The Indiana Gaming Commission unanimously denied a request from the NCAA to end betting on pre-game college player props at Thursday’s meeting.
The NCAA made the request out of concern for athletes that they say deal with harassment based on these types of bets. Multiple commissioners said the issue of athlete harassment, no matter what triggers it, is something that is better suited for the state legislature to handle.
The decision wraps up a nearly seven-month process. The NCAA sent the petition to the IGC on March 3 with Thursday’s discussion the continued from June’s commission meeting.
In-game college player props banned by the Commission prior to the industry’s launch in 2019.
NCAA: legal industry does not catch everything
The NCAA argued that the regulated gambling industry is not as good at monitoring betting as it suggests, with Managing Director of Enforcement Mark Hicks naming a few high-profile cases of players betting when they should not have.
That included Brendan Sorsby, the former Indiana University quarterback that bet on his own team while a member in 2022. He admitted he had a gambling problem after transferring to Texas Tech this year, and was eventually blocked from playing college and professional football for the 2026 season.
“Bottom line, from an integrity perspective, it’s easy to manipulate and it’s hard to monitor,” Hicks said. “… We take the position that banning prop bets would be a proactive measure, not a reactive measure, and it prioritizes risk and mitigation of risk over profit.”
Clint Hangebrauck, managing director of enterprise risk management for the NCAA, brought some examples of harassment:
“Yo, no big deal but if you don’t get 22 points and 12 board everyone you know and love will be dead.”
SBA: no evidence of harm
The Sports Betting Alliance, which lobbies for bet365, BetMGM, DraftKings, Fanatics and FanDuel, argued the NCAA has not established the required “good cause” for the commission to change betting rules at a league’s request.
Banning these markets would not stop a single harasser, President Joe Maloney said. In fact, it could push those potential bettors on those props offshore, he added.
There is also no proof betting harassment has any impact on players, Maloney said. Commissioner B.R. Lane pushed him to speculate on the potential traumatic impact a threatening or harassing message before a performance could have on a player:
“Unfortunately, we have not seen any evidence that suggests it has any type of impact on the player’s play,” Maloney said. “…We would welcome any and all evidence to suggest that it does have that impact and work with stakeholders such as yourselves to identify the appropriate solution for it. But I can’t respond to necessarily a hypothetical, but if presented with evidence we would certainly listen and look at that.
Commissioners agree on bigger issue
Lane was the first to suggest that the legislature should tackle the issue of athlete harassment on any topic.
“I talked to gaming regulators in Missouri, Louisiana and Ohio from the last meeting ot this meeting and I think it’s clear amongst all of us, including in this room, right, that we have a larger issue,” Lane said. ” … I see so much criminal activity that we’re kind of like glancing over, right, that has been discussed and uncovered today. We have a great legislature in Indiana and I know that they would want to protect student athletes.”
Commissioner L. Scott Pejic concurred, adding that there are already harassment, intimidation and stalking laws that could be enforced. He also agreed with Maloney that it did not meet the criteria of good cause to change the rules.
