The NCAAs suggestion to prohibit collegiate athletes from wagering on player props is a multifaceted issue.
On certain Sundays, Charles Moore finds himself seated behind a professional or collegiate athlete at a place of worship. He begins contemplating: What kind of gambling instruction has this athlete received? If he performs poorly in a game, will he be subjected to intimidation? What can I do to provide assistance to him?
The NCAAs proposal to prohibit collegiate athletes from wagering on player props is not a straightforward matter.
Charles Moore serves as the executive director of the Wyoming Gaming Commission (WGC). Casper, with a population of 58,543, is the second-largest city in the least populous state in the United States. It is also the birthplace of Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Logan Wilson.
Wyoming’s current sporting reputation is tied to Buffalo Bills starting quarterback Josh Allen, a graduate of the University of Wyoming. There are four current NFL players who attended college in Wyoming, and one current NBA player (Larry Nance Jr.). New York Mets outfielder Brandon Nimmo is a native of Cheyenne, the state’s largest city (population 64,795).
Is there a direct connection between intimidation and player props?
These thoughts are all swirling in Moore’s mind.
“We are aware that our student athletes are being subjected to harassment,” Moore stated. “We are also aware that this is occurring in the NFL. However, how do you weigh this against the individuals who are wagering on player props? We know they are being harassed. This is also happening in Little League baseball. But to what extent is it directly linked to prop betting?”
Its a tough query to address, and not a simple one to resolve. In the past few months, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been encouraging states to prohibit wagering on college athletes. The organization claims it seeks to safeguard student athletes. Louisiana, Maryland, and Ohio are among the few states that have responded to the request.
Beginning March 1st, wagers on college players in Ohio are no longer permitted. Matthew Schuler, executive director of the Ohio Casino Control Commission, announced today that he approved the NCAA’s request to prohibit such wagers. All remaining future bets must be canceled by next Friday.
“The NCAA is more dedicated than ever to protecting student-athletes and the integrity of competition from the negative effects of sports betting, and we hope to see all states remove individual player prop bets on college games from their books,” the NCAA stated in a press release. “The association has been collaborating with states to address these threats, and many states are responding by forbidding college prop bets.”
Maryland and Ohio implemented the new prohibition before March 1st, which was earlier than the NCAA’s March Madness basketball tournament. Louisiana’s ban will take effect on August 1st. Other states, including Arizona, Massachusetts, and New York, prohibited college player prop bets when they opened their markets.
The lack of information is a challenge.
The NCAA and the University of Wyoming reached out to Moore’s WGC to consider a prohibition.
The group will host its initial introductory session on the subject this Thursday (May 9th).
“We won’t avoid the conversation,” stated Moore. “I believe there’s just not a lot of knowledge available at this time. I think we’re still in the stage of wanting to learn more. To be honest, I’m unsure where it will go or where it needs to go. I believe it’s due to a lack of information.”
Moore is not alone. There’s little proof to suggest whether or how university or professional athletes are being negatively impacted by prop wagers. Major legal operators in the United States reportedly only offer prop bets on college baseball, basketball (men’s and women’s), and football. Some don’t even offer baseball wagers, as it’s a niche sport.
A source indicated that 85% of college prop bets are placed on about 100 student-athletes. Many of these 100 are some of the most recognizable student-athletes in the nation, with significant name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements. According to NCAA data, its member institutions had over 520,000 student-athletes as of 2021-22. Of those, 192,103 athletes participated at the Division I level.
One industry source, who requested anonymity, described the NCAA’s efforts as “using a baseball bat to swat a fly when you only need a fly swatter.”
NCAA grandstanding?
Some believe the NCAA’s desire for a prohibition is purely political. Some have labeled the ban “low-hanging fruit.”
Individuals involved in the process assert that safeguarding athletes at all costs is a stance that will not be met with opposition.
“The only outcome of your actions is to push everything into the illicit market,” stated Brandon Busman, leader of the betting advisory firm BGlobal. “The NCAA is attempting to conceal the reality, taking every measure to cover it up. [NCAA President] Charlie Baker is gaining substantial political leverage from a position he will regret later.”
