Tweet
NCAA focuses on gambling education
NCAA focuses on gambling education
By LaMond Pope
The Journal Gazette
INDIANAPOLIS – At a time when gambling is just the click of a mouse away, the NCAA hopes to combat any potential problem through education.
Rachel Newman-Baker, the director of agent, gambling and amateurism activities, led a discussion on the update of the 2003 NCAA national study on collegiate sports wagering and associated behaviors Friday on the first day of the annual convention.
“We have seen an increase, with the rise of the Texas Hold ’Em tournaments, with the Internet gambling sites that have increased,” she said. “Since it’s such a part of our society or our culture, it’s natural to see it rise on the other end as well.
“Gambling isn’t just an issue that affects our student athletes. We have to take a step back and see how it fits into the bigger picture as well. We need to be focused on our student athletes and our athletics administrators to figure out how we can help them and provide education.”
With that in mind, the NCAA plans to launch an interactive student-athlete sports wagering Web site.
“The number of respondents in Division I, it shows that those kids know the rules,” Newman-Baker said. “Of the kids who said ‘Yes, I do know what the rule is,’ they are also saying the rule deterred them from participating in those types of activities. What we take away from that, we need to do the same thing in Division II and III, as well as Division I with the other sports as well.”
The study showed that 59.6 percent of Division I male athletes knew the rules against gambling, whereas just 39.8 percent of Division III athletes were up to speed. Likewise, the portion of women who knew the rules was greater in Division I (58.7 percent) than Division III (40.8).
Newman-Baker said the disparity is tied to a lack of resources.
“If you’ve ever been on a Division III campus, you know the folks on that campus are wearing multiple hats,” she said. “They might be the assistant AD, the trainer, the marketing person and the volleyball coach, with possibly some compliance thrown in here and there.
“What we need to try and do is help provide more educational resources and tools to Division III and II so they don’t need to do a lot of work to provide it. They can go on our Web site, they can grab a video, a PowerPoint, and then be able to provide it.”
Overall, the study reported that 20.8 percent of the male athletes surveyed wagered on college sports. Division III again led the way, with 24.4 percent.
Newman-Baker pointed to the health issues raised in the study, which showed those with a potential gambling problem were more likely to use cigarettes or drink one or more times a week.
“There is also probably a disconnect between Division III athletes and the issue itself,” Newman-Baker said, “because to a Division III athletes, they think, ‘What is the big deal if we bet on the Ohio State-Michigan game?’ and so what we try to reinforce is it’s about your well-being, your total health – mental as well as physical – as well as protecting the integrity of our game, and this is how it can have an impact on that.
“You will see more education, but it will be tailored specifically by division as well as by sport.”
The NCAA also expanded its background checks to include men’s hockey officials and baseball umpires.
The findings showed that among the Division I athletes surveyed, 17 in basketball (4.4 percent) and 102 in football (4.8) reported at least one of the following “extreme behaviors:”
•Taking money for playing poorly in a game.
•Known of a teammate who took money for playing poorly.
•Been threatened or harmed because of sports wagering.
•Been contacted by an outside source to share inside information.
•Actually provided inside information about a game.
“They either had been asked to affect the outcome of the game; they actually affected the outcome of a game; they involved their teammate. There is a list of four or five things,” Newman-Baker said.
“That cuts to the core of what we are all about. That cuts to the integrity of our game. The approach we are trying to take is to do something about those more serious, egregious violations, because we’re not in a crisis here with that because those numbers are small, but one is too many. We are trying to be proactive, take a leadership role.”
By LaMond Pope
The Journal Gazette
INDIANAPOLIS – At a time when gambling is just the click of a mouse away, the NCAA hopes to combat any potential problem through education.
Rachel Newman-Baker, the director of agent, gambling and amateurism activities, led a discussion on the update of the 2003 NCAA national study on collegiate sports wagering and associated behaviors Friday on the first day of the annual convention.
“We have seen an increase, with the rise of the Texas Hold ’Em tournaments, with the Internet gambling sites that have increased,” she said. “Since it’s such a part of our society or our culture, it’s natural to see it rise on the other end as well.
“Gambling isn’t just an issue that affects our student athletes. We have to take a step back and see how it fits into the bigger picture as well. We need to be focused on our student athletes and our athletics administrators to figure out how we can help them and provide education.”
With that in mind, the NCAA plans to launch an interactive student-athlete sports wagering Web site.
“The number of respondents in Division I, it shows that those kids know the rules,” Newman-Baker said. “Of the kids who said ‘Yes, I do know what the rule is,’ they are also saying the rule deterred them from participating in those types of activities. What we take away from that, we need to do the same thing in Division II and III, as well as Division I with the other sports as well.”
The study showed that 59.6 percent of Division I male athletes knew the rules against gambling, whereas just 39.8 percent of Division III athletes were up to speed. Likewise, the portion of women who knew the rules was greater in Division I (58.7 percent) than Division III (40.8).
Newman-Baker said the disparity is tied to a lack of resources.
“If you’ve ever been on a Division III campus, you know the folks on that campus are wearing multiple hats,” she said. “They might be the assistant AD, the trainer, the marketing person and the volleyball coach, with possibly some compliance thrown in here and there.
“What we need to try and do is help provide more educational resources and tools to Division III and II so they don’t need to do a lot of work to provide it. They can go on our Web site, they can grab a video, a PowerPoint, and then be able to provide it.”
Overall, the study reported that 20.8 percent of the male athletes surveyed wagered on college sports. Division III again led the way, with 24.4 percent.
Newman-Baker pointed to the health issues raised in the study, which showed those with a potential gambling problem were more likely to use cigarettes or drink one or more times a week.
“There is also probably a disconnect between Division III athletes and the issue itself,” Newman-Baker said, “because to a Division III athletes, they think, ‘What is the big deal if we bet on the Ohio State-Michigan game?’ and so what we try to reinforce is it’s about your well-being, your total health – mental as well as physical – as well as protecting the integrity of our game, and this is how it can have an impact on that.
“You will see more education, but it will be tailored specifically by division as well as by sport.”
The NCAA also expanded its background checks to include men’s hockey officials and baseball umpires.
The findings showed that among the Division I athletes surveyed, 17 in basketball (4.4 percent) and 102 in football (4.8) reported at least one of the following “extreme behaviors:”
•Taking money for playing poorly in a game.
•Known of a teammate who took money for playing poorly.
•Been threatened or harmed because of sports wagering.
•Been contacted by an outside source to share inside information.
•Actually provided inside information about a game.
“They either had been asked to affect the outcome of the game; they actually affected the outcome of a game; they involved their teammate. There is a list of four or five things,” Newman-Baker said.
“That cuts to the core of what we are all about. That cuts to the integrity of our game. The approach we are trying to take is to do something about those more serious, egregious violations, because we’re not in a crisis here with that because those numbers are small, but one is too many. We are trying to be proactive, take a leadership role.”
