Blog Entry

Charles Barkley lost $100K on Super Bowl?

Posted on: February 7, 2012 7:04 pm
Edited on: February 7, 2012 7:05 pm
  •  
 
Sir Charles should've bet that the first score of the Super Bowl would be a safety. (Getty Images)

By Ryan Wilson

It's too bad Charles Barkley didn't bet that the first score of Super Bowl XLVI would come by way of a safety. It would've offset the $100,000 he eventually lost.

During a radio appearance before the game, Sir Charles explained his decision to put 100 large on New England.

“I’m a big believer in ‘In God We Trust,’ and I trust in Belichick, bro," Barkley said via SportsRadioInterviews.com. "I’m going with the New England Patriots. … I’m almost changed the plane to go to Vegas because I wanted to get the 2.5. … Three scares the hell out of me.”

Barkley was also asked about a host of prop bets, none of which he got right (though he pushed on two!), and predicted a final score of 31-17, New England.

"I tell you, I don’t think it’s going to be close," he said. "As quiet as it’s kept, New England had the worst defense ever to make the Super Bowl, but if you look back at the playoffs, they’ve been one of the best defenses in the playoffs and I think that’s going to continue.”

Well, Chuck was right about one thing: the Pats' defense wasn't the reason they lost. It was some combination of Justin Tuck, Tom Brady and Wes Welker.

Barkley weighed in on the second biggest storyline of Super Bowl week, too: Peyton Manning, who appears to have played his last game for the Colts.

“My first opinion is I don’t think Peyton Manning should play football again. You’re talking about a neck," Barkley said. "I know he’s got a couple young twins. I don’t think he should play football at all. But I think the Colts have got to let him go. You can’t pay two quarterbacks. First of all, the team’s not going to be very good next year, to be honest with you, so why would he want to play on a bad team?”

And that's a question we could very well be asking when Peyton signs with the Dolphins or Redskins. The answer, obviously: they paid him a ton of money.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnNFL on Twitter, subscribe to our NFL newsletter, and while you're at it, add our RSS Feed
  •  
Comments

Since: May 2, 2008
Posted on: February 8, 2012 1:29 pm
 

Charles Barkley lost $100K on Super Bowl?

AMEN to that Freespirited.  If he had won. which he didn't, story would have been about him winning $100K or whatever his winnings would have been.  I felt the same way that NE would win easily, but I was wrong, and, luckily I did not bet (well, i did bet $10 and a beer!).



Since: Nov 27, 2008
Posted on: February 8, 2012 1:10 pm
 

Charles Barkley lost $100K on Super Bowl?

SO ? he lost a 100K on the game .......  whats your point ? he's allowed to bet too. Game was a toss up and he just as easily could have won it. Just one catch away from doing just that. Didnt anyone else lose money on the game ? must have, Vegas reported winning over $ 5 Mil. So he made a bet and lost. Big deal. Shouldnt even be news.



Since: Jan 9, 2007
Posted on: February 8, 2012 11:51 am
 

Charles Barkley lost $100K on Super Bowl?

Wish i knew ths BEFORE the game, so i could have quadrupled up. Place ur action a little earlier next year Barkley


eoodgood
Since: Feb 8, 2012
Posted on: February 8, 2012 9:51 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Dec 29, 2011
Posted on: February 8, 2012 8:31 am
 

Charles Barkley lost $100K on Super Bowl?

The only sure bet that Charles should bet on is that he will say something absolute stupid while live on TV.




Since: Feb 11, 2009
Posted on: February 8, 2012 1:23 am
 

Charles Barkley lost $100K on Super Bowl?

I can guess a lot of people bet on this game, but 100k?  Are you insane?  You have a history of having gambling troubles and you put that much on one side?  Chuck, you are or were great, but seriously, stop this madness!



Since: Jan 17, 2012
Posted on: February 8, 2012 1:11 am
 

Charles Barkley lost $100K on Super Bowl?

Charles got all caught up in all the hoopla about Brady and Bellycheck and forgot all about Gisele and her text about Brady's doubting himself and his ability to rise to the occassion on the biggest stage in sports.  You win as a team and you should lose as a team.  Welker was not the reason the Pats lost that game, plain and simple.  The reason the Pats lost, there were many but lets just keep it simple and say that most people just don't like them.  Charles should have gone with the popular opinion and he would have made a lot of money.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com