How States Restrict College Betting and Player Props

Whether a state allows wagers on college games, or on one college player’s statistics, depends on that state’s own law. As of October 2026, New Jersey and New York each bar wagers tied to their own colleges, and Ohio has prohibited player-specific prop bets on NCAA-governed competitions since February 23, 2024. A prop bet (short for proposition bet) is a wager on something other than the final result of a game, such as one athlete’s individual statistics.

These three jurisdictions reach their limits through three different legal tools: a clause in a state constitution, a regulator’s list of prohibited events, and a regulator’s decision on a sports governing body’s request. Each tool is created and changed in a different way, which affects how permanent the restriction is. This article explains each one using official state sources, states what is pending as of October 2026, and notes where the sources leave questions open. It describes the law and does not apply it to any reader’s situation.

Why Each State Sets Its Own College Betting Limits

For decades, a federal statute limited what states could authorize. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) made it unlawful for states to authorize sports gambling schemes, and on May 14, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Murphy v. NCAA that PASPA’s anti-authorization provision violated the anticommandeering rule, which bars Congress from directly ordering state governments. The Court’s syllabus also notes that PASPA did not itself make sports gambling a federal crime.

That decision returned the question to the states, which is why college betting rules differ so much from one state to the next. The case itself involved a New Jersey law that repealed state prohibitions only for wagers not involving a New Jersey college team or a collegiate event taking place in the state, according to the Court’s syllabus. In other words, the college carve-out was part of the first post-PASPA experiment. For the wider legal history, see how states legalized sports betting after Murphy v. NCAA.

Two features of state law explain the variety. First, a state decides which events appear on its betting menu, usually through a gaming regulator. Second, some states fixed college limits in a constitution or statute, which a regulator cannot change alone. A limit in a constitution is the hardest to change: the Legislature’s text of New Jersey’s pending ACR26 provides that an amendment, once agreed to, is submitted to the people at a general election.

A third actor also matters: sports governing bodies such as the NCAA. Some states give leagues a formal way to ask regulators to restrict particular wagers, which is how the Ohio and New York processes below work. The limits described in this article come from state constitutions, state regulators and state rules.

What Each State’s Rules Say

New Jersey: a constitutional limit

New Jersey’s limit sits in the state constitution itself (Article IV, Section VII, paragraph 2). The Legislature’s text of a pending amendment shows the current wording that it would delete: “wagering shall not be permitted on a college sport or athletic event that takes place in New Jersey or on a sport or athletic event in which any New Jersey college team participates regardless of where the event takes place”. Voters were asked to remove the restriction on November 2, 2021 (Public Question 1), and according to Ballotpedia the measure was defeated, with about 57 percent voting no.

New York: a prohibited-events list

New York’s Gaming Commission publishes the rule on its sports wagering page. Under the heading Prohibited Events, it states: “Wagers cannot be placed on any sport or athletic event in which any New York college team participates, regardless of where the event takes place, or high school sport or athletic event.” The same page explains that the Commission controls the wagering menu offered by licensed operators and limits which sports and leagues are accepted. For context on the state’s wider framework, see New York’s broader gambling framework.

The Commission’s page also addresses prop bets. It says wagers based on an official statistic with no negative implication are generally acceptable, while wagers with a negative implication that a single player can control receive further scrutiny and may be rejected. That is a case-by-case standard, not a ban on college player props.

Ohio: a ban on college player props

Ohio law lets its Casino Control Commission restrict particular wagers, independently or at the request of a sports governing body (R.C. 3775.02(C)). The NCAA made such a request, and on February 23, 2024, the Executive Director approved it. Ohio prohibits player-specific prop bets on NCAA-governed events, as of its February 23, 2024 decision; the decision’s own wording is that it approved the request to “prohibit player-specific prop bets on intercollegiate athletics competitions”. Team-level props remain allowed only if, historically, at least two players determined the statistic in over 50 percent of outcomes.

How These Restrictions Work in Practice

In each state, the practical effect runs through the licensed operator’s betting menu. A licensed operator can only offer what the regulator has approved, so a prohibited event or wager type simply does not appear on the menu of a compliant operator. Ohio’s rule on sporting events and wager types says operators must not offer wagering on any event or wager type missing from the approved catalogue (Ohio Adm.Code 3775-11-01(A)).

