This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Have any of you puritans out there ever gambled away any money on sports?

Yes. Yes, you have.

Most of you have, in one way or another.

For instance, that office pool you enter every March, the one in which Betsy down in accounting, the person who paid absolutely no attention to college basketball, went ahead and lifted 1,000 bucks out of a combination of all her co-workers' pockets, each paying a $20 entry fee, was a form of gambling.

That's illegal in this state and many others.

But it's darn fun, it's relatively harmless, and it adds a whole lot of intrigue to the NCAA basketball tournament, lending meaning to every little matchup, all of those early-round Bucknell-versus-Xavier games, giving all who participate a chance to make a bit of money and own bragging rights over the entire work space.

It's America, right?

Gambling on sports should be allowed.

That's coming from pretty much a non-gambler. I've spent a lot of time in Vegas through the years, covering games, watching assorted tournaments, and I've never dropped cash at any sports book. I've never hit the blackjack tables or played poker or shot craps. Nothing. But I've also never looked at those who do as anything more than people looking for a little action, having some fun, spending some money for a righteous buzz.

I've sat and watched others who put money on a boxer or a team or a point spread or a horse — and watched how alive they look as the game or race or battle ensues. Why should any governing authority put the kibosh on that? Why should it babysit Americans who want to get a bigger thrill out of sports, who want that kind of connection to what's happening on the canvas or on the field or on the diamond or on the pitch or on the court or on the course?

The closest I've ever come to connecting to sports in that way was, first, in the 7th grade, in October of 1971, when my friend Kevin, who once broke his hand when he punched me in the head during a tussle, wanted to bet me on the outcome of the World Series. The Baltimore Orioles had taken a 2-0 lead over the Pittsburgh Pirates in that series and Kevin, knowing I was rooting for the Pirates, offered me five dollars if Pittsburgh won the series against me paying him two dollars if the Orioles went on to win.

I took him up on that bet, and just like when he broke his hand on my skull, I ended up taking his money when the Pirates, led by the great Roberto Clemente, bounced back to win the thing in seven games. I got my five bucks, back when that kind of cash bought a kid more than one hamburger. It was suh-weeet.

The thrill of that moment didn't spill over into any kind of compulsive behavior.

A decade or so later, I participated in some action among my colleagues at the L.A. Times, who put together one of the first fantasy football leagues I'd ever heard of. We held a draft before the start of the season and battled it out from there. I'd personally like to thank Dan Fouts for earning me $400 that first season, back in the mid-'80s, as I rolled to a league championship.

I remember tuning into Chirs Berman's and Tom Jackson's highlight show on ESPN to check the scores and see how my guys did on any given Sunday, a ritual that added much more enjoyment and intensity to my already natural interest in NFL football. And then, there were subsequent NCAA Tournament pools in which I won a few and lost a whole lot more.

Win or lose, that added oomph to my interest in sports, limited though real gambling has always been for me. It personalized the games, helped me care more about the games' outcomes, made those outcomes … mine.

It was never near the reaches of, say, Pete Rose and his excessive gambling on sports. I've always remembered the story told by Rick Reilly, who was writing a profile on Pete way back in the day. Reilly was tailing Rose, following him around to get a flavor of who he was. One day, Rose came home from a busy day, was greeted by his beautiful wife at the door, who he gently nudged aside and ran straight for the TV to check hockey scores. Reilly said he remembered thinking, "Man, this guy really loves hockey!"

Well. We know now what Rose really loved — the action.

I'm not talking about or condoning compulsive gambling here. That's a problem. When gamblers are wasting away paychecks needed to make mortgage and car payments, that can be heartbreaking. I did an in-depth story once on those kinds of extreme and obsessive behaviors. I talked with Larry H. and Bill T. and Judy S. about compulsive betting and the way it damaged their lives. And interviewed psychologists and gaming industry experts about the risks of irresponsible wagering. There are risks, just like in any other endeavor or pursuit, for those who are vulnerable.

Too much of anything is too much. I get it.

But done responsibly, gambling can add to the sporting experience.

Truth is, sports and gambling go hand in hand. The outcomes are in doubt, so … who wants to put a few bones on those results? Turns out, a lot of people.

Not all, but a good portion of the NFL's huge success can be traced to the action placed on its games. And as long as the players and coaches aren't involved in that wagering, I've got no problem with it. The greatest threat and fear with professional leagues is that their players and teams might somehow get tangled up in gambling — because the integrity of the sport is at stake. That's why the rules against gambling are posted in nearly every locker room in every league, as they should be.

But NBA commissioner Adam Silver was right when he saw, again, the future during a panel discussion on Tuesday night that included the commissioners of the U.S.'s four major sports leagues. Silver, who has been on the record as a proponent of the federalized legalization of sports betting, said: "My sense is the law will change in the next few years in the United States."

He emphasized the significance of in-game betting to fan engagement, saying: "People want to bet throughout the game. … It results in enormous additional engagement with the fans."

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred brought up a good point when he added: "There's a difference between someone betting on whether the next ball is a strike or betting on the outcome of a game."

How comprehensive legalized sports gambling should get is a debate for a different time. But the point is, many responsible fans want to mix betting with their games. It adds to their enjoyment, it seems, and it engages them even more, which leagues have to love.

Simply sweeping the gambling under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist is the worst course of action. Letting sports fans go ahead and wager, in a regulated fashion, is the better course. It's one that Silver — and others, too — is convinced is just around the corner.

Anybody wanna bet on it?

GORDON MONSON hosts "The Big Show" with Spence Checketts weekdays from 3-7 p.m. on 97.5 FM and 1280 AM The Zone. Twitter: @GordonMonson.