{"id":250,"date":"2006-09-02T10:26:14","date_gmt":"2006-09-02T15:26:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2015-03-27T13:34:24","modified_gmt":"2015-03-27T18:34:24","slug":"a-study-of-gambling-activity-in-a-ncaa-division-ii-institution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-study-of-gambling-activity-in-a-ncaa-division-ii-institution\/","title":{"rendered":"A Study of Gambling Activity in a NCAA Division II Institution"},"content":{"rendered":"
Submitted by: Frank Butts<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

The purpose of this study was to examine both the overall and the sports
\nspecific gambling activity among athletes and non-athletes enrolled in
\na Southern, regional National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division
\nII university. The findings were contrasted to the results of a 2003 NCAA
\nSports Wagering study. The instrument utilized in this particular study
\nwas an adaptation of the survey used in the NCAA 2003 study. Gambling
\nby athletes at NCAA member schools is a growing concern, and there are
\nindicators that gambling by college athletes may be more prevalent today
\nthan described in the 2003 study as gambling activity among student-athletes,
\nmale and female, in Division II seems to have increased dramatically from
\n2003 to 2006.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Specific to this study, respondents from a Southern, regional, NCAA Division
\nII college, the University of West Georgia, indicated a much higher rate
\nof gambling as contrasted to the 2003 overall NCAA II findings. Interestingly,
\nthe prevalence of gambling activity among the subjects of this study seemed
\nto be most prevalent within two sports: women\u2019s basketball and men\u2019s
\nfootball. The reported activity among the other nine sports was practically
\nnon-existent. The increase in gambling activity reported by the 2006 student-athletes
\nas contrasted to the 2003 student-athletes might reflect a change in recreational
\nlifestyle, ease of access to gambling via the intranet, a rapidly changing
\nset of sports morays, or an aberration associated with one particular
\nNCAA II college.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gambling of all types is on the rise in the United States. In 1999, thirty-seven
\nstates and the District of Columbia had lotteries, as compared to thirteen
\nin 1976 (Claussen & Miller, 2001). In this same year, Nevada hosted
\n142 bookmaking sites (National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 1999b).
\nCasino growth has paralleled this expansion of gambling. The approval
\nrate for using gambling as a way to raise state funds for government programs
\nand\/or education has also dramatically increased. A Gallup Poll conducted
\nin 1989 indicated that 55% of Americans approved of this type of fund
\nraising. Ten years later, Goldin (1999) noted that the approval rate grew
\nto 92% of Americans.
\nEarly acceptance of widespread gambling was evident in The United States
\nas early as the late 1980s through the passing of the Indian Gaming Regulatory
\nAct (IGRA). This law gave American Indian Tribes the right to host gambling
\nactivities on reservation grounds as long as the activities were not against
\nstate or national law (Goldin, 1999). Since the passing of this regulatory
\nact, revenue from gambling has grown from $212 million in 1988 to $6.7
\nbillion in 1999 (NGISC, 1999b). This growth has continued despite disasters
\nsuch as \u201c911\u201d and Hurricane Katrina. According to the Mississippi
\nGaming Commission (2006), three Gulf Coast casinos alone were able to
\ngenerate net revenue of sixty-four million dollars in January of this
\nyear, even after the effects of Hurricane Katrina.<\/p>\n

Both private business and governments associated with gambling have responded
\nto the above phenomena by creating additional opportunities for involvement
\nwith gambling. These include allowing water-based casinos to relocate
\nto land-based operations; a growth in state lotteries, animal racing,
\ncharitable gambling, video poker machines, sports betting, and internet
\ngambling (Claussen & Miller, 2001).<\/p>\n

Improved technology has created an opportunity for the formation of internet
\ngambling sites, which lures today\u2019s internet savvy students. Lowry
\n(1999) reported there were approximately 280 online sites that offer internet
\ngambling. These online sites generated 1.5 billion dollars revenue in
\nthe year 2000 (Woodruff & Gregory, 2005). Revenue from this type of
\ngambling will continue to increase as the internet becomes more accessible.
\nInternet opportunities, along with an increased public acceptance of gambling,
\nmake activities such as betting on an athletic competition more appealing
\nand much easier (Doocey, 1996; Udovicic, 1998). In fact, sports gambling
\nhas grown to a greater than $100 billion industry (Udovivic, 1998). This
\nis partially due to the fact that more information (via the Internet)
\nis available describing sports teams, which allows people to feel more
\ninformed in predicting outcomes.<\/p>\n

