in th story as saying that winning teams make money for the schools, and are worthy of the salaries and support (new stadiums, gyms, etc)
In fact, Tennessee is paying Lane's dad Monte almost 2 million a year, after luring this former top NFL DC to Knoxville, to be with his son. Monte also gets a $300 k bonus, and the use of two cars. Plus a generous allowance for his assistants.
But USA Today states (based on their own research and that of the NCAA) that only about 25 Div 1A football or hoops programs actually make money for their schools. (That very much surprises me, and I'd like to see the newspaper cite the survey or study that so indicates, which they don't do)
Cover story today, Nov 10, in USA, asks that question. I don't mean sports cover story, but the first page of the newspaper.
The sports section does have the salaries of al the Div 1-A coaches, witht he exception of some private schools, which are not obligated to release that info.
Pete Carroll is on top at 4.4 mil a year. Bob Stoops just a hundred grand less. And Urban Meyer at an even 4 mil.
The point that the story is making is that with colleges tightening belts all around, with this recession/depression, should athletic programs be paid these huge sums?
I would have agreed with Vol coach Lane Kiffen, who was quoted in th story as saying that winning teams make money for the schools, and are worthy of the salaries and support (new stadiums, gyms, etc)
In fact, Tennessee is paying Lane's dad Monte almost 2 million a year, after luring this former top NFL DC to Knoxville, to be with his son. Monte also gets a $300 k bonus, and the use of two cars. Plus a generous allowance for his assistants.
But USA Today states (based on their own research and that of the NCAA) that only about 25 Div 1A football or hoops programs actually make money for their schools. (That very much surprises me, and I'd like to see the newspaper cite the survey or study that so indicates, which they don't do)
Those interested in this matter should pick up a copy of USA Today, for Tuesday. Tho they will be doing subsidiary stories to this main one (which appears in both the front page and in sports) on Wed and Thursday
I don't know if the stores are on their online sites.
They do, in today's sports section, give the salaries of all the Div 1A foots coaches, except for some of the private schools.
The poor guy from Kent State is low man on this well-paid totem pole, pulling down only a measly $190 k a year.
Those interested in this matter should pick up a copy of USA Today, for Tuesday. Tho they will be doing subsidiary stories to this main one (which appears in both the front page and in sports) on Wed and Thursday
I don't know if the stores are on their online sites.
They do, in today's sports section, give the salaries of all the Div 1A foots coaches, except for some of the private schools.
The poor guy from Kent State is low man on this well-paid totem pole, pulling down only a measly $190 k a year.
Included in the HC salaries on the USA Today chart, is "other income," which must mean endorsements, private moeny from boosters, money earned on their own radio or TV shows, etc.
For instance, they show Urban Meyer as earning only a quarter million in salary, but 3 3/4 million from "other" sources Which I suppsose means he gets most of it from well-heeled Gator Backers, alumni mainly.
Included in the HC salaries on the USA Today chart, is "other income," which must mean endorsements, private moeny from boosters, money earned on their own radio or TV shows, etc.
For instance, they show Urban Meyer as earning only a quarter million in salary, but 3 3/4 million from "other" sources Which I suppsose means he gets most of it from well-heeled Gator Backers, alumni mainly.
100k people do not fill Neyland stadium to watch a chemistry experiment
This - in a nutshell - is a slice of capitalism that is anti-darwin. It is not survival of the fittest - it is not promoting brains and academia - it is not promoting the best and the brightest to be educators....
The economics of this mean that if you are dumb and a terrible role model you can essentially bypass natural selection because capitalism favors money no matter what - if you are fat and dumb but have a lot of money you are more attractive to the other sex than someone who is genetically strong - thus sending evolutionary characteristics in to a tailspin.
I never met a hater better than me. I am on twitter
100k people do not fill Neyland stadium to watch a chemistry experiment
This - in a nutshell - is a slice of capitalism that is anti-darwin. It is not survival of the fittest - it is not promoting brains and academia - it is not promoting the best and the brightest to be educators....
The economics of this mean that if you are dumb and a terrible role model you can essentially bypass natural selection because capitalism favors money no matter what - if you are fat and dumb but have a lot of money you are more attractive to the other sex than someone who is genetically strong - thus sending evolutionary characteristics in to a tailspin.
