Its an antiquated rule to prevent Criminal/Gangsters via back then book makers and loan sharks getting control of athletes to shave points off of games. So only players actually playing the game could effect the game results. That's the important part...only players that played in game could effect a game...not someone just betting on a game.
I think that there is more to it than just point shaving. The NCAA equivalent of "insider trading" is a component as well. The NCAA doesn't want University X's basketball players placing bets based upon what they are hearing from their buddies on University X's football team. There is also the "if you tell us who is hurt on the football team, we'll reverse your gambling losses" component.
Betting on sporting events that don't involve an athlete should not be banned in this day and age of "amateur" athletics (that has fallen by wayside with players getting NIL deals before setting a foot on campus).
NFL players should be allowed to bet on other NFL games?
NBA players should be allowed to bet on other NBA games?
MLB players should be allowed to bet on other MLB games?
Why should - your quote - "amateur" athletes be allowed to bet on any game in which they are not a participant?
And don't expect the NCAA to do anything quickly on status of any alleged players that might be involved as they don't operate that way....they will let players lose playing time over long periods before ever coming back with any answers...that's their track record. If it's at a place like Nebraska...they just seem to forget about it....as in Frost and Hoieberg wrong doings.
Although the NCAA won't move quickly on this, it's a bit different. Once the Iowa Athletic Dept is aware of the potential violation, they have to act and notify the NCAA. If they didn't and attempted to brush it under the rug, they risk institutional sanctions and potential forfeits. Further, and I hate that it likely results in losing two key players and positional depth at catcher, the Tisdale situation all but seals the fate for the Iowa baseball players. If any of the Iowa baseball players bet on-line and receive less than a 50% of the season suspension, they received better treatment than Tisdale.
Whether you like the rule or not, all other things being equal, why should the 4 Iowa baseball players receive less of a penalty than Tisdale? And this doesn't even get into the issue of whether the Iowa baseball players bet on an Iowa team. If that happened, those players might consider themselves lucky to ever play an NCAA sport again. The by-law makes it quite clear that betting on a team at your institution constitutes permanent ineligibility. They might be able to negotiate off of that penalty but I'd be stunned if, in that situation, the penalty is anything less than one year of ineligibility.
