Missing the Boat: Student Affairs and Campus Gambling

Kerry Shahan

Pathological gambling has been considered an addictive disease by the American Psychologial Association (APA) for more than fifteen years. Students on today's college campuses are falling victim to this timeless addiction. As student affairs professionals, we pride ourselves on constructing quality learning environments. This article discusses the prevalence of campus gambling and the harmful effects on students and their institutions. The author suggests proactive ways student affairs administrators can face this problem head-on and employ preventative measures for the future.

What is Gambling?

Article 10.3 of the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) manual titled "Gambling Activities" defines and restricts student athletes from:

providing information to individuals involved in organized gambling, solicit a bet on an intercollegiate game, accept a bet on any team representing the institution, or participate in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by organized gambling. (Layden, 1995c, p. 48)

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) defines pathological gambling as "recurrent gambling behavior that disrupts all aspects of the gambler's life" (Meintz & Larson, 1994, p. 43). For this article, the author will use NCAA's definition as the framework for discussing campus gambling.

Gambling is a disease with symptoms and side-effects equal to those of alcoholism and drug addiction. While it is true that not all gamblers are clinically pathological, it is similarly true that not all underage drinkers are alcoholics nor are all casual drug users addicts. Yet, the fact remains that all of these activities are dangerous, illegal, and destructive. Research shows that compulsive gambling can produce a "high" similar to drugs or alcohol (Meintz & Larson, 1994). Dr. Rena Nora of the Las Vegas Veterans Affairs Medical Center says that "vulnerability to gambling depends on two basic things: accessibility to cash and how clever a person is" (as cited in Layden, 1995c, p. 54). If this is the case, college students are more vulnerable than most groups because they tend to have parents to fall back on for cash, and they believe they are clever. Henry Lesieur, a noted expert in the field of gambling research, reports that "roughly 5.5% of American college students are pathological gamblers" (Layden 1995c, p. 54). Pathological gamblers will admit that they bet for the rush, not for the money. "The money is the syringe that carries the adrenaline" (Layden, 1995a, p. 90). Eventually, however, the money runs out and the gambler is left to feed the addiction any way he can. The desperation that defines an addiction is a gambler's worst nightmare. Similarly, this desperation poses many problems for college and university administrators.

One problem is identifying which students are involved in gambling operations. Contrary to many stereotypes, student athletes are not the only students involved in campus gambling. In actuality, student athletes are the only students getting caught, and their cases are the only ones being publicized. This is because the NCAA has specifically outlined the prohibition of gambling in the Student Athlete Handbook. Individual athletic departments are expected to monitor and report any of the previously specified gambling activities to the NCAA for review. If the university fails to do so, the entire athletic program could be sanctioned. It is the NCAA that has taken a stand against student gambling, not individual institutions. Many universities have not specifically outlined regulations regarding gambling in the student handbooks and gambling is seldom addressed as a serious problem.

There is Nothing New About Campus Gambling: The Recent History

On Wednesday, November 6, 1996, the athletic scandal of the decade rocked Boston College. Thirteen Boston College (BC) football players were suspended for placing bets on professional and college sporting events. The student athletes involved were betting with an on-campus bookie, an all too common figure on today's college campuses. Recently, The New York Times reported, "the majority of bets, made with bookmakers, were for $50 dollars or less ... two of the bets were for $800 and $1000" (Moran, 1996, p. B27). Further, "two of the players bet against their team" (Moran,

p. B27) in a recent BC football game. According to NCAA history, "no athletes have ever been known to bet against their own team" and therefore "their sanctions are likely to be the harshest." "Past incidents involving gambling among athletes have resulted in suspensions of one game or occasionally 2-4 games" (Blaudschun, p. E7) by the NCAA. Although many feel that Boston College acted appropriately in the situation, research shows that universities seldom address the issue of gambling outside of major scandals.

Gambling on college campuses is present and thriving. During the past 20 years, the documented history has been brief, yet it remains significant in its content.

(1) In 1978-79, organized crime figure Henry Hill and New York gambler Richard (the Fixer) Perry, along with three Boston College football players fixed nine BC games. One player went on to serve jail time for his involvement in the scheme (Layden, 1995c).

