The Sharp Edge: Mastering NCAA Betting Rules for Advanced Bettors in the US – Loopholes, Props, and State-by-State College Sports Betting Laws

The Zero-Sum Game of Collegiate Regulatory Fragmentation

The US collegiate sports betting landscape is defined by extreme legislative fragmentation, forcing sophisticated bettors to navigate a patchwork of state-level laws regarding in-state teams, player props, and live wagering.¹ Driven by NCAA integrity concerns regarding athlete harassment and game manipulation, there is a clear and accelerating regulatory trend towards outright prohibition of college player proposition bets, particularly in major markets like Ohio and New York.² Advanced bettors must deploy strategic solutions—including jurisdictional arbitrage and precise geolocation compliance—to maintain positive Expected Value (EV) by exploiting discrepancies between highly restricted markets (New York, Illinois) and unrestricted zones (Nevada, Michigan).⁴ While offshore markets offer access to restricted wagers, the legal exposure under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and the imminent threat of federal legislation like the SAFE Bet Act escalate compliance risks for high-volume users.⁵ The structural shifts caused by the House v. NCAA settlement and the NCAA’s pivot to focus enforcement solely on college contests underscore that regulatory volatility, rather than market expansion, is the primary risk factor for the 2024/2025 season.⁷

Maximizing Digital Reach: Title Strategy

The Sharp Edge: Mastering NCAA Betting Rules for Advanced Bettors in the US – Loopholes, Props, and State-by-State College Sports Betting Laws
Strategic Guide to NCAA Betting Restrictions: Navigating In-Play & Proposition Bet Legality for US High-Volume Wagers
Deep Dive 2024/2025: Unpacking NCAA Betting Rules Advanced Bettors US Must Know—State-by-State College Sports Betting Laws and Integrity Risks
State-by-State College Sports Betting Laws: How Advanced US Bettors Optimize Wagers Despite NCAA Proposition Bet Legality Bans
The Regulatory Gauntlet: NCAA Betting Rules Advanced Bettors US Need for 2025 Compliance & The Future of In-Play College Sports Betting

The Legal and Economic Framework: Deconstructing the US Collegiate Wagering Mandate

Constitutional Basis for State Regulatory Autonomy

The current fragmented state of collegiate sports wagering law stems directly from the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. NCAA.⁹ This landmark decision invalidated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which had previously imposed a federal prohibition on sports gambling outside of Nevada.¹⁰ The Court found that PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, which prevents the federal government from forcing states to enforce federal regulatory schemes.⁹

The consequence of this constitutional ruling is the absence of a uniform national market. Since Congress cannot mandate federal regulatory consistency, states are empowered to craft their own state-by-state college sports betting laws, resulting in the complex legal patchwork observed today. State legislatures are thus forced to balance the localized risk of corruption in college sports against the significant revenue potential derived from wagering. Through July of 2025, Americans had wagered $88.73 billion, highlighting the immense stakes involved.¹² This inherent conflict between state sovereignty and market cohesion ensures that jurisdictional variances persist, thereby guaranteeing profitable arbitrage opportunities for advanced bettors who meticulously track these regulatory differences.

The Integrity vs. Revenue Conflict: The Rationale Behind NCAA Proposition Bet Legality Bans

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has become a primary advocate for banning college player proposition bets, citing acute concerns regarding athlete safety and the integrity of the game.¹³ The NCAA asserts that prop bets, which focus on specific individual statistics rather than the game’s ultimate outcome, expose vulnerable student-athletes to undue harassment and pressure from toxic bettors.³ The NCAA’s president has specifically called for states to ban college props to mitigate these threats.²

From an economic perspective, the prohibition of NCAA proposition bet legality involves a direct trade-off between integrity protection and market depth. While prop bets generate substantial revenue—for instance, prop bets accounted for 1.35 percent of the total amount wagered in Ohio, equating to approximately $104.6 million in annual volume—this market segment is deemed too high-risk by regulators in many jurisdictions.²

This regulatory decision creates a fundamental paradox: The removal of prop markets from the legal, regulated sphere does not eliminate demand; rather, it merely pushes sophisticated betting activity into the black market, specifically towards illegal and offshore sportsbooks.¹⁵ These offshore operators capitalize on the public appetite for restricted wagers and, critically, function without any adherence to state or federal consumer protection standards, integrity monitoring, or tax obligations.¹⁶ Consequently, the intention to “protect integrity” by banning props results in lost tax revenue for states and simultaneously places the wagering public and athletes at potentially increased risk, as these invisible, unregulated activities cannot be monitored by state watchdogs.¹⁵

