Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun : College sports? Bet on it

Sunday, Oct. 10, 1999 | 10:32 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

IF YOU HAVE nothing else to do today, here are some things to think about.

Who do the NCAA members think they are kidding? While it is an admirable goal to remove sports betting from college athletics, don't you think it is a bit late in the day to close the barn door to the betting parlors? For decades we have heard the stories of fixed games and shaved points. As long as the NCAA promotes winning at all costs -- a message that filters through nervous coaching staffs and dreamy-eyed athletes looking for the trip to the big show -- it will be difficult to make progress on the betting front.

Besides, there is nothing inherently wrong with a couple of guys, or gals, betting on the outcome of a sporting contest. In fact, if it were given just a little bit of thought, my guess is that the nation's preoccupation with sports betting -- legal and not -- is a large factor in the television ratings that attach to the games.

Without the interest of the TV audience in the games, many lucrative contracts between the networks and the conferences would go by the boards. That would significantly reduce the large amounts of money flowing into athletic department budgets, which would severely impact the quality of the teams that could be fielded. That, in turn, would diminish the interest level by the live audiences which, of course, would also reduce the dollars to the various sports programs.

Admittedly, it would be great if the interest in college athletics was as pure as boolah-boolah, but I suspect that we are way past that time when raccoon coats and school spirit carried the day. So, before the NCAA considers banning sports betting (and I am not sure how that happens anyway given the fact that most of the bets are placed illegally with the bookmakers) it ought to think about changing its own ways.

Take the premium for winning out of the equation and get back to how the athletes "play the game." Do you want to bet that won't happen?

Closer to home and much more immediate is the ugliness at the Department of Motor Vehicle offices around town.

While frustration levels were rising with each passing hour that Nevadans had to wait to comply with the law, it appeared likely that no one was going to take that bull by the horns. Finally, Gov. Kenny Guinn has announced a plan to help curtail the long lines and longer memories that will result from the ill-planned introduction of a new computer system at DMV.

I don't know if what Governor Guinn has proposed will work, but it is at least a step toward turning chaos into something more tolerable. His idea of an immediate 30-day grace period is probably a month or two short of what will be needed before the glitches are worked out. I would think that, rather than impose any more frustration upon those of us who have to do business with the DMV, he should grant automatic extensions of that grace period until the DMV proves it is ready for the people to come back.

I also think adding more people to the problem is always a good idea. Like the governor, I have spent too much time recently at DMV just trying to comply with the law. My boss is more understanding than most who don't appreciate their employees choosing to spend their days at the DMV waiting for nothing to happen. At least with more people trying to force customers through an unworkable system, those who have to go to the DMV will feel someone cares.

And what about the cost of all these fixes? One legislator started to raise a stink about where the money is coming from. To that, I say, who cares? It is our money and our problem and our time that that legislator and others are wasting by imposing computer sytsems upon us well before they are ready to work. Money is the last thing people are worried about when they have to choose between their families, their jobs and their sanity.

Keep your eye on this one, Kenny. The DMV hits all of us where we live.

One last thought on the nuclear test ban treaty before it hits the fan this week.

There is a GOP brick wall in the Senate, determined to either defeat the ratification of the treaty next week when it is scheduled for a vote or stick their finger in the president's eye by dictating ridiculous terms for its removal from the agenda.

Either way, the people of this country and the world will be the losers if partisan rhetoric and politics carries the day on this vote. Sure, there are many fears and concerns about stepping out front and agreeing to the terms of a test ban treaty which will end the testing of nuclear weapons on this planet. But unless the United States takes the lead and shows the way to a more sane world to the other countries, who have the same fears and concerns, nothing will ever happen to stop the proliferation of these deadly weapons.

Our choice, it seems to me, is to take the small risk that Russia -- with her tens of thousands of nuclear warheads -- and some of the other countries that are waiting for us to act will do so once we ratify the treaty that presidents since Dwight Eisenhower have tried to implement. The alternative is to let politics determine something as important as nuclear weapons testing around the world. Who is in favor of that?

Finally, one political question. Donald Trump is throwing his exploratory hat into the presidential ring. Does that mean that Steve Wynn will be Nevada's favorite son?