Gambling and collegiate athletics.

Epstein, Adam ; Niland, Bridget

Introduction

As collegiate athletics has become a major part of the American sports scene, concerns over internal and external gambling influences have led to private rules and public laws that attempt to regulate such activity. College sport, similar to its professional counterpart, must constantly work to control egregious actions by those involved in sports gambling that could influence the outcome of the game. Anti-gambling rules and governmental laws are designed to curb various types of cheating, especially those linked to sports gambling in collegiate athletics.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs most of the intercollegiate sports in the United States and has responded to numerous gambling scandals over the years by enacting rules (i.e., bylaws) designed to punish violators which fall under its jurisdiction. Additionally, there have been numerous state and federal laws that have been enacted to curtail gamblers influencing the outcome of collegiate sports events. If the NCAA did not address and aggressively pursue individuals or groups who surreptitiously yet effectively influence who wins or who loses a sporting event, the public-at-large would lose faith in the college sports product. Fans, alumni, and others, would not know whether the game at-hand is played on an even field, or whether it is played in favor of one team over the other. This would simply ruin the integrity of college sports.

This contribution explores the intercollegiate sports gambling landscape. Section One introduces the popularity of gambling in the United States and specifically addresses the rise in sports gambling and the role college sports play in this new phenomena. Section Two focuses on the NCAA; more specifically, its governance structure, regulatory culture, anti-sports gambling regulations and the enforcement of those regulations. Section Four provides a summary of notable college sports gambling cases and the NCAA sanctions that resulted. Finally, Sections Five and Six discuss other policies and regulations that have attempted to curtail gambling on collegiate sports, including federal and state legislation.

1. Collegiate Sports Gambling

Gambling in general, including sports gambling, is a popular form of recreation in the United States and an increasingly popular pastime for youth and college-age adults. Revenue from all forms of gambling in the United States topped $90 billion in 2006 (American Gaming Association, 2008). Because of the tremendous revenue that gambling generates, governments at all levels within the United States have relaxed laws that once outlawed such wagering. For example, in the decade between 1985 and 1995, 48 of 50 states revised laws that prohibited gambling to allow limited legalized gaming, including regulated casino-style games and state-run lotteries (Dunstan, 1997; Eadington, 1996). as of 2007, Hawaii and Utah were the only states that prohibit any form of gambling within their boarders (Prah, 2007).

Although gambling on sports (professional or amateur) remains illegal in all states but Nevada and Oregon, an estimated $80 to $380 billion is illegally bet on sporting events in the United States each year (Kindt & Asmar, 2002; Weinberg, 2003). Gambling on collegiate or amateur sports is permitted only in Nevada, where it is estimated that $2.5 billion is annually wagered on college sports, $197 million of which is attributed to bets surrounding the NCAA's Division I men's basketball tournament (Armour, 2007; Weinberg, 2003). In addition, illegal gambling on the NCAA tournament through informal office or neighborhood betting pools is estimated at $6 billion (McCarthy, 2007a). Further evidence as to the pervasiveness of collegiate sports gambling is the "Latest Line" (i.e., the latest point spread on college basketball and football contests), which is published in daily newspapers throughout the United States and on the Internet (Grady & Clement, 2005). Despite its popularity, the NCAA's position on sports gambling is quite clear: anyone involved in intercollegiate athletics is prohibited from participating in virtually all forms of sports gambling regardless of its legality (NCAA, 2004, p.5).

2. The NCAA

The Indianapolis, Indiana based NCAA is a tax-exempt, voluntary amateur athletic association composed of 1,162 members. Its membership includes four-year collegiate institutions and athletic conferences located throughout the United States (NCAA, n.d.b.). There are approximately 380,000 student-athletes who participate in the NCAA's three divisions of competition (Divisions I, II, III) (NCAA, n.d.k.). The NCAA administers 23 sports, 88 championships (41 men's, 44 women's, 3 mixed) and approximately 49,000 student-athletes compete in these championships each year (NCAA, n.d.k.). The NCAA has a multi-tiered, federated governance structure with more than 125 committees, both association-wide and division-specific (NCAA, n.d.b.). Association-wide committees are composed of representatives from member schools and conferences in each of the NCAA's three divisions (NCAA, n.d.a.). Committees are responsible for addressing a variety of issues ranging from eligibility requirements, drug-testing policies and procedures, recruiting rules and other competitive health and safety rules including a firm stance against sports gambling (also referred to as sports wagering or gaming) (Sawyer, Bodey & Judge, 2008).

Each NCAA Division also has its own governance structure with its own committees that have adopted regulatory rules known as "Bylaws," which are codified in the respective Division's annual publication known as the NCAA Manual. NCAA Division I includes the most prominent schools and conferences. Division I is separated into three sub-divisions based on football sponsorship. The Football Bowl Subdivision, formerly known as Division I-A, includes approximately 119 Division I schools that sponsor the most publicized football programs and offer the largest number of athletic scholarships (NCAA, n.d.k.). The remaining Division I schools either sponsor lesser funded football programs that compete in the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly known as Division I-AA) or do not sponsor football as an intercollegiate sport. Divisions II and III fund intercollegiate athletics programs at an even lesser amount than Division I members (NCAA, n.d.l.).

Although sponsorship of a football program is optional, all Division I schools sponsor a men's basketball program (NCAA, n.d.c., Bylaw 20.9-(e)). The NCAA's annual "March Madness" basketball tournament is one of the most celebrated and well-organized athletics events in the United States. "March Madness" has evolved into an American passion that engulfs students of all ages, student-athletes, alumni, retirees and general rank-and-file employees throughout the United States. Office parlay cards and other gambling sheets grab significant attention of millions of persons, and no other NCAA event draws as much interest, as bets placed on the outcome of the tournament bracket appear in almost every major newspaper in the United States ("NCAA's Gambling Madness," 2008).

The lucrative and speculative nature of sports competition and the need to maintain its voluntary, non-profit amateur status, require the NCAA to take a harsh stance toward influences that could unfairly taint the outcomes of its events or the integrity of its sports programs (Ban on Amateur Sports Gambling, 2001). Specifically, incidents of gambling, game-fixing (i.e., "point shaving") and sports bribery led the NCAA to adopt regulations prohibiting any form of sports wagering connected to its events or the athletes and administrators who fall under its jurisdiction (Byers, 1998). The following section traces the creation of these regulations and present-day application.

