Because it’s still an NCAA violation for a student athlete.
26 UI student-athletes are being investigated for online gambling, incl in Wrestling, Men’s Basketball, Football, Baseball, Men’s track & field
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
No college athlete should be gambling. To many opportunities to grab inside info from peers, plus slippery slope if they get in deep debt get tempted to throw or manipulate a game, match, meet. Jmo.
Apparently the Iowa Wrestling is the program that is going to be hit the hardest.
Yeah it seems that way. I just hope this doesn’t screw over Real Woods or someone with a legit title chance. I’d be gutted to see someone get an opportunity stolen from them for doing a legal action.
These rules are antiquated and ridiculous. If they didn’t bet on their own sport I don’t understand the uproar. Fix the rules, don’t punish the kids.
They damn well know the rules and if they choose to gamble they are going to get caught... and that's on them.
Geo-tracking on gambling apps have every detail about when, where, how someone is gambling.
Rules are still rules and you can be sure they were told that gambling is against the rules.
The state of Iowa doesn’t care that they placed bets. That’s where this took place. They didn’t bet on their own teams or sport. They literally did nothing wrong other than….
They broke an outdated ncaa rule that was put in place before things like geo-tracking and sports betting were legal.
To me this whole thing is akin to jay walking on a deserted street. If no one is coming either way, I’m crossing the damn street. If gambling is legal and I’m a legal age adult that can serve in our military then I might place a wager on the over for the Super Bowl.
This is probably pointless, but let me try. The reason these rules are in place, at least in some part, is because of the proximity of the athletes to other athletes and the inside knowledge that can be obtained. A wrestler may ask a football player who is injured. A football player may ask a basketball player the same thing or what officials have been assigned to the game. And yes, that is exactly how the NBA can influence the outcome of a game. Let's say a kid gets in debt, now as a way to get out this is leaked to someone outside. Rules are in place for reasons whether we like them or not. Yes gambling is now legal, assuming you are of legal age. But that does not superceede rules that are well know to all.
I understand why the rule is there I just disagree with them. Your hypothetical’s are largely assumptions until we know what bets were placed. If someone bet big, say five times, and all those bets were made on Iowa athletics then I would say that would matter and we’d be dealing with additional fallout. It’s already come out that there was no suspicious,fraudulent or unethical betting.
Context and nuance matter in a scenario like this. It’s extremely easy to make a blanket statement and say athletes can share information. What if none of the bets were made on Iowa athletics? Would your opinion change then.
I’m not certain we’re at a point where we can just say they broke the rules therefore they deserve to be punished. Anyway, thanks for the conversation.
They aren't assumptions - they are potential scenarios. All of which need to be taken into consideration when rules are put in place. Legalized gambling is a giant rabbitt hole. I have no idea what they did. I just know when a rule is in place, whether you agree with it or not, it is best to follow it.
Another spin on it is I have a friend that went to Michigan to play football. He tells me they are gonna be down their QB, RB, and best lineman. Although I did not bet on or against Iowa doesnt mean I did not have inside information. I think this could also get into pro sports if I was a teammate. Now if it is horse racing, brackets, squares, or fantasy then I think that is BS.
I tend to agree with you with the possible exception about Fantasy. Draft Kings contests aren't just in the dollar a game type range and you can do contests involving at the very least college football and basketball. Inside information still can mean a lot.
Iowa baseball plays tonight in the opening round of NCAA Regionals. Iowa's star player, Keaton Anthony, will be missing his 14th straight game because of this gambling investigation.
The rumor is that Iowa State football is going to get hit hard, too (including their starting QB).
I agree. We might not like the rule, but all NCAA student athletes know gambling is an NCAA violation. Unfortunately, 26 from the University of Iowa decided to do it anyway.
We know 4 of the 26 were from the Iowa baseball team. The other 22 were from men's wrestling, football, men's basketball, and men's track & field
I think the thing to keep in mind is this originated as a criminal investigation. That means something that was allegedly worse than breaking an NCAA rule was (and maybe still is) being investigated. Obviously need to see it all play out, but it at least didn’t originate as something allegedly very minor that only the NCAA wouldn’t like. I’m guessing there’s a ton of collateral damage not involving allegedly criminal actions though, and that sucks.
Last edited:
the way the ball has bounced for Iowa wrestling I expect Woods, Kennedy, Ayala, and Cass to be suspended.
