2 NCAA Student-Athlete Gambling Behaviors and Attitudes: Supplementary Tables May 2013
3 Investigators Dr. Thomas Paskus, NCAA Principal Research Scientist Dr. Jeffrey Derevensky, Director International Center for Youth Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behaviors, McGill University
4 Current During spring semester 2012, the NCAA conducted its third national survey of student-athlete gambling behaviors and attitudes (2004, 2008, 2012). Approximately 23,000 survey responses were analyzed from the 2012 survey administration and 20,000 each from the 2004 and 2008 administrations. This preliminary report highlights the findings from 2012 and compares them to results from the previous studies. A more detailed set of final tables is expected to be completed and published later in summer 2013.
5 Methods All NCAA member institutions were approached to participate. o Asked to survey one to three squads. o Teams selected by the NCAA via a stratified random sampling protocol designed to provide sufficiently large and representative samples within sports/divisions. o Faculty athletics representatives (FARs) asked to facilitate survey administration. o NCAA assists with campus IRB approval. protocols were designed to standardize the administration and maximize the anonymity of participating student-athletes and schools. As a result, not only do we not know the identities of the studentathlete participants, we do not know which NCAA schools took part in the study. Based on the number of surveys received, we estimate that about 65% of schools participated.
6 Data Cleaning A high data cleaning standard was applied, which is especially important for the analysis of certain low-baserate items. Data were reviewed extensively via a series of validity checks and Item Response Theory (IRT) techniques to identify questionable patterns of response. Cases were excluded from analyses if strong evidence existed of insincere response (e.g., respondent appears to be a non-gambler in the first half of the survey and a heavy gambler in the second half; respondent endorses a combination of items with a statistical likelihood of close to zero). Similar data cleaning standards were applied across all three administrations of the wagering study. Data were then weighted in comparison to national participation rates within the sampled sports. These weighting functions effectively account for differences in sampling proportions within each cohort and then scale results in relation to national participation figures.
7 Comparing Responses from 2004, 2008 and 2012 Comparisons are not available across all administrations for all items. Since survey sampling strategies were somewhat different in 2004 versus what was done in 2008 and 2012, several steps were taken to equate results as best possible in this report: Comparisons are limited to 22 sports (11 men s sports and 11 women s sports) that were adequately sampled in each NCAA division within each administration. When results were aggregated across sport, gender and/or division, the sample data for 2004, 2008 and 2012 were weighted in comparison to 2008 national participation rates within the 22 sports / 3 divisions. This ensured that over- or under-sampling student-athletes from a particular sport and/or division in a given year would not confound the results. In total, comparative data are available for: 19,354 student-athletes from 2004; 19,371 student-athletes from 2008; and 22,935 student-athletes from 2012.
8 Definitions Gambling Frequency Social gambling: Self-reported participation in a particular gambling activity on one or more occasion during the past year. Frequent gambling: Self-reported participation in a particular gambling activity once per month or more during the past year. Heavy gambling: Self-reported participation in a particular gambling activity once per week or more during the past year.
9 Key Questions for the NCAA 1. Are student-athletes engaging in gambling behaviors that violate NCAA bylaws or put their well-being in danger? 2. How have such behaviors been changing over the past decade? 3. What are student-athlete attitudes toward gambling and sports wagering?
10 Key Questions for the NCAA 4. Are there particular subgroups of student-athletes whose gambling behaviors should concern us? 5. How can the NCAA and member schools best support student-athletes (e.g., educational programming and prevention)?
11 Results: Gambling Behaviors and Sports Wagering
12 Percentage of Student-Athletes Gambling for Money During the Previous 12 Months Overall 66% 57% Males Females Div. I 58% 50% Div. II 67% 56% Div. III 73% 65% Overall 39% 39% Div. I 31% 30% Div. II 40% 41% Div. III 45% 46%
13 Gambling Behaviors among Male Student-Athletes Past Year 1 x / mo+ Past Year 1 x / mo+ Past Year 1 x / mo+ Played cards for money 46.8% 20.6% 45.9% 14.3% 27.4% 6.1% Bet horses, dogs 9.8% 2.0% 8.5% 1.4% 6.5% 1.5% Games personal skill 39.7% 16.3% 33.1% 13.0% 25.4% 9.9% Dice, craps 13.4% 4.3% 11.7% 3.9% 7.8% 2.5% Slots 19.8% 3.6% 15.1% 2.0% 11.9% 1.8% Lottery tickets 36.2% 11.1% 31.4% 9.1% 35.2% 11.1% Played stock market 10.2% 4.7% 9.2% 4.5% 7.4% 3.6% Commercial bingo 6.5% 0.9% 6.9% 1.1% 5.3% 1.2% Gambled in casino % 3.8% 18.7% 3.3% Bet on sports 23.5% 9.6% 29.5% 9.6% 25.7% 8.3% Casino games on Internet for money 6.8% 2.8% 12.3% 4.7% 7.5% 1.9% Note: Percentages displayed are cumulative rather than independent. A student-athlete reporting having wagered once/month or more is also included in the past year figure.