But USA Today states (based on their own research and that of the NCAA) that only about 25 Div 1A football or hoops programs actually make money for their schools. (That very much surprises me, and I'd like to see the newspaper cite the survey or study that so indicates, which they don't do)
I find that a little hard to believe but, then again, how much is the average ticket cost per game? I know it can't be near pro levels and, granted, some stadiums and arenas don't seem overly big (Cameron seems pretty small on TV) but between merchandise and sponsorship deals, how could they not be making money? Maybe once the pie is divvied up between rugby and badminton there isn't alot left over, but to say they're not working at a profit...
But USA Today states (based on their own research and that of the NCAA) that only about 25 Div 1A football or hoops programs actually make money for their schools. (That very much surprises me, and I'd like to see the newspaper cite the survey or study that so indicates, which they don't do)
I find that a little hard to believe but, then again, how much is the average ticket cost per game? I know it can't be near pro levels and, granted, some stadiums and arenas don't seem overly big (Cameron seems pretty small on TV) but between merchandise and sponsorship deals, how could they not be making money? Maybe once the pie is divvied up between rugby and badminton there isn't alot left over, but to say they're not working at a profit...
Tennessee may be one of the lucky two dozen that earn income for their schools. But I had thought that all Div 1-A schools did so with their football and basketball programs.
As the story noted, only about 25 football programs produce excess profits for the university. Surprising to me, and I'd like to see the figures that USA is quoting from.
Tennessee may be one of the lucky two dozen that earn income for their schools. But I had thought that all Div 1-A schools did so with their football and basketball programs.
As the story noted, only about 25 football programs produce excess profits for the university. Surprising to me, and I'd like to see the figures that USA is quoting from.
vanzack, I agree with you in a general sense, tho if given a choice between two males of generally appetizing appearance, the nubile young woman will almost always choose the wealthiest.
An atavistic tribal instinct, to ensure the well-being of her offspring.
"Greed is good," was the unspoken motto of most of our male (and female) ancestors. The tribal guy who was the best hunter, or later the richest farmer, usually got the best looking and most fertile females. His greed was a positive characteristic for natural selection, And is thus inbred into us.
But when we went into those super-tribes known as nation-states the health of the group became paramount, for fighting massive wars, engaging in macro trade, etc. And so the statesman of merit and accomplishement should have surpassed the individualistic greedster on the evolutionary ladder of desirability for propagation.
But didn't. So we have been in a devolutionary cycle for a long time. Where greed and monetary wealth unfit us for war and nation building. And not even mentioning still valid arguments from the early 20th century like differential birthrates and the like
vanzack, I agree with you in a general sense, tho if given a choice between two males of generally appetizing appearance, the nubile young woman will almost always choose the wealthiest.
An atavistic tribal instinct, to ensure the well-being of her offspring.
"Greed is good," was the unspoken motto of most of our male (and female) ancestors. The tribal guy who was the best hunter, or later the richest farmer, usually got the best looking and most fertile females. His greed was a positive characteristic for natural selection, And is thus inbred into us.
But when we went into those super-tribes known as nation-states the health of the group became paramount, for fighting massive wars, engaging in macro trade, etc. And so the statesman of merit and accomplishement should have surpassed the individualistic greedster on the evolutionary ladder of desirability for propagation.
But didn't. So we have been in a devolutionary cycle for a long time. Where greed and monetary wealth unfit us for war and nation building. And not even mentioning still valid arguments from the early 20th century like differential birthrates and the like
vanzack, I agree with you in a general sense, tho if given a choice between two males of generally appetizing appearance, the nubile young woman will almost always choose the wealthiest.
An atavistic tribal instinct, to ensure the well-being of her offspring.
"Greed is good," was the unspoken motto of most of our male (and female) ancestors. The tribal guy who was the best hunter, or later the richest farmer, usually got the best looking and most fertile females. His greed was a positive characteristic for natural selection, And is thus inbred into us.
But when we went into those super-tribes known as nation-states the health of the group became paramount, for fighting massive wars, engaging in macro trade, etc. And so the statesman of merit and accomplishement should have surpassed the individualistic greedster on the evolutionary ladder of desirability for propagation.
