ODDS ON PROMOTIONS made the right call Wednesday when it failed to award $50,000 to an 11-year-old Owatonna boy who sunk a hockey puck into a 1.5 by 3.5-inch hole during an August 11 charity hockey event in Faribault.
Nate Smith, who made the shot from 89 feet, wasn’t even supposed to be on the ice. It was his twin brother Nick’s name that was drawn to attempt the shot. But Nick had stepped outside the hockey arena, so Nate subbed for Nick.
Not until the next day did the Smith family reveal to officials that Nate, not Nick, sunk the puck.
That ignited a firestorm of controversy with the story going national. Should the Smiths get the $50,000?
The Reno, Nevada, group insuring the event ruled yesterday that because of legal and contractual issues, the Smiths will not get the $50,000.
That was the right decision, in my opinion, given Nate obviously is not Nick and, although the family told officials the truth the following day, they did not do so initially.
Yet, despite the decision, there are still winners in this story. Odds On Promotions is donating $20,000 in the brothers’ names to youth hockey programs in Owatonna—where the Smith boys play hockey—and in Faribault.
That’s a smart move on Odds On Promotions part. You can’t buy that kind of positive publicity for $20,000. Plus, the substantial gift will calm the ire of those who may disagree with the company’s decision.
The Smiths aren’t complete losers here either. Friday morning they’ll appear on “The Today Show,” according to an article in The Faribault Daily News. Shortly after Nate made the shot and the controversy started, the family was in New York making the talk show rounds.
In summary, we could all learn a lesson from this story about rules, honesty and compromise.
WHAT’S YOUR OPINION on the decision made by Odds On Promotions not to award the Smith family $50,000? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Minnesota Prairie Roots 
The company “Odds on promotions” was completely right in what they did. The boy was not the contestant drawn for one, and the family then LIED to get the money. It shows what kind of people they are. I think it was extremely generous that Odds on promotions donated that big chunk of money despite of the fraudulent act the family tried to commit!
I agree 100 percent that Odds On Promotions made the right decision in not awarding the $50K to the Smiths.
I also agree that the family was not honest, until the day after.
To add to this story, Shattuck St. Mary’s School in Faribault, where the charity hockey event was held, has now given the twins each a FREE three-week session at the school’s hockey camp next summer, according to an article at faribault.com, our daily newspaper. I am disappointed that this prestigious prep school in Faribault would gift the boys with a free campership valued at a total of $6,000.
Seriously! They are a insurance company making millions of dollars off of charity groups….please, the right decision would have been 25,000 to each kid in a form of a college bond!
All this company did was a cost saving decision, Save 30,000 but at the same time save face by donation 20,000.
Interesting points well worth considering.
I think your definition of “positive publicity” is a little different than mine.
When I read this story I kept thinking of the Harold Ramis character, Moe Green from Second City Television. He would start mopping his brow with a handkerchief every time one of his bowling for dollars contestants would come close to winning.
The sales team at Odds On must have been sweating bullets until they found out the wrong kid played the game.
Does anyone know how they came up with the 20K figure to donate? Why not 25 or the whole 50K?
I’m not familiar with the television show or character you reference. But, yes, I expect anyone would sweat bullets on a possible $50K pay-out.
I, too, would like to know how Odds On Promotions determined the amount given to the two youth hockey organizations. That the firm gifted this money to youth is a positive.
Irhnn (i really hate nick names), as far as your second comment lifting a quote from the Odds On Promotions website, I am not publishing your comment because I was unable to find that quote on the company’s site. I’m not saying it’s not there, but if it is, I could not find it. And I like to confirm information like that.
And, yes, I had been onto the Odds On Promotions site prior to writing my post.
I’ll mix this up a little bit for you again. Remember now that powerball is very clear on this. The one who shows up with the winning ticket is the winner. They could care less who bought the ticket. Now it is clear that the Dad purchased the ticket. It is legally his ticket. Have you seen the ticket? It is just one of those numbered tickets that come in pairs. You show up with the matching number and you are a winner. The holder of the ticket can send anyone to claim the prize. There was no requirement that had to designate a holder of the ticket.
A good lawyer could have found the money I say. An honest parent taught us all a lesson in raising his kids. To call him a liar is just mean.
Maybe we should realize this is a win win win win for everyone.
Jim, I expected I would hear from you again. I appreciate your commenting, although you know that we disagree on this entire issue. We are all entitled to our opinions and, in no way was I attempting to be “mean” to the family nor have I called them liars. Not honest initially, in my opinion, but not flat out liars.
No, I have not seen the ticket. It was/still is my understanding that a name was needed to sign up for the raffle and that was Nick Smith’s name.
You might be correct that a good lawyer could possibly, somehow, “get the money” for the Smiths. It is admirable that they are not pursuing a legal challenge.
Yes, there are winners in this case. I think those winners are the two youth hockey programs and even the family with getting those camperships and the other opportunities that have come their way. Also, that shot Nick made remains an incredible feat.
I hope you don’t mind my asking, but with the last name of Smith, are you related to the family? Readers would expect me to ask, so I am. I know it’s a common name…
If Odds on awarded the money, they would be expected to do it again and again if another situation arose like this one. And that is actually not fair to the company. I know this company is actually very generous with their money and gifts. They donate a lot. And they donated to the boys’ establishment. And actually the ticket is designated to ONE person, not to whomever the father chooses. I used to work there, so I actually KNOW first hand!!! And they are not a greedy company, like the father of the boys !!!!
It is interesting to get your inside perspective on Odds On Promotions. More to ponder, that’s for sure.
Here is an article stating the FACTS and its from the Smith’s hometown!
http://faribault.com/content/prize-denied-whirlwind-continues-smith-family
The article you reference is on the front page of today’s Faribault Daily News, but originated from The People’s Press in Owatonna, also home to the Smith family. The two are sister publications. The hockey event where the shot was made happened in my community of Faribault, just down the interstate from Owatonna.
I think the reporter did a good job of covering all angles of the story by interviewing those involved. His story includes some interesting information and quotes.
Wrong call.It’s against the law to sell lottery/raffle tickets to those not of legal age..they don’t have to pay but they could be sued for breaking the law in the sale of the ticket.Minors cannot legally enter a contract.
The ticket was purchased by the father, Pat Smith, who put Nick’s name on the raffle ticket. Not sure how that factors into the legal point you are bringing up here. I’m not familiar with the law relating to minors, raffle ticket sales and legally-binding contracts as you suggest would apply here.
I am not related. Nor have I ever Pat and his family.
Thank you, Jim. I didn’t think so, but I needed to ask so that readers were aware. I appreciate your getting back to me. I’ve been out of town for several days without internet access, thus the delay in posting your answer to my question.
I think Odds On did the right thing! $20K donation is very generous… especially considering the father didn’t fess up until after the fact! Faribault has a great article about the whole situation – Taleah above linked it… I agree with you 100%, Taleah!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this situation.
To me, the issue is revealing the truth when it first is needed. Kind of like the Senser case. Everything would have changed had the one “in the know” made a different decision when the truth was first, needed.
You summarized my position on the $50K case quite succinctly. Well said.