On an early morning after practice, SDSU senior linebacker DJ Herman shook his head as he considered what was, until Friday morning, the NCAA’s plan to let college athletes bet on professional sports.
“I grew up in Las Vegas, and a lot of gambling,” Herman said. “It shies away from the purpose of the game. In my opinion, it’s not good for the program, it’s not good football. It’s not good for college sports.”
By Friday afternoon, Herman’s concerns were echoed across the country and ultimately backed by a decisive vote. In a stunning reversal, more than two-thirds of Division I schools moved to rescind the rule change, formally blocking the NCAA from allowing athletes, coaches and athletic department staff to bet on pro sports.
The rule, initially set to take effect Nov. 1, then Nov. 22, has now been revoked for all three NCAA divisions following a surge of high-profile gambling scandals and steep administrative pushback.
For SDSU athletes and faculty who had already been bracing for the change, the reversal shifted the tone from anxious anticipation to relief and, for some, validation.
A rule rejected under growing scandal
The NCAA reversal follows a cascade of betting controversies that unfolded in the weeks leading up to Friday’s vote.
In late October, federal prosecutors announced sweeping gambling investigations involving NBA figures, including arrests connected to two illegal betting operations and allegations that Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier used private player information to influence wagers.
This month, the NCAA declared six Division I men’s basketball players ineligible for their involvement in betting schemes and announced that former Temple guard Hysier Miller placed dozens of bets on Owls games, including multiple bets against his own team.
The Division I Administrative Committee had approved the rule change in October. Still, because it passed with less than a 75% supermajority, all DI schools were granted a rare 30-day window to vote to rescind it. By Friday morning, the threshold had been reached.
The ban now remains intact across Divisions I, II and III.
Even before the vote, SDSU faculty made clear they believed the proposal introduced unacceptable risks.
“Our student-athletes are accessible,” said SDSU Athletic Director J.D. Wicker. “That’s the difference between us and the NFL or NBA. Someone can walk right up and ask how a player’s shoulder is doing. That could be as innocent as I’m a really big sports fan, or they could be placing a bet .”
Wicker pointed to proposition bets – wagers on individual outcomes like free throws, catches, or completions – as especially dangerous.
“It’s very easy to say, ‘Go miss your first free throw, and I’m putting 500 bucks on that.’ Wicker said. “I’d love it if prop bets were banned entirely.”
The athletic department brings in NCAA-funded gambling education speakers each year and adds additional programming when traveling to states with legal sports betting. Wicker said the priority is to ensure athletes understand how to respond if approached for information or pressured to participate in schemes.
Why the rule drew alarm at SDSU
While the NCAA said Friday that preserving the ban helps protect “the integrity of competition,” some experts argue the association wasn’t ready to implement such a significant change.
“It’s a tough one,” said Michael Naraine, an associate professor at Brock University and the only external faculty member on SDSU’s Institute on Sports Wagering and Gaming (ISWAG) roster. “I’m not anti the new regulation, but I just don’t know if it’s going to work and if it’s going to result in the freedom-versus-restrictive balance that everyone’s trying to find these days with sports betting.”
He compared the lack of preparedness to the lack of anti-doping education.
“You wouldn’t say, ‘We banned certain substances, okay, go compete,’ without educating athletes on what’s on the banned list,” Naraine said. “The same level of ongoing training needs to happen for sports gambling. And that’s definitely not happening right now.”
Brandon Mastromartino, founding director of ISWAG and a professor in SDSU’s School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, agreed.
“If the NCAA is going to make this rule change, they need to provide resources around education,” he said. “Sports betting is not a financial strategy. It’s entertainment.”
He also warned about “prediction markets,” which allow users as young as 18 to place wagers framed as investments.
Even before the rule reversal, many SDSU athletes described sports betting as a force that has crept into their daily lives.
Wide receiver Nathan Acevedo said coaches routinely remind players of the risks.
“College athletes get told quite enough that sports betting isn’t allowed because we could lose eligibility,” Acevedo said. “I don’t think a little extra change is worth losing the whole season.”
Senior linebacker Owen Chambliss said the stigma alone has kept him away.
“It’s kind of had a negative stigma since I’ve been in college,” Chambliss said. On betting on pro sports, he didn’t hesitate: “Hell nah, bet on them.”
A national debate far from finished
Even with the rule officially blocked, SDSU experts say the larger issues aren’t going away.
“My first reaction was, we’re going to trust 18- to 22-year-olds to manage money properly?” said Dr. Damariyé Smith, an assistant professor in SDSU’s School of Communication and an ISWAG faculty member. “Some people are not going to survive this. You’re walking around with the casino in your pocket.”
Smith said he worries sports could increasingly be viewed as “a way to make a quick buck,” shifting attention away from community and identity.
“There’s so much ground to cover that it’s probably going to be a good 20 to 25 years before we start having some solid answers on what best practices are,” he said. “But that’s the point of research — to improve our everyday experiences.”
For Herman, the outcome reaffirms what he believed from the start.
“It just takes away from the game,” he said. “We’re here to play football. That’s enough.”