The Revolution in Amateurism: Athlete Compensation and Betting Vulnerability in the NIL Era

The legal structure of collegiate athletics has undergone a seismic shift, initiated by the Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston (2021) decision and solidified by the recent House v. NCAA settlement.⁷ While Alston primarily targeted restrictions on education-related compensation, the House settlement fundamentally restructures Division I athletics, ending the amateurism model by allowing schools to provide direct institutional payments to players.⁷

As athletes transition from unpaid amateurs to directly compensated participants, their financial status is formalized, and their on-field metrics are increasingly tied to economic valuation (Name, Image, and Likeness deals and future direct payments). This financialization increases the sports integrity risk profile. The NCAA, recognizing the collapse of the amateurism defense, has pivoted its focus, implementing increased enforcement efforts targeting information sharing and explicit manipulation schemes.⁸ Student-athletes and staff are strictly prohibited from sharing any non-public information about college competitions.⁸ For advanced bettors, this environment demands that non-public team news—such as injury reports, team discipline, or internal dynamics—be treated as highly volatile insider information. The severe consequences for student-athletes and staff found in violation underscore the seriousness of the integrity risks now facing the market.²⁰

State-by-State Legislative Deep Dive: State-by-State College Sports Betting Laws for Advanced Market Access

High-volume bettors must focus their strategic analysis on the largest legal US betting markets, as defined by handle and revenue, where the vast majority of liquidity resides.²² The variations within these top markets determine the viability of jurisdictional arbitrage and the profitability of specific market access strategies.

Comparative Regulatory Analysis: Top US Markets

The table below details the specific limitations imposed by the ten largest legal sports betting states (based on handle/revenue data, notably New York’s market dominance) regarding collegiate wagering.

Regulatory Status of NCAA Wagering in Top US Betting Markets (2024-2025)

State (Market Rank)	In-State College Team Wagers	Individual Player Prop Legality	In-Play/Live Betting Restrictions	Strategic Access Level
New York (1)	Prohibited	Prohibited	General live betting permitted; player/team props restricted.²⁴	Very High Restriction
Illinois (2)	Prohibited (Online)	Prohibited	All college props banned; ban is online.²⁶	High Restriction
Nevada (3)	Allowed	Allowed	Minimal restrictions; a key jurisdiction for all market types.²⁷	Minimal Restriction
Pennsylvania (4)	Allowed	Prohibited	Player props banned; live betting on game outcomes permitted.²⁶	Moderate Restriction
Virginia (5)	Prohibited	Prohibited	Highly restrictive, aligns with in-state ban.²⁵	Very High Restriction
Indiana (6)	Allowed	Prohibited (In-Play Player Props)	Pre-game player props allowed; in-play player props banned.²⁶	Actionable Time Window
Michigan (7)	Allowed	Allowed	Minimal restrictions across all market types, including props.²⁴	Minimal Restriction
Ohio (8)	Allowed	Prohibited (Regulator-imposed ban)	Regulator proactively banned college prop betting.²	Moderate Restriction
Massachusetts (9)	Prohibited (Unless tournament)	Prohibited	Restricts in-state team betting unless during a major tournament (e.g., March Madness).²⁵	High Restriction
Maryland (10)	Allowed	Prohibited (Regulator-imposed ban)	Regulator proactively banned college prop betting.²	Moderate Restriction

Granular Analysis of Restrictions

The table reveals distinct regulatory archetypes that govern high-volume strategy:

In-State Team Wagers: Border Arbitrage Dynamics

States with major college athletic programs often implement strict bans on wagering involving local universities. Jurisdictions like New York, Illinois (online betting) ²⁴, and New Jersey prohibit betting on in-state teams, even if the game is played elsewhere.²⁵ This creates a mandated market inefficiency where localized betting demand must be channeled into neighboring states, such as crossing from New Jersey into Pennsylvania or crossing the border from Illinois into Indiana, to place wagers on those local contests. The Illinois rule, which flip-flopped before settling back on banning online wagers on Illinois teams, illustrates the regulatory instability driven by political pressure surrounding high-profile local sports.²⁶

The Prop Bet Ban: Targeting Athlete Integrity

The overall trend for college proposition bets is one of rapid restriction. States such as Pennsylvania and Ohio permit general wagering on college teams but have explicitly prohibited player props.² This targeted ban reflects the NCAA’s specific concern regarding individual athlete integrity risk. However, two states—Nevada and Michigan—remain essential, wide-open markets that permit all forms of collegiate wagering, including player props.²⁷ These jurisdictions are vital for high-volume bettors who require deep market access for comprehensive modeling and staking.