But didn't. So we have been in a devolutionary cycle for a long time. Where greed and monetary wealth unfit us for war and nation building. And not even mentioning still valid arguments from the early 20th century like differential birthrates and the like
The interesting thing to me about this "de-evolution" is that we are the only species on earth that has the capability to do this. Its almost like we have gotten too smart for our own good - that mother nature didnt plan on us getting so smart - and the consequences cant be anything but bad for our species as a whole.
Imagine if predators all of a sudden started bypassing hunting the weak and sick in favor of the strongest and fastest. It is almost inconceivable - but both of those species would be hurt as a result - the predators would have less food and the hunted would reproduce a less than desirable gene pool. Thats where we humans are today. I cant imagine that this is what was intended (barrydingle would love to hear me say that).
I never met a hater better than me. I am on twitter
vanzack, I agree with you in a general sense, tho if given a choice between two males of generally appetizing appearance, the nubile young woman will almost always choose the wealthiest.
An atavistic tribal instinct, to ensure the well-being of her offspring.
"Greed is good," was the unspoken motto of most of our male (and female) ancestors. The tribal guy who was the best hunter, or later the richest farmer, usually got the best looking and most fertile females. His greed was a positive characteristic for natural selection, And is thus inbred into us.
But when we went into those super-tribes known as nation-states the health of the group became paramount, for fighting massive wars, engaging in macro trade, etc. And so the statesman of merit and accomplishement should have surpassed the individualistic greedster on the evolutionary ladder of desirability for propagation.
But didn't. So we have been in a devolutionary cycle for a long time. Where greed and monetary wealth unfit us for war and nation building. And not even mentioning still valid arguments from the early 20th century like differential birthrates and the like
The interesting thing to me about this "de-evolution" is that we are the only species on earth that has the capability to do this. Its almost like we have gotten too smart for our own good - that mother nature didnt plan on us getting so smart - and the consequences cant be anything but bad for our species as a whole.
Imagine if predators all of a sudden started bypassing hunting the weak and sick in favor of the strongest and fastest. It is almost inconceivable - but both of those species would be hurt as a result - the predators would have less food and the hunted would reproduce a less than desirable gene pool. Thats where we humans are today. I cant imagine that this is what was intended (barrydingle would love to hear me say that).
Not having read the article, it's a little hard to say for sure, but maybe they mean once all the money has been distributed throughout the entire athletic department - that I could maybe see.
Not having read the article, it's a little hard to say for sure, but maybe they mean once all the money has been distributed throughout the entire athletic department - that I could maybe see.
whether these programs directly make money for the school or not is irrelevant. the fact is that people go to schools where there is good athletics whether they admit it or not...whether they even know it or not. the school becomes 'cool' or 'good' in the eyes of prospective students when they win championships.
it's along the same lines of people paying to be the official pooper-scooper of the NFL. people like the NFL, so if they can associate themselves with the product, it will improve sales..... people like winning sports teams, so if i a university can associate itself with the team, it will see great improvements in both applicants and their quality.
whether these programs directly make money for the school or not is irrelevant. the fact is that people go to schools where there is good athletics whether they admit it or not...whether they even know it or not. the school becomes 'cool' or 'good' in the eyes of prospective students when they win championships.
it's along the same lines of people paying to be the official pooper-scooper of the NFL. people like the NFL, so if they can associate themselves with the product, it will improve sales..... people like winning sports teams, so if i a university can associate itself with the team, it will see great improvements in both applicants and their quality.
Not having read the article, it's a little hard to say for sure, but maybe they mean once all the money has been distributed throughout the entire athletic department - that I could maybe see.
That's what I was thinking, because the 40 or so CFB teams have to be making a ton of money. And all teams in the BCS conferences get a big slice of the BCS money, I think it is $13 million for each BCS bowls, and usually the Big 10, SEC and Big 12 have 2 teams in the BCS games. In addition, there is ton of $$ being thrown around w/ TV money for the reg season games. Many of the top programs support many of the non-revenue sports, for both men and women. So it could well be true that 25 programs make money after all sports in the program are accounted for. But that doesn't really show anything, because you would expect schools to about break even after field hoeckey and track and field, etc, are considered...