According to a meta-analysis of gambling habits among university students
\nby Labrie, Shaffer, LaPlante, & Wechsler (2003), it was reported that
\n41.9% of students indicated involvement in gambling activity within the
\npast year, while 23% indicated participation in the activity within the
\npast week. Additionally, 5.6% of these students met the criteria for pathological
\ngambling as compared to the rates of 0.2 to 2.1% for the general population
\n(Labrie, Shaffer, LaPlante, & Wechsler, 2003). This was the result
\nof a study of college students which utilized findings from the South
\nOaks Gambling Screen study (Lesieur & Blume, 1987).<\/p>\n

Another study by Engwall, Hunter, & Steinberg (2004) reported similar
\nfindings to the Labrie, et al (2003) meta-analysis. They found that 42%
\nof college students reported at least one gambling episode in the past
\nyear and 3% of the respondents gambled at least once a week. Labrie, et
\nal (2003) found that playing the lottery was the most common gambling
\nactivity reported among college students. He found that gambling activity
\namong college men was significantly greater than college women. Engwall,
\net.al (2003) also noted that gambling appears to be related to behavioral
\ncharacteristics in college students such as (a) increased television viewing,
\n(b) computer use for non-academic reasons, (c) spending less time studying,
\n(d) earning lower grades, (e) participation in intercollegiate athletics,
\nand (f) binge drinking.<\/p>\n

Ironically, alcohol use is a strong predictor of college student gambling
\nbehavior, regardless of gender. Labrie, et al (2003) reported that college
\nstudents who had used alcohol within the past year were 2.4 times more
\nlikely to engage in gambling behavior than those who had abstained from
\nalcohol. It also appears that the variables associated with gambling vary
\nby gender. For example, among Caucasians, being a male was a strong predictor
\nof gambling, as contrasted to being a female (Labrie, et.al, 2003). Labrie,
\net al (2003) also noted that college female gamblers were more likely
\nto work for wages, be single, and view community service as less than
\nvery important. Unlike the female gamblers, males who gambled were more
\nlikely to view sports and physical activity as very important.<\/p>\n

College students who participated in sports gambling in particular were
\nmore likely to gamble on golf than any other activity according to the
\nNational Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) study (Petr, Paskus, &
\nDunkle, 2003). Perhaps this is due to the extensive history of gambling
\nin golf that involves players betting with large sums of money. This has
\nbeen documented as far back as 1870 (LeCompte, 2005). The United States
\nGolf Association (USGA) does not object to gambling that does not interfere
\nwith the game (LeCompte, 2005). This is in contrast to the NCAA policy
\nthat prohibits any type of gambling in the context of athletics.<\/p>\n

In a statement to the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator John McCain
\nnoted that college gambling was \u201creaching epidemic proportions\u201d
\n(McCain, 2003). Senator McCain made this statement after results from
\nthe National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report (NGISC) indicated
\nthat college students spend more money on gambling activities than alcohol
\n(NGISC, 1999b).<\/p>\n

Gambling on sports by amateur athletes has been added to the list of
\nbehavioral issues addressed by the NCAA. Even though the NCAA prohibits
\nsports gambling in general, the primary concern has been with participating
\nathletes betting on games and then shaving points to influence outcomes.
\nPoint shaving has been defined as the deliberate refusal of an athlete
\nto score in exchange for monetary resources from a book master or \u201cbookie\u201d
\n(Petr, et al, 2003).<\/p>\n

The NCAA utilized the Petr et al. (2003) study to examine the gambling
\nbehaviors of student athletes from all NCAA divisions. The majority of
\nthe activities in which these athletes admitted gambling activity included
\nplaying cards or board games for money, betting on games of personal skill,
\npurchasing lottery tickets, using slot or electronic poker machines, trading
\nsports cards, and entering football pools (Petr, et al., 2003).<\/p>\n

