On the same day that the NCAA found itself in a new betting scandal (or, more accurately, an existing one that finally hit the federal-court fan), the NCAA made a public plea to scrap individual prop bets.
“One issue that deeply troubles the NCAA is betting markets centering around many aspects of a student-athlete’s individual athletic performance, otherwise known as player prop bets,” NCAA president Charlie Baker wrote in a letter that was sent to all state gambling commissions and that was posted online. “While these types of bets are prohibited in some states with legalized sports betting, they are still offered in a majority of jurisdictions. The NCAA national office regularly hears concerns from schools and student-athletes across the country on the impacts of sports betting. Those schools and student-athletes cite issues surrounding player prop bets, including instances of harassment, competition integrity and other well-being concerns.”
The NCAA’s concerns include harassment of players, solicitation of inside information, and “spot fixing,” which allows players to manipulate aspects of a game without trying to fix or rig the broader outcome.
Of the 39 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have legalized wagering since 2018, four (Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio, and Vermont) have banned individual prop bets involving college athletes.
A strong case can be made to ban all individual prop bets, college and pro. They are the crack cocaine of sports betting, transforming the specific players on whom wagers are placed into the dice on the table, the ball on the roulette wheel. They can be manipulated.
The counter (pushed typically by those who are in bed with the sportsbooks) is that folks who want to place prop bets will place them illegally, if they’re removed from the menu of legal wagers that can be quickly and easily made on a cell phone device. That’s a weak argument. With so many different types of legal betting, on so many different worldwide sports, available at the press of a button, who’s going to venture to the wrong side of the tracks in search of a bookie who carries the vague aroma of Old Spice and new violence?
The idea that legalizing sports betting allows it to be properly regulated ignores the fact that it also makes it quick, easy, and normal. Which has expanded dramatically the number of people who bet.
No one who now bets has to wrestle with whether they’re willing to “break the law” and/or do business with people who break the law (and thumbs) on an organized and consistent basis. It’s legal, it’s accessible, and it’s constantly touted via the saturation of ads, both in traditional commercial spots and as advertising masquerading as actual pregame-show content.
Sports betting has shed its stigma. And its prevalence has obscured many of the potential problems that arise from it, given the absence of much (or any) real regulation. Yes, from time to time, a sports-betting scheme will be revealed. It usually happens when someone with access to inside information behaves like a pig at the trough, making bets so large and prevalent that red flags are raised.
The risks are far more widespread. Smaller losses tracing to those who are smart about how and when they act on inside information is treated as shrinkage/breakage by the sportsbooks that are raking in billions.
And they’ll use some of those billions to fight tooth and nail the ability of consumers to keep making wagers that aren’t related to the outcome of a given game, but to whether a specific player gains a certain number of yards, catches a certain number of passes, and/or scores a certain number of touchdowns.
Bottom line? Prop bets are a big part of the bottom line of a very big business. And the horse is too far out of the barn to be brought back. Even if it should be.