Back in the late ‘80’s early ‘90’s there were guys on the team that would call their bookies from the wrestling office. I have personally heard from 3 of the team members they went to the office to call their bookies during dual meets. And no they were not getting on wrestling. Lol Ahhh, the days without online/cellular tracking. Lol
Betting - Chronicling the 'worst fix ever', the 1978-79 BC point-shaving
Also an ESPN 30 for 30
Didn’t realize one of the mobsters involved was portrayed in Goodfellas.
Also an ESPN 30 for 30
Didn’t realize one of the mobsters involved was portrayed in Goodfellas.
It's amazing how no names have been mentioned or leaked.
The only reason we found out the names of the 4 Iowa baseball players was when they were withheld from the lineup (and not seen on the bench or in the bull pen)
The only reason we found out the names of the 4 Iowa baseball players was when they were withheld from the lineup (and not seen on the bench or in the bull pen)
Learned about that on The Rewatchables podcast which, if you like movies, is fantastic.
The UI gambling violations were reported on or after May 2 so what follows is good news. With the previous rules, in most cases, student-athletes who wagered on sports at any level would lose one full season of collegiate eligibility.
The announcement from today:
June 28, 2023
2:30 pm
The Division I Legislative Committee on Tuesday ratified a Division I Committee on Student Athlete Reinstatement decision to amend guidelines for reinstating the eligibility of student-athletes who commit violations relating to sports wagering. The Division I Council was briefed on those new guidelines during its meeting this week in Indianapolis.
For all wagering-related violations reported on or after May 2, the following guidelines will apply:
"These new guidelines modernize penalties for college athletes at a time when sports wagering has been legalized in dozens of states and is easily accessible nationwide with online betting platforms," said Alex Ricker-Gilbert, athletics director at Jacksonville and chair of the DI Legislative Committee. "While sports wagering by college athletes is still a concern — particularly as we remain committed to preserving the integrity of competition in college sports — consideration of mitigating factors is appropriate as staff prescribe penalties for young people who have made mistakes in this space."
Previous reinstatement guidelines, which were implemented prior to the broader legalization of sports wagering, stipulated that in most cases, student-athletes who wagered on sports at any level would lose one full season of collegiate eligibility.
The council directed the national office to continue to explore issues around rules education and integrity monitoring and requested additional updates on these topics.
www.ncaa.org
The announcement from today:
NCAA DI Council approves changes to reinstatement guidelines for sports wagering violations
June 28, 2023
2:30 pm
The Division I Legislative Committee on Tuesday ratified a Division I Committee on Student Athlete Reinstatement decision to amend guidelines for reinstating the eligibility of student-athletes who commit violations relating to sports wagering. The Division I Council was briefed on those new guidelines during its meeting this week in Indianapolis.
For all wagering-related violations reported on or after May 2, the following guidelines will apply:
- Student-athletes who engage in activities to influence the outcomes of their own games or knowingly provide information to individuals involved in sports betting activities will potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility in all sports. This would also apply to student-athletes who wager on their own games or on other sports at their own schools.
- If a student-athlete wagers on their own sport at another school, education on sports wagering rules and prevention will be required as a condition of reinstatement, and the loss of 50% of one season of eligibility will be considered.
- For all other wagering-related violations (e.g., wagering on professional sports), cumulative dollar value of the wagers will be taken into consideration with the following terms for reinstatement:
- $200 or less: sports wagering rules and prevention education.
- $201-$500: loss of 10% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
- $501-$800: loss of 20% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
- Greater than $800: loss of 30% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
"These new guidelines modernize penalties for college athletes at a time when sports wagering has been legalized in dozens of states and is easily accessible nationwide with online betting platforms," said Alex Ricker-Gilbert, athletics director at Jacksonville and chair of the DI Legislative Committee. "While sports wagering by college athletes is still a concern — particularly as we remain committed to preserving the integrity of competition in college sports — consideration of mitigating factors is appropriate as staff prescribe penalties for young people who have made mistakes in this space."
Previous reinstatement guidelines, which were implemented prior to the broader legalization of sports wagering, stipulated that in most cases, student-athletes who wagered on sports at any level would lose one full season of collegiate eligibility.
The council directed the national office to continue to explore issues around rules education and integrity monitoring and requested additional updates on these topics.