In-Play/Live Betting Restrictions: The Indiana Time-Window Strategy

While few states impose outright restrictions on live betting for game outcomes, several implement highly specific limitations on in-play player props. The market in Indiana presents a crucial, tactical distinction: while in-play player props are prohibited, pre-game player props are explicitly permitted up until the game starts.²⁶

This Indiana Time-Window Strategy is a significant tactical advantage for high-volume operations. It allows sophisticated bettors to maximize staking and efficiency during this limited pre-match period. The window provides a high-EV opportunity for models that integrate pre-game data (lineups, weather, late scratches) and require sufficient time to place substantial wagers before the prop market is functionally shut down for in-play adjustments.

Strategic Navigation of Regulatory Chokepoints

The advanced bettor’s objective is to maintain maximum market access and liquidity while adhering to stringent legal compliance. This requires navigating regulatory obstacles through legal and ethical strategic optimization.

Geolocation Compliance and Risk Management

Advanced bettors leverage the regulatory disparities among neighboring states through jurisdictional arbitrage. This strategy involves physically locating near state borders to access markets—such as in-state teams or specific prop types—that are prohibited in the bettor’s primary home jurisdiction.²⁵ For example, a bettor in restrictive New York might travel to unrestricted Pennsylvania to access college prop markets, assuming that specific market type is available.

However, geolocation compliance is non-negotiable. Regulated sportsbooks rigorously employ technology to verify that wagers originate from within the legal state boundaries.⁴ Attempting to manipulate geolocation data or use VPNs carries the extremely high operational risk of account closure, fund forfeiture, and potential blacklisting across multiple platforms.

Furthermore, while arbitrage itself is not illegal, sportsbooks are inherently adversarial toward consistently profitable, high-volume arbitrageurs.⁴ To mitigate counterparty risk—the risk of being limited or banned by an operator—advanced bettors must strategically diversify their capital across numerous regulated platforms and employ sophisticated stake sizing patterns that obscure algorithmic detection of arbitrage activity.⁴ This strategic obfuscation is necessary to maintain long-term access to essential market liquidity.

Exploiting Legal Alternatives and Regulatory Grey Areas

In jurisdictions with strict NCAA proposition bet legality bans (e.g., New York, Massachusetts, Ohio), certain platforms that operate under the framework of Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) or “Pick ’em” games offer a legal release valve for prop bet volume. These platforms, operating in over 20 US states, including non-wagering strongholds like California and Texas, are often classified outside the definition of traditional “sports wagering” by state regulatory bodies.²⁹

The advanced approach involves integrating these legally distinct DFS/Pick ’em platforms into the overall staking rotation. This allows bettors to maintain market exposure to individual player performance metrics, effectively sidestepping the onshore prop betting restrictions without resorting to illegal offshore activity. Utilizing these compliant alternatives provides a stable and legal method to hedge positions or generate positive Expected Value (EV) in highly restricted markets.²⁹

The Offshore Risk Matrix: Analyzing the Legal Risks of Unregulated Sportsbooks

The demand for restricted collegiate markets, particularly player props, drives sophisticated bettors toward offshore and illegal sportsbooks.¹⁵ These entities operate outside US jurisdiction, offer unregulated wagers, and evade state and federal taxation.¹⁶

The legal and financial risks of using these offshore books are escalating. Federal law, specifically the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA, 2006), prohibits the transfer of funds for illegal internet gambling activities.³⁰ Moreover, a bipartisan coalition of 50 State Attorneys General recently urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to intensify enforcement efforts against illegal offshore operations, citing links to fraud, money laundering, and significant losses in state tax revenue (estimated at over $4 billion annually).⁵ The AGs specifically requested that the DOJ pursue injunctive relief to block website access and seize assets used in unlawful operations.⁵

The professional consensus holds that engagement with offshore sites is incompatible with institutional fund management due to the extreme legal and financial vulnerability. While direct prosecution of individual users is rare, the ongoing, concerted federal push to disrupt the financial infrastructure supporting these sites constitutes a high, material risk. Furthermore, offshore platforms introduce severe counterparty risk, meaning funds can be frozen or non-payment can occur without any legal recourse in the US justice system.¹⁶ For high-volume bettors prioritizing stability and legal compliance, the operational risk of offshore use far outweighs the benefit of accessing restricted markets.

