When I was a kid, the Pete Rose scandal was all over the news. How could this guy who embodied baseball bet on games?

We talked about it in class and one kid made an excuse that many Americans have made then and even now about Rose: “He may have bet on baseball, but he never bet against the Reds.” That has been trumpeted by Rose supporters, even after his death.

In the wake of the NBA betting scandal that shocked the sports world last week, I had to revisit that excuse for Rose. No, I am not trying to smear the dead. But Rose, Chauncey Billups, Terry Rozier and others looped into sports betting all face the same temptation. It is much easier to bet on yourself to lose than it is to bet on yourself to win.

When you play poker with your friends, you always bet on yourself to win. That’s the point of the game — and it's the thrill you get from taking your friends' money.

When you go into a casino, you don’t go in with the mindset that you want the house to win. You know that the house always wins, but you want to luck your way into proving that old adage wrong. You bet with your buddies that you can make a basketball shot, get the highest grade on a test, jump the highest, run the fastest, or whatever you want to compete on.

But it's different for professional sports athletes.

NBA legend Charles Barkley got into a spat with his “Inside the NBA” co-host Kenny Smith about the recent scandal. Smith tried to explain away the reasoning for players and coaches engaging in this behavior as a gambling addiction. Barkley said it was

© The Hill