The Indiana Gaming Commission has voted unanimously to reject an NCAA request to prohibit pregame college player proposition bets, leaving existing sports wagering rules unchanged and placing the question of any future ban in the hands of state lawmakers.
The decision came during a commission meeting in Indianapolis and concluded a process that began earlier this year when the NCAA formally petitioned regulators to remove college player prop wagers from Indiana’s legal sports betting market. The issue was first discussed in June, when commissioners postponed a decision and requested additional research before revisiting the matter.
As a result of Thursday’s vote, sportsbooks in Indiana will continue to offer pregame player prop bets on college athletes. The state will also maintain its current restriction on in-game college player props, which have been prohibited since before Indiana’s regulated sports betting industry launched in 2019.
The NCAA argued that expanding the existing prohibition to include pregame player props would help address concerns related to student-athlete harassment and sports betting integrity. Representatives from the organization returned to the commission to renew those arguments and urge regulators to take what they described as a preventative approach.
“Our request to the commission is simple and modest. The IGC has already banned in-game college prop bets. We only ask that you take one additional step forward to protect integrity and support the well-being of student athletes and ban pregame player props as well,” Clint Hangebrauck, managing director of enterprise risk at NCAA, said during the meeting, according to Sports Betting Dime.
NCAA Raises Integrity and Harassment Concerns
The NCAA’s case focused on two primary concerns: the potential impact of player-specific wagering on student-athletes and the risk that individual performance-based betting markets could create integrity issues.
Mark Hicks, the NCAA’s managing director of enforcement, told commissioners that player prop bets present unique monitoring challenges because outcomes are tied to individual athletes rather than entire teams.
“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.”
To support the organization’s position, NCAA representatives referenced cases involving athletes who violated betting rules. One example involved former Indiana University quarterback Brendan Sorsby, who admitted to placing wagers involving his own team while he was on the roster. Sorsby later acknowledged having a gambling problem after transferring to Texas Tech.
The NCAA also highlighted abusive messages sent to student-athletes through social media platforms. Hangebrauck read an example that had been directed at a player:
“Yo, no big deal but if you don’t get 22 points and 12 board everyone you know and love will be dead.”
He later noted that the NCAA had reported thousands of messages to both social media companies and law enforcement authorities.
“I could sit here and read messages like these for hours, but I imagine nobody would want me to,” Hangebrauck said.
The NCAA’s petition was also supported by letters submitted earlier this year from Butler University, Indiana University and Purdue University.
Industry Groups Oppose Additional Restrictions
Opposition to the proposed ban came from the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), which represents major sportsbook operators including bet365, BetMGM, DraftKings, Fanatics and FanDuel.
The organization argued that the NCAA had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for regulators to alter existing betting rules. According to SBA President Joe Maloney, eliminating legal markets would do little to address harassment while potentially shifting wagering activity toward offshore or otherwise unregulated operators.
“Banning these markets in Indiana, I would argue, would not stop a single harasser,” Maloney said before the vote. “It could push activity to unregulated, untaxed, perhaps illegal settings that this commission can’t see, can’t regulate, doesn’t have the ability to tax, and can’t use to identify who’s actually responsible.”
Maloney acknowledged concerns about athlete abuse but maintained that available evidence had not shown a direct effect on athletic performance.
“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.”
He also pointed to NCAA research suggesting that athletes receive a variety of abusive messages online, many of which are unrelated to sports betting.
“There’s a conversation, particularly right now, about athlete wellness, and it’s not exclusive to betting,” Maloney said. “This is very much a social media problem.”
Commissioners Point to Legislature
Although commissioners expressed concern about harassment directed at student-athletes, several members questioned whether gaming regulators were the appropriate body to address the issue.
Commissioner B.R. Lane said discussions with regulators from other states had reinforced her view that the matter extended beyond sports betting regulation and involved broader concerns about criminal behavior.
“I see so much criminal activity that we’ve kind of glanced over that has been discussed and uncovered today. We have a great legislature in Indiana and I know they would want to protect student athletes. I don’t understand, NCAA, if the situation is as serious as you’ve made clear to us today, why you’ve not addressed it in that way. You would have all of our support, I think, in this room,” Lane said. “We have a bigger issue here, and the legislature would be the appropriate place to address this.”
Commissioner L. Scott Pejic reached a similar conclusion, citing existing laws covering harassment, intimidation and stalking while questioning whether the NCAA had met the standard required to justify regulatory action.
“I believe this is a legislative question based on the evidence that’s been presented or not presented. We have laws, harassment, intimidation, stalking, we have the laws enforced. We have regulatory mechanisms. As emotional as the argument is I cannot say it meets the criteria under Rule 4 of our administrative code with respect to how I read the intent to the integrity of sports wagering. This is a legislative question. Come Jan. 1 they could put a bill in front of the governor’s desk and prohibit it, that easy. I would defer to them,” Pejic said.