14 Gambling Behaviors among Female Student-Athletes Past Year 1 x / mo+ Past Year 1 x / mo+ Past Year 1 x / mo+ Played cards for money 19.0% 4.4% 10.7% 1.3% 5.3% 0.6% Bet horses, dogs 4.8% 0.4% 3.2% 0.1% 2.8% 0.2% Games personal skill 14.1% 3.2% 7.2% 1.2% 4.0% 0.7% Dice, craps 3.5% 0.7% 2.2% 0.3% 2.0% 0.3% Slots 14.3% 1.3% 9.9% 0.5% 8.4% 0.6% Lottery tickets 29.7% 5.4% 24.0% 3.5% 30.5% 5.1% Played stock market 3.5% 1.3% 2.1% 0.6% 1.1% 0.4% Commercial bingo 7.3% 0.8% 6.8% 0.8% 6.2% 0.8% Gambled in casino % 0.6% 9.4% 0.6% Bet on sports 6.7% 1.5% 6.6% 0.8% 5.2% 0.6% Casino games on Internet for money 2.1% 0.8% 1.9% 0.2% 1.8% 0.3% Note: Percentages displayed are cumulative rather than independent. A student-athlete reporting having wagered once/month or more is also included in the past year figure.
15 Percentage of Male Student-Athletes Reporting That They Wager on Sports (by NCAA Division) Social Past Year Division I 17.1% 22.4% 18.7% Division II 20.6% 27.9% 25.9% Division III 30.7% 36.9% 31.9% Frequent Heavy x / month+ Division I 6.6% 6.8% 5.9% Division II 8.7% 9.4% 8.5% Division III 12.8% 12.1% 10.4% 1x / week+ Division I 2.8% 1.9% 2.1% Division II 4.1% 2.9% 3.3% Division III 6.7% 3.2% 3.1% Note: Percentages displayed are cumulative rather than independent. A student-athlete reporting having wagered once/week or more is also included in the once/month or more and past year figures.
16 Percentage of Female Student-Athletes Reporting That They Wager on Sports (by NCAA Division) Social Past Year Division I 4.6% 4.1% 2.7% Division II 7.9% 6.2% 5.4% Division III 8.1% 9.1% 7.3% Frequent Heavy x / month+ Division I 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% Division II 2.1% 0.7% 0.5% Division III 1.7% 1.0% 0.8% 1x / week+ Division I 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% Division II 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% Division III 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% Note: Percentages displayed are cumulative rather than independent. A student-athlete reporting having wagered once/week or more is also included in the once/month or more and past year figures.
17 Percentage of Male Student-Athletes Reporting That They Wager on Sports at Least Once/Month (Divisions Combined within Sports) Men s Sports Baseball 12.3% 12.7% 9.5% Basketball 9.9% 10.0% 8.4% Football 8.6% 9.0% 8.3% Golf 14.2% 19.6% 20.2% Ice Hockey 12.1% 7.6% 8.9% Lacrosse 13.9% 10.1% 5.6% Soccer 10.9% 10.6% 9.7% Swimming 5.7% 4.3% 3.5% Tennis 8.8% 8.4% 7.8% Track / Cross Country 4.9% 5.4% 4.4% Wrestling 12.4% 6.2% 6.0%
18 Percentage of Division I Student-Athletes Reporting That They Wager on Sports at Least Once/Month Men s Sports Div. I only Baseball 8.2% 9.5% 9.3% Basketball 6.1% 4.5% 5.9% Football 5.4% 6.0% 4.6% Golf 14.4% 20.5% 21.3% Ice Hockey 9.2% 4.2% 7.8% Lacrosse 9.7% 5.6% 4.3% Soccer 6.5% 6.9% 7.0% Swimming 4.1% 3.4% 3.0% Tennis 9.9% 6.7% 3.4% Track / XC 4.6% 5.3% 3.1% Wrestling 8.5% 6.4% 2.7% Women s Sports Div. I only Basketball 0.9% 0.5% 0.9% Field Hockey 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Golf 0.7% 1.7% 2.1% Gymnastics 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Lacrosse 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% Softball 0.3% 1.1% 1.1% Soccer 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% Swimming 1.2% 0.6% 0.0% Tennis 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% Track / XC 1.3% 0.7% 0.2% Volleyball 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
19 Percentage of Division II Student-Athletes Reporting That They Wager on Sports at Least Once/Month Men s Sports Div. II only Baseball 8.5% 9.4% 8.4% Basketball 6.9% 9.9% 6.3% Football 9.0% 10.0% 10.1% Golf 14.4% 16.7% 19.0% Ice Hockey Lacrosse 3.9% 8.8% 6.9% Soccer 13.6% 10.0% 8.2% Swimming 7.4% 6.3% 6.4% Tennis 5.9% 6.2% 10.2% Track / XC 4.6% 5.6% 2.8% Wrestling 10.0% 7.8% 4.4% Women s Sports Div. II only Basketball 0.6% 1.1% 0.8% Field Hockey % 0.0% Golf % 1.0% Gymnastics Lacrosse % Softball 3.2% 0.6% 0.3% Soccer 1.9% 0.9% 0.6% Swimming 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% Tennis 3.5% 2.3% 0.0% Track / XC 1.2% 0.0% 0.3% Volleyball 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% Note: Within-sport percentages not shown or combined with other divisions if n < 50.
