NCAA infractions cases centered on sports wagering are “spiking” right now, according to the association’s vice president of enforcement, Jon Duncan. The NCAA released a study Wednesday that underscored why.

A survey of more than 3,500 18-to-22-year-olds found that sports wagering is pervasive, with 58% having engaged in at least one sports betting activity. The survey said that 67% of students living on campus are bettors and tend to bet at a higher frequency; 41% of college students who bet on sports have placed a bet on their school’s teams; and 35% have used a student bookmaker.

The survey indicates that gambling advertisers are targeting colleges: 63% of on-campus students recall seeing betting ads, which is a higher rate than in the general population or those who commute/virtually attend college; and 58% of those students indicate they are more likely to bet after seeing the ads.

Sixteen percent have engaged in at least one risky gambling behavior and 6% report that they have previously lost more than $500 on sports betting in a single day. Seventy percent of the “risky gamblers” believe consistent sports gambling will increase their monetary earnings. (The survey’s parameters for “risky gamblers” include those who place larger than typical bets at a greater frequency and across a broader range of sports.)

Given that statistical backdrop, it’s not surprising to hear that athletes are engaging in many of the same behaviors as their peers in the general student body. The problem is that the consequences are severe when it comes to NCAA rules.

“You can throw a net and get any number of schools,” Duncan says. “They’re hot right now.”

There are three publicly known gambling-related cases in the pipeline, at Alabama, Iowa and Iowa State. Crimson Tide baseball coach Brad Bohannon was fired earlier this month after being linked to suspicious betting activity on an Alabama–LSU game. A few days later, Iowa and Iowa State both announced that athletes in multiple sports were suspected of violating NCAA gambling rules—26 Hawkeyes and 15 Cyclones, according to reports. The Iowa and Iowa State cases are not believed to involve game fixing, point shaving or suspicious wagering.

© Gary Cosby Jr./Tuscaloosa News/USA TODAY NETWORK Bohannon was fired as part of a more widespread investigation into suspicious betting activity. Gary Cosby Jr./Tuscaloosa News/USA TODAY NETWORK

NCAA rules on sports wagering are clear: Athletes, coaches and staff are prohibited from betting on amateur, collegiate and professional sports in which the NCAA conducts a championship. Betting by any athlete, regardless of their sport, on the NFL, NBA, NHL or MLB would be a violation, as would wagering on college competitions. There also are potential criminal concerns if athletes are younger than the legal betting age in their state, or engaging in interstate or offshore gambling.

Duncan says that gambling cases often are easily investigated in an era when more sports wagering is legal and regulated. “There’s usually a pretty clear paper trail,” he says, left by IP addresses, time stamps and other data that comes with electronic wagering. “We can figure out who is betting, when, how much they’re wagering and how often.”

Some of the major sports-wagering companies have been cooperating with NCAA investigations, Duncan says, as have state gaming commissions and local law enforcement.

The NCAA’s strict stance on sports gambling is hard to miss—almost every athletic department has posters in its facilities warning that wagering is against the rules. Many college administrators are vocally in favor of maintaining the current widespread prohibition and major sanctions for those who violate the NCAA bylaws.

“I would side on continuing to have very strict and punitive NCAA bylaws,” Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez told the Associated Press this month. “Because what is the upside to allowing sports wagering? Go bet the ponies. Go play blackjack.”

The question for NCAA investigators is whether sanctions for sports wagering should be weighted more toward involved individuals than the schools they represent. For instance, if a football coach is surreptitiously wagering on an NHL game, that creates no competitive advantage for his school. Should both the coach and the school face major penalties in that situation?

“What are we going to do that’s fair to the school and fair to the individual?” Duncan asks. “Do we need to distinguish between a school and a bad actor?”

In that circumstance, both could be charged with Level I violations, the most severe allegation at the NCAA’s disposal. But the charge could be an aggravated Level I (leading to heavier penalties) for the both and a mitigated Level I (with lesser sanctions) for the school.

For individual athletes caught gambling, the cases are likely to divert to the NCAA eligibility staff. Athletes would be rendered ineligible while the investigation unfolds, then eligible to apply for reinstatement. The number of competitions missed could depend on wagering frequency, dollar amounts and whether an athlete was betting on their own school.

The NCAA Division I infractions dashboard, a new public feature in 2023 that quantifies active cases, registered a significant jump this week. It increased from 17 to 24 cases in the “preliminary review” stage, which is when enforcement staffers assess information to see whether there is enough substance to warrant a preliminary investigation. The dashboard currently lists 16 active investigations—up from eight last week—which means that enforcement believes violations have occurred and can result in an allegation.

In addition to the gambling spike, Duncan says cases involving name, image and likeness (NIL) and/or NIL collectives are plentiful. “We get tips every day,” he says. “We’ve got a number of cases we’re working through—more than half [the current caseload]. Some are at the preliminary stage, some are at the back end, getting to the charging stage.”