Not having read the article, it's a little hard to say for sure, but maybe they mean once all the money has been distributed throughout the entire athletic department - that I could maybe see.
That's what I was thinking, because the 40 or so CFB teams have to be making a ton of money. And all teams in the BCS conferences get a big slice of the BCS money, I think it is $13 million for each BCS bowls, and usually the Big 10, SEC and Big 12 have 2 teams in the BCS games. In addition, there is ton of $$ being thrown around w/ TV money for the reg season games. Many of the top programs support many of the non-revenue sports, for both men and women. So it could well be true that 25 programs make money after all sports in the program are accounted for. But that doesn't really show anything, because you would expect schools to about break even after field hoeckey and track and field, etc, are considered...
Not having read the article, it's a little hard to say for sure, but maybe they mean once all the money has been distributed throughout the entire athletic department - that I could maybe see.
No, I don't think that's what the USA Today piece was saying. Tho I confess i haven't read it all. (Read the main article, but they did it up big, with a few long sidebars)
They did mention that such a fuss was raised at Cal, that HC Tedford volunteered (pressured?) to take a 100 grand pay cut, to satisfy the hounds at that very PC university.
It would be a violation of my professional ethic to write even a letter to any newspaper, but USA Today should clarify if they mean only two dozen 1-A schools are making a profit off thier football programs. That, frankly,is hard to accept.
Their email address for Letters to the Editor is letters@usatoday.com. 250 words maximum. Name, address and phone number required, for verification by the paper, before publication
Not having read the article, it's a little hard to say for sure, but maybe they mean once all the money has been distributed throughout the entire athletic department - that I could maybe see.
No, I don't think that's what the USA Today piece was saying. Tho I confess i haven't read it all. (Read the main article, but they did it up big, with a few long sidebars)
They did mention that such a fuss was raised at Cal, that HC Tedford volunteered (pressured?) to take a 100 grand pay cut, to satisfy the hounds at that very PC university.
It would be a violation of my professional ethic to write even a letter to any newspaper, but USA Today should clarify if they mean only two dozen 1-A schools are making a profit off thier football programs. That, frankly,is hard to accept.
Their email address for Letters to the Editor is letters@usatoday.com. 250 words maximum. Name, address and phone number required, for verification by the paper, before publication
whether these programs directly make money for the school or not is irrelevant. the fact is that people go to schools where there is good athletics whether they admit it or not
As a fan of college sports, ww, you would think that way. But I belive that most students, while they enjoy the sports on campus (tho some hate it, and hate the favoritism many athletes receive) go to a college because of curriculum, affordibility, and such like,very personal stuff.
whether these programs directly make money for the school or not is irrelevant. the fact is that people go to schools where there is good athletics whether they admit it or not
As a fan of college sports, ww, you would think that way. But I belive that most students, while they enjoy the sports on campus (tho some hate it, and hate the favoritism many athletes receive) go to a college because of curriculum, affordibility, and such like,very personal stuff.
The interesting thing to me about this "de-evolution" is that we are the only species on earth that has the capability to do this. Its almost like we have gotten too smart for our own good - that mother nature didnt plan on us getting so smart - and the consequences cant be anything but bad for our species as a whole.
Imagine if predators all of a sudden started bypassing hunting the weak and sick in favor of the strongest and fastest. It is almost inconceivable - but both of those species would be hurt as a result - the predators would have less food and the hunted would reproduce a less than desirable gene pool. Thats where we humans are today. I cant imagine that this is what was intended (barrydingle would love to hear me say that).
Sharp post, as usual.
It may be that the human brain, which evolved to give us dominion over the earth and its (other) creatures, is now pathological.
It tries to ameliorate distress, rathen than disposing of it. Such as: in the Middle Ages in England and much of Europe, the lepers were shunned and forced to wear bells, so people could be warned against them when they approached.
And, the lepers were given spoiled meat to eat. It made for short lives for lepers.
Very cruel, of course. But, it eradicated leprosy in Europe (and, subsequently, America). Nature is harsh, life is a desperete business behind all our fun and games, and our easy life in modern America, even in this depresion/recession.