20 Percentage of Division III Student-Athletes Reporting That They Wager on Sports at Least Once/Month Men s Sports Div. III only Baseball 18.8% 18.1% 10.5% Basketball 14.4% 14.0% 11.5% Football 11.8% 11.7% 11.3% Golf 13.9% 20.8% 20.1% Ice Hockey 14.2% 9.9% 9.8% Lacrosse 18.5% 12.6% 5.8% Soccer 11.9% 12.8% 11.8% Swimming 6.8% 4.6% 3.2% Tennis 9.2% 10.6% 10.0% Track / XC 5.3% 5.5% 7.1% Wrestling 18.3% 5.1% 10.7% Women s Sports Div. III only Basketball 2.4% 1.9% 1.4% Field Hockey 1.3% 0.0% 0.5% Golf % 0.9% Gymnastics Lacrosse 3.6% 0.5% 0.9% Softball 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% Soccer 2.2% 0.8% 0.8% Swimming 0.0% 1.3% 0.7% Tennis 2.4% 0.0% 1.2% Track / XC 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% Volleyball 1.2% 1.0% 0.0% Note: Within-sport percentages not shown or combined with other divisions if n < 50.
21 Wagering Behaviors among Men s Golf Student-Athletes 2012 All Males (no golf) 2012 Men s Golf Past Year 1 x / mo+ 1 x / wk+ Past Year 1 x / mo+ 1 x / wk+ Played cards for money 26.7% 5.8% 1.5% 43.0% 12.2% 3.8% Bet horses, dogs 6.3% 1.5% 0.5% 11.5% 3.2% 0.7% Games personal skill 24.0% 8.8% 3.1% 56.0% 36.1% 20.8% Dice, craps 7.7% 2.5% 0.9% 9.9% 2.9% 0.9% Slots 11.5% 1.7% 0.3% 20.2% 3.8% 0.8% Lottery tickets 34.7% 10.8% 2.9% 45.7% 19.0% 6.5% Played stock market 7.1% 3.4% 1.7% 14.2% 7.8% 2.6% Commercial bingo 5.1% 1.1% 0.4% 10.8% 3.6% 1.2% Gambled in casino 17.9% 3.1% 0.7% 35.4% 7.5% 2.5% Bet on sports 24.9% 7.8% 2.5% 44.4% 20.2% 8.5% Casino games on Internet for money 7.2% 1.8% 0.5% 15.7% 5.4% 1.7% Note: Percentages displayed are cumulative rather than independent. A student-athlete reporting having wagered once/month or more is also included in the past year figure.
22 Wagering Targets of Student-Athletes who Reported Sports Wagering in Past 12 Months Pro Sports Males Females Males Females NFL 69.2% 59.4% 60.1% 57.7% NBA 31.0% 20.0% 30.3% 21.2% MLB 29.0% 20.3% 21.1% 12.7% Auto Racing 7.5% 5.2% ( ) ( ) Other pro 30.1% 14.5% 23.7% 12.3% College Sports Football 48.4% 27.8% 37.5% 19.2% Basketball (season) 37.5% 19.4% 29.1% 17.9% Basketball (tourney) 62.6% 41.6% 53.1% 37.5% Other college 19.1% 11.1% 10.7% 8.6% HS or Youth Sports % 3.0% Note: Auto racing not asked separately in 2012; included in Other pro
25 Genesis of Gambling Behaviors In the 2012 study, male student-athletes generally reported starting gambling earlier than females. Also, student-athletes in the 2012 cohort started gambling earlier on average than those in the 2008 cohort: First Time Gambled for Money 2008 (Male Female) 2012 (Male Female) Before HS 25.5% 13.5% 32.9% 17.8% HS 66.3% 63.0% 59.1% 57.3% College 8.2% 23.5% 8.0% 24.8% The most typical entry point for male student-athletes is (1) card playing for money, (2) sports wagering or (3) games of personal skill. They are most likely to gamble with teammates or friends. Female student-athletes did not show a common entry point. The most frequent first gambling experiences were (1) cards, (2) lottery tickets, (3) slots or (4) sports. They are much more likely to gamble with a significant other or family members than with teammates.
26 Gambling Companions of Student-Athletes who Reported Any Gambling Behavior in Past 12 Months 2012 Males Females Teammates, other student-athletes or other students involved in athletics program 33.8% 9.0% Other friends or co-workers 33.6% 21.3% Significant other or family 16.7% 60.6% Other students in residence hall or apartment 8.4% 2.6% Alone (including online) 4.3% 5.2% People specific to gambling 1.8% 0.9% Fraternity/sorority members 1.4% 0.4%
27 First Gambling Experience among Student-Athletes who have Ever Gambled 2012 Males Played cards for money 47.8% Sports Wagering 19.6% Bet on game of personal skill 12.3% Lottery/scratch tickets 5.6% Other 5.2% Dice/craps 3.4% Horses, dogs or similar 2.8% Slots 2.5% Bingo 0.6% Internet gambling site 0.1% 2012 Females Lottery/scratch tickets 25.7% Played cards for money 23.5% Slots 15.3% Sports Wagering 13.0% Horses, dogs or similar 6.6% Bet on game of personal skill 5.0% Bingo 4.8% Other 4.1% Dice/craps 1.8% Internet gambling site 0.2%
28 Results: Money for Gambling
29 Largest One-Day Gambling Loss among Student-Athletes who Reported any Gambling Behavior in Past 12 Months 2012 Males Females Less than $ % 46.7% $10 - $ % 24.9% $25 - $ % 12.3% $50 - $ % 10.8% $100 - $ % 4.5% $300 - $ % 0.6% $500 - $ % 0.2% $1, % 0.0%
30 How Much Total Financial Debt (Student Loans, Personal Loans, Credit Card Debt) Are You Personally Currently Responsible for Paying Back? 2012 Males Females None 41.0% 47.4% < $ % 2.8% $500 - $ % 2.5% $1,000 - $4, % 11.5% $5,000 - $9, % 12.7% $10,000 - $20, % 13.3% > $20, % 9.8%
31 Results: Gambling in the Digital Age
32 Methods Used for Placing Sports Bets Among those betting sports at all during year, used that method at all Males 2008 Males 2012 Bet with friends 92.7% 91.5% Bet with a student bookie 7.8% 8.4% Bet with an off-campus bookie 7.5% 8.6% Via Internet or phone/text 26.3% 33.7% Bet via the Internet 22.3% 20.9% Bet via phone or text message # 9.4% 20.5% Bet at casino, sports book, lottery 18.5% 20.9% Bet through an intermediary * 6.7% 15.0% Notes: # = option changed from by cell phone, telephone or PDA to by phone or text message. * = option phrased as Through an intermediary who placed the bet with a different source in 2008; intermediary replaced with friend or acquaintance in 2012.
