Iowa universities betting scandal

[AuH2O]

No they have rules against it they obviously don't monitor it or there wouldn't be so many getting dinged all at once and the schools wouldn't need to self report as they are. From my understanding the only reason these are probably coming to light is because it is against Iowa law, so it can also be taken out of the University's hands.

Correct - it could be that there are no NCAA violations. In fact, I bet when it's all said and done most of the gambling will have been on pro sports. For those where that's the case they commit an Iowa misdemeanor and commit no NCAA violations. Fine a few hundred bucks and move on.

 

[isufbcurt]

It isn't that there's an upside, but there's tons of downside. It only takes a couple cases of members of different sports teams at a university sharing insider info to one another coming out and the schools and NCAA have a real **** storm on their hands.

I think if viewed from the eyes of schools and ADs with the reality that college sports are not really this runaway train of revenue growth. Big 10 and SEC got huge deals for TV. Big 12 got a nice deal.

But here's what also is happening:
- ACC is in zero growth for a decade
- PAC is finding that there isn't much appetite left for inventory that there once was
- Attendance and TV ratings don't suggest growth
- We are just at the start of the demographic that started the biggest decline in football participation becoming household media purchase decision-makers
- Right or wrong, schools are likely worried about how pay for play and ease of transfers turning players into one year free agents is going to impact popularity of sports

I think schools and ADs see some signs of cracks in college sports' broad popularity and future growth. I think they are rightly sensitive about anything that would be damaging at this point. Combine some of these concerns above with the fact that they are likely facing significant diversions of donations from their athletic departments to NIL, and I think they are going to be cautious about anything potentially negative.

They can share insider information with people now. Non-athlete friends, family, etc can all ask them for insider information now. It's nothing new. Hell 20 years ago I had a kid on my dorm floor who illegally bet on games, he was always asking me for information. Now I didn't like him so I usually made stuff up to give him wrong information.

 

[BoxsterCy]

So what if a college football player bets on the super bowl/nba games/etc. and makes thousands of dollars?

Well, that would pretty much be some sort of miracle.

 

[MJ271]

One big difference is the NFL would have to monitor around 1700 players where as NCAA would have to monitor around 178,000 Division 1 athletes.

What exactly does the theoretical "monitoring" look like under any system? The only way to truly "monitor" is to have deals with all of the private companies and/or state gaming commissions that allow the NCAA to spy on any NCAA athlete accounts or prevent them from making accounts in the first place. I don't think that's probably realistic.

I think the most effective and reasonable system is to place restrictions on college athletes in situations where they are most likely to have insider info. Then, in those cases, sportsbooks will do what they are already trying to do (in pursuit of making money) and monitor for account activity that looks out of place, when insider info is passed along or when competition integrity may be compromised. That's what happened in the Alabama baseball coach case. The NCAA can primarily stay out of it and investigate as needed. The NCAA isn't good at catching people for doing things that don't break laws but do break NCAA rules. I don't think there's a system with strict betting rules that the NCAA can monitor effectively.

 

[MJ271]

Correct - it could be that there are no NCAA violations. In fact, I bet when it's all said and done most of the gambling will have been on pro sports. For those where that's the case they commit an Iowa misdemeanor and commit no NCAA violations. Fine a few hundred bucks and move on.

To clarify, the only way it doesn't break NCAA rules is if the betting is on pro sports that the NCAA doesn't have. So horse racing, MMA, and other similar sports betting is allowed under NCAA rules, but NBA and NFL betting is not.

 

[Pope]

No they have rules against it they obviously don't monitor it or there wouldn't be so many getting dinged all at once and the schools wouldn't need to self report as they are. From my understanding the only reason these are probably coming to light is because it is against Iowa law, so it can also be taken out of the University's hands.

That's my point. The NCAA already does not monitor the current gambling rule, they depend on the universities to self monitor and self report. Thus, modifying the gambling rule would not change how it is monitored.

 

[GoldCy]

It's hard to believe how naive people are to the consequences of betting and becoming indebted to the system. Especially when someone is in control of events that might influence the outcome of other wagering opportunities.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

It isn't that there's an upside, but there's tons of downside. It only takes a couple cases of members of different sports teams at a university sharing insider info to one another coming out and the schools and NCAA have a real **** storm on their hands.

I think if viewed from the eyes of schools and ADs with the reality that college sports are not really this runaway train of revenue growth. Big 10 and SEC got huge deals for TV. Big 12 got a nice deal.

But here's what also is happening:
- ACC is in zero growth for a decade
- PAC is finding that there isn't much appetite left for inventory that there once was
- Attendance and TV ratings don't suggest growth
- We are just at the start of the demographic that started the biggest decline in football participation becoming household media purchase decision-makers
- Right or wrong, schools are likely worried about how pay for play and ease of transfers turning players into one year free agents is going to impact popularity of sports

I think schools and ADs see some signs of cracks in college sports' broad popularity and future growth. I think they are rightly sensitive about anything that would be damaging at this point. Combine some of these concerns above with the fact that they are likely facing significant diversions of donations from their athletic departments to NIL, and I think they are going to be cautious about anything potentially negative.

