Another week, another slate of title-odds-altering college football games.

But first, let’s look back at one game last week that I really, really wanted to include, but didn’t.

It’s easy to dislike Ohio State. From the ubiquitous “THE Ohio State University” uttered by ex-alums on every single one of their freaking player intros on TV, to Urban Meyer being a moral-less weasel, the only people that don’t currently viscerally dislike the Buckeyes are Ohio residents and future/current/past students.

I’ve thought THE Ohio State University looked vulnerable all year. Purdue was a team that seemed to right the ship after a shaky start and was performing well, and would surely bring a boisterous home crowd to the game.

Still, it was THE Ohio State University vs. Purdue.

Behold, Purdue was awesome, and the Buckeyes fell. However, despite the throttling, THE Ohio State University only saw their title odds dip from +1000 to +1400. This is, in part, because the Big 10 is still very winnable for them, which would clear their path to the college football playoffs. FiveThirtyEight gives them a 23% chance of making the playoffs (but just a 5% chance of capturing the championship).

The loss though means that their Nov. 24 game against Michigan has massive odds-shifting potential.

BetStars SuperBoost: Bet on Clemson, Georgia and Wisconsin to win (+163)

Looking into the futures

Enough about the past, let’s look into the futures.

The biggest game this weekend is the world’s largest outdoor cocktail party, with Georgia (+1400 at FanDuel to win title)  vs. Florida (+10000). The implications here are simple: if Georgia wins, (with apologies to Kentucky) they likely have smooth sailing to the SEC Championship where a win would put them in the playoffs. A loss by Georgia and their title odds are toast. If Florida wins, while I wouldn’t expect their futures to swing up to the +1000 range, it won’t hang back at +10000 either. You don’t need an air-brushed Florida diploma to figure that out.

After Georgia vs. Florida, the other games are of much less potential impact. Texas (+5000) plays on the road against unranked and eliminated Oklahoma State. Traveling to Stillwater is never easy, and both Vegas and computer models agree, as Texas only opened as a 1.5-point favorite.

According to ESPN’s Eliminator, the only PAC-12 team with a chance of making the playoffs is Washington State (+16000). That being the case, this week’s Washington St. vs. Stanford (#24) has some weight. While the PAC-12 is still a longshot to get a team into the playoffs, a Washington St. win coupled with some higher ranked teams losses would certainly improve their odds.

The first playoff committee rankings are released on Tuesday, Oct. 30. Along with this weekend’s games, those committee rankings (and specifically, what the committee is thinking) will certainly shift some futures as well.

Sports betting in the United States is legal. It has arrived. It’s not going anywhere. It’s only going to grow. It is a glorious thing.

And it shouldn’t be allowed on college athletics.

Colleges are concerned, and they should be

The LA Times ran a story this week covering the growing concern universities have over potential integrity issues around sports betting and college athletes.

The concerns are two-fold and real:

“Officials are worried not just about egregious behavior, such as shaving points or fixing a game. But they also fear that gamblers, including classmates and neighbors, will try to cajole confidential data from insiders — say, about injuries or academic standing — to get an edge.”

Most all recent betting scandals involving athletes come on the fringes of sports. These scandals do not occur at the top tier, where athletes are making so much money they have little to no incentive to shave a few points to enrich some degenerate d-bag or worse, perform at a level that lets their team down. No, betting scandals are more common with athletes who aren’t compensated well and have some financial upside.

In college athletics, the most well-known of those incidents is the 1978-79 Boston College basketball point-shaving scandal (which involved Henry Hill of Goodfellas fame, no relation to William). More recently, this happened at the University of San Diego and in the ‘90’s at Northwestern University.

Regardless…

If you look globally, the same issues persist with professional athletes who are under-compensated.

In Europe, recent scandals include soccer games from lower level leagues or clubs (i.e. not Premier League, Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, or Ligue 1). This also occurred in 2015 in Italy. Tennis has been very susceptible, with a “tsunami of corruption” happening with lower level matches.

These are good analogs to college sports. Often, the athletes are easier to manipulate as they may have financial needs to cover. This could become particularly pronounced with college football — where universities are making tens of millions off programs off of athletes who make nothing other than a scholarship. Heck, SEC football teams are basically pro-level and those players don’t make a dime.  Seeing everyone profit from a sport other than you the athlete certainly can open up issues as sports betting propagates to more and more states.

So why isn’t this already an issue today?

It’s easy to play devil’s advocate here.

Betting on college sports, particularly around bowl season and March Madness, has definitely existed at a high-volume and with vigor in Las Vegas with little to no noise around any potential scandals.

However, Las Vegas closely monitors potential fixing activity. A small pattern of significant wagers on insignificant games is going to sound alarm bells. It’s one thing to influence an athlete in Chicago and make the bet in Vegas. It’s another for a college student to have direct access to an athlete and make a wager based on that information (or incentive provided to the athlete) with only a short drive to a local sportsbook.