It's one reason I oppose globalism, and favor the ongoing "balkanization" of this land. A return to the tribal and a turn-away from the global will be very salutary, IMHO
The interesting thing to me about this "de-evolution" is that we are the only species on earth that has the capability to do this. Its almost like we have gotten too smart for our own good - that mother nature didnt plan on us getting so smart - and the consequences cant be anything but bad for our species as a whole.
Imagine if predators all of a sudden started bypassing hunting the weak and sick in favor of the strongest and fastest. It is almost inconceivable - but both of those species would be hurt as a result - the predators would have less food and the hunted would reproduce a less than desirable gene pool. Thats where we humans are today. I cant imagine that this is what was intended (barrydingle would love to hear me say that).
Sharp post, as usual.
It may be that the human brain, which evolved to give us dominion over the earth and its (other) creatures, is now pathological.
It tries to ameliorate distress, rathen than disposing of it. Such as: in the Middle Ages in England and much of Europe, the lepers were shunned and forced to wear bells, so people could be warned against them when they approached.
And, the lepers were given spoiled meat to eat. It made for short lives for lepers.
Very cruel, of course. But, it eradicated leprosy in Europe (and, subsequently, America). Nature is harsh, life is a desperete business behind all our fun and games, and our easy life in modern America, even in this depresion/recession.
It's one reason I oppose globalism, and favor the ongoing "balkanization" of this land. A return to the tribal and a turn-away from the global will be very salutary, IMHO
as I indicated to hugh I didn't see that argument being made in the newspaper, but they were mushy on thier shocking (to me) statement that only around 25 programs make a proift on their foots program.
In the actual story, the AD for Calif did make a storng counter-argument agaisnt cutting coaches salaries to any great extent.
as I indicated to hugh I didn't see that argument being made in the newspaper, but they were mushy on thier shocking (to me) statement that only around 25 programs make a proift on their foots program.
In the actual story, the AD for Calif did make a storng counter-argument agaisnt cutting coaches salaries to any great extent.
This is, I think, a link to the chart of football coaches salaries in Tuesday's USA today. I didn't see a link to the full story, tho it may be online somewhere
Checking the chart again, it looks like Charlie Weatrherbie of Louisiana Monroe may earn the least of the 1-A coaches, at $160k a year
This is, I think, a link to the chart of football coaches salaries in Tuesday's USA today. I didn't see a link to the full story, tho it may be online somewhere
Checking the chart again, it looks like Charlie Weatrherbie of Louisiana Monroe may earn the least of the 1-A coaches, at $160k a year
This - in a nutshell - is a slice of capitalism that is anti-darwin. It is not survival of the fittest - it is not promoting brains and academia - it is not promoting the best and the brightest to be educators....
The economics of this mean that if you are dumb and a terrible role model you can essentially bypass natural selection because capitalism favors money no matter what - if you are fat and dumb but have a lot of money you are more attractive to the other sex than someone who is genetically strong - thus sending evolutionary characteristics in to a tailspin.
true and true...nothing wrong with it either. let the woman choose. let the ticket buyer choose
mu understanding is that D1a football and hoops pays for the entire athletic department...not sure how any school can post a profit while paying for 25 other sports including intermural rugby, field hockey, diving etc
This - in a nutshell - is a slice of capitalism that is anti-darwin. It is not survival of the fittest - it is not promoting brains and academia - it is not promoting the best and the brightest to be educators....
The economics of this mean that if you are dumb and a terrible role model you can essentially bypass natural selection because capitalism favors money no matter what - if you are fat and dumb but have a lot of money you are more attractive to the other sex than someone who is genetically strong - thus sending evolutionary characteristics in to a tailspin.
true and true...nothing wrong with it either. let the woman choose. let the ticket buyer choose
mu understanding is that D1a football and hoops pays for the entire athletic department...not sure how any school can post a profit while paying for 25 other sports including intermural rugby, field hockey, diving etc
At many of the top schools, there is also a TON of money coming in from the alumni, as these rich pricks want to contribute so they can feel like they are involved. Even with paying for all of the sports, the top teams aren't going to be short on $$ anytime soon...