Legal Case Studies: Defining the Modern NCAA Betting Environment

Recent judicial and legislative actions have cemented the parameters within which collegiate wagering must operate, shifting the regulatory landscape from one based on amateurism to one focused solely on integrity and financial compliance.

Integrity Case Study 1: NCAA Enforcement and Athlete Schemes

Following the proliferation of legal sports betting, the NCAA’s enforcement staff has experienced a noticeable increase in cases involving sports betting violations.⁸ Recent high-profile investigations involved student-athletes from various Division I men’s basketball programs, including Fresno State, San Jose State, Temple, and Arizona State.²⁰ These cases unveiled sophisticated schemes wherein athletes bet on their own games, shared non-public team information, and allegedly manipulated in-game performances.²⁰ The investigations resulted in permanent NCAA ineligibility for the student-athletes involved, demonstrating the organization’s commitment to policing the integrity of collegiate contests.²⁰

This rigorous enforcement activity confirms that the primary threat to the college betting market is the exploitation of non-public team data. For the advanced bettor, this reality necessitates a re-evaluation of data sources. Traditional market analytics must be coupled with predictive integrity monitoring. An unexplained, drastic line movement in a niche college market should not be immediately viewed as opportunistic value, but rather as a red flag potentially signaling information leakage or undue influence, demanding immediate avoidance or a severe reduction in stake sizing to mitigate exposure to manipulated markets.

Judicial Milestone 2: The House v. NCAA Settlement

The House v. NCAA settlement represents a landmark antitrust resolution that mandates direct revenue sharing for Division I athletes and formally terminates the long-standing amateurism model.⁷ This ruling followed the precedent set by Alston, which determined that NCAA restrictions on education-related compensation violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.¹⁸

The settlement dramatically changes the environment in which the NCAA argues for wagering restrictions. Since the defense of “amateurism” is now functionally defunct, the NCAA has strategically shifted its regulatory lobbying. The organization is now using the high-profile athlete harassment issues uncovered in integrity investigations as a new legal “integrity shield” to justify blanket bans on markets like proposition bets.¹⁴ The argument is that these restrictions are necessary to protect the compensated student-athletes from undue pressure and maintain fan confidence in game integrity, rather than upholding outdated amateur status rules. This means that future legislative debates over new market types will be primarily filtered through the lens of athlete protection rather than economic liberalization.

Compliance and Future Outlook: Regulatory Forecast

The regulatory landscape for the 2024/2025 NCAA season is defined by volatility and the growing prospect of federal intervention, necessitating careful forward planning for high-volume operations.

Federal Legislation Threat: The SAFE Bet Act

The most significant pending regulatory development is the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act (SAFE Bet Act), introduced in September 2024.³¹ This bill aims to establish minimum federal standards for sports betting across the US.³²

Crucially, the SAFE Bet Act includes two provisions that would immediately and fundamentally impact advanced collegiate wagering strategies:

National Prop Ban: The bill includes a provision for a national ban on all prop bets concerning college and amateur athletes.⁶
Affordability Checks: The Act mandates operators conduct ‘affordability checks’ on customers placing wagers exceeding $1,000 in a 24-hour period or $10,000 in a 30-day period.⁶

The passage of the SAFE Bet Act would immediately resolve the current jurisdictional fragmentation surrounding NCAA proposition bet legality by imposing a sweeping, uniform federal ban. This would eliminate all legal prop arbitrage opportunities currently leveraged between open states (Michigan, Nevada) and restrictive states (New York, Illinois). Furthermore, the required affordability checks would directly impact the staking capacity and compliance burden for high-volume professional bettors, requiring significant adjustments to capital allocation and operational reporting. The bill also seeks to regulate advertising and prohibit the use of AI to offer individualized promotions based on tracking player gambling habits.⁶