(2) In 1984-85, four Tulane University basketball players, including John (Hot Rod) Williams, now of the Cleveland Cavaliers, were accused of shaving points in two games. Two of the five players confessed to throwing games in return for cash and cocaine. Williams was later acquitted and no players served any jail time (Layden, 1995c).

(3) In 1989, four University of Florida football players were suspended for betting on football games. Two weeks later, nine University of Arkansas athletes in four sports were suspended for the same violation, none of whom were football players (Layden, 1995c).

(4) In 1992, five Bryant College basketball players fell $54,000 in debt betting with a student bookie. Also that year, 19 University of Maine athletes (none of whom were football players) were suspended during the school's investigation into a campus sports-betting operation (Layden, 1995c).

(5) In 1995, University of Maryland quarterback Scott Milanovich was suspended for eight games after "having admitted to wagering a total of $200 on six college basketball and football games, none of them involving the Terps" ("They just don't get it," 1995,

p. 11).

All of the above mentioned incidents involved student athletes. However, this is providing a lopsided view of the big picture. Two student athletes from Northwestern University were angry for having been suspended for betting on football games. Dion Lee, one of the accused said, "They [the university] made it look like it was two kids with a problem. It's bigger than us. It's a school-wide problem" (Layden, 1995c, p. 57). This is true; gambling is a school-wide problem. "Occasionally illegal college gambling operations will come to the public's attention, usually when they've run afoul with the police. Sometimes college athletes are involved, which gives the incidents a longer public shelf life" (Layden, 1995a, p. 72). But, as we will see, the student non-athlete is just as susceptible to betting as the student athlete; he is just not getting caught.

The Bettor (A Profile)

Although it is true that anyone can fall victim to the addictive disease of gambling, a recent article in Sports Illustrated found college bettors to have some traits in common. First and foremost, college gamblers are almost always men, not women. They tend to share "a degree of sports-obsessiveness (often an athletic past cut short by college or lack of talent), a community in which to share their betting tales (usually a fraternity house), and a little resourcefulness" (Layden, 1995a, p. 76). Generally, they are unaware of the seriousness of their actions. A former bookmaker, quoted in Sports Illustrated, said "These kids are young and often affluent and always vulnerable. They are naive. They think they can do no wrong. They think they're brilliant and they know what they're doing. When you're young, you're invincible" (Layden, p. 76).

The typical college bettor will begin with relatively low bets always thinking he will win. These bets can be made in the form of football parlay cards--sheets listing point spreads on an entire weekend's major college and professional football games (Layden, 1995a). The students' naiveté makes them believe they can pick the winners by watching ESPN or using on-line betting information. They fail to realize that "much of what student gamblers study is stale information, already absorbed by the oddsmakers ... it's old information, built into the point spread" (Layden, p. 80). Soon the student is betting through a friend who knows a bookie; that bookie is generally another student. Eventually, the student will receive his own account with the bookie and the bets will increase from $25 to $100. Former bookie, William Jahoda, points out:

They [students] make a small bet, they lose. They know they have to double up to get back. They're watching ESPN, and there's something going on every night. They try to catch up. They make a bigger bet and a bigger bet. They can do it seven nights a week. Then they're in a hole, and they need $1,000 or more to get out. (Munson, 1995, p. 74)

Soon, the love for the sport disappears and the gambler is fixated on the point spread rather than the outcome of the game.

For the gambler, a mental transformation takes place which alters the way he is able to view sports. "Whatever passion the bettor may have had as a fan dissolves into a flaming desperation, tied to point spreads" (Layden, 1995a, p. 80). He can no longer watch the game as an innocent bystander because there is something personal at stake. "At first the game is the thing. He goes to college in Norman, starts betting on Sooner games. Then Missouri games, Nebraska games and Texas games. The game is no longer the thing. The bet is the thing" (Layden, p. 82). The bettor is no longer the typical college student; he is a gambling addict.

The Bookie (A Profile)

On the other side of these lucrative transactions is the real money-maker in the gambling operation: the bookmaker (commonly known as "a bookie"). Despite the stereotypes, today's college bookie is not a Bugsy Siegel type character: a mobster threatening to break the legs of any delinquent bettors. In fact, there are no distinguishable features of today's campus bookie. He is anyone, and bettors know how to find him when they need him.

Most bookies were once bettors themselves. They generally transition to the other side to pay off accumulated debts (Layden, 1995b). However, some bookies are just business-smart students who realize that the money made in gambling is in the 10% vigorish. The vigorish is the one piece of arithmetic that drives any bookmaking operation (Layden, 1995b). It is the 10% the bookie collects every time a bettor loses. For example, if a bettor wagers $25 and wins, he collects $25; if he loses, he pays $27.50. "By becoming a bookie, I would bank on other people's lack of sports knowledge, or what they perceived to be their knowledge" (Layden, p. 73) says one campus bookie.

"All it takes to be a bookmaker is a legal pad, a telephone and a Bic pen" (Munson, 1995, p. 74) says William Jahoda, a former professional bookie for the Chicago mob. "You subscribe to a [betting] service; that gives you access to the line in Las Vegas. The idea that you need a bankroll is smoke" (Munson, p. 74). This being the case, it is no wonder students have taken to such a profitable scheme. Addressing possible ties of campus gambling to the Mafia, Jahoda responded:

I have known of mob-connected bookies who have worked college campuses, but not many. One of the reasons mob bookies hesitate to involve themselves on a college campus is the risk of exposure. It outweighs the potential for profit. It is the kind of exposure that can hurt because it involves kids, and people are going to be very angry. (Munson, p. 74)

It is important to remember that mob-connected bookies and off-campus bookies are not always one in the same. Many students can easily find independent professionals.

The number of students who realize it pays to be a bookmaker are increasing. Sports Illustrated interviewed a University of Florida student who has made $42,000 in his six years in Gainesville as a bookie. He even went so far as to take a year off in order to take bets full-time. This student was quite savvy in his bookmaking role and created his own set of rules for betting. These rules were necessary for ensuring the success of his business and his advantage as the bookie. One rule that was never compromised by this student bookie, but contradicted the professional system, was not running a tab for clients (Layden, 1995b). Many bookies, on and off-campus, do not require credit to place the first bet. "Everybody runs a tab, and the bookie establishes a limit at which he must pay off the bettor's winnings or the gambler must pay off his losses" (Layden, 1995a, p. 86). The tab can either produce positive or negative results for the bookie. It is good because it establishes new client debt easily. The more debt, the more money the bookie makes. Conversely, it can be bad if the bookie has no way to ensure payment from the bettor. The student bookie decided that the latter was a risk he did not want to take and hence his "no tab" rule began. However, risk taking is the essence of gambling, and bookies usually feel that anyone choosing to gamble is assuming his own risk. They are just providing that person with the means to an end.

Choosing Ignorance: The University's Position

It is upsetting to read the uninformed positions that university officials have taken over the years regarding the subject of campus gambling. The naiveté of the university equals that of the bettors. When Thomas Hill, Dean of Students at the University of Florida (UF), was confronted with evidence of campus gambling at UF his response was:

I'm not shocked. I'm disappointed. I view gambling on this campus much like underage drinking, which is a huge problem. They're both illegal. But until it reaches the point where it disrupts the normal course of business, there's not much we can do. (Layden, 1995c, p. 55)

Hill went on to say that he did not believe that putting "everyone through a gambling awareness program" (Layden, 1995b, p. 79) was practical. Other university administrators also "dismiss the possibility that gambling is a broad problem on campus and should be addressed as such" (Layden, 1995c, p. 54). Northwestern University's Arnold Weber asserts that "unless we find evidence to the contrary, this is not a sign of moral decay here. I've been attending presidents' meetings for 15 years for the Big Eight and the Big Ten, and the issue of gambling has never been discussed'" (as cited in Layden, 1995c, p. 54).

Some coaches are also in the dark about the presence of campus gambling.

Auburn football coach Terry Bowden ... says of his campus 'I would be shocked if it's a major problem among the students. I don't see how students bet, because they don't have the kind of capital to put $100 down on this or that every week' (Layden, 1995c, p. 55).

Dirk Taitt, the NCAA enforcement representative for gambling-related infractions, reports his committee only sees an average of six appeals a year (Layden, 1995c). Although the NCAA's guidelines are clear and stringent, they are powerless to affect non-athletes. With campus administrators dismissing the issue of gambling and the strict guidelines only being enforced by the NCAA, more must be done to address the problem.

The Conclusion: A Call to Action

If compulsive gambling is a disease then we must treat it as such. Students are suffering from this addiction on many campuses. Additionally, casual, non-clinical gambling is potentially harmful for students and their institutions. Today, gambling is legal in various forms such as state lotteries and casinos. In many business offices there are football and basketball pools and yet the campus community chooses not to acknowledge this growing problem. Many student gamblers share a common view on gambling: "It's not right, but nobody gets hurt" (Layden, 1995c, p. 48). As far as they are concerned, this opinion is accurate. But, as student affairs professionals, we can see this observation is quite inaccurate. These students are hurting themselves. We are not addressing the seriousness of their actions as gamblers. We are not alerting them to the trouble that lies ahead for them as gamblers. We are not educating them.

In order to create an institutional change with regard to campus gambling, we must embrace the following three components. The first of these components is education. As student affairs professionals we must educate ourselves to the harmful effects of gambling. To do this we must expand the amount of information that exists on this topic; currently there is very little. We must encourage student affairs professionals along with counseling and addiction experts to research the culture of campus gambling. Once we have these resources we must create specialized training sessions for professionals so that they too, may begin to recognize high-risk individuals.

Additionally, we must continue to expand that education to students, beginning with high-risk groups (e.g., fraternities, athletes, male residence halls, etc.). These programs should be addressing gambling as potentially addictive behavior and alerting students to the "real world" dangers of this habit. The short-term loss may be of money but, the long term loss could be of friends and even self-control.

The second component is policy. We must create specific rules and regulations naming gambling as an unacceptable behavior for students. It should be clearly articulated that gambling is harmful, destructive, and will not be tolerated at the institution. As for consequences, they should be somewhat punitive and somewhat educational; similar to those for drug and alcohol violations. In cases of suspected addiction, the student should be mandated to seek counseling either from the university or an independent professional.

The third component is a combination of the previous two: practice. We must re-think our attitudes on gambling. When "March Madness" rolls around in the spring or the Super Bowl is approaching, gambling pools can be found in many campus offices from the smallest to the largest. These employees are certainly not betting for the money but neither are the students. It is the rush, the high, the boasting rights one gets from having picked the winning team. We must re-think the example we are setting for students. We need to question our ethics and assume responsibility for our actions. We must critically define gambling and then we must practice what we preach.

As student affairs professionals, one of our most important roles is educating students. It is our responsibility to be aware of the many dangers students may face. Further, we must give them the knowledge and resources to make responsible decisions. If we continue to ignore the presence of campus gambling in our communities, we are doing our students a great disservice. By acknowledging this problem, only then can we begin to confront and reverse these harmful behaviors.

References

Blaudschun, M. (1996, November 7). NCAA to Review Penalties. The Boston Globe, p. E7.

Layden, T. (1995a, April 3). Bettor education (part 1 of 3). Sports Illustrated, 82, (13), pp. 68(15).

Layden, T. (1995b, April 10). Book smart (part 2 of 3). Sports Illustrated, 82, (14), pp. 68 (8).

Layden, T. (1995c, April 17). You bet your life (part 3 of 3). Sports Illustrated, 82, (15), pp. 46(8).

Meintz, S. & Larson, C. (1994, July). Can you spot this kind of addiction? RN, 57, (7), pp. 42(4).

Moran, M. (1996, November 7). Boston College bans 13 football players over bets. The New York Times, p. B27.

Munson, L. (1995, April 10). Mob scene. Sports Illustrated, 82, (14), p. 74.

They just don't get it. (1995, July 24). Sports Illustrated, 83, (4), p. 11.

Author's Note

The author has chosen not to use gender neutral language in this article because the research has shown that college gamblers tend to be male. Using language that portrays anything else would be inaccurate.

Kerry Shahan received her Bachelor's degree in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland, College Park in 1996. She is a first year student in the HESA program and serves as a Graduate Assistant for Student Life in the UVM Department of Residential Life.