Hometown Fans of Some College Football Playoff Teams Can't Bet on College Football

Nearly half of the universities in the College Football Playoff are located in states where sports betting is illegal.

The first 12-team College Football Playoff kicks off this weekend, hopefully bringing with it the upsets, drama, and suspense the sport is known for. The new, expanded format gives more schools a chance to compete for a national championship and more gamblers a chance to cash in (so they hope). One bettor has already placed a $1.5 million bet on Texas to win it all—at odds of +390, their payout would be $5.75 million.

Wagers have poured in from 38 states that have legalized sports betting. But sports betting is still illegal in states that are home to five of the 12 universities in the tournament: Idaho (Boise State), South Carolina (Clemson), Georgia (and the flagship Bulldogs), and Texas (Southern Methodist and the Texas Longhorns). (Wagering is legal in Oregon, but the state's lone sportsbook does not offer bets on college sports.)

In 2024, legislators in six states—Georgia, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina—tried to legalize sports wagering. Missouri was the only state to successfully do so with the passage of Amendment 2 in December. Despite 2024's legislative failures, the push to legalize wagering will surely continue in the new year, especially since the practice is still illegal in some high-population states such as California.

In South Carolina, Rep. Chris Murphy (R–Dorchester) has prefiled House Bill 3625, which would legalize sports betting for individuals aged 18 years and older in the Palmetto State. The bill, which has bipartisan support, allows no more than eight licensed operators to exist and taxes their adjusted gross revenue at 12.5 percent. Monies generated from the tax would go toward mental health initiatives in the state. Despite bipartisan support for sports betting, powerful voices in the state, including Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, remain opposed. 

Hawaii is waiting for the results of a study on the economic impacts of wagering, after legalization efforts failed this year. The Sports Wagering Working Group, created by the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 70, will offer recommendations and proposed legislation to Hawaii's lawmakers "no later than twenty days prior to the convening" of the 2026 legislative session.

Meanwhile, sports betting advocates in Georgia and Texas remain cautiously optimistic. In November, Texas Sen. Carol Alvarado (D–Houston) prefiled a bill to amend the state's constitution by legalizing sports wagering and allowing casino gaming at destination resorts (gambling is only permitted at three casinos in the state). Despite the support from industry, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R)—who presides over the Senate—remains staunchly opposed, according to Axios.

In the coming year Georgia, which does not allow gambling except through the state lottery, bingo, and raffles, may consider a version of last year's failed Senate Bill 386, per The Georgia Recorder.

The legalization push comes as some states are restricting the use of prop bets, which are wagers on individual statistics, like points scored or assists recorded, in college sports. The NCAA says 10 percent to 15 percent of Division I athletes have reported being harassed by disgruntled gamblers. Charlie Baker, the president of the NCAA, recently appeared before Congress in support of a federal ban on prop betting in college sports. Baker's position is shared by 16 states that have outlawed the practice outright.

Given its popularity and contributions to state coffers, sports betting is almost certainly here to stay. Hopefully, nanny state prohibition will be lifted, allowing adults to spend their money as they see fit.

Comments

[Dillinger]

if you wait around until everything is legal you'll never have any fun.

[mad.casual]

Has anyone, anywhere, ever in these states been arrested for informal gambling or is this a, or yet another, situation where Reason is imagining some sort of libertarian hegemony or monoculture into existence, conflating individual behavior with social institution, and ignoring any/all facilitation or other undesirable outcomes, even by libertarian standards, that may come of it.

Because, as an IL resident, all of the Illinois Lottery funds winding up in the Common Schooling Fund and a good chunk of the Sports Gambling funds winding up in the Capital Projects Fund, isn't any sort of win-win. Especially given how gambling became more rampant just in time to drive sports engagement during lock downs.

[Iwanna Newname]

Apparently Jeff is unaware of the occupation, "bookie".

[Iwanna Newname]

......or Jeff prefers nanny state taxing and regulation rather than nanny state prohibition.

[AT]

I'm pretty sure that's the motto of the LGBT Pedo subculture.

[Eeyore]

Well - they can. They just don't have permission.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)]

Georgia is a really primitive state. We have too many Bible-Beaters here.

I have to use a London bookie and send them Bitcoin. If I had just held the Bitcoin instead of wagering I would be winning big.

[Don’t. Get. Eliminated.]

Nobody believes your bullshit.

[Don't look at me!]

I totally believe he lost his ass gambling.

[Incunabulum]

Yeah, no. Much in the same way no one could have marijuana in the 1990's - because it was illegal throughout the US?

What it means is that no one can make a massive company profiting off the misery of others addiction to gambling.

[charliehall]

Marijuana is still illegal everywhere in the US.

[JasonT20]

Wrong post

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Many years ago I had a friend who was of the Italian persuasion. Turns out he was an astute business man. Just as the liquor store owner recognizes the needs of the local alcoholics or the food truck operator feels the hunger of those deprived of cheap tasty chalupas, he discovered that a subset of the population had a need to wager on various sportsball competitions. Far from presenting as a latter day Raskolnikov, he was a dapper fellow often seen in the company of local judges and law enforcement officers at social occasions. His business thrived and he seemed poised to enjoy a comfortable retirement after handing over management to his capable sons. But alas. It was somehow discovered that his lifestyle expenses exceeded his declared income. An investigation ensued and he ultimately spent a few years in a federal facility at taxpayer expense. None of his customers or associates claimed any harm but as it turns out the federal government itself was the victim and a price had to be paid. The moral of course writes itself yet again. A man should never gamble more than he can afford to lose.

[JasonT20]

None of his customers or associates claimed any harm...

Right. Because what would have happened to them if they did?

This is why organized crime is always immoral. It doesn't matter how "victimless" the activities are. The whole enterprise is based on violence or the threat of violence. Loan sharks, bookies, pimps, drug dealers... They have no recourse in the courts if someone doesn't pay. They always have to worry that someone will "rat" them out to law enforcement. Thus, they have to make people at least think that they will hurt or kill them if they don't play along. Making those threats credible often means following through with them in visible ways to make an example.

[Roberta]

Great name for a gambling reporter, Luse.

[AT]

First world problems.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Newsflash - betting on sports is much much easier than buying weed when it was illegal

[charliehall]

Marijuana is still illegal everywhere in the US.

[charliehall]

The outcome of the 1919 World Series was fixed by gangsters who bet a lot of money on the outcome. With the rise of spots betting, history is sure to repeat. Major League Baseball has been corrupt for decades and is the most likely target.