33 Participation in Fantasy Sports Males Participated in free fantasy league 37.6% 50.0% 50.7% Participated in fantasy league with entry fee and prize money 15.5% 17.0% 18.7% Consider participation in a fantasy league with and entry fee and a prize to be gambling? % 19.9% Females Participated in free fantasy league 5.5% 8.4% 8.4% Participated in fantasy league with entry fee and prize money 2.7% 2.4% 1.8% Consider participation in a fantasy league with and entry fee and a prize to be gambling? % 17.7%
34 Percentage of Student-Athletes Reporting That They Played Simulated Gambling Activities in the Past Year 2012 Played a simulated gambling activity via a videogame console Played a simulated gambling activity via a social media website Played a simulated gambling activity via an Internet gambling website Played a simulated gambling activity on your cell phone Played a free simulated sports betting or bracket game on the Internet Males Females Past Year 1 x / mo+ 1 x / wk+ Past Year 1 x / mo+ 1 x / wk+ 18.2% 5.8% 2.4% 4.8% 0.9% 0.3% 12.0% 3.9% 1.3% 4.2% 0.9% 0.2% 10.3% 3.2% 1.0% 2.4% 0.5% 0.2% 14.5% 5.5% 2.3% 5.4% 1.4% 0.6% 11.7% 3.5% 1.2% 2.2% 0.4% 0.1%
35 Percentage of Student-Athletes Reporting That They Played Any Simulated Gambling Activity in the Past Year 2012 Males 28.1% Females 10.2%
36 Results: Behavior Related to Contest Fairness
37 Notes on Analysis of Low-Baserate Behaviors The study authors stress that the items described in this section, which ask student-athletes directly about contest fairness, be judged within a rigorous statistical context due to the difficulty in obtaining statistically reliable results from questions of this nature. In our judgment, factors that could lead to imprecise national estimates appear to push in both directions: Content/phrasing of these questions may invite insincere response; Despite lengths taken to ensure participant anonymity, persons engaging in illegal or eligibility-jeopardizing activity may still perceive an extreme risk in honestly answering certain questions. Any population estimate for a question with an extremely low baserate (e.g., only one to two percent of student-athletes endorsing) can easily be incorrect by a large relative margin due to the factors described above or to other research/statistical confounds. Determining whether a rate is truly different from zero (or some other meaningful baseline) or whether a change in the rate has occurred should be assessed using appropriate tests of statistical significance.
38 Notes on Analysis of Low-Baserate Behaviors The following tables show endorsement of behaviors related to contest fairness among student-athletes in Division I men s basketball and football. As a comparison, similar self-report rates are shown for all other males in aggregate (all males in Divisions I, II and III outside of Division I men s basketball and football). Examination of rates for Division I men s basketball and football in comparison to such a baseline group may tell a more meaningful story than evaluating whether the rates are statistically different than zero. Comparison with this baseline group of males highlights two issues: (a) given changes in the betting landscape (e.g., existence of betting lines in sports outside of Division I football and men s basketball), it is possible that movement on these items for this comparison group could be meaningful; (b) even employing extensive methodologies for identifying insincere responses on these items, a certain percentage of college males will indicate their contests are unfair even when it is clear that is unlikely (e.g., a Division III cross country runner is likely not being asked to change the outcome of a contest).
39 Percentage of Division I Men s Basketball and Football Players Reporting Having Been Contacted by Outside Sources to Share Inside Information Division I Men s Basketball 1.2% 3.8% 4.6% Division I Football (FBS or FCS) 2.0% 3.5% 2.2% Percentage of all males outside MBB1 and MFB1 endorsing (all divisions) 0.6% 1.4% 1.6%
40 Percentage of Division I Men s Basketball and Football Players Claiming to Have Provided Inside Information to Outside Sources Division I Men s Basketball 1.2% 0.9% 0.8% Division I Football (FBS or FCS) 2.5% 1.1% 0.3% Percentage of all males outside MBB1 and MFB1 endorsing (all divisions) 0.8% 0.7% 0.5%
41 Have you ever posted information during the season on a social media website (e.g., Facebook or Twitter) about how you or your teammates are feeling, how the team is looking in practice or how you are preparing for an upcoming game? 2012 Males Females Division I 8.0% 15.4% Division II 9.7% 17.9% Division III 11.6% 14.1% Note: 7.8% in Division I men s basketball, 5.5% in Division I football, 14.2% in Division I women s basketball.