3. NCAA Sports Gambling Regulations

The NCAA first discussed the perils of sports gambling at its 1939 convention when it created its unethical conduct legislation, now known as Bylaw 10 of the Division I Manual (NCAA, 1939). Express NCAA legislation on this issue was not adopted until 1983 with subsequent modifications added in 1997, 2000 and 2006. The 1983 legislation codified a long-standing rule interpretation that gambling on intercollegiate athletic events by student-athletes, coaches, and athletics administrators, constituted unethical conduct (NCAA, 1983, Proposal No. 134). In 1996, the NCAA expanded its prohibition on sports gambling to include wagers made on professional sports (NCAA, 1996, Proposal No. 15). Then, in 2006, language was added to address the concern over Internet gambling and to clarify the scope of individuals considered to be included in the athletics' department staff (NCAA, n.d.e., Proposal No. 2006-17-A).

3.1. NCAA Manual Provisions

Below are the relevant portions of Bylaw 10 as published in the 2007-08 Division I NCAA Manual. Identical legislation exists in NCAA Divisions II and III. These provisions can be found in the latest version of the NCAA Manual which can be accessed online on the NCAA's website, at within the "Legislation & Governance" area under "Rules and Bylaws."

Provisions from NCAA Bylaw, Article 10: Ethical Conduct

10.02 Definitions and Applications.

10.02.1 Sports Wagering. Sports wagering includes placing, accepting or soliciting a wager (on a staff member's or student-athlete's own behalf or on the behalf of others) of any type with any individual or organization on any intercollegiate, amateur or professional team or contest. Examples of sports wagering include, but are not limited to, the use of a bookmaker or parlay card; Internet sports wagering; auctions in which bids are placed on teams, individuals or contests; and pools or fantasy leagues in which an entry fee is required and there is an opportunity to win a prize.

10.02.2 Wager. a wager is any agreement in which an individual or entity agrees to give up an item of value (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) in exchange for the possibility of gaining another item of value.

10.3 Sports Wagering Activities

The following individuals shall not knowingly participate in sports wagering activities or provide information to individuals involved in or associated with any type of sports wagering activities concerning intercollegiate, amateur or professional athletics competition:

(a) Staff members of an institution's athletics department;

(b) Nonathletics department staff members who have responsibilities within or over the athletics department (e.g., chancellor or president, faculty athletics representative, individual to whom athletics reports);

(c) Staff members of a conference office; and

(d) Student-athletes.

10.3.1 Scope of Application.

The prohibition against sports wagering applies to any institutional practice or any competition (intercollegiate, amateur or professional) in a sport in which the Association conducts championship competition, in bowl subdivision football and in emerging sports for women.

10.3.1.1 Exception.

The provisions of Bylaw 10.3 are not applicable to traditional wagers between institutions (e.g., traditional rivalry) or in conjunction with particular contests (e.g., bowl games). Items wagered must be representative of the involved institutions or the states in which they are located.

10.3.2. Sanctions. The following sanctions for violations of Bylaw 10.3 shall apply:

(a) a student-athlete who engages in activities designed to influence the outcome of an intercollegiate contest or in an effort to affect win-loss margins ("point shaving") or who participates in any sports wagering activity involving the student-athlete's institution shall permanently lose all remaining regular-season and postseason eligibility in all sports.

(b) a student-athlete who participates in any sports wagering activity through the Internet, a bookmaker or a parlay card shall be ineligible for all regular-season and postseason competition for a minimum of a period of one year from the date of the institution's determination that a violation occurred and shall be charged with the loss of a minimum of one season of eligibility. If the student-athlete is determined to have been involved in a later violation of any portion of Bylaw 10.3, the student-athlete shall permanently lose all remaining regular-season and postseason eligibility in all sports.

10.4. Disciplinary Action

Prospective or enrolled student-athletes found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be ineligible for further intercollegiate competition, subject to appeal to the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for restoration of eligibility. (See Bylaw 10.3.2 for sanctions of student-athletes involved in violations of 10.3.) Institutional staff members found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.2 of the NCAA enforcement procedures, whether such violations occurred at the certifying institution or during the individual's previous employment at another member institution.

Applied collectively, these relatively recent NCAA bylaws prohibit college and university staffmembers affiliated with athletic departments from wagering on professional and amateur sports gambling. In sum, the current NCAA rules render it impermissible to: (a) provide information to individuals who are involved in organized gambling activities; (b) solicit a bet on any intercollegiate team or to accept a bet on any team representing the school; (c) accept or solicit a bet on an intercollegiate competition through any method utilized by organized gambling (NCAA, n.d.c., Bylaw 10.3).

Bylaw 10.02 and it subparts define "wagering" and the NCAA has interpreted the provision to prohibit activities such as bets among friends who wager a non-material item (e.g., dinner, clothing), and the re-sale of ticket options to college or professional sports contents (NCAA, n.d.f.). However, the provision does not apply to wagers on sports not sponsored by the NCAA such as horseracing, nor does it universally apply to fantasy leagues or bracket pools (NCAA, n.d.d., Proposal No. 2006-17-B). In the case of fantasy leagues or bracket pools, a 10.02.1violation only occurs in instances in which both an entry fee is required and a prize is awarded (NCAA, n.d.i.)

Bylaw 10.3 re-enforces the wagering prohibition and also makes it an NCAA rules violation to aid any individual involved in such sports wagering by providing them with information or performing actions that further their gambling efforts. This portion of the bylaw was adopted to address incidences such a point-shaving. Bylaw 10.3.1 and 10.02.1 and other provisions regulating gambling conduct also apply to membership conference staff, coaches and, of course, student-athletes. Interestingly, they also apply to the chancellor or president of an NCAA institution and faculty members associated with the athletics department (NCAA, n.d.c, Bylaw 10.02.1).