This is where integrity fees and surveillance technology really matter

The New York Times this week ran an opinion piece on the importance of market surveillance for sports betting. The gist is:

“Many bookmakers have made efforts to limit fraud and manipulation, but more can be done to ensure a level playing field. Regulators and sporting bodies would be wise to learn the lessons of the financial industry and adopt a range of policies and surveillance tools while the market in the United States for sports betting is still nascent.”

Couldn’t agree with this more.

The article notes how costs for other industries to play “catch-up” to bad behavior often outweigh the costs of just getting proper controls established in the first place.

With sports betting, there’s an existing negative stigma attached (for some) that more established and regulated industries like the financial sector don’t face. After years of sports betting being in the Dark Ages in the U.S., the potential public and legislative backlash from poorly monitored betting activity — especially in college sports — could send sports betting back into the Stone Age.

So what’s the solution?

Yes, betting on college sports does currently exist in Las Vegas. No, there’s not an epidemic of point shaving and match fixing. However, as more states legalize and allow sports betting within their borders, the most prudent route would be to at a minimum delay college athletic wagering.

Get the systems and controls in place at the pro level. Ensure proper market surveillance and integrity protocols are in place.

If so, then and only then roll out sports betting on college football and basketball. The lower profile the sport, the more easy it is to manipulate the athlete.

Let’s not mess this up. It took a long time to get this far. It won’t take much to sports betting reeling backwards again.

There’s a difference between acceptance and embrace.

We accept the things we cannot control, like your paint-chipped 1982 Toyota SR5 truck that just got crapped on, ironically, by a mourning dove, the impact of which caused the already low-riding POS to collapse entirely and send two wheels rolling down the street like convicts escaping supermax.

But we embrace things that could make life better or easier, like you watching the wheels flee, the truck helplessly laying in the driveway like Leonardo DiCaprio hanging on to the edge of a floating door post-Titanic sinking because “there was no room for him” next to Kate Winslet, and you realizing it might be time for a new car.

When it comes to legalized sports betting, the NCAA has accepted the fate of its literal crappy truck, but the association will not embrace the change.

Last week the NCAA announced it would be “examining the long-term impact” of regulated wagering on college sports by piecing together an “internal team of subject matter experts” that will explore “how best to protect game integrity, monitor betting activity, manage sports data and expand educational efforts.”

It may seem as though the NCAA is embracing change, but in reality, it is the introvert cowering in the corner at a house party when it should be assisting with the keg stand.

‘Subject matter experts’

In a press release last week, the NCAA said it will construct a working group of “subject matter experts” to assess “all areas where legalized sports wagering may impact NCAA members, including officiating, NCAA rules, federal or state legislation, and the use of integrity services.”

“While we certainly respect the Supreme Court’s decision, our position on sports wagering remains,” Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer, said in the release. “With this new landscape, we must evolve and expand our long-standing efforts to protect both the integrity of competitions and the well-being of student-athletes.”

Also quoted in the release was Joni Comstock, senior vice president of championships and alliances:

“Legalized sports gambling across the country is rather new, but the NCAA and its members have committed significant resources over the years to policy, research and education around sports wagering. With student-athlete well-being as the centerpiece, we will continue to build upon these efforts to assist members as they adapt to legalized sports wagering in their states and regions.”

What’s the best way to assist members? How about having actual “subject matter experts” weigh in? You know, people who have been around the industry long enough to remember the last time the NCAA made a decision that was praised by the court of public opinion. (Whenever that was; instituting the shot clock?)

You see, in Las Vegas, maintaining integrity of games is standard. It’s why we don’t open Twitter to see #PointShaving or #WellDangIfYouJustPaidTheAthletesTheyWouldntAcceptBribesJustToFeedThemselves on a daily basis and why light has been shed on the point-shaving scandals that did take place.

We can assume the NCAA is not reaching out to Sin City, or to anyone with actual expertise, as the committee is dubbed by the association as an “internal team.”

Especially considering legalized sports betting will only spike the NCAA’s stock — in popularity and revenue — it would have been more beneficial to the association to embrace the industry rather than skirt around it.

Stepping in the right direction

In a way, perhaps we should applaud the NCAA for making such a decision. Maybe not an over-the-top, “Her-cu-les-Her-cu-les” celebration; more like that patronizing clap as made famous by Captain Picard.

Consider that the NCAA has been stuck in the first stage of the five stages of grief (denial) for years, decades, ever. It was part of the team that took New Jersey to court to maintain the federal ban on sports betting. It battled — albeit briefly — for integrity fees after the US Supreme Court struck down PASPA and opened the door for state-by-state legalized wagering.

Now the NCAA has backed off from its integrity fee position. It cut down its rule that barred states with legalized wagering to host championship events. This committee at least shows the NCAA is accepting this new world. The problem is it should have embraced it like Tommy Boy.