Baker, the former head of Massachusetts, joined the NCAA last year. He is well-versed in the political arena, and the NCAA is not generally perceived as an organization that prioritizes pleasing the public. The appointment was intentional, and the matter has the potential to generate significant political capital for the organization from its affiliated institutions and student athletes.
“I understand the NCAA’s strategy, engaging in political maneuvering, striving to secure public support,” remarked an unnamed source. “Charlie Baker is a seasoned politician. This is part of a rebranding initiative that the NCAA is undertaking.”
The mistreatment of college athletes is not a novel occurrence. The “Fab Five” from Michigan lost two NCAA championships, one famously due to Chris Webber’s timeout, which cost them the 1993 championship against Duke. Following that game, the team endured “negative reactions” and “bigoted and hateful” correspondence, as reported by The Guardian. At the time, sports betting was largely prohibited. The NCAA did not intervene to prevent this mistreatment.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) ought to be taking a more assertive stance, Bussmann stated. When I converse with teams and leagues about this matter, they’re attempting to comprehend the distinction between the marketplace and what Charlie Baker is conveying. The NCAA has disregarded this issue for over two decades, but [Baker is] making it a political triumph.
Harassment is unacceptable, but prohibiting props is merely the initial step.
Politics aside, interested parties concur that while the number of athletes involved is generally small, they should be shielded.
“The sports wagering industry does not endorse student athletes being harassed,” an anonymous source stated. The industry “is actively collaborating with regulators to guarantee they establish rules to eradicate misconduct, as evidenced in Ohio and West Virginia.”
However, many question whether prohibiting prop bets will achieve the desired outcome.
“I believe prohibiting prop bets is merely a portion of the solution, and if we don’t take further action to educate about betting and how to address these subtleties and novel issues, it’s a systemic failure,” said Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a problem and responsible gambling advisor.
JMP’s Jordan Bender estimates that an NCAA-backed prohibition on collegiate prop bets would reduce the legal sports betting market by $200 million, benefiting illicit betting operations.
Ultimately, bettors will discover a means to wager on games and players, and we believe that endeavors to ban… pic.twitter.com/71dUgUEuhO
The concept of prohibiting collegiate prop bets has raised several concerns for the betting industry.
Each operator desires to provide a wide range of betting options. Illicit markets will offer any wager that yields them a profit. Some individuals believe that eliminating a market will force bettors to seek out wagering opportunities abroad, where they are no longer shielded and may not even be guaranteed payment. “Unlawful and offshore sports betting platforms offer player props, and denying customers the right to bet legally will merely drive bettors to unregulated markets,” stated Joe Maloney, senior vice president of strategic communications at the American Gaming Association. “Our sector strongly supports the shared and universal goal of minimizing athlete harassment and upholding integrity, and we eagerly anticipate constructive discussions with gambling regulators and other stakeholders to ensure that robust legal sports betting markets retain regulatory safeguards that protect consumers, athletes, and the integrity of competition.” At present, there is no evidence to suggest that prohibiting any market would compel players to wager overseas—or in neighboring states. Data indicates that the average American sports bettor has approximately three betting applications on their mobile device. Consequently, if a player who wagers in a legal market transitions to an offshore platform and downloads a new application, they are likely to delete a legal application, resulting in the operator losing that customer. “It is reasonable to assume that if consumers have a strong interest in college player prop markets, illicit sports betting websites will offer those markets,” remarked Chris Grove, a sports betting industry investor and executive.
The notion that prohibiting collegiate athlete proposition wagers will curb gambling on them is faulty. If individuals are already wagering on these markets illicitly, then a prohibition won’t deter them. It’s akin to attempting to halt the flow of water by constructing a barrier in a river. The water will simply discover an alternative route.
The genuine issue is the harassment of players, irrespective of where the wagers are placed. Social media has facilitated the ease with which individuals can unleash their anger without repercussions. It’s a societal concern, and it won’t be resolved by outlawing proposition bets.