The overall prevalence of gambling among NCAA student athletes was reported
\nto be 35 % among males and 10 % among females. Division III athletes were
\nfound to have the greatest prevalence of gambling (Petr, et al, 2003).
\nIn Division I, point shaving was more prevalent among football players
\nthan male basketball players. Just over 1% of football players reported
\nthat they had played poorly in a game in exchange for money, compared
\nto \u00bd% of the basketball players (Petr, et al., 2003). Golf had
\nthe highest percentage of participants reporting gambling behavior: 8.4
\n% for females and 48.6% for males.<\/p>\n

There appears to be an inverse relationship between knowledge of the
\nNCAA policy on gambling and the frequency of the behavior. Athletes in
\nDivision III had the highest overall rates of gambling and the least reported
\nknowledge concerning the NCAA policy on gambling. Only 43.5% of male athletes
\nin Division III were aware that the NCAA had rules and regulations that
\ndiscourage gambling (Petr, et al., 2003), despite the release of the NCAA
\npublication, Don\u2019t Bet on It. This suggests that this NCAA publication
\nand the information contained in it may not be disbursed by all member
\nschools to athletes.<\/p>\n

The personality characteristics that produce excellent athletes are also
\npresent in pathological gamblers. These characteristics include feeling
\nin control of situations and outcomes, a large ego, and optimism (Naughton,
\n1998). Just as a great athlete is confident in his or her ability to win
\ncompetitions, a pathological gambler is confident in accumulating wealth
\nfrom gambling. This link alone may account for some of the gambling activity.<\/p>\n

There will always be athletes who engage in gambling behaviors despite
\nbeing forewarned of the repercussions. The motives have been widely documented;
\nhowever, the top stated reasons for gambling by student-athletes have
\nbeen reported as \u201cfor fun,\u201d \u201cto win money,\u201d and
\n\u201cfor excitement\u201d (Petr, et al., 2003).<\/p>\n

Prior to the NCAA sports wagering study conducted in 2003, no data had
\nbeen collected specifically looking at the gambling habits of non-Division
\nI NCAA athletes (Copeland, 2004). The majority of the research on gambling
\namong athletes has focused on the activities of NCAA Division I men\u2019s
\nfootball and basketball players. However, the results of the 2003 NCAA
\nsports wagering study indicate that additional research on gambling should
\nbe expanded to include athletes in classifications such as Division II
\nand III. The NCAA study found that 66.5% of Division II athletes, as compared
\nto 63.4% in Division I, had participated in some form of gambling within
\nthe past year (Petr, et al., 2003). Furthermore, 33.5% of Division II
\nathletes, as compared to 28.8% of athletes in Division I, admitted participation
\nin sports wagering within the past year. This is significant, as sports
\nwagering is prohibited by the NCAA, and results in an athlete losing one
\nyear of eligibility to compete in his or her respective sport if convicted.<\/p>\n

While the NCAA (2003) study noted the prevalence of gambling among Division
\nII athletes, it did not provide data on the specific gambling preferences
\nof this group nor did it segment the various types of Division II colleges,
\nsuch as small-private, large state, or other strata. Therefore, the purpose
\nof this study was to reexamine the NCAA findings and collect additional,
\nmore current information on the gambling preferences of NCAA Division
\nII student athletes and non-athletes, with a focus on a NCAA II regional,
\nrural, state university.<\/p>\n

Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n

The subjects selected were all enrolled at the University of West Georgia
\n(UWG), a NCAA Division II college, during the spring of 2006. This particular
\nuniversity is a regional school within the University of Georgia System.
\nThe enrollment at the time of the study was approximately 10,800 students.
\nThe subject pool was divided into two groups: non-athlete students and
\nstudent-athletes. From each of these two groups a random sample was identified
\nusing alphabetical ordering and then a selection of a predetermined number
\nof participants based on the total subject pool. The number of athletes
\nselected was 141 and a 63.1% response rate was obtained thus yielding
\nfifty-one female and thirty-eight male respondents. The number of non-athlete
\nstudents in the initial random sample pool was 220. Eighty-nine or 40.5%
\nof the subjects agreed to participate, thus yielding a response pool of
\nfifty-three females and thirty-six males. The predetermined numbers for
\nthe initial subject pools were obtained using the recommendations of Magnani
\n(1997).<\/p>\n

Both student-athletes and non-athlete students completed the survey instrument
\nin the presence of research assistants. Complete anonymity was guaranteed
\nand names were not associated with the collected questionnaires. Permission
\nto conduct the study was granted by the IRB at the University of West
\nGeorgia.<\/p>\n