But gambling is the avenue to continued growth, not the downfall of it. Sports outlets recognize that. That is why showing/discussing game odds, people like SVP giving their pick of the week, etc has become so mainstream in sports media. Soon every major sport except for the NBA will have a franchise located in Las Vegas when that was previously taboo.

There is no better way to get casual viewers to a game than if they have some skin in the game

 

[SolterraCyclone]

It's hard to believe how naive people are to the consequences of betting and becoming indebted to the system. Especially when someone is in control of events that might influence the outcome of other wagering opportunities.

With all due respect, in my opinion, the naïveté is on the other side. I see a lot of reefer madness in responses here.

 

[MJ271]

It's hard to believe how naive people are to the consequences of betting and becoming indebted to the system. Especially when someone is in control of events that might influence the outcome of other wagering opportunities.

When you say indebted to the system, what exactly do you mean? Because the idea of going to a bookie and making bets with verbal agreements rather than money up front isn't how it works anymore. Yes, there are ways that someone could go into credit card debt, although some banks block credit card gambling transactions, and some states, including Iowa, don't allow credit cards to be used at all to directly pay for gambling, so it's obviously a bit more difficult than just using your credit card to pay, no questions asked.

No one is at risk of having a representative of FanDuel physically threaten them because they haven't paid. That's not how it works nowadays. (Not saying that's how you think it works, but I've seen some posts here that seem to imply that it's still something that happens.)

 

[CloniesForLife]

@1UNI2ISU has already said it a couple times but I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone that ends up getting in trouble for this. Ethically, I think it’s a ridiculous rule that college players can’t bet on pro/other sports they have nothing to do with.

But, speaking from firsthand experience, it’s beat into their heads from compliance every single year that this is a no no with serious consequences. Whichever athletes that chose to ignore that are selfish morons that deserve whatever is coming to them.

Yeah this seems like the rule is very clear and communicated. So whoever did that was being irresponsible.

 

[AuH2O]

But gambling is the avenue to continued growth, not the downfall of it. Sports outlets recognize that. That is why showing/discussing game odds, people like SVP giving their pick of the week, etc has become so mainstream in sports media. Soon every major sport except for the NBA will have a franchise located in Las Vegas when that was previously taboo.

There is no better way to get casual viewers to a game than if they have some skin in the game

Yes, and an NCAA limitation is on NCAA athletes betting on sports on which the NCAA holds a championship.

So the "growth" you describe being limited by the current NCAA limitations is only NCAA athletes that will gamble on a sport and would otherwise not watch it without the ability to gamble on it.

You're talking about restricting growth among total consumers that's in the absolute statistical noise. 99+% of consumers of revenue sports are, by absolute statistical necessity, not NCAA athletes. Of that <1%, how many of them gamble? Of that even smaller subset how many only consume college sports if they could gamble on them.

The amount of growth being restricted by the NCAA rules is in the noise. And the schools likely view the potential perception problem of allowing NCAA students to gamble on other NCAA sports, as tiny as the real risk actually is, as being greater than that.

The downside and risk of real problems by allowing NCAA athletes to bet on NCAA sports is REALLY small in my opinion. The risk of the perception hurting interest by the general public is fairly small, but ANY negative impact on the general public's interest in college sport absolutely dwarfs that of the subset of growth that would come from NCAA opening up gambling by its athletes on other NCAA sports. That is the logic of the schools. And they can't prevent insider information provided to betters, but if they think this helps reduce that risk through deterrence in any way, it makes sense for them.

 

[AuH2O]

To clarify, the only way it doesn't break NCAA rules is if the betting is on pro sports that the NCAA doesn't have. So horse racing, MMA, and other similar sports betting is allowed under NCAA rules, but NBA and NFL betting is not.

Thanks - that's a good clarification.

Seems like a dumb restriction by the NCAA, just like the NFL's placing bets in team facilities rule. But then again, other than having guys suspended, there isn't much motivation for the NCAA to change an allow it.

 

[cycloner29]

Meanwhile Pete Rose sits on the outside looking in.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Yes, and an NCAA limitation is on NCAA athletes betting on sports on which the NCAA holds a championship.

So the "growth" you describe being limited by the current NCAA limitations is only NCAA athletes that will gamble on a sport and would otherwise not watch it without the ability to gamble on it.

You're talking about restricting growth among total consumers that's in the absolute statistical noise. 99+% of consumers of revenue sports are, by absolute statistical necessity, not NCAA athletes. Of that <1%, how many of them gamble? Of that even smaller subset how many only consume college sports if they could gamble on them.

The amount of growth being restricted by the NCAA rules is in the noise. And the schools likely view the potential perception problem of allowing NCAA students to gamble on other NCAA sports, as tiny as the real risk actually is, as being greater than that.

The downside and risk of real problems by allowing NCAA athletes to bet on NCAA sports is REALLY small in my opinion. The risk of the perception hurting interest by the general public is fairly small, but ANY negative impact on the general public's interest in college sport absolutely dwarfs that of the subset of growth that would come from NCAA opening up gambling by its athletes on other NCAA sports. That is the logic of the schools. And they can't prevent insider information provided to betters, but if they think this helps reduce that risk through deterrence in any way, it makes sense for them.