42 Have you ever been told by a coach not to post certain information about you or your team on a social media site? 2012 Males Females Division I 17.4% 23.4% Division II 10.4% 18.3% Division III 12.7% 13.6% Note: 19.3% in Division I men s basketball, 17.9% in Division I football, 29.3% in Division I women s basketball.
43 Percentage of Division I Men s Basketball and Football Players Reporting Having Been Asked to Influence the Outcome of a Game Division I Men s Basketball 2.4% 1.6% 2.1% Division I Football (FBS or FCS) 2.3% 1.2% 1.2% Percentage of all males outside MBB1 and MFB1 endorsing (all divisions) 1.0% 1.1% 1.0%
44 Percentage of Division I Men s Basketball and Football Players Reporting Having Bet on Their Own Team Division I Men s Basketball 2.7% 2.0% 0.8% Division I Football (FBS or FCS) 2.9% 2.2% 1.3% Percentage of all males outside MBB1 and MFB1 endorsing (all divisions) 1.7% 2.2% 2.2%
45 Percentage of Division I Men s Basketball and Football Players Reporting Having Bet on Another Team at Their School Division I Men s Basketball 1.8% 1.4% 1.5% Division I Football (FBS or FCS) 4.9% 3.4% 2.6% Percentage of all males outside MBB1 and MFB1 endorsing (all divisions) 4.1% 2.6% 2.3%
46 Percentage of Division I Men s Basketball and Football Players Reporting Having Known of a Teammate who was a Student Bookie Division I Men s Basketball 1.8% 0.6% 0.3% Division I Football (FBS or FCS) 1.3% 0.8% 0.6% Percentage of all males outside MBB1 and MFB1 endorsing (all divisions) 3.0% 1.5% 1.4%
47 Additional 2012 Findings About 1% of survey participants said they are aware of coaches or other college employees who wager on sports. Roughly 5% of all males and 1% of females know a bookmaker. Just under 1.5% of males say that they have had a teammate who was a bookmaker (much smaller figure in Division I MBB and MFB).
48 Additional 2012 Findings Men s golfers stand apart on a number of these items: 7% of Division I men s golfers say they have bet on their own team 10% have bet on another team at their school 24% have bet on teams at other colleges 2% have been harmed/threatened because of gambling 3% know of a coach who gambles on college sports 3% know of other college employees who wager on sports 13% know a bookie.
49 Results: Education / Prevention
50 Have you received information on the NCAA rules concerning gambling? Males Females Males Females Division I 76.9% 83.4% 71.5% 75.9% Division II 63.0% 67.6% 59.3% 58.6% Division III 62.0% 60.6% 56.9% 57.9%
51 Student-Athlete Self-Report of the Most Effective Ways to Influence Student-Athletes not to Wager on Sports 2012 Rank Males Wagered on Sports Past Year Females Wagered on Sports Past Year 1 Coach (3.63) Teammates (3.84) 2 Teammates (3.56) NCAA Penalties (3.81) 3 NCAA Penalties (3.55) Coach (3.77) 4 Pro Athlete Presentation (3.28) Pro Athlete Presentation (3.51) 5 Parents (3.17) Law Enforcement Present (3.39) 6 Athletic Dept Info/Present (3.14) Athletic Dept Info/Present (3.33) Notes: Number in parentheses represents group average on 0-5 scale (3=somewhat agree, 4=agree). Among males who wagered on sports in the past year, rank 7=law enforcement presentation (3.07), 8=NCAA presentation (2.91), 9=NCAA educational materials (2.74), 10=former bookie/gambler presentation (2.66). Among females who wagered on sports in the past year, rank 7=NCAA presentation (3.18), 8=parents (3.16), 9=NCAA educational materials (2.98), 10=former bookie/gambler presentation (2.81).
52 Perceived Belief among Student-Athletes who Wagered on Sports in Past Year that Coaches or Teammates Would Be Aware if a Team Member Was Gambling on Sports 2012 Males Females Coaches generally aware 33% 42% Teammates generally aware 67% 70%
53 Self-Reported Personal Beliefs of Student-Athletes about Sports Wagering (Across Division Among SAs who Wagered on Sports in Past Year) 2012 Males Females Most athletes in college violate NCAA rules that prohibit sports wagering 59% 48% Sports wagering is acceptable so long as you wager on a sport other than the one in which you participate 57% 41% College coaches see sports wagering as acceptable so long as you don t bet on your own games 41% 26% Student-athletes and coaches take NCAA rules about sports wagering seriously 62% 68% I think sports wagering is a harmless pastime 68% 58% People can consistently make a lot of money gambling 59% 49% Note: Percentage endorsing Somewhat agree or higher (top three scale points on six-point scale).
54 Self-Reported Personal Beliefs of Student-Athletes about Sports Wagering (Division I Among SAs who Wagered on Sports in Past Year) 2012 Males Females Most athletes in college violate NCAA rules that prohibit sports wagering 67% 64% Sports wagering is acceptable so long as you wager on a sport other than the one in which you participate 57% 44% College coaches see sports wagering as acceptable so long as you don t bet on your own games 38% 23% Student-athletes and coaches take NCAA rules about sports wagering seriously 64% 67% I think sports wagering is a harmless pastime 70% 69% People can consistently make a lot of money gambling 59% 52% Note: Percentage endorsing Somewhat agree or higher (top three scale points on six-point scale).