Prior to 1999, the penalties for violating provisions such as 10.3.1 were applied haphazardly and did not appear to be deterring student-athletes from gambling on college or professional sports. Accordingly, the NCAA tightened the penalties for sports gambling by adopting Bylaw 10.4, which adds specific penalties for student-athletes found in violation of the rules (NCAA, n.d.d.). Most notable is that a student-athlete will lose NCAA eligibility permanently if they are involved in a point-shaving scheme of any sort. Those who are found to have bet or accepted bets generally on intercollegiate or professional athletics by utilizing organized gambling methods are ineligible for intercollegiate competition for a minimum of one year and lose one season of competition. Bylaw 10.4 reiterates the penalties against student-athletes for unethical conduct (including gambling) and clarifies that campus administrators found in violation of the gambling regulations are subject to the penalties listed in Bylaw 19.5.2.2, which include public censure, institutional probation and even termination of employment (NCAA, n.d.c.)

The NCAA bylaws discussed above have little meaning without a mechanism through which they can be enforced. This mechanism was established in 1952, with the creation of the NCAA's enforcement program (NCAA, n.d.h.). The following section explains the current NCAA enforcement process and its role in the Association's handling of allegations of sports gambling on member campuses.

3.2. NCAA Enforcement Process

The initial rationale behind the enforcement program was to create cooperative undertaking involving member institutions and conferences working together through the NCAA for an improved administration of intercollegiate athletics (NCAA, n.d.h.). The NCAA Enforcement staff seeks and processes information related to "major" and "secondary" violations of NCAA legislation (Rogers & Ryan, 2007).

According to NCAA Bylaw 19.02.2.1, secondary violations are actions that are "isolated or inadvertent in nature" and at best provide "only a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage and does include any significant recruiting inducement or extra benefit" (NCAA, n.d.c). Individuals or institutions found to have committed a secondary violation will receive only minor penalties as determined by committee composed of individuals from the membership and assisted by NCAA staff (NCAA, n.d.h.).

An example of a secondary sports gambling violation is the 2005 case involving five men's track and field student-athletes at Tulane University (NCAA, n.d.j.). According to NCAA reports, the student-athletes agreed to participate in a professional football pool during the 2004-05 academic year in violation of Article 10 (NCAA, n.d.j.; NCAA, n.d.e.). The pool was run by a non-student-athlete. Tulane officials discovered the violation after a track and field coach saw one of the betting sheets. The institution's investigation revealed that although each of the five student-athletes had prepared a betting sheet, no money had exchanged hands and that the student-athletes were unaware that the NCAA's anti-sports gambling rules included both professional and college sports. Because of the one-time occurrence, limited nature of the gambling, and apparent lack of knowledge of the NCAA anti-gambling rules, NCAA staff determined that the violations were secondary. as a result, rather than be deemed permanently ineligible, the student-athletes were eventually reinstated for competition after performing community service (NCAA, n.d.j.). Had the investigation revealed that large amounts of money had been exchanged, or that there were significant numbers of student-athletes participating in the pool, the NCAA would have likely deemed the violations "major" (NCAA, n.d.h.).

As defined in NCAA Bylaw 19.02.2.2, major violations are generally defined as all other violations, but specifically include "violations that provide an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage" (NCAA, n.d.c). Investigations of alleged major violations commence upon the NCAA's receipt of credible information that a rule infraction has taken place. Sources of information vary from formal letters to anonymous phone calls (Rogers & Ryan, 2007). Once the veracity of the source is confirmed, the NCAA forwards a notice of inquiry to the institution alerting the school that it is under investigation. If it has not already done so, the institution begins its own investigation into the allegations. Information from all investigations is evaluated by the NCAA enforcement staff and if the staff believes a major violation has occurred it will issue a notice of allegations to the institution. The notice of allegations notifies all involved parties of the violations of NCAA legislation that the enforcement staff believes occurred. The institution and others named in the document may respond to the enforcement staff's allegations. Once all parties have responded, a hearing date is set before the Committee on Infractions (NCAA, n.d.h.).

A notable example of a major violation in the NCAA sports gambling context is the infractions case involving University of Washington (UW) football coach Rick Neuheisel. In April 2002, a confidential source contacted the NCAA enforcement staff and reported that Neuheisel, a former college quarterback at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), bet close to $15,000 in a "March Madness" basketball gambling pool (Merron, 2006). The NCAA enforcement staff investigated the allegations by interviewing the confidential source, Neuheisel, and other athletics department staff at UW. a notice of inquiry was issued and the institution and conference also conducted investigations. Based on the findings of those initial investigations, Neuheisel was suspended and officially relieved of his duties as head coach. In February 2004, the NCAA sent a notice of allegations to Neuheisel. Upon receipt of the notice of allegation UW terminated Neuheisel's lucrative contract citing that his violation of NCAA Bylaw 10.3 gave it cause to do so. The case was sent to the Committee on Infractions for adjudication (NCAA, n.d.g.). The next section discusses the authority and procedures of that NCAA Committee.

3.3. NCAA Committee on Infractions

As noted above, after a notice of allegations is issued to an NCAA member institution, the matter is forwarded to the NCAA Committee on Infractions (COI) for adjudication which may include the finding of penalties against the institution and the student-athletes or staff members involved (Connell, Green-Harris & Ledbetter, 2005). NCAA Division I Bylaw 19.1.1 details the structure and duties of the NCAA Division I COI (NCAA, n.d.d.). The COI is composed of ten individuals from member institutions appointed by the Division I Management Council. Two to three COI members must come from the public and have some legal experience. The COI reviews cases both on the written record and through a formal hearing process, which includes hearing testimony from the parties involved. After the hearing, the COI deliberates and then issues factual findings and if necessary imposes penalties against any of the entities or individuals it finds were involved in the infractions (Rogers & Ryan, 2007).

In coach Rick Neuheisel's case, the COI ultimately agreed with UW and held that he violated existing NCAA gambling regulations by participating in the gambling pool (Suggs, 2005). In its issued opinion, however, the COI stated that although the former head coach did violate NCAA gambling rules through his participation in a gambling pool, it did not find that he knowingly violated NCAA gambling legislation (NCAA, n.d.g.). The COI made this finding based on information indicating that an athletics department staff member had sent Neuheisel an email with erroneous information regarding the permissibility of participating in college basketball pools. The COI believed Neuheisel's testimony that he was misled and that his participation in the pool was, in fact, permissible under NCAA rules based upon the erroneous email. Neuheisel filed a lawsuit against UW for wrongful termination of his employment agreement and argued that his termination was unwarranted (Suggs, 2005). In the end, Neuheisel settled his claim for $4.5 million (Suggs; NCAA, n.d.g.).