Enforcement follows from licensing. Ohio’s decision gave operators until March 1, 2024 to implement the restriction and void affected wagers on incomplete events, and it said non-compliance with the catalogue criteria may lead to administrative action. Operators must keep an auditable record of how they decided which team props qualify.

A hypothetical shows how the mechanics work in general. Suppose a regulator lists college player props as prohibited and an operator’s menu still carried one. That would be a compliance question between the operator and the regulator, handled through the license. It is described here only as an illustration of the structure, not as a prediction about any real case, and it is not advice to any reader.

The decision’s stated reasons are also part of the legal record. It cited harassment of student athletes, the risk of insider information being solicited, and the possibility of “spot fixing” as grounds for finding good cause, and it acknowledged a small negative effect on operator and tax revenue.

What Is Changing and What Is Still Open

As of October 2026, the main pending item is New Jersey’s ACR26, a concurrent resolution proposing to amend the state constitution to permit college wagering through casinos and current or former racetracks. According to the Legislature’s bill page, it was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Tourism, Gaming and the Arts Committee. A proposal like this is not law; for the general path, see how a gambling bill becomes law.

The table is as of October 2026. Open questions remain: the sources reviewed do not show how many other states have adopted comparable college prop limits, so this article does not state a national count. Any such figure would need to be confirmed state by state, using each regulator’s own catalogue.

The debate itself has two sides. The NCAA and Ohio’s regulator argued that player props raise integrity and harassment risks, while operators submitted information to the Commission, and the decision records that it weighed their input along with the revenue effect.

Common Misconceptions About College Betting Rules

Misconception: Federal law sets the college betting rules. That is not what the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision did. It held that Congress could not order states not to authorize sports wagering, which left the menu to each state. As of October 2026, the limits described above come from state law and state regulators.

Misconception: Legal sports betting means every game and wager type is available. In the states discussed here, regulators control the menu. New York’s Commission says it limits the sports and leagues accepted, and Ohio’s rule bars operators from offering anything outside the approved catalogue.

Misconception: A state that restricts in-state teams bans all college betting. New Jersey’s clause and New York’s prohibited-events rule are tied to events in the state or to the state’s own college teams, according to the texts quoted above. They do not, on their face, bar every wager on every college event nationwide.

Misconception: A prop-bet ban applies to all sports. Ohio’s decision concerns events governed by the NCAA, so it addresses college competitions, not professional ones.

Where to Find the Official Rules

Because these rules sit with state regulators, the regulator’s own catalogue or prohibited-events page is the authoritative source. Ohio publishes an approved catalogue of sporting events and wager types, and New York publishes its prohibited events on the Gaming Commission’s sports wagering page. Legislatures publish constitutional text and pending resolutions, as New Jersey’s does for ACR26.

Rules and catalogues change, sometimes by a regulator’s decision rather than by a new law, so a dated page is more reliable than an undated summary. For the general method of confirming an operator’s license status on a regulator’s own site, see how to check whether an online sportsbook is licensed.

Anyone with a question about how these rules apply to their own situation should consult a licensed attorney in their state.

Related Laws and Next Steps

College wagering rules are one layer of the larger post-Murphy framework. The licensing and tax choices each state makes are covered in the article on how states legalized sports betting after Murphy v. NCAA, while the federal statute that separately addresses certain interstate transmissions is explained in what the Wire Act covers.

Readers following the policy side can look at the steps a measure like ACR26 must clear, outlined in the article on how a gambling bill becomes law. As new state decisions are published, the as-of dates in these articles will be updated to match the official record.

Sources & References

• Supreme Court of the United States — Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476 (May 14, 2018), syllabus
• New Jersey Legislature — Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26 (2026), text
• New Jersey Legislature — ACR26 bill page (Session 2026-2027)
• New Jersey Division of Elections — 2021 Certification of Public Questions (Public Question No. 1)
• Ballotpedia — New Jersey Public Question 1, Sports Betting on State College Athletics Amendment (2021)
• New York State Gaming Commission — Sports Wagering
• Ohio Laws — Revised Code Section 3775.02, Regulation by Ohio casino control commission
• Ohio Laws — Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3775-11-01, Sporting events and wager types
• Ohio Casino Control Commission — Response to the NCAA regarding proposition wagers on student athletes (February 23, 2024)