55 Self-Reported Personal Beliefs of Student-Athletes about Sports Wagering (Division II Among SAs who Wagered on Sports in Past Year) 2012 Males Females Most athletes in college violate NCAA rules that prohibit sports wagering 61% 44% Sports wagering is acceptable so long as you wager on a sport other than the one in which you participate 56% 45% College coaches see sports wagering as acceptable so long as you don t bet on your own games 43% 36% Student-athletes and coaches take NCAA rules about sports wagering seriously 61% 76% I think sports wagering is a harmless pastime 66% 57% People can consistently make a lot of money gambling 60% 57% Note: Percentage endorsing Somewhat agree or higher (top three scale points on six-point scale).
56 Self-Reported Personal Beliefs of Student-Athletes about Sports Wagering (Division III Among SAs who Wagered on Sports in Past Year) 2012 Males Females Most athletes in college violate NCAA rules that prohibit sports wagering 55% 44% Sports wagering is acceptable so long as you wager on a sport other than the one in which you participate 57% 38% College coaches see sports wagering as acceptable so long as you don t bet on your own games 42% 23% Student-athletes and coaches take NCAA rules about sports wagering seriously 61% 66% I think sports wagering is a harmless pastime 67% 54% People can consistently make a lot of money gambling 58% 44% Note: Percentage endorsing Somewhat agree or higher (top three scale points on six-point scale).
57 Questions? Media Inquiries: Emily Potter, NCAA Gambling Resources: Mark Strothkamp, NCAA Research : Tom Paskus, NCAA
Academic Attainment of Division I Student-Athletes Who Compete as Postgraduates Division I Committee on Academics October 2015 Summary of Findings Growth in postgraduate population There has been an increase
SPORTS WAGERING RULES EDUCATION SESSION SMC Compliance Office 2012-13 1. Which of the following groups are not prohibited from placing bets on NCAA sponsored sports? A. Student-Athletes B. Staff Members
Social media gambling amongst youth: Parental, operator or regulatory responsibility Jeffrey L. Derevensky, Ph.D. Professor, School/Applied Child Psychology Professor, Psychiatry International Centre for
Dr. Matthew J. Robinson Professor Of Sport Management Understand the governance of intercollegiate athletics Examine the relationship between sport and the individual university. Appreciate the role of
Gambling and Problem Gambling Prevalence Among College Students in Florida July 2008 A report to the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling, Inc. International Center for Youth Gambling Problems and High-Risk
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATE: September 28, 2005 CONTACT: Dan Romer, 215-898-6776; 610-202-7315 (cell) Card Playing Trend in Young People Continues About 2.9 Million Young People Gamble on Cards in Average
Gambling participation: activities and mode of access January 2014 1 Key findings 1.1 The following findings are based on a set of questions commissioned by the Gambling Commission in omnibus surveys conducted
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT REPORTING Reporting of Institutional Information Concerning Intercollegiate Athletics Programs All coeducational institutions of higher education that participate in any Federal student
NAPCS List for NAICS 7132: Gambling Industries 7132 1 Gambling services Providing games of chance and making/taking wagers on such games, including the outcome of sporting events or on other future events
Online Gambling The main forms of online gambling are online wagering and online gaming. Online wagering is comprised of betting on racing (thoroughbred, harness and dog), sports betting (such as the outcome
University of Saskatchewan Survey Youth Gambling In saskatchewan: Perceptions, Behaviours, and Youth Culture Overview Saskatchewan Health contracted with the University of Saskatchewan, Faculty of Sociology,
Executive summary This report presents results from the British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS) 2010. This is the third nationally representative survey of its kind; previous studies were conducted in
Gambling participation: activities and mode of access July 2013 1 Key findings 1.1 The following findings are based on a set of questions commissioned by the Gambling Commission in omnibus surveys conducted
NCAA National Study of Substance Use Habits of College Student-Athletes Final Report July 2014 (Revised August 2014 additional sport breakdowns) Report Compiled by: Markie Rexroat, Assistant Director of
Problem Gambling What We Need to Know New York Council on Problem Gambling, Inc. 1 Gambling is a high risk behavior Particularly for adolescents. 2 Why is youth gambling a problem now? 3 Societal influences
Gambling participation: activities and mode of access January 2015 1 Key findings 1.1 The following findings are based on a set of questions commissioned by the Gambling Commission in omnibus surveys conducted
Gambling and College Students: Literature Review Introduction Today s college students live in a culture more accepting of gambling than any previous generation. Poker on campus has experienced an unprecedented
Sports and Exercise May 2008 What percentage of people (aged 15 years and older) who live in the United States participated in sports and exercise activities on an average day in recent years? About 16
Illustrations for Section 4.080 of the By-laws The illustrations and situations it contains are for purposes of assisting in understanding the application of the particular by-law to which they pertain.