4. Notable NCAA Gambling Incidents

The Tulane University and Rick Neuheisel cases above are just two of a litany of examples of student-athletes and coaches gambling on sport. The following list represents some of the other more notable gambling incidents that occurred at colleges and universities around the United States and were the impetus for the NCAA's present day policies related to sports gambling. In considering these incidents it is important to note that the NCAA did not adopt specific regulations prohibiting sports gambling or involvement in sports gambling until 1983. Prior to that date gambling on college sports was treated as a violation of the Association's general Unethical Conduct provision (NCAA, 1983).

4.1. Brooklyn College (1945)

Although rumors of gambling on college sports date back to an 1876 regatta, the first known case occurred in 1945 when two Brooklyn College basketball student-athletes admitted that they accepted over $1,000 to intentionally throw a game against the University of Akron (Crowley, 2006; Thelin, 1996). The two student-athletes were never arrested but eventually their testimony implicated three other teammates and led to the convictions of two men who had solicited their participation in the scheme. The game between Brooklyn and Akron was never played (Udovicic, 1998). Shortly before the criminal trial concluded, the New York State Legislature adopted legislation that made participating in a scheme to limit a team's margin of victory (point-shaving) a crime and expanded the application of illegal sports gambling to include amateur basketball (Goldstein, 2003a).

4.2. New York City Sports Wagering (1951)

Heralded as one of the biggest betting scandals in college basketball history, the City College of New York (City) and others in the area including Manhattan College, Long Island University and Bradley University (Peoria, Illinois) were implicated in a point-fixing ring involving six other schools, more than 30 players and members of organized crime It began when a former Manhattan College player attempted to bribe a then current player to exceed the point margin with St. Francis College of Brooklyn (Goldstein, 2003b). The player reported the incident to his coach who then went to the President of Manhattan College with the details. a sting was set-up and the former Manhattan College player and another were arrested for gambling activity that included both the 1949-50 and 1950-51 seasons (Rosen, 1999).

The problem grew more pervasive a few weeks later when three City College of New York (CCNY) student-athletes were arrested for taking bribes and fixing the point spread in a game against Temple University (Philadelphia). a few days later basketball players from Long Island University (LIU) were also arrested for taking similar actions. In July of that year, the scandal moved out of the New York City region with the arrest of five players from Bradley University who admitted to taking bribes to "hold down the scores against St. Joseph's University and Oregon State University" (Goldstein, 2003b). It was not until October of that year, however, that the national scope of the gambling problem was revealed with the implication of point fixing at the University of Kentucky, which at that time was one of the nation's most prominent and successful basketball programs. as for the New York City schools, CCNY, LIU and Manhattan College all had their basketball programs disbanded. Both were re-established but never returned to the successes of the 1940's era (Rosen, 1999).

4.3. University of Kentucky (1952)

In 19 51, the University of Kentucky (UK) won the NCAA basketball championship. One year later, the same district attorney who prosecuted the New York City gambling incidents uncovered a point-shaving scheme that had been in operation since the late 1940's (Kentucky basketball, n.d.). The UK scheme involved three members of the men's basketball team who were paid cash by a former UK football student-athlete and some of his associates to exceed the point spread in various contests. The scheme evolved with new UK players taking the place of those who had graduated and gone on to careers in professional basketball. The NCAA reacted by canceling the school's 1952-53 season, the first time the rather novice athletic association took such an extreme action (Marron, 2006).

4.4. The 1961 Scandals

Another far reaching point-fixing scandal was exposed in 1961, once again by the New York City District Attorney's office. This one would eventually implicate 476 basketball student-athletes at 27 schools between the years 1957 and 1961. Orchestrated mostly by organized crime members in New York City with the help of college players who had grown-up in the area, this scheme included bribes and attempted bribes to both college basketball and football players. Although it led to convictions of some organized crime members, it caused St. Joseph University (Pennsylvania) to relinquish its third place finish at the previous NCAA tournament, and it negatively impacted the professional careers of over a dozen prominent college players (Goldstein, 2003c).

4.5. Boston College (1978)

More than a decade passed before another gambling scandal erupted in college athletics. This time it was at Boston College, an NCAA institution that had escaped involvement in previous sports gambling incidents (Goldstein, 2003d). During the 1978-79 season, a Boston College basketball student-athlete was approached by a New York City crime family to fix nine games through point-shaving (McCarthy, 2007b). The student-athlete, who solicited help from two other Boston College basketball student-athlete teammates, assisted the perpetrators in earning between $75,000 and $480,000 (Goldstein; McCarthy, 2007b). Each of the student-athletes reportedly earned $10,000 for their involvement (McCarthy, 2007b). The scheme was eventually discovered and the Boston College student-athlete who orchestrated the point-fixing received a ten-year prison sentence for his involvement, but investigators did pursue charges against the other student-athletes (Grady & Clement, 2005). The NCAA did not impose sanctions on Boston College or its men's basketball program (NCAA, n.d.g.).

4.6. Tulane University (1985)

In 1985, four Tulane basketball student-athletes were arrested and indicted on five criminal counts involving point-shaving (NCAA, n.d.g.). According to the indictment, at least one of the student-athletes accepted up to $8,550 for manipulating point spreads and a total of five players were implicated in the scheme (Goldstein, 2003d). Charges were later dropped against the one student-athlete whose case made it to trial, but Tulane was subject to an NCAA investigation that included allegations of violations of Bylaw 10.3. Tulane eventually chose to take its own corrective action by terminating its men's basketball program for four years rather than risk even harsher institutional penalties from the COI (NCAA, n.d.g.).

4.7. Universities of Florida and Arkansas (1989)

Two Southeastern Conference schools had to address student-athlete gambling in 1989. In those separate cases, four University of Florida football student-athletes and several University of Arkansas student-athletes were caught betting on football games and were suspended from participation in intercollegiate athletics (Zimbalist, 1999). Neither case resulted in criminal charges or major NCAA sanctions; however, the NCAA determined that the student-athletes had violated Bylaw 10.3 and each was rendered ineligible to compete for the remainder of the 1989-90 academic year (NCAA, n.d.e.).

