Wyoming acknowledged the importance of preventing harassment of young student-athletes. However, it seeks solutions other than a total college prop bet ban. The latter has been one of the hot topics in the US, and experts have stated that it could solve the problem. One of the primary supporters of the ban is the NCAA. The organization advises states to protect young athletes by banning prop wagers.
According to the best pay per head bookie, the Wyoming Gaming Commission (WGC) chose to investigate. However, it couldn’t reach a decision. Commissioners weighed the pros and drawbacks of prohibiting college player props, considering the possible benefits and the ban would not eradicate player harassment.
The panel also deliberated on how it may affect businesses and whether or not it would push ordinary gamblers to the underground market. Scott Ward, a lobbyist for the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), mentioned that offshore operators may entice those who wish to place such bets since they won’t follow the rule.
College Prop Bet Ban
The WGC studied two proposed measures, “Iowa Solution” and “Ohio Solution,” as potential bans on collegiate athletes’ use of props. According to sportsbook pay per head reviews and news sites, the first one effectively outlaws all forms of collegiate prop betting. However, the alternative would only bar players from betting on college athletes from the same state.
The operations manager, Michael Steinberg, who presented the two options, said that action was necessary but was unsure if prohibiting props would prevent harassment.
Steinberg said the commission discussed this subject with the NCAA earlier this year. Even though they couldn’t give him hard data, the association did their best to persuade him that the market benefited from Ohio prohibition.
Student-Athlete Harassment Cases in Wyoming
Steinberg included a prior meeting with officials from the University of Wyoming to paint a complete picture of the problem; those people pointed out that not all incidents of harassment are associated with gambling.
After considering various options, including introducing a new regulation addressing harassment, the commissioners decided that prohibiting collegiate athletes’ props may not be the optimal course of action. This may involve going after those who harass athletes, similar to what is done in Ohio and West Virginia. Whatever the situation, the Wyoming commissioners remained undecided and chose to wait for developments before taking action.
Meanwhile, in response to a request from the NCAA, three states—Illinois, Iowa, and Rhode Island—decided to outlaw the use of props by collegiate athletes. Similar legislation in North Carolina never exceeded the committee before the legislative session’s conclusion. However, Montana sought an alternative and decided against banning props.
According to sports handicapping experts, the potential effects of micro-bets on athletes were one of the main arguments presented by the NCAA in its case against state-sponsored sports gambling before the Supreme Court. Conferences and colleges are considering or already forming partnerships with gaming firms. That doesn’t seem very complimentary. The NCAA revised its gambling rules last season to account for mitigating variables in the current gaming market.