The number of NCAA Division II student athletes participating in the
\nNCAA Wagering Study conducted by Petr el al (2003) was 1798 females and
\n2957 males. This data were frequently used for comparison with the findings
\nof this particular study.<\/p>\n

The instrument utilized in this particular study was an adaptation of
\nthe survey used in the NCAA Wagering Study in 2003. The instrument took
\nbetween ten and fifteen minutes for the subjects to complete. The survey
\ninstrument identified the prevalence and extent of gambling behaviors
\namong students within the most recent twelve-month period. Survey items
\nnot completed were labeled by the researchers as \u201cnot stated\u201d.
\nThe definition of \u201cnot stated\u201d therefore implied the refusal
\nof the respondent to answer a particular question. In addition to examining
\nhabits, the instrument also identified problem and pathological gambling
\nbehaviors using the South Oaks ten item screening tool as a guide (SOGS).<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n

The findings of this study were tabulated consistent with the format
\nof the 2003 NCAA wagering study. This allowed for comparisons between
\nthe various categories of respondents. The results were quantified and
\nexamined for observed differences among NCAA II female and male athletes,
\nUWG female and male athletes, and UWG female and male non-athletes.<\/p>\n

As seen in Table 1, among both athletes and non-athletes and females
\nand males alike, the UWG population in this particular study reported
\na higher rate of total gambling activity than the findings in the NCAA
\nII (2003) female and male athlete population. The UWG population was 18%
\nto 31% more active in gambling activity in general. However the specific
\nrate of gambling on college sports at UWG was less than the NCAA II rate
\nfor both females and males.<\/p>\n

Table 1<\/p>\n

Involvement with Gambling in the Past 12 Months<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nAny Gambling<\/td>\nOn Collegiate Sport<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nFemale<\/td>\nMale<\/td>\nNot Stated<\/td>\nFemale<\/td>\nMale<\/td>\nNot Stated<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
NCAA Division II athletesc<\/sup><\/td>\n51.0%<\/td>\n66.5%<\/td>\n15.5%<\/td>\n5.8%<\/td>\n21.0%<\/td>\n73.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
UWG student-athletesb<\/sup><\/td>\n70.6%<\/td>\n97.3%<\/td>\nNA<\/td>\n2.0%<\/td>\n7.9%<\/td>\nNA<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
UWG students (non-athletes)a<\/sup><\/td>\n67.9%<\/td>\n86.1%<\/td>\nNA<\/td>\n1.9%<\/td>\n8.3%<\/td>\nNA<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Note. All NCAA statistics are from Petr et al (2003).
\na<\/sup>n= 51 females, 38 males.
\nb<\/sup>n= 53 females, 36 males.
\nc<\/sup>n= 1798 females, 2957 males.<\/p>\n

The findings presented in Table 2 reinforced the sports gambling prevalence
\nof UWG students and student-athletes. This was particularly true when
\nwagering on all sports, not just college sports, was considered. Both
\nUWG females and males were twice as likely to gamble on sports as contrasted
\nto the total population of NCAA II female and male athletes.<\/p>\n

Table 2<\/p>\n

Students and Athletes Who Wagered on any Sport by Gender<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Category<\/td>\nFemale<\/td>\nMale<\/td>\nNot Stated<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
NCAA Division II athletesc<\/sup><\/td>\n10.6%<\/td>\n33.5%<\/td>\n55.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
UWG student-athletesa<\/sup><\/td>\n21.6%<\/td>\n60.5%<\/td>\nNA<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
UWG studentsb<\/sup><\/td>\n15.1%<\/td>\n61.1%<\/td>\nNA<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Note. All NCAA statistics are from Petr et al. (2003).
\na<\/sup> n= 51 females, 38 males.
\nb<\/sup> n= 53 females, 36 males.
\nc<\/sup> n= 1798 females, 2957 males.<\/p>\n

The findings in Table 3 depicted a wide array of gambling activity by
\nUWG students and student-athletes. This diversity of gambling activity
\nwas evident in the overall NCAA II athlete population as well. Specifically,
\nnon-athlete, female UWG students reported a higher degree of gambling
\nusing card games, whereas male non-athlete UWG students were more likely
\nto utilize casino table games for gambling purposes. Both female and male
\nUWG non-athletes were more likely to be involved with craps and dice games
\nthan athletes. The prevalence of gambling activity involving personal
\nskill was higher among both UWG male and female athletes as contrasted
\nto non-athletes. Male UWG athletes were twice as likely as any group in
\nthis study to utilize internet gambling options. Utilizing on campus bookies
\nwas three times higher among UWG male athletes as contrasted to all other
\ngroups. The use of off-campus bookies was similar among all groups, except
\nUWG non-athlete males, who were twice as likely to use an off-campus bookie
\ncompared to the other groups. Female and male UWG students, athletes,
\nand non-athletes were twice as likely to purchase lottery tickets compared
\nto the total NCAA Division II group.<\/p>\n

Table 3<\/p>\n

Students Engaging in Specific Gambling Activities in the Past 12 Months<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nMales<\/td>\nFemales<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Non-
\nGambling Pursuit<\/td>\n		NCAA Division IIc<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Student Athletesa<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Non Athletesb<\/sup><\/td>\nNCAA Division IIc<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Athletesa<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Student Athletesb<\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Played card or board games for money<\/td>\n42.5%<\/td>\n81.6%<\/td>\n66.7%<\/td>\n19.2%<\/td>\n27.5%<\/td>\n34%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Table games at casino<\/td>\n19.1%<\/td>\n34.2%<\/td>\n11.1%<\/td>\n9.3%<\/td>\n2.0%<\/td>\n5.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Games of personal skill<\/td>\n35.1%<\/td>\n73.7%<\/td>\n61.1%<\/td>\n16.3%<\/td>\n27.5%<\/td>\n18.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Stock market\/commodities<\/td>\n9.1%<\/td>\n15.8%<\/td>\n16.7%<\/td>\n3.6%<\/td>\n5.9%<\/td>\n1.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Commercial bingo<\/td>\n6.9%<\/td>\n7.9%<\/td>\n8.3%<\/td>\n6.7%<\/td>\n9.8%<\/td>\n20.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Played dice\/craps<\/td>\n12.2%<\/td>\n36.8%<\/td>\n27.8%<\/td>\n3.8%<\/td>\n13.7%<\/td>\n7.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Internet gambling<\/td>\n7.2%<\/td>\n23.7%<\/td>\n13.9%<\/td>\n2.0%<\/td>\n7.8%<\/td>\n5.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sports cards, football pools, or parlays<\/td>\n19.0%<\/td>\n52.6%<\/td>\n52.8%<\/td>\n7.0%<\/td>\n13.7%<\/td>\n9.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bet on horse or dog races<\/td>\n8.9%<\/td>\n26.3%<\/td>\n13.9%<\/td>\n4.8%<\/td>\n9.8%<\/td>\n7.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bet on intercollegiate games with campus bookie<\/td>\n2.4%<\/td>\n7.9%<\/td>\n8.3%<\/td>\n0.4%<\/td>\n0.0%<\/td>\n0.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bet on intercollegiate games with off-campus bookie<\/td>\n4.6%<\/td>\n2.6%<\/td>\n8.3%<\/td>\n0.9%<\/td>\n2.0%<\/td>\n1.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lottery tickets<\/td>\n37.0%<\/td>\n76.3%<\/td>\n72.2%<\/td>\n31.9%<\/td>\n52.9%<\/td>\n62.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Slot or electronic poker machines<\/td>\n20.0%<\/td>\n34.2%<\/td>\n33.3%<\/td>\n14.6%<\/td>\n15.7%<\/td>\n26.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Some other type of gambling<\/td>\n22.8%<\/td>\n44.7%<\/td>\n38.9%<\/td>\n8.0%<\/td>\n19.6%<\/td>\n15.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Note. All NCAA statistics are from Petr et al. (2003).
\na<\/sup> n= 51 females, 38 males.
\nb<\/sup> n= 53 females, 36 males.
\nc<\/sup> n= 1798 females, 2957 males.<\/p>\n

As seen in Table 4, both UWG female and male athletes were nearly twice
\nas likely to say they had no knowledge of the NCAA gambling rules as contrasted
\nto the overall NCAA II population responses.<\/p>\n

Table 4
\nAthletes Knowledgeable of the NCAA Rules Concerning Gambling:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nMales<\/td>\nFemales<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Know Rules<\/td>\nNCAA Division IIb<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Athletesa<\/sup><\/td>\nNCAA Division IIb<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Athletesa<\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Yes<\/td>\n50.1%<\/td>\n15.7%<\/td>\n39.1%<\/td>\n9.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
No<\/td>\n19.6%<\/td>\n26.3%<\/td>\n20.4%<\/td>\n43.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Not sure<\/td>\n30.3%<\/td>\n57.9%<\/td>\n40.6%<\/td>\n35.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Note. All NCAA statistics are from Petr et al. (2003).
\na<\/sup> n= 51 females, 38 males.
\nb<\/sup> n= 1798 females, 2957 males.<\/p>\n

As seen in Table 5, both female and male athletes at UWG expressed a
\nsimilar frequency of problem or pathological characteristics as compared
\nto those in the NCAA II 2003 study. However, there were a disproportionately
\nhigh percentage of non-athlete UWG students whose responses were consistent
\nwith potential problem gambling issues. This group was four times as likely
\nto indicate potential problem gambling characteristics.<\/p>\n

Table 5<\/p>\n

Students Who Indicate a Problem or Pathology Concerning Gambling:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nMales<\/td>\nFemales<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Screening Outcome<\/td>\nNCAA Division IIc<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Studentsb<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Athletesa<\/sup><\/td>\nNCAA Division IIc<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Studentsb<\/sup><\/td>\nUWG Athletesa<\/sup><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Non-Gambler<\/td>\n35.3%<\/td>\n27.8%<\/td>\n26.3%<\/td>\n60.1%<\/td>\n41.5%<\/td>\n47.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
No problem<\/td>\n48.3%<\/td>\n30.6%<\/td>\n50%<\/td>\n35.7%<\/td>\n45.3%<\/td>\n37.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Potential problem gambler<\/td>\n11.3%<\/td>\n41.7%<\/td>\n10.5%<\/td>\n3.8%<\/td>\n9.4%<\/td>\n13.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pathological gambler<\/td>\n1.7%<\/td>\n2.8%<\/td>\n7.9%<\/td>\n0.1%<\/td>\n0.0%<\/td>\n0.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Not stated (but still gambles)<\/td>\ninfo not provided<\/td>\n0.0%<\/td>\n5.3%<\/td>\ninfo not provided<\/td>\n0.0%<\/td>\n5.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Note. All NCAA statistics are from Petr et al. (2003).
\na<\/sup> n= 51 females, 38 males.
\nb<\/sup> n= 53 females, 36 males.
\nc<\/sup> n= 1798 females, 2957 males.<\/p>\n

The authors found that sports gambling athletes from only two sports
\namong the UWG population displayed significant gambling activity of any
\ntype during the recent twelve months. The sports were women\u2019s basketball
\nand men\u2019s football. The reported prevalence of gambling activity
\namong the other nine sports at UWG was not significant.
\nDiscussion<\/p>\n

As previously noted, gambling by athletes at NCAA member schools is a
\ngrowing concern. The NCAA obviously senses a problem as evidenced by their
\nfocus on the issue. There are indicators that the problem may be larger
\nthan described in the 2003 NCAA study. For example, the fact that 73.2%
\nof NCAA II athletes in the 2003 NCAA Wagering Study refused to make a
\nstatement about their gambling activity a matter of concern. This could
\nindicate a fear of being forthright due to concerns about retribution
\nand conviction.<\/p>\n

Also, this study found a much higher rate of gambling among UWG students,
\nas contrasted to the 2003 overall NCAA Division II population. This could
\nbe more than an aberration associated with one NCAA Division II college.
\nIt could reflect a rapid growth of gambling among college students which
\ncould be related to the widening social acceptance of gambling, the expansion
\nof internet gambling, or perhaps other issues. However, there is always
\nthe possibility that the limitation due to the smaller number of respondents
\namong the 2006 UWG population groups, as contrasted to the 2003 NCAA Division
\nII group, could have skewed the data.<\/p>\n