4.8. Maine (1992)

In 1992, the University of Maine suspended 19 athletes from the football and basketball teams for operating a professional and college sports gambling ring that reportedly involved bets from $25.00 to $1,150.00 (NCAA, n.d.e.). Thirteen members of the schools baseball team were also involved in sports gambling activities. Around the same time, another Maine college was implicated in a sports gambling scandal. Division II Bryant College suspended five basketball players who had built up $54,000 in gambling debts, and a former player and student were arrested and charged with bookmaking (Rhoden, 1992). The NCAA deemed all the infractions as "secondary" violations of Bylaw 10.3 and the student-athletes were eventually reinstated for competition (NCAA, n.d.e.).

4.9. Northwestern University (1994-1998)

In 1995, three Northwestern basketball players were accused of accepting money from a former University of Notre Dame football player to affect the outcome of the game involving Penn State University, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Michigan (Berkow, 1998). The former Notre Dame student-athlete and two of the three Northwestern players were indicted and convicted. The heaviest jail sentence of two months in prison was handed to a former player from Notre Dame who had been involved in other incidences of illegal gambling (Bartlett & Steele, 2000). Two of the Northwestern student-athletes were sentenced to one month in federal prison and both were suspended from the team (NCAA, 2004). It was the second suspension for one of those players who, along with a Northwestern football student-athlete, had admitted gambling on college football games the previous fall. The NCAA did not impose any major sanctions on the school, but it deemed the student-athletes ineligible to compete for violating Bylaw 10.3 (NCAA, n.d.e.).

Another gambling incident involving this Chicago-area university involved two Northwestern football student-athletes who pled guilty to a federal perjury charge stemming from the fixing of football games (NCAA, n.d.h.). One student-athlete admitted that he had fumbled intentionally in a game against the University of Iowa to win a bet of $400 and had won $500 on an Ohio State game in which he had played. The student-athlete admitted to betting on a total of five games and was subsequently penalized per NCAA rules (Slavin, 2002).

4.10. University of Maryland (1995)

Five football players and one basketball player were suspended after the six bet on college sports (NCAA, n.d.j.). One of the five was the starting quarterback on the school's football team who allegedly bragged to others that he had won $8,000 on the 1993 NCAA basketball tournament. The NCAA determined that all five had violated Bylaw 10.3 and NCAA rules required that four of the football players be withheld from one regularly scheduled game. The fifth football student-athlete was given an eight-game suspension (Maisel, 1995). The lone basketball student-athlete had to forfeit playing in the first 20 games of the 1995-96 season, but no formal NCAA investigation of the Maryland athletics program resulted (NCAA, n.d.d.).

4.11. Boston College (1996)

Three Boston College football players bet against their team, and ten others were allegedly involved in betting on both professional and college football and baseball contests ("Organized crime," 1997). The team's head football coach reported the gambling activity to the appropriate university officials after he heard that some of his players may have bet against their own team when it played against Syracuse University (Merron, 2006). In all, 13 players were suspended and six were permanently removed from the team. The NCAA determined that seven of the student-athletes violated Bylaw 10.3, but no other NCAA sanctions resulted from the incident (NCAA, n.d.e.).

4.12. Arizona State University (1997)

This gambling incident was revealed when bookmakers in Nevada discovered an odd betting pattern and alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (NCAA, n.d.f). FBI surveillance discovered that more than $1 million dollars in bets were being wagered on Arizona State University (ASU) games (McCallum & Herbst, 1997). an investigation revealed that the starting point-guard at ASU, who was in debt to a student bookie for other gambling debts, enlisted a teammate to help in a point-shaving plan (NCAA, 2004). The complete federal investigation of Arizona State's 1993-1994 basketball season led to the two student-athletes admitting that they took money for their role in the scheme and both pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit sports bribery. One of the student-athletes was sentenced to two months in jail, levied an $ 8,000 fine, three years of probation, and six months of home detention. The student bookie and the second student-athlete were also convicted but received lesser sentences (NCAA, 2004).

4.13. University of Florida (2001)

An investigation by the Florida State Attorney General's office revealed that a star University of Florida basketball student-athlete was linked to gambling on college sports. Several witnesses, including UF basketball players, told state investigators that the former "Mr. Basketball" (the honor bestowed to the best high school player) for the state of Florida had openly discussed his sports gambling (Jones & Handel, 2002). The student-athlete was declared ineligible, admitted that he violated NCAA rules and voluntarily left the team, though he would later recant his admissions (Gustafson, 2002).

4.14. Florida State University (2003)

In 2003, a former Florida State University quarterback was accused of gambling on college and professional games (Drape, 2003). The player was eventually charged with one misdemeanor count of gambling. Two other people involved in the scheme, including a student equipment manager, were charged with one felony count of bookmaking. The quarterback was removed from the team and later pled no contest to gambling and unrelated theft charges and was sentenced to probation. He did not return to college athletics but did play professional football for various teams in the National Football League and Arena Football League (Maske, 2005).

4.15. Ohio University (2007)

In 2007, Ohio University (OU) officials discovered that five baseball student-athletes had violated various elements of NCAA Bylaw 10.3. First, a senior pitcher was charged with accepting professional sports wagers. Later, two unnamed players suspected of placing bets were suspended from the team. a fourth student-athlete (who was no longer on the team) was charged with bookmaking. None of the students were alleged to have placed wagers on OU sports, the Bobcat baseball team or other student-athletes, nor was there any evidence of efforts to shave points or otherwise improperly influence the outcome of OU games. The three players were declared ineligible by the NCAA (Arkley, 2008).

4.16. University of Toledo (2007)

Suspicious betting patterns and unusual gambling wagers related to the University of Toledo football caused Las Vegas Sports Consultants, Inc. to alert state authorities to potential gambling activities at the school (Gillispie, 2007). Subsequent investigations revealed that a Toledo football player and a gambler from the Detroit, Michigan area had schemed to point-shave in several games during the 2005 season (McCarthy, 2007b). The Toledo player was removed from the team for his involvement and did not return to college athletics. He was charged criminally as well, though the case was later dropped by investigators (Gillispie, 2007). The NCAA visited the Toledo campus but declined to pursue a formal investigation into the gambling activity (NCAA n.d.d.).