Sorry, if I misunderstood. Obviously, NCAA athletes who gamble isn’t a source of growth in viewership. Gambling as an entity is the growth avenue for sports viewership because it brings more casual viewers (not just NCAA athletes) than the game itself otherwise would.

My position is online, legalized gambling WILL keep growing because of that. And since gambling will be growing, student athletes WILL gamble, probably in large amounts. The sport is at greater risk by continually cracking down these student athlete versus putting in mechanisms that allow them to partake but not put the competitive integrity at risk.

The Iowa/ISU situation is the tip of the iceberg. This is hypothetical, but what if ISU loses like 5 starters on the football team for the year because of this. What if Iowa loses 10? Do you think that will make you more or less eager to watch their games this fall?

Since you are a big fan, I’m sure you’ll still watch, but apply that logic to the casual fan. Will they? Probably less likely. Now replace ISU/Iowa with Penn St, or Notre Dame, or Michigan, or USC, or Deion’s CU (all of which reside in states with/soon to have legal, online gambling). Are casual fans going to tune into a neutered Michigan (a ratings darling) get dominated week in and week out cause they’ve lost a bunch of players for betting the NBA championship. The NCAA would have a lot of questions to answer at that point.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Sorry, if I misunderstood. Obviously, NCAA athletes who gamble isn’t a source of growth in viewership. Gambling as an entity is the growth avenue for sports viewership because it brings more casual viewers (not just NCAA athletes) than the game itself otherwise would.

My position is online, legalized gambling WILL keep growing because of that. And since gambling will be growing, student athletes WILL gamble, probably in large amounts. The sport is at greater risk by continually cracking down these student athlete versus putting in mechanisms that allow them to partake but not put the competitive integrity at risk.

The Iowa/ISU situation is the tip of the iceberg. This is hypothetical, but what if ISU loses like 5 starters on the football team for the year because of this. What if Iowa loses 10? Do you think that will make you more or less eager to watch their games this fall?

Since you are a big fan, I’m sure you’ll still watch, but apply that logic to the casual fan. Will they? Probably less likely. Now replace ISU/Iowa with Penn St, or Notre Dame, or Michigan, or USC, or Deion’s CU (all of which reside in states with/soon to have legal, online gambling). Are casual fans going to tune into a neutered Michigan (a ratings darling) get dominated week in and week out cause they’ve lost a bunch of players for betting the NBA championship. The NCAA would have a lot of questions to answer at that point.

So if ISU loses 5 starters they deserve it. The rules are very clear on this and the players all understand it and are told about it in no uncertain terms. They broke the rules, they get punished. Nothing was hidden from them, there is no gotcha moment, they clearly knew the rules and broke them. **** sucks but they knowingly put their playing time and team at risk by doing it.

Personally I don’t think much of any punishment will come from this but the players all knew what they were doing so no one is going to feel bad.

 

[ljm4cy]

So if ISU loses 5 starters they deserve it. The rules are very clear on this and the players all understand it and are told about it in no uncertain terms. They broke the rules, they get punished. Nothing was hidden from them, there is no gotcha moment, they clearly knew the rules and broke them. **** sucks but they knowingly put their playing time and team at risk by doing it.

Personally I don’t think much of any punishment will come from this but the players all knew what they were doing so no one is going to feel bad.

Alan Tisdale of Virginia Tech self-reported betting on the NBA and was ruled ineligible for 6 games in 2022. Can't see how there would be a lesser punishment for these violations. I could see the same punishment if the current players self-reported after the universities sent out a blanket request to disclose. However, if the individual violation was discovered from investigation and not self-reporting, I could see the one year ineligibility be imposed.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Alan Tisdale of Virginia Tech self-reported betting on the NBA and was ruled ineligible for 6 games in 2022. Can't see how there would be a lesser punishment for these violations. I could see the same punishment if the current players self-reported after the universities sent out a blanket request to disclose. However, if the individual violation was discovered from investigation and not self-reporting, I could see the one year ineligibility be imposed.

You could certainly be right but I don’t think the exact violations have been reported yet. It could break Iowa law but not NCAA rules for all we know.

Regardless the players knew they weren’t supposed to do it and that they could be punished if they did. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

 

[SolterraCyclone]

So if ISU loses 5 starters they deserve it. The rules are very clear on this and the players all understand it and are told about it in no uncertain terms. They broke the rules, they get punished. Nothing was hidden from them, there is no gotcha moment, they clearly knew the rules and broke them. **** sucks but they knowingly put their playing time and team at risk by doing it.

Personally I don’t think much of any punishment will come from this but the players all knew what they were doing so no one is going to feel bad.

I get it. They knew the rules. They broke the rules. I’m not even saying they don’t “deserve” to be punished in this circumstance.

I’m saying maintaining this policy and levying heavy punishments SHOULD be changed because they will hurt the sport. Do you or do you not believe that student-athletes are gambling in large amounts?

 

[nrg4isu]

Kirk responds: