While gambling odds have been referenced on sports broadcasts for a long time, the recent expansion of legalized sports betting has seen many more open and more specific references. We’re a long way from the days where the likes of Brent Musburger and Al Michaels would sneak in references to particular point spreads. And sometimes, that comes up with broadcasters doing in-game promotional reads for various live betting odds, then quickly calling a play resulting in those odds, as Judd Sirott did Tuesday night.
Sirott was calling the Boston Bruins’ game against the Minnesota Wild on NESN. During a stoppage in play, he did an ad read for FanDuel’s live odds of specific Boston players scoring a goal. Then, about a minute later after the resumption of play, one of those players, Trent Frederic, scored. And Sirott referenced the odds he’d just talked about, saying “He scores! That’s +900 if you made the wager fast enough.”
A minute after Bruins’ NESN voice Judd Sirott did a promo read on FanDuel live odds for certain Bruins’ players scoring, one of those players (Trent Frederic) scored. That led to Sirott’s “He scores! That’s +900 if you made the wager fast enough” call. pic.twitter.com/NxMO3loFV9
— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) February 5, 2025
This sparked a lot of X discussion from people annoyed about the specific odds reference. But much of that came around a particular clip from ALLCITY hockey podcaster Pete Blackburn that didn’t include the earlier odds discussion, which was key to Sirott’s reference here. Here’s some of that debate:
Like, this is insane. Who wants this? https://t.co/69sFUoYQN5 pic.twitter.com/UpZgQGH4v1
— Pete Blackburn (@PeteBlackburn) February 5, 2025
I mean he’s clearly only mentioning it because it’s ironic he just finished an ad read on it? Not because he loves gambling and is shoving it down your throat
— Chris Miller (@ChrisMilller8) February 5, 2025
Judd never does, it’s just cause they were talking about odds like seconds before so it was a cool coincidence
— Bruins (@bstnbruins88) February 5, 2025
Still, some were quite upset to hear odds in a goal call:
The odds popping up in the goal call is actually insanity
— Hockey Daily 365 l NHL Highlights & News (@HockeyDaily365) February 5, 2025
We’ve had it in breaks in play in Australian sports for years, but it feels like the US has caught up and then overtaken at an absolutely rapid rate. The in-play live odds stuff is just a bit gross
— Simon Anderson (@simonjourno) February 5, 2025
My god. Absolutely brutal. Wings have FanDuel odds and stuff like showing live odds and anytime scorer odds pregame but it’s always between the whistles. Never during play
— NR (@detnr19) February 5, 2025
There are definitely people against odds being specifically mentioned in a goal call like this under any circumstances, and that’s an understandable perspective. And, beyond that, particular highlights also have an existence outside of the full context of a broadcast. That can be with the way they’re shared on social media, or in team or league game highlights packages, or on outside highlights shows like SportsCenter or NHL Tonight. So the connection to the previous promo read certainly isn’t going to be made by the entire audience that sees this goal.
But, at the same time, the context here does have an impact. This wasn’t Sirott (who’d called the Bruins on radio for the last seven seasons before replacing famed TV announcer Jack Edwards following Edwards’ retirement ahead of this season) just referencing odds out of the blue in the wake of Frederic’s goal. It’s also not him doing this for every single goal. This was almost immediately after a live odds promo read where the biggest listed longshot scored. And there’s some logic to the broadcast acknowledging that.
Of course, this might have angered less people if Sirott had brought up these odds a little after the call of the goal itself. And that certainly would have led to less drama from those highlights being seen out of the full broadcast’s context. And there’s definitely also a wider debate to be had about the place of gambling references on sports broadcasts, and the overall merits of player prop bets (which have caused all sorts of problems) and on-air references to them. But the context here shows why Sirott did this, and how this seems more like a unique moment than an established pattern from him.