4.17. Others

The cases noted above are those that received at least minor coverage in the news media. a common theme among those cases is that offenders were student-athletes in the sports of men's basketball or football. a review of NCAA data demonstrates that gambling activity is by no means limited to those two revenue producing sports or to NCAA student-athletes. Between the years 2003 and 2008, there were 27 other reported cases of NCAA rule violations by student-athletes, coaches and administrators who had gambled on college or professional sports. Student-athletes in such sports as soccer, track and field, tennis and golf have been found in violation of NCAA gambling rules as well. Other gamblers held positions from head coach, to video coordinator to athletics director. Wagers by both student-athletes and administrators ranged from as little as $5.00 to the $1,000 range. NCAA officials frequently cite this depth and variety in violations when they adopt additional anti-sports gambling regulations or push for stricter legislation on sports wagering by the federal government (NCAA, n.d.i.).

5. Additional Considerations

In 2005, the NCAA released data from a 2004 study that surveyed over 21,000 male and female student-athletes among its three divisions (NCAA, 2003). The data revealed that 69% of male student-athletes reported participating in gambling activities and 35% reported participating in gambling activities that directly violated NCAA rules (NCAA; Huang, Jacobs, Derevensky Gupta & Paskus, 2007). a second NCAA study on the issue was commissioned in 2007 and its results are pending (NCAA, n.d.i.). a 2000 University of Michigan study presented similar findings regarding the gambling habits of college athletic officials. In that study, 40% of those surveyed reported gambling on sports (Vollano & Gragg, 2000).

In light of the 2004 study and that the stricter legislation was not in and of itself curbing illegal sports gambling among its members, the NCAA created additional non-legislative policies that restrict activities associated with gambling (NCAA, n.d.h.). For example, the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship may not be conducted in states where sports gambling is permitted. This includes the states of Nevada and Oregon, although Oregon permits only limited gambling on professional sports. NCAA policy further prohibits its committees from conducting meetings or formal social activities in casinos and the NCAA asks that its corporate sponsors not engage in promotions connected to the outcome of sporting competitions. The NCAA also performs background checks on the officials it hires to referee the "March Madness" tournament and requires gambling to be addressed at its annual training of those referees (Timanus, 2007; Ban on Amateur Sports Gambling, 2001).

The NCAA also has created staff positions at the national level to combat college sports gambling. For example, the NCAA established a governmental relations office based in Washington, D.C., to monitor Congressional bills and to influence legislation related to many intercollegiate athletics issues, including gambling on NCAA sports (Stoldt, Dittmore & Branvold, 2006). In addition, the NCAA has created a sole, multi-faceted unit which is called the "Agents, Amateurism and Gambling" department within its Indianapolis headquarters. The department was created to insure that the NCAA addressed its biggest concerns (sports agents, amateurism and gambling) all in one since it believes that sports agents and sports gambling pose two of the greatest threats to the integrity of the NCAA's product: amateur college sport. The NCAA maintains that even the slightest infiltration of gambling influences, both external and internal, could damage the purity of its college sports. This department is headed by one director who oversees a staff of five individuals, and the staff investigates allegations of sports gambling at NCAA member institutions. The NCAA also sponsors educational programs that provide assistance to college campus administrators to conduct sports wagering workshops, broadcasts of anti-sports wagering public service announcements during the championship games aired by broadcast and cable television. It produces a booklet in partnership with the National Endowment for Financial Education entitled "Don't Bet On It," aimed at educating students about the dangers of sports wagering engages in research in the area of youth gambling and campus gambling (NCAA, 2004). Additionally, a recent educational endeavor entitled "When Gambling Takes Control of the Game" was aimed at educating high school student-athletes of the addictiveness and dangers involved in sports gambling (Funderburk, 2007).

5.1. Exceptions to NCAA Rules/Bylaws

There are a few notable exceptions to the NCAA gambling provisions. First, as noted above the NCAA Bylaws do not apply to horse-racing since there is no corresponding NCAA sport. Also, the rules do not apply to non-monetary wagers made between teams in light of tradition in the sport (e.g., losers give-up jerseys in rowing), or to "friendly wagers" made during the course of purely recreational sports.

5.2. Governmental Regulation

Although the NCAA has taken a proactive position regarding the prohibition of sports wagering within its membership, the federal and state governments have also attempted to legislate anti-gambling prohibitions nationwide. Sports gambling regulation (and gambling in general) falls under the government's ability to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens under its "police power." Additionally, regulation of gambling activities, can generate millions of dollars in revenue for individual states that may use these revenues improve and fund road rehabilitation projects, the educational system, and so on. Though federal laws such as the Wire Communications Act of 1961 (18 U.S.C. [section]1084, 2008), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO) (18 U.S.C. [section]1961, et seq., 2008), and the Bribery in Sporting Contests Act of 1979 (18 U.S.C. [section]224, 2008) emerged in the last several decades, newer attempts to regulate sports gambling related to NCAA, high school and Olympic sports have modified the sports wagering landscape to a certain degree. The following sections outline a few attempts (some successful, some not) to regulate gambling directly or indirectly related to intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA has fully supported much of the legislation.

5.2.1. Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA)

In 1992, President George H. W. Bush signed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) into law (28 U.S.C. [section]3701, et. seq., 2008) in order to "to stop the spread of state-authorized gambling and to protect the integrity of sporting events" (Roberts, 1997). Nevada, the only state at that time that had legalized sports gambling, was granted immunity from the Act, which makes it unlawful for a governmental entity, or a person acting pursuant to the law of such an entity, to operate, sponsor, advertise, promote, license, or authorize a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly, on one or more competitive game in which amateur, Olympic or professional athletes participate. The states of Delaware, Montana and Oregon are also exempt from the Act but only Nevada and Oregon actually operate sports betting. The Act also exempts pari-mutuel betting (horse racing) and jai alai games.

5.2.2. Student Athlete Protection Act

In 2000, the Student Athlete Protection Act was introduced as a bill which attempted to prohibit high school and college sports gambling in all states including states where such gambling was permitted prior to 1991 (H.R. 3575, 2000). This Act, if signed into law, would have removed the exemption that Nevada received under PASPA related to high school and college games, including the Olympics. Although sponsored by Representative Thomas Osborne (Nebraska), who prior to being elected to Congress served as the head football coach at the University of Nebraska, this bill never became law as Congress failed to vote on it prior to its session expiring.