The emphasis should be on enlightening individuals about responsible gambling and holding them accountable for their actions. Proposition bets and micro-bets can exacerbate the problem, but the fundamental issue is the deficiency of respect and accountability within our society.
Nevertheless, both parties concur that this form of wagering itself ought not to be censured. The acceptance of improper conduct within society and the capacity to place bets from electronic devices are also pivotal matters.
A few states have prohibited tormentors.
Since sports wagering was made lawful, Dura-Sawyer stated, this has resulted in disgruntled bettors being more inclined to publicly express their viewpoints.
“If you are an irate bettor and betting is illicit, you are less likely to confess and say anything,” she remarked. “It is simpler now to say, ‘Hey, you have wronged me.’ Because now they are engaging in a legal activity. We also reside in a culture where there is less editing and filtering of information.
“There is data that suggests that heightened betting leads to harassment, but it is also a societal issue stemming from the proliferation of social media.”
In Ohio and West Virginia, individuals found to be harassing collegiate and professional athletes will be prohibited from wagering in the legal marketplace. However, they can still place bets overseas, so relying solely on regulators to halt harassment is insufficient.
“It would be advantageous if the betting industry resolved to penalize these individuals,” Sheridan Tucker remarked. “We must reach a point where this behavior is not tolerated, enough is enough.”
How NIL influences NCAA sports
This year, there have been high-profile harassment incidents in Ohio and North Carolina. Cleveland Cavaliers head coach JB Bickerstaff received threatening text messages from a bettor.
North Carolina standout Armando Bacot remarked during the NCAA tournament that he “received more than a hundred messages from individuals stating I was awful because I didn’t grab enough rebounds. I believe that’s a bit excessive.”
Will Zach Edey surpass 25.5 points? Will Paige Bueckers secure more than 6.5 rebounds? How many three-pointers will Caitlin Clark sink?
As the Final Four approaches, there’s mounting concern about the potential risks associated with college prop wagers. [@EricPrisbell](https://twitter.com/EricPrisbell?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw): [https://t.co/m0cP0662Qo](https://t.co/m0cP0662Qo) pic.twitter.com/bLSkMzzc66
Bacot is among a select group of players who have achieved sufficient notoriety to have prop bets offered on their performances. One avenue through which he attained this fame was through NIL agreements.
The capacity of high-profile college athletes to generate income through NIL deals has significantly enhanced their financial resources and public recognition. Bacot has partnerships with Dunkin’ Donuts, Frosted Flakes, and other brands, reportedly earning a seven-figure sum.
This figure pales in comparison to the $3.1 million Iowa’s Caitlin Clark has accumulated through NIL deals. USC freshman basketball player Bronny James — LeBron’s offspring — has earned $4.9 million to date.
Cultural norms need to evolve to safeguard athletes
Dara Saville asserts that harassed athletes “feel as though their world is collapsing.” Some struggle to manage the immense pressure. She and others concur that these athletes deserve protection. However, she maintains that prohibiting prop bets is merely the initial step.
Its a significant issue if we don’t educate individuals more about wagering and how to manage these new developments, she stated. States really need to put in more effort to put a stop to bullying.
The NCAA desires to prohibit proposition bets, claiming it’s detrimental to the sport and because athletes are being bullied more and more.
Illinois coach Brad Underwood stated, “I don’t want to witness a day when individuals won’t go for a loose ball due to proposition bets.”
A gambling company worker who preferred to remain anonymous said, “Everyone despises this behavior. We need to modify the way individuals act, change the atmosphere so people don’t engage in this kind of behavior. We need to make supporters feel at ease enough to tell each other, ‘Hey, what you’re saying isn’t acceptable.'”
“The leagues, teams, sports news, organizations, and gambling companies, they all desire the same outcome. Some groups are attempting to say, ‘Hey, don’t be a jerk,’ and make supporters feel like they can tell people off when they cross the line. It’s a shift in how things are done that seems like the most effective way to resolve the issue, instead of simply making proposition betting illegal.”