NCAA Policy Evolution: Refocused Enforcement and the Professional Betting Pivot

The NCAA Division I Administrative Committee adopted a pivotal rule change in October 2025 that, pending approval from Divisions II and III, will take effect on November 1, 2025.⁸ This change permits student-athletes and athletics department staff to place wagers on professional sports while maintaining the strict prohibition on betting on collegiate sports.⁸

This policy shift is a clear indication that the NCAA is moving away from unenforceable blanket prohibitions toward a focused, resource-optimized enforcement strategy targeting only high-risk college integrity issues. By allowing pro betting, the NCAA streamlines its enforcement focus, concentrating its monitoring services—which currently track over 22,000 college contests annually—specifically on detecting unusual line activity and investigating behaviors that directly affect the integrity of college sports.⁸ Advanced bettors must interpret this as a signal of increased sophistication and severity in NCAA integrity investigations concerning college games. The primary legal vulnerability for athletes—and thus the greatest integrity risk for bettors—remains the sharing of non-public, insider information.⁸

Key State Legislative Watch

Beyond the federal threat, state legislation continues to influence market dynamics:

Missouri Ballot Initiative: Voters in Missouri will decide on sports betting legalization via a ballot initiative in November 2025.³¹ The specific inclusion or exclusion of college wagering restrictions within the initiative will determine the new risk/opportunity profile for a major regional market.
Illinois Tax Policy: The Illinois state budget includes a tax hike on sports betting operators.³¹ Increased regulatory costs and tax burdens often lead operators to tighten margins, reduce promotional offers, and possibly impose stricter limits, indirectly impacting the profitability and available liquidity for high-volume bettors within that jurisdiction.

Conclusion and Call to Action

Sustaining Edge in a Volatile Regulatory Market

The US college wagering market offers significant EV opportunities for those prepared to navigate its intricate legal structure. The fragmentation of state-by-state college sports betting laws requires continuous, dynamic monitoring. The strategic edge currently favors the high-volume bettor capable of deploying jurisdictional arbitrage across state lines. However, the accelerating trend toward restricting NCAA proposition bet legality—driven by integrity concerns—and the palpable threat of federal legislation like the SAFE Bet Act mandate strict compliance as the foremost risk mitigation strategy. Moving forward, the successful advanced bettor must possess not only superior predictive modeling but also expert legal and regulatory knowledge to identify and exploit permissible market apertures while avoiding critical legal and operational exposures.

Internal Link Suggestions

Advanced Arbitrage Theory: Maximizing Cross-Jurisdictional EV.
Regulatory Compliance and Tax Implications for Professional Sports Bettors.
Geolocation Technology and VPN Risk in US Sports Wagering.

Compliant Call to Action

To sustain your strategic advantage in collegiate wagering, regulatory vigilance is as crucial as predictive modeling. The current market volatility necessitates rigorous adherence to state and federal compliance protocols. Utilize responsible gaming tools, maintain accurate records, and consult legal counsel regarding market access strategies, particularly concerning prohibited markets and the evolving federal landscape. Stay informed; the edge is perishable. Wager with discipline and compliance.

Works cited

Sports Betting Laws by State – Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/sports-betting-laws-by-state-5219064

NCAA ‘drawing the line’ on sports betting, seeking ban on player prop wagers – CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/sports/ncaa-prop-betting-ban-1.7156925

Full article: College student sports betting experiences and behaviors at a U.S. public university: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2025.2503840?scroll=top&needAccess=true

State-by-State Guide to Legal Arbitrage & EV Betting in the US – XCLSV Media: https://xclsvmedia.com/state-by-state-guide-to-legal-arbitrage-ev-betting-in-the-us/

Coalition of Attorneys General Urges DOJ Crackdown on Offshore Gambling: https://www.naag.org/press-releases/coalition-of-attorneys-general-urges-doj-crackdown-on-offshore-gambling/

The SAFE Bet Act – Congressman Paul Tonko: https://tonko.house.gov/uploadedfiles/safe_bet_fact_sheet_9.24.pdf

House v. NCAA Settlement Approved: Era of Direct Payments to College Athletes Begins: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/06/house-v-ncaa-settlement-approved-era-of-direct-payments-to-college-athletes-begins