5.2.3. Amateur Sports Integrity Act

Another attempt to close the "Nevada Loophole," with support from the NCAA, was known as the Amateur Sports Integrity Act (S. 1002, 2003). The Act served many purposes, but one of the most significant was to modify the impact of PASPA by preventing any state (including Nevada) from allowing legal wagers on high school or college sports. Senator John McCain (Arizona) sponsored this bill and it received substantial coverage by the media, but similar to the Student-Athlete Protection Act, the bill never became law as it failed to be voted on before the legislative session expired.

5.3. Internet Issues

Sports wagering has expanded, of course, to the Internet. Concerns over sports gambling on the Internet continue to be addressed at the state and federal levels. For example, in 2006 Washington state made online gambling a class C felony (RCW [section]9.46.240, 2008; Skolnik & Ho, 2006). The NCAA has expressed considerable concern over the integrity of its college sports product in this regard although regulation, enforcement or prohibition of Internet gambling may prove to be a struggle and unmanageable (Werner, 2008).

5.3.1. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (2006)

In October 2006, President George W Bush signed a bill into law which made it much more difficult to send money to Internet gambling websites. This law now prevents credit card companies from processing online and illegal gambling activities. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (31 U.S.C. [section][section] 5361-5367, 2008) was actually included in the SAFE Port Act, which is designed to assist in the prevention of terrorist attacks on the United States related to shipping containers that enter U.S. ports (Pub.L. 109-347, 2006). The SAFE Port Act attempts to prevent online gamblers from using credit cards, checks and other electronic funds transfers in order to gamble. Any Internet casino that attempts to accept credit card payments, Internet bank transfers or any other illegal gambling payments should be blocked from doing so under this law. The Act places significant roadblocks in the path of people who have become accustomed to easy access to online sports books.

As technology advances at a record pace, regulation of Internet gambling and enforcement of prohibitions will likely remain problematic for state and federal governments and NCAA officials.

6. Conclusion

As the largest and most influential amateur sports organization in the United States, the NCAA has a legitimate interest in protecting its college sports product from unscrupulous influences. One of the most important issues related to protecting the integrity of college sports is to attempt to prevent participants from affecting the outcome of a sports contest in order to increase or decrease the odds of a successful gambling wager. The NCAA has had to address numerous gambling scandals throughout its first century and, as a direct result, the organization has imposed serious sanctions for violations of its Bylaws found the in the NCAA Manual. Though it is impossible to prevent all forms of gambling on college sports, particularly with the advent of the Internet, the NCAA has worked with federal and state governments to enact, modify or influence legislation which protects the honesty of the sports contests which fall under its purview. In the end, the NCAA's position is quite clear that betting on college sports is unacceptable for any student-athlete, coach or administrator affiliated with its intercollegiate membership.

References

Amateur Sports Integrity Act, S. 1002, 108th Cong. (2003).

American Gaming Association (2008). Gaming revenue: 10 year trends. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from Industry/factsheets/statistics_detail.cfv?id=8

Arkley, J. (2008, January 15). Tw o charged as gambling ringleaders. The Athens Messenger Retrieved on April 25, 2008, from SubSectionID=273&ArticleID=7838

Armour, S. (2008, March 28). Anti-gambling groups seek moratorium on office pools. USA Today, p. B3.

Ban on Amateur Sports Gambling: Hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (69) (2001) (testimony of William Saum).

Barlett, D.L., & Steele, J.B. (2000, September). Throwing the game. Time, 156(13), 52-62.

Berkow, I. (1998, April 20). Caught in gambling's grip; a promising career unravels at Northwestern. New York Times p. C1

Bribery in Sporting Contests Act of 1979, 18 U.S.C. [section]224 (2008).

Byers, W. (1995) Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Connell, M.A., Green-Harris, R., & Ledbetter, B. (2005). What to do when the NCAA comes calling. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Attorneys.

Crowley, J. (2006). In the arena: The NCAA's first century. Indianapolis, IN: The NCAA.

Dunstan, R. (1997). Gambling in California. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau, California State Library. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from 97/03/crb97003.html

Drape, J. (2003, March 5). McPherson is charged with gambling on team. New York Times, p. D2.

Eadington, W.R. (1996). The legalization of casinos: Policy objectives, regulatory alternatives and considerations. Journal of Travel Research, 34, 3-8.

Rogers, M., & Ryan, R. (2007). Navigating the bylaw maze in NCAA major infractions cases. Seton Hall Law Review, 37, 749-791.

Funderburk, K. (2007, March 20). NCAA to unveil plan on gambling dangers. USA Today, p. C7.

Gambling information, transmitting or receiving, RCW [section] 9.46.240 (2008).

Gillispie, M. (2007, May 6). Offshore bets sparked probe of '05 games; FBI: Ex-Shaw star McDougle and Michigan gambler recruited players. USA Today, p. C11.

Goldstein, J. (2003a, November 19). Rumblings: The Brooklyn Five. ESPN.com. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from classic/s/basketball_scandals_rumblings.html

Goldstein, J. (2003b, November 19). Explosion: 1951 scandals threaten college hoops. ESPN.com. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from scandals_explosion.html.

Goldstein, J. (2003c, November 19). Explosion II: The Molinas period. ESPN.com. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from

Goldstein, J. (2003d, November 19). Recent scandals: BC, Tulane and Northwestern. ESPN.com. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from _scandals_recent.html

Grady, J., & Clement, A. (2005). Gambling and collegiate sport. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport 15(1), 95-112

Gustafson, J. (2002). The exile. ESPNmag.com. Retrieved May 23, 2008 from

Huang, J., Jacobs, D.F., Derevensky, J.L., Gupta, R., & Paskus, T. S., (2007). a national study on gambling among U.S. college student-athletes. Journal of American College Health, 56(2), 93-99.

Jones, D., & Handel, C. (2002, July 16). Documents: Ex-Gator Dupay bet on college sports. USAToday.com. Retrieved on May 23, 2008, from college/basketball/men/stories/2002-07-16-dupay-gambling.htm

Kentucky basketball. (n.d.). Kentucky schedule (1952-53). Retrieved May 24, 2008, from

Maisel, I. (1995, July). Maryland's gamblers may cause losses all around. The Sporting News, 219(30), 46.