Problem Gambling Assessment Instruments & Screens South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) National Opinion Research Center DSM Screen for Problem Gambling (NODS) G.A. s Twenty Questions Gamanon Twenty Questions
Building an Evidence-based Comprehensive Prevention and Intervention Program to Address Alcohol Use Among Student-Athletes Using a Public Health Framework Brian M. Freidenberg, Ph.D., Addictive Behaviors
SPORTS MARKETING 2013 September 2012; 476 pages; ISBN# 1-57783-183-7; $385.00 (print or electronic edition) Published by Richard K. Miller & Associates (RKMA) 1 MARKET SUMMARY 1.1 The U.S. Sports Market
Equity in Athletics 2014 Screening Questions Please answer these questions carefully as your responses will determine which subsequent data entry screens are appropriate for your institution. 1. How will
AWARDS STRUCTURE I. Sports Awards A. Competitive Awards. Team Award Trophy 2. Team Member Award Plaque 3. Individual Event Award Plaque B. Athletic and Academic Honor Awards. All Conference Certificate
Embargoed until November 26, 2008 CONTACT: Dan Romer, 215-898-6776; 610-202-7315 (cell) Internet Gambling Stays Low Among Youth Ages 14 to 22 But Access to Gambling Sites Continues; Sports Gambling Makes
Results of Division I Time Demands Survey April 2016 Methods In collaboration with the Autonomy Conferences, Division I Council, and Division I SAAC, NCAA research staff helped to design the Division I
Summary of NCAA Regulations Academic Year 2011-12 For: Purpose: Student-athletes. To summarize NCAA regulations regarding eligibility of studentathletes to compete. DISCLAIMER: THE SUMMARY OF NCAA REGULATIONS
Follow us on Twitter! @GaelsCompliance Saint Mary s College Coaches & Athletic Administration Newsletter March 2014 IMPORTANT DATES March 10 Logs due for the weeks of 2/23--3/1 & 3/2-3/8 March 20 (11am
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT REPORTING Reporting of Institutional Information Concerning Intercollegiate Athletics Programs All coeducational institutions of higher education that participate in any Federal student
U.S. Culture Series: American Sports Scott Manley Sports in the U.S. Sports in the U.S. are an important part of the culture. The sporting culture is different from that of other countries, with a unique
UTPB Compliance November Topic: Gambling and Sports Wagering Overview I would like to have one educational meeting a month with all of the coaches/staff. Topics will be chosen based on NCAA recommendations
Bloomsburg PSAC Team Champions Baseball - 1955, 1956, 1965 Men s Basketball - 1953, 1981 Women s Basketball 1992, 2013 Football - 1948, 1949, 1951, 1954, 1955, 1985, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001,
2009-2010 Student Athletic Academic Services (SAAS) Report Mission The University of Toledo s Student Athletic Academic Services (SAAS) is a studentcentered resource committed to providing comprehensive
NCAA RULES AND REGULATIONS GUIDEBOOK FOR PARENTS, ALUMNI, FRIENDS, SEASON TICKET HOLDERS AND DONORS OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY FROM THE MICHIGAN TECH DEPARTMENT OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS To
Gambling Behaviors of Former Athletes: The Delayed Competitive Effect Stephen M. Weiss* Sherri L. Loubier Abstract Gambling behaviors in current athletes, former athletes and non-athletes were examined.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION FEBRUARY 20, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals
SMAC at Georgia State University Membership Form SMAC at Georgia State University Membership Form 2010-2011 Personal Information [Required] Contact Information - must be 10-15 digits long and may include
Gambling Behavior among High School Students in the State of Connecticut A Report Delivered to CT Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and CT Department of Education May 15, 2007 Team Members
FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION NOVEMBER 20, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals
502C:1 STUDENT-ATHLETES: ELIGIBILITY A student-athlete's athletic eligibility can be affected by academic performance and progress, as well as conduct and participation in outside competitions or activities.
If you have been at a four-year school and now attend a two-year school If you started at a four-year school, then transferred to a two-year school and now want to transfer to a four-year school, we refer
2015-16 Guide for Four-Year Transfers For student-athletes at four-year colleges FOUR-YEAR TRANSFER GUIDE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 4 What Should I Think About Before Transferring? The introduction provides
Norway: The slot machine and problem gambling A study commissioned by the Norwegian Gaming and Foundation Authority IJ Bakken 1, A Øren 1, KG Götestam 2 1 SINTEF 2 Norwegian University of Science and Technology
NCAA REGULATIONS NCAA REGULATIONS To remain athletically eligible, the most important thing to remember is not to endanger your status as an amateur athlete. It is essential that you check with your head
Transfer Rules Q: How do I contact another institution about transferring? A student-athlete (or his or her parents) may not be contacted by another institution's athletics department staff member without
President and Board of Trustees Miami University 107 Roudebush Hall Oxford, Ohio 45056 We have reviewed the Independent Auditors Report of the Miami University, Butler County, prepared by Deloitte & Touche
Participant Information Letter for High School RIO (Reporting Information Online): National High School Sports-Related Injury Surveillance Study, 2015-2016 Your high school is being asked to participate
2015-16 Edition Eligibility Guide For Participation In High School Athletics Published by the Ohio High School Athletic Association (revised 5/18/15) Ohio High School Athletic Association Overview Participating
Copyright 2015, all rights reserved worldwide. Gambling and the Law is a registered trademark of Professor I Nelson Rose, www.gamblingandthelaw.com. Published in Gaming Law Review and Economics, Vol. 19,