At many of the top schools, there is also a TON of money coming in from the alumni, as these rich pricks want to contribute so they can feel like they are involved. Even with paying for all of the sports, the top teams aren't going to be short on $$ anytime soon...
As a fan of college sports, ww, you would think that way. But I belive
that most students, while they enjoy the sports on campus (tho some
hate it, and hate the favoritism many athletes receive) go to a college
because of curriculum, affordibility....
there have been studies or numbers released showing the increase in applications and overall quality of the student base after national championships.
As a fan of college sports, ww, you would think that way. But I belive
that most students, while they enjoy the sports on campus (tho some
hate it, and hate the favoritism many athletes receive) go to a college
because of curriculum, affordibility....
there have been studies or numbers released showing the increase in applications and overall quality of the student base after national championships.
This - in a nutshell - is a slice of capitalism that is anti-darwin. It is not survival of the fittest - it is not promoting brains and academia - it is not promoting the best and the brightest to be educators....
The economics of this mean that if you are dumb and a terrible role model you can essentially bypass natural selection because capitalism favors money no matter what - if you are fat and dumb but have a lot of money you are more attractive to the other sex than someone who is genetically strong - thus sending evolutionary characteristics in to a tailspin.
Can't a point of contention be raised though, that this is looking at a VERY small amount of time in evolutionary terms? Even if we were to stretch out this "bank account-reigns-supreme-regardless-of-superior-genetics" mindset of natural selection back (generously IMO) 80 years when modern sports first began to generate large incomes, can't we assume that true, prevailing, overriding selection will eventually re-establish itself? If the type of female that is driven to mate-attraction solely based on bank accounts produces "sub-standard" descendants in terms of advancement of the species, wouldn't natural process take over and facilitate future prospective "choice" mates to be enticed by different criteria? I'm not a an darwin/evolution guru, but this is my basic understanding of the theory.
Keep in mind we are talking about just a portion of the overall population here- the American (and global to be fair) sports culture. There are obviously more worthy females out there who do not determine the value of a mate based on bank account. For example, which pair is more likely to produce a beneficial-to-the-species descendant- an empty headed, smokin hot stripper and a Ron Artest-ish athletic star, or a sociology professor and an educated waitress? Granted, that is an extreme contrast, and the stripper-athlete offspring may indeed have more monetary resources. But the general intellectual/species-developmental awareness of the other would tend to be far more likely to be superior and in greater numbers worldwide (specieswide).
Oh, and there are many high-salary coaches out there who could be out-coached on gameday by millions of Madden players.
This - in a nutshell - is a slice of capitalism that is anti-darwin. It is not survival of the fittest - it is not promoting brains and academia - it is not promoting the best and the brightest to be educators....
The economics of this mean that if you are dumb and a terrible role model you can essentially bypass natural selection because capitalism favors money no matter what - if you are fat and dumb but have a lot of money you are more attractive to the other sex than someone who is genetically strong - thus sending evolutionary characteristics in to a tailspin.
Can't a point of contention be raised though, that this is looking at a VERY small amount of time in evolutionary terms? Even if we were to stretch out this "bank account-reigns-supreme-regardless-of-superior-genetics" mindset of natural selection back (generously IMO) 80 years when modern sports first began to generate large incomes, can't we assume that true, prevailing, overriding selection will eventually re-establish itself? If the type of female that is driven to mate-attraction solely based on bank accounts produces "sub-standard" descendants in terms of advancement of the species, wouldn't natural process take over and facilitate future prospective "choice" mates to be enticed by different criteria? I'm not a an darwin/evolution guru, but this is my basic understanding of the theory.
Keep in mind we are talking about just a portion of the overall population here- the American (and global to be fair) sports culture. There are obviously more worthy females out there who do not determine the value of a mate based on bank account. For example, which pair is more likely to produce a beneficial-to-the-species descendant- an empty headed, smokin hot stripper and a Ron Artest-ish athletic star, or a sociology professor and an educated waitress? Granted, that is an extreme contrast, and the stripper-athlete offspring may indeed have more monetary resources. But the general intellectual/species-developmental awareness of the other would tend to be far more likely to be superior and in greater numbers worldwide (specieswide).
Oh, and there are many high-salary coaches out there who could be out-coached on gameday by millions of Madden players.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.