DI approves changes to reinstatement guidelines for sports wagering violations - NCAA.org
The Division I Legislative Committee on Tuesday ratified a Division I Committee on Student Athlete Reinstatement decision to amend guidelines for reinstating the
www.ncaa.org
Last edited:
When the wagers took place is irrelevant. What matters is when it was reported.The problem with these reinstatement changes? The gambling allegedly occurred before May 2. And with the previous rules, in most cases, student-athletes who wagered on sports at any level would lose one full season of collegiate eligibility.
The announcement from today:
NCAA DI Council approves changes to reinstatement guidelines for sports wagering violations
June 28, 2023
2:30 pm
The Division I Legislative Committee on Tuesday ratified a Division I Committee on Student Athlete Reinstatement decision to amend guidelines for reinstating the eligibility of student-athletes who commit violations relating to sports wagering. The Division I Council was briefed on those new guidelines during its meeting this week in Indianapolis.
For all wagering-related violations reported on or after May 2, the following guidelines will apply:
For cumulative wagering activities that greatly exceed $800, NCAA reinstatement staff are directed to consider whether additional loss of eligibility, including permanent ineligibility, are appropriate.
- Student-athletes who engage in activities to influence the outcomes of their own games or knowingly provide information to individuals involved in sports betting activities will potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility in all sports. This would also apply to student-athletes who wager on their own games or on other sports at their own schools.
- If a student-athlete wagers on their own sport at another school, education on sports wagering rules and prevention will be required as a condition of reinstatement, and the loss of 50% of one season of eligibility will be considered.
- For all other wagering-related violations (e.g., wagering on professional sports), cumulative dollar value of the wagers will be taken into consideration with the following terms for reinstatement:
- $200 or less: sports wagering rules and prevention education.
- $201-$500: loss of 10% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
- $501-$800: loss of 20% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
- Greater than $800: loss of 30% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
"These new guidelines modernize penalties for college athletes at a time when sports wagering has been legalized in dozens of states and is easily accessible nationwide with online betting platforms," said Alex Ricker-Gilbert, athletics director at Jacksonville and chair of the DI Legislative Committee. "While sports wagering by college athletes is still a concern — particularly as we remain committed to preserving the integrity of competition in college sports — consideration of mitigating factors is appropriate as staff prescribe penalties for young people who have made mistakes in this space."
Previous reinstatement guidelines, which were implemented prior to the broader legalization of sports wagering, stipulated that in most cases, student-athletes who wagered on sports at any level would lose one full season of collegiate eligibility.
The council directed the national office to continue to explore issues around rules education and integrity monitoring and requested additional updates on these topics.
DI approves changes to reinstatement guidelines for sports wagering violations - NCAA.org
The Division I Legislative Committee on Tuesday ratified a Division I Committee on Student Athlete Reinstatement decision to amend guidelines for reinstating the
Correct, which makes this very, very good news because instead of missing an entire season, the most an athlete can miss is 30% of the season
As others noted above, the new guidelines would apply to the kids currently under investigation
5 dates or so . I look for the staff to make sure they've 5 prior to the Iowa st dual
After I essentially called the NCAA rules committee a bunch of morons, I think this is a pretty reasonable response. It addresses both sides of the issue.
NCAA's struggles with legal sports betting landscape continue as plenty of uncertainty remains
Sounds like the NCAA has gotten pretty sophisticated about monitoring betting around events.
Sounds like the NCAA has gotten pretty sophisticated about monitoring betting around events.
Interesting that it appears to be all male athletes accused of gambling. I’m now curious how gambling addiction breaks down by gender.
"For all wagering-related violations reported on or after May 2"
does "reported" mean reported to the schools - which was on May 2 - or reported to the NCAA - which was presumably before May 2?
It's just being totally irresponsible. I don't care if someone bets, but you can't do it in away that ties it to you like this. there's no way to deny it. If rumor has it I bet with you on the Super Bowl, prove it. Unless we have detailed records no one knows about that 10, 20 dollars or whatever.
I'd be sports betting is male, women seem to like slot machines from my unscientific survey by watching life stuff. Not that men don't like slots, just that women don't seem to sports bet.
Right? That makes sense. The breakdown by gender might be equal while games of choice differ.
I don’t understand why you think it would be reported to the NCAA before the schools? I would be surprised if any any contact was made with the NCAA before the school did itself.
just assumed...could easily be wrong. i hope i am. no one should lose a full season for legal betting.
