The Indiana Gaming Commission has tabled a motion from the NCAA to prohibit player-specific prop bets in the state, citing concerns over student-athlete welfare.
The motion, which was heard during a June 25 hearing, aimed to ban pregame player proposition bets involving college athletes, while keeping traditional wagers on game outcomes legal.
NCAA Senior Vice President of External Affairs Tim Buckley told commissioners that the organization supports regulated sports betting but believes player prop wagers create unique opportunities for harassment and manipulation.
Buckley pointed to NCAA research involving more than 556,000 student-athletes, which found that nearly half of Division I men's basketball players received abusive social media messages connected to sports betting, with many of those incidents tied to player props.
The NCAA also submitted letters supporting its request from multiple universities, including Butler University, Indiana University, and Purdue University, as well as backing from the Big Ten Student-Athlete Advisory Group.
Clint Hangebrauck, the NCAA's managing director of enterprise risk management, outlined the organization's integrity efforts since sports betting expanded following the 2018 Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal ban outside Nevada.
Hangebrauck said the NCAA has delivered in-person gambling education to more than 100,000 student-athletes, while another 25,000 have completed online training, and monitors more than 23,000 collegiate contests each year and screens roughly 20,000 officials.
NCAA Managing Director of Enforcement Mark Hicks argued that player props carry different integrity risks because a single athlete may be able to influence a wager without changing who wins the game.
Hicks described investigations involving athletes discussing prop bets before games, sharing information with proxy bettors and, in one case outside Indiana, intentionally underperforming after coordinating with gamblers.
Commissioners asked whether states that already ban college player props have recorded measurable declines in athlete harassment, but the NCAA was unable to provide data to support this claim.
Sportsbook representatives argued that a ban would simply move betting activity away from regulated sportsbooks and toward illegal markets, where prop bets are already readily available.
They also argued that regulated sportsbooks generate detailed records that can be shared with gaming regulators, integrity monitoring services, and law enforcement whenever suspicious activity appears.
Commissioners questioned whether more betting data leads to greater athlete safety, with one commissioner asking if sportsbooks were claiming that more betting leads to greater athlete safety.
The commission ended the hearing without taking action, leaving Indiana's current rules in place while regulators continue reviewing the NCAA's petition.
Before the proceedings wrapped up, commissioners returned to the central legal question and asked Buckley whether player props present a credible threat to sports wagering integrity.
Buckley said they do, arguing that college athletes are especially vulnerable because they often lack the financial resources, experience, and institutional protections available to professionals.