At this point in time however, the UWG population of both athletes and
\nnon-athletes appeared to have a comparatively high rate of gambling involvement.
\nIf one were to assume the rate of involvement among NCAA Division II athletes
\nhas remained constant over the three years since the NCAA study, then
\none would have to question whether a regional, rural, relatively large,
\nstate university might have a consistently higher rate of gambling involvement.
\nThis issue alone might merit future study.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, the prevalence of gambling activity among UWG athletes
\nin particular seemed to reside exclusively within two sports, women\u2019s
\nbasketball, and men\u2019s football. The reported activity among the
\nother nine sports at UWG was practically non-existent. This finding may
\nbe inferable or it might have been the result of a reluctance of athletes
\nfrom other sports to express activity among teams. This question also
\nmerits further investigation.<\/p>\n

Several other questions associated with gambling among college athletes
\nmerits future study. Is there a link between expressed gambling activity
\namong student-athletes and graduation rates? Are there athletes from specific
\nsports that have higher gambling activity rates as indicated in this particular
\nstudy? Do non-athlete students actually have a higher gambling activity
\nrate than the student-athlete population?<\/p>\n

Obviously, if gambling becomes an interference with fair
\nsports competition, the development of the student-athlete, graduation
\nrates, or the integrity of any aspect of higher education, it deserves
\nattention. At this point in time, it appears that this determination is
\nstill in question and thus deserves additional research. Additionally,
\nother universities might consider replicating thus study in order to provide
\na basis for comparison and analysis.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Copeland, J. (2004). Sports wagering survey focuses attention on the\u00a0high\u00a0rates of misbehavior in Divisions II, III. The NCAA News. December 6, 2004,\u00a0Retrieved April 6, 2006 from http:\/\/www.ncaa.org\/wps\/portal\/newsdetail<\/li>\n
  2. Claussen, C.L. & Miller, L.K. (2001). The gambling industry and sports\u00a0gambling: A\u00a0stake in the game? Journal of Sport Management, 15, 350-363.<\/li>\n
  3. Doocey, P. (1996). The case for legal sports betting. International Gaming\u00a0&\u00a0Wagering Business, 17 (4), 1, 40-41.<\/li>\n
  4. Engwall, D., Hunter, R., & Steinberg, M. (2004). Gambling and other\u00a0risk behaviors\u00a0on university campuses. Journal of American College Health, 52(6), 245-255.<\/li>\n
  5. Goldin, N.S. (1999). Casting a new light on tribal casino gaming: Why\u00a0Congress\u00a0should curtail the scope of high stakes Indian gaming. Cornell Law Review\u00a0(Note), 84, 798-849.<\/li>\n
  6. LaBrie, R., Shaffer, H., LaPlante, D., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Correlates\u00a0of College\u00a0Student Gambling in the United States. Journal of American College Health,\u00a0(52), 53-62.<\/li>\n
  7. LeCompte, T. (2005). Gambling and golf a match made in heaven.\u00a0American Heritage, 56 (4), 64.<\/li>\n
  8. Lesieur, H. & Blume, S. (1987). The South Oaks gambling screen (SOGS):\u00a0a new\u00a0instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal\u00a0of\u00a0Psychiatry, 144(9): 1184-1188.<\/li>\n
  9. Magnani, R. (1997). Sampling guide. IMPACT Food Security and Nutrition<\/li>\n
  10. Monitoring Project. Arlington, Va.<\/li>\n
  11. McCain, J. (2003). Statement of Senator John McCain, Commerce Committee<\/li>\n
  12. Hearing on Sports Gambling and S.2267, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act.<\/li>\n
  13. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. (1999b). Final Report. Washington,\u00a0DC: Author. The Mississippi Gaming Commission. (2006). Monthly Reports. Jackson,\u00a0MS:\u00a0Retrieved from\u00a0www.mstc.state.ms.us\/taxareas\/misc\/gaming\/stats\/GamingGrossRevenues.pdf\u00a0April 4, 2006.<\/li>\n
  14. Naughton, J. (1998). Why athletes are vulnerable to gambling. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44 (32), A51.<\/li>\n
  15. Petr, T., Paskus, T.S. & Dunkle, J.B. (2003). NCAA national study\u00a0on collegiate\u00a0sports wagering and associated behaviors. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1-62.<\/li>\n
  16. Udovicic, A. (1998). Sports and gambling a good mix? I wouldn\u2019t\u00a0bet on it.\u00a0Marquette Sports Law Journal, 8 (2), 401-427.<\/li>\n
  17. Woodruff, C. & Gregory, S. (2005). Profile of Internet Gamblers:\u00a0Betting on the\u00a0Future. UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal. 9 (1), 1-14.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
    Submitted by: Frank Butts<\/div>\n

