A third school in four years; an NIL lawsuit; allegations of impermissible wagering. The most recent headlines in college sports couldn’t have even been imagined by Aaron Sorkin in a late 90s late night TV sports drama-dy.

But this is the new day of college sports. And whether it’s state regulators looking into impermissible sports betting, the FBI conducting integrity violations that span competitions across the globe or the NCAA enforcing its own rules on wagering, sports gambling isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Regardless of how it originates, here’s what you need to know before you get a call from a federal, state or NCAA investigator (or integrity monitoring partner if you use one of those, too).

Wagering violations can take a variety of forms

Prior to the Supreme Court overturning PASPA, sports betting was an activity that took place mostly in Nevada and dark corners across the rest of the country. Since 2018, though, sports betting has proliferated to the point of app-based betting access on your phone. College campuses are fertile ground for sports betting with some studies indicating that a majority of college students report engaging in daily betting activity.

Problem gambling behavior is an issue all on its own. Where sports betting becomes a particular problem for an institution is when it involves:

• Integrity concerns. These come mainly in the form of game manipulation or the use/exchange of inside information.
• Prohibited bettors. Anything non-integrity related that otherwise implicates NCAA bylaws on sports wagering. This can include activity around traditional money lines, over/unders and spreads, as well as parlays, prediction markets or daily fantasy games.

Importantly, although an NCAA proposal last year nearly lifted restrictions around betting on professional sports, it was rescinded, and NCAA bylaws continue to restrict sports wagering of any kind.

What to expect when an investigation comes to your campus

Time is of the essence in most sports betting investigations, especially for those involving integrity allegations, from the standpoint that investigative bodies want to stem any potential impacts on upcoming competition. From an NCAA perspective, an athlete involved in sports betting could also be ineligible, necessitating reinstatement before they can compete again. Moreover, while there tends to be a wealth of data available across messaging platforms, money-sharing apps, phone logs and individual betting accounts, some of this can be lost as time progresses (or individuals potentially delete relevant data). Practically speaking, this means you should expect investigators to push aggressively for interviews, phone imaging or, most likely, a combination of both.

When a law enforcement agency or regulatory body is involved, they are bound by process requirements to properly obtain search warrants or court orders in order to image electronic devices. The NCAA, alternatively, operates off of threatening mandatory consent under its cooperation principles. There are significant privacy interests at stake with actions such as phone imaging, including potentially criminal consequences depending on what the phone contains. As a result, a best practice is to connect an athlete with their own attorney – whether or not your institution is willing to play – to ensure athletes can talk through legal protections with their own counsel.

How to prepare

To roughly paraphrase an old adage, an ounce of education is worth a pound of enforcement. Explaining to all of your stakeholders the dangers of sports betting, both from a rule-breaking perspective but also from the standpoint of unwanted harassment and addiction, is vital to developing a community focused on exposing the ills associated with sports gambling. From an NCAA perspective, it also extends to institutions a safe harbor of sorts in the infractions process. For non-integrity violations, schools that are able to demonstrate they provided sufficient education, timely reported issues and took appropriate action when they became aware of problems may be able to process institutional violations at a lower level than the wagering case itself.

How to react

Even the best education, though, won’t prevent all problematic behavior. And when that arises, the first step will be declaring a player ineligible once you have sufficient reason to believe there may be a potential NCAA violation. This tends to arise when information is developed through an interview or phone imaging (if that occurs) or the NCAA is willing to share the basis for their review.

Once that decision is made, the institution and NCAA work to develop a set of stipulated facts to submit to the NCAA reinstatement staff. Once those are agreed upon, the staff will consider the extent to which withholding, repayment and education apply. According to the reinstatement guidelines, withholding starts at:

• Permanent ineligibility: for influencing the outcome or integrity of a game, affecting win or loss margins (like point shaving), wagering on an athlete’s own team, knowingly providing information to individuals associated with wagering activities or repeat violators;
• Sit a season/charge a season: for wagering on another sport at the athlete’s own institution;
• 50% of a season: for wagering on an athlete’s sport at another institution; and
• TBD: for in-game betting, person-to-person wagers and other activity not covered above.

To fully process an athlete’s reinstatement, they will also likely be required to repay any winnings, as well as receive additional education on wagering. An appeal to a membership-based committee is also an option if a school disagrees with the reinstatement staff’s decision.

While this used to be the entire process for an athlete implicated in wagering activities, the NCAA has changed course and also elected in the last year to impose the infractions process on athletes involved in wagering investigations in order to publicly disclose the identities of the athletes. This is true for both substantive wagering allegations or for failing to cooperate in wagering investigations.

Be aware that process and timeliness rarely go hand-in-hand. Taking the time necessary to connect an athlete with counsel, to fully review a phone’s contents and to coordinate schedules for interviews can take 30 days or longer, not to mention conversations around developing a record as part of the reinstatement or infractions process, plus the time it takes for a decision-making body to reach a conclusion around appropriate action. These can take months, even when they’re moving quickly.

At least this is how it stands today. As this post is being finalized, an athlete alleged to have bet on his own team during a redshirt season three schools ago is challenging this process. Which may mean all bets are now off on NCAA wagering regulation practices.