DI Administrative Committee adopts proposal to allow student-athletes, staff to bet on pro sports – NCAA.org: https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/10/8/media-center-di-administrative-committee-adopts-proposal-to-allow-student-athletes-staff-to-bet-on-pro-sports.aspx

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association

“SPORTS LAW—SPORTS GAMBLING IN A POST-MURPHY WORLD: ENSURING EMERGING S” by Matthew Dziok: https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol44/iss2/2/

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association | Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-476

Commercial Gaming Revenue Tracker – American Gaming Association: https://www.americangaming.org/resources/commercial-gaming-revenue-tracker/

Prop Betting in College Sports: Predict the Unpredictable – IMGL: https://www.imgl.org/publications/imgl-magazine-volume-3-no-3/prop-betting-in-college-sports-predict-the-unpredictable/

THE COLLEGE STUDENT ATHLETICS POLICY LANDSCAPE IN 2024 – American Council on Education: https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Issue-Brief-College-Athletics-071524.pdf

Protecting Collegiate Athletes in the Age of Legal Wagering Sports Betting: https://thefsga.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/FSGA-College-prop-wager-final-12-9-2024.pdf

Opinion: Would Federal Offshore Sportsbook Crackdown Really Help? – LegalSportsReport: https://www.legalsportsreport.com/68380/opinion-would-federal-crackdown-on-offshore-sportsbook-help/

NCAA proposed ban on college player prop bets isn’t black and white – iGaming Business: https://igamingbusiness.com/sports-betting/ncaa-proposed-ban-not-black-and-white/

NCAA v. Alston – Harvard Law Review: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/ncaa-v-alston/

Unpacking the “House” Settlement’s Impact on Collegiate Athletics – Jackson Lewis: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/unpacking-house-settlements-impact-collegiate-athletics-0

NCAA Takes Steps to Permit Gambling on Professional Sports While Continuing to Crack Down on College Sports Betting | Insights | Ropes & Gray LLP: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/10/ncaa-takes-steps-to-permit-gambling-on-professional-sports-while-continuing-to-crack-down

Practice, Study Hall and Sports Betting? NCAA Set to Allow College Athletes to Bet on Professional Sports – Ifrah Law: https://www.ifrahlaw.com/ifrah-on-igaming/practice-study-hall-and-sports-betting-ncaa-set-to-allow-college-athletes-to-bet-on-professional-sports/

US Sports Betting Revenue & Handle – LegalSportsReport: https://www.legalsportsreport.com/sports-betting-states/revenue/

Maryland, North Carolina Post Record Sports Betting Handles In September – InGame: https://www.ingame.com/maryland-north-carolina-september-2025-revenue/

Which States Allow Bets On College Sports?: https://businessofcollegesports.com/other/which-states-allow-bets-on-college-sports/

March Madness Brings on the Bets – National Conference of State Legislatures: https://www.ncsl.org/fiscal/march-madness-brings-on-the-bets

College Betting Rules By State – Unabated: https://unabated.com/articles/college-betting-rules-by-state

Where Can I Bet College Player Props? College Sports Betting Laws By State: https://www.oddsshopper.com/articles/betting-101/college-sports-betting-laws-by-state-where-can-i-bet-college-player-props-y10

College Sports Betting Rules By State – Gaming Today: https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/how-college-sports-betting-laws-vary-across-states/

Big Debate: Is the NCAA right to call for a ban on prop betting in college sports? – EGR Intel: https://www.egr.global/intel/insight/big-debate-is-the-ncaa-right-to-call-for-a-ban-on-prop-betting-in-college-sports/

Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act – Federal Trade Commission: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/unlawful-internet-gambling-enforcement-act

Sports Betting States: Latest US Legislation & Bill Tracker – LegalSportsReport: https://www.legalsportsreport.com/sports-betting-states/

Text – H.R.2087 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAFE Bet Act of 2025 | Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2087/text

SAFE Bet Act: Inside The Federal Sports Betting Bill (2025) – Gambling Harm: https://gamblingharm.org/safe-bet-act-inside-the-federal-sports-betting-bill/

NCAA Moves to Allow Pro Sports Betting for Student-Athletes – Action Network: https://www.actionnetwork.com/news/ncaa-moves-to-allow-pro-sports-betting-for-student-athletes