    Abstract <\/p>\n

    The purpose of this study was to examine both the overall and the sports
    \n specific gambling activity among athletes and non-athletes enrolled in
    \n a Southern, regional National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division
    \n II university. The findings were contrasted to the results of a 2003 NCAA
    \n Sports Wagering study. The instrument utilized in this particular study
    \n was an adaptation of the survey used in the NCAA 2003 study. Gambling
    \n by athletes at NCAA member schools is a growing concern, and there are
    \n indicators that gambling by college athletes may be more prevalent today
    \n than described in the 2003 study as gambling activity among student-athletes,
    \n male and female, in Division II seems to have increased dramatically from
    \n 2003 to 2006.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,291,296],"tags":[25,8,70,75],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-42","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":176,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/addiction-and-the-college-athlete-the-multiple-addictive-behaviors-questionnaire-mabq-with-college-athletes\/","url_meta":{"origin":250,"position":0},"title":"Addiction and the College Athlete: The Multiple Addictive Behaviors Questionnaire (MABQ) with College Athletes","date":"March 1, 2004","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Victoria L. Bacon, Ed.D. & Pamela J. Russell, Ph.D Abstract The purpose of this study was to measure multiple addictive behaviors in college athletes using the Multiple Addictive Behaviors Questionnaire (MABQ). The MABQ was developed to measure patterns of addictive behaviors and to ascertain gender differences as well\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":166,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/ncaa-tennis-coaches-views-on-recruiting-with-a-team-website\/","url_meta":{"origin":250,"position":1},"title":"NCAA Tennis Coaches’ Views on Recruiting with a Team Website","date":"January 2, 2004","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Jonathan Casper & Peter S. Finley Abstract Most university athletic programs have a web site that provides information about the individual sports and a Prospective Student-Athlete Form where athletes can submit their academic and athletic information directly to the coach. There has been no research done to date\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7712,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-review-of-student-athlete-responses-to-team-sport-eliminations-by-ncaa-division-i-schools\/","url_meta":{"origin":250,"position":2},"title":"A Review of Student-Athlete Responses to Team Sport Eliminations by NCAA Division I Schools","date":"December 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors:\u00a0 Mark Mitchell and Rob Montgomery Corresponding Author:Mark Mitchell, DBAProfessor of MarketingAssociate Dean, Wall College of BusinessNCAA Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)Coastal Carolina UniversityP. O. Box 261954Conway, SC\u00a0 29528mmitchel@coastal.edu(843) 349-2392Mark Mitchell, DBA is Professor of Marketing at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, SC.Rob Montgomery, DBA is Professor of Marketing at the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":344,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-study-of-alcohol-responsibility-among-college-athletes\/","url_meta":{"origin":250,"position":3},"title":"A Study of Alcohol Responsibility Among College Athletes","date":"July 10, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Frank B. Butts - University of West Georgia Abstract This study examined alcohol related behaviors among college athletes and the impact of a one year, alcohol responsibility intervention program on reported behaviors. A sample of 150 athletes was selected to go through three specific alcohol responsibility intervention programs,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":29,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/ncaa-athletes-and-facebook\/","url_meta":{"origin":250,"position":4},"title":"NCAA Athletes and Facebook","date":"January 7, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Frank B. Butts, University of West Georgia ABSTRACT The use of Facebook and other social networks by a majority of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes has come under intense scrutiny from college officials in recent months. The current level of monitoring by athletic departments ranges from mere\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":241,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/preferred-player-characteristics-and-skills-of-division-i-mens-basketball-coaches\/","url_meta":{"origin":250,"position":5},"title":"Preferred Player Characteristics and Skills of Division I Men’s Basketball Coaches","date":"June 1, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: William F. Stier Jr. & Robert C. Schneider Abstract A national survey of selected men\u2019s basketball coaches, at the NCAA Division I level, revealed how essential the respondents felt certain work ethic characteristics were for successful basketball players on their team. The respondents also revealed how important specific\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Table One","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/03\/Table11.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2664,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250\/revisions\/2664"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}