Maske, M. (2005, February 27). McPherson to NFL: Take a chance on me; AFL player bring talent to checkered past to combine. The Washington Post, p. E8.

McCallum, J., & Hersch, H. (1997, December). Was the fix in at Arizona State? Sports Illustrated, 87(22), 21-22.

McCarthy, M. (2007a, March 28). College kids caught in gambling madness. USA Today, p. C1.

McCarthy, M. (2007b, May 9). Point-shaving remains a concern in college athletics. USA Today, p. C1.

Merron, J. (2006, February 7). Biggest sports gambling scandals. ESPN.com. Retrieved on April 25, 2008, from

NCAA's gambling madness. (2007, March 20). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 8.

NCAA. (1939). NCAA convention proceedings. Kansas City, KS: The NCAA

NCAA. (1983). NCAA convention proceedings. Kansas City, KS: The NCAA

NCAA. (1996). NCAA convention proceedings. Kansas City, KS: The NCAA

NCAA. (2003). Executive summary, 2003 national study on collegiate sports wagering and associated behaviors. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA

NCAA. (2004). Don't bet on it [Brochure]. Indianapolis, IN

NCAA. (2004, May 12). NCAA study finds sports wagering a problem among student-athletes. NCAA News Release. Retrieved April 23, 2008, research/2004/2004051201re.htm

NCAA. (n.d.a.). Legislation and governance. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from . ncaa.org/wdbctx/LSDBi/LSDBI.home

NCAA. (n.d.b.). Membership. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from wps/ncaa?ContentID=811

NCAA. (n.d.c.). NCAA division I legislative services database: Bylaws. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from

LSDBi/LSDBI.home

NCAA. (n.d.d.). NCAA division I legislative services database: Division I proposals. Retrieved April 21, 2008 from

NCAA. (n.d.e.). NCAA division I legislative services database: Eligibility/secondary infractions. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from

NCAA. (n.d.f.). NCAA division I legislative services database: Interpretations. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from

NCAA. (n.d.g.). NCAA division I legislative services database: Major infractions. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from

NCAA. (n.d.h.) NCAA enforcement/infractions. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from DED=true&CONTENT_URL=ment/

NCAA. (n.d.i.). Sports wagering. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from ncaa?ContentID=917

NCAA. (n.d.j). Timeline of college and professional sports wagering cases. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from

NCAA. (n.d.k.). Welcome to NCAAstudent.org. Retrieved July 31, 2008, from

NCAA. (n.d.l.). What's the difference between Divisions I, II and III? Retrieved May 15, 2008, from

Organized crime tied to betting scandal: The Boston College investigation focuses on students who were used as bookmakers. (1997, January 18). New York Times. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2004) database. (Document ID: 115939536).

Prah, P.M. (2007, September 12). States scramble for gambling jackpot. Stateline.org. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from

Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, 28 U.S.C. [section][section]3701-04 (2008).

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. [section]1961, et seq. (2008).

Rhoden, W.C. (1992, April 28). Newest concern for colleges: Increase in sports gambling. The New York Times, p. A1.

Roberts, M. (1997). The national gambling debate: Two defining issues. Whittier Law Review, 8, 570-609.

Rogers, M., & Ryan, R. (2007). Navigating the bylaw maze in NCAA major infractions cases. Seton Hall Law Review, 37, 749-791.

Rosen, Charley. (1999) Scandals of '51: How the gamblers almost killed college basketball. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.

Sawyer, T.H., Bodey, K., & Judge, L. (2008). Sports governance and policy development: an ethical approach to managing sport in the 21st Century. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, Pub.L. 109-347 (2006).

Skolnik, S., & Ho, V. (2006, May 27). Time for gamblers to fold. Seattlepi.com. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from

Slavin, A. J. (2002). The "Las Vegas loophole" and the current push in Congress toward a blanket prohibition on Nevada's collegiate sports gambling. University of Miami Business & Law Review, 10, 715-742.

Student Athlete Protection Act. H.R. 3575, 106th Cong. (2000).

Suggs, W. (2005, March 18). NCAA, U. of Washington settle lawsuit brought by coach. The Chroncle of Higher Education, p. A37.

Stoldt, G.C., Dittmore, S.W., & Branvold, S.E., (2006), Sport public relations: Managing organizational communication. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Timanus, E. (2007, July 25). NCAA aims to avoid NBA's referee problem. USA Today, p. C9.

Thelin, J. (1994). Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics. Baltimore, MD.: John Hopkins University Press.

Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, 31 U.S.C. [section][section] 5361-5367 (2008).

Udovicic, A.Z. (1998). Special report: Sports and gambling a good mix: I wouldn't bet on it. Marquette Sports Law Journal, 8, 401-427.

Vollano, A.G., & Gragg, D.L. (2000). NCAA Division I officials: Gambling with the integrity of college sports? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Department of Athletics.

Weinberg, A. (2003). The case for legal sports gambling. Forbes.com. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from

Werner, E. (2008, April 2). Feds say internet gambling law ambiguous. USAToday.com. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from 195391165_x.htm

The Wire Act of 1961, 18 U.S.C. [section]1084 (2008).

Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

by Adam Epstein and Bridget Niland *

* Adam Epstein is an Associate Professor of Finance and Law in the College of Business Administration at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant. He has published numerous articles in the areas of sports law and general business law. He has authored three textbooks: Sports Law, 1e, Delmar Publishers [c] 2003, Entertainment Law, 1e, Pearson/Prentice Hall, [c] 2006, and Contract Law Fundamentals, 1e, Pearson/Prentice Hall, [c] 2008. He has represented numerous professional athletes primarily in the sports of swimming and triathlon which included several national champions and Olympic medalists.

Bridget Niland is an Assistant Professor of Business Administration at Daemen College where she coordinates the sport management specialization. Prior to joining the Daemen faculty, Niland served in several management positions and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana and worked as a trial attorney with United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which followed a two-year clerkship in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Niland earned her bachelor of arts, master's degree in higher education administration and law degree from the University at Buffalo where she is currently completing her doctorate in educational leadership and policy. Niland was a scholarship athlete on the cross-country and track and field teams at UB.