University of Connecticut 2015-2016 Student-Athlete Handbook Students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are responsible for knowing and complying with the rules contained in this handbook. The
Guide to Writing Your Athletic Department Report/Overview Distributed by the NJCAA to Member Colleges October 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview of Athletic Programs...4 Athletic Department Staff...5 Athletic
Gambling Behaviors and Problem Gambling Among Adults in New York State: Initial Findings from the 2006 OASAS Household Survey Eliot Spitzer Governor Karen M. Carpenter-Palumbo Commissioner Page left blank
Advice on non-commercial and private gaming and betting November 2012 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Defining non-commercial and private gaming and betting 3 3 Non-commercial prize gaming 4 4 Non-commercial
The Carson-Newman Eagle Club The Eagle Club is the fund-raising arm of the athletic program at Carson-Newman College. What began with a handful of dreamers willing to invest in their visions of athletic
Internet gambling : An online empirical study among student gamblers Professor Mark Griffiths Andrew Barnes International Gaming Research Unit Nottingham Trent University E-mail : mark.griffiths firstname.lastname@example.org..ac.uk
MUST USE: Safari, Google Chrome or Firefox for internet browser! Follow directions on the next page. Instructions for Using ATS Injury Tracking System If you have any questions or technical issues while
A Student-Athletes Guide to College Recruitment 2 Table of Contents Welcome Letter 3 Guidelines for Marketing Yourself as an Athlete 4 Time Line for Marketing Yourself as an Athlete 4 6 Questions to Ask
PLANNING GUIDE FOR THE COLLEGE BOUND STUDENT ATHLETE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION LETTER THE BEGINNING THE GAME PLAN YOUR CHECK LIST THE NCAA CLEARINGHOUSE P. 1 P. 2 3 P. 4 5 P. 6 P. 7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
MASSACHUSETTS COACHES EDUCATION PROGRAM 33 Forge Parkway, Franklin, MA 02038 www.miaa.net/coaches ~ email@example.com MIAA COACHES STATE EXAMINATION YOU MUST SCORE AN 80 OR BETTER TO PASS DIRECTIONS: On
If You Think Investing is Gambling, You re Doing it Wrong! Warren Buffet Jennifer Arthur, M.Sc. PhD Candidate, University of Adelaide Supervisor: Dr. Paul Delfabbro 10th European Conference on Gambling
CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT JANUARY 24, 2014 A. INTRODUCTION. The NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals
Tuesday 17 November 2015 The Honourable Barry O Farrell Chair Review of the Impact of Illegal Offshore Wagering Dear Mr O Farrell, The Digital Industry Group Incorporated (DIGI) welcomes the opportunity
Isle of Man Gambling Prevalence Survey 2012 Author: Melody Askari Prepared for: The Alcohol Advisory Service, in association with IOM Department of Health, Mental Health Services and the IOM Gambling Supervision
4720.5560.46 (septembre 2009) 30 % Preventing Teenage Excessive Gambling A winning strategy Why This Brochure? [ ] Parents play a critical role in preventing problem gambling among teenagers. As parents,
2.0 ATHLETICS ADMINISTRATION 2.1 Athletics Administration Organizational Chart Associate Athletics Director for Compliance BOBBY GALINSKY Director of Media Relations BRANDON RIZZUTO Assistant Media Relations
Journal of Gambling Issues Issue 29, October 2014 http://igi.camh.net/doi/pdf/10.4309/jgi.2014.29.18 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2014.29.18 Trends in Gambling Behavior among College Student- Athletes:
University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Intercollegiate Athletics Post Season Bonus Policy NOVEMBER 2014 The University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Intercollegiate Athletics permits post season
ELIGIBILITY RULES OF THE NATIONAL JUNIOR COLLEGE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 1631 Mesa Avenue, Suite B, Colorado Springs, CO 80906 2013-2014 Effective August 1, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Article V Eligibility Rules
A Survey of Gambling in Delaware by Walter Mateja, Robert Wilson, and Betty Ableman PREFACE ************************************************************************ In April 1997, Delaware Health and Social
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT A. INTRODUCTION. This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative endeavor in which the Committee on Infractions
GAMBLING BEHAVIOUR IN BRITAIN: Results from the British Gambling Prevalence Survey Kerry Sproston, Bob Erens, Jim Orford GAMBLING BEHAVIOUR IN BRITAIN: Results from the British Gambling Prevalence Survey
Role of the Athletic Trainers: Athletic trainers (ATC) are members of the allied health community, are certified by the National Athletic Trainers Board of Certification, licensed in the state of Ohio,
Keller ISD Athletics Notification of temperature Staff Athletic Trainer will obtain weather report from National Weather service by 9:00am each morning for morning workouts. The Head Coach of the affected
Home Glossary Search Search Results Participants Staff and Salaries Revenues and Expenses Supplemental Info General infmation Unit ID: 180461 Montana State University-Bozeman Number of Full-time Undergraduates:
Gambling promotions during televised sport: An adolescent perspective Nerilee Hing, Peter Vitartas, Matt Lamont, Elian Fink This study was funded by a Responsible Gambling Research Grant from the Queensland
1 of 5 4/28/2016 6:26 PM Home Colleges Grad Schools High Schools Online Programs Community Colleges Global Universities National Universities Liberal Arts Colleges Applying to College Paying for College
Internet Gambling in Canada: Prevalence, Patterns and Land-Based Comparisons Dr. Robert Wood & Dr. Robert Williams University of Lethbridge Current Study Funded by a Level IV grant from the Ontario Problem
The Essentials What is a Countable Athletically Related Activity? What counts? What doesn t count? Declaring your playing season. What can you do? When can you do it? In-Season. What can you do? What can
Intramural Sports Policies, Rules and Regulations Individuals and teams participating in the intramural program of Texas Tech University imply their acceptance of the rules, regulations and interpretations