ESPN's shifting line on college football betting information

George Schroeder | USA TODAY Sports

Show Caption Hide Caption Amway Coaches Poll: Ohio State still No. 1, new No. 2 Ohio State is No. 1 in the first regular season Amway Coaches Poll, but a new No. 2 has emerged.

In the fourth quarter of a blowout college football game last Friday night, the announcers threw the broadcast back to the ESPN studios for an important development, accompanied by a highlight. Western Michigan’s touchdown only pulled the Broncos within three scores of Michigan State, so it wasn’t exactly a game-changing play — unless, that is, someone was playing a different sort of game.

As theme music played and a small graphic appeared — “COVER ALERT” — here was anchor Adnan Virk’s report:

“That’s right, a ‘cover alert’! Eighteen and a half was the point spread in favor of the Spartans, but that’s Zach Terrell to Corey Davis, so now that’s making things interesting with regards to the line, 34-17.”

It was perhaps the first real evidence of what appears to be a fairly significant shift by ESPN. Along with “cover alerts,” the network’s coverage of college football’s first weekend included increased discussion of point spreads and even the “over-under,” or the total points expected to be scored in a game, as well as specific segments on various shows focused directly on betting. One of College GameDay's most popular moments is its pick segment. This season some picks are made against the spread.

College athletic administrators noticed. Several told USA TODAY Sports the shift is concerning.

“I don’t think those are things that ought to be a part of the presentation of college football, but maybe that’s the environment in which we find ourselves,” said Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby, adding that he was “quite sure that all of (the Big 12’s presidents and athletic directors) feel as I do that it’s inappropriate.”

There has always been tension between college sports officials and media outlets reporting on sports gambling. Like many other newspapers, USA TODAY publishes betting lines in print and online.

Adding to the unease is ESPN’s unique position in the college sports landscape and its business relationship with college sports. As the dominant TV partner among FBS-level conferences as well as the College Football Playoff, the network can sometimes drive the conversation in college sports, and sometimes even significant change.

As one example, there’s the release of the College Football Playoff selection committee’s Top 25 rankings on a weekly basis beginning at midseason — even though the committee insisted only the final rankings would matter. And those rankings were announced on Tuesday nights, a shift from the traditional Sunday release of the polls, in a transparent attempt to get away from the NFL’s dominance of Sundays (and Monday nights, as well).

ESPN’s 12-year deal with the College Football Playoff averages at least $470 million annually. In 2014, the first year of the deal, the Power Five conferences (the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) each drew a baseline amount of approximately $50 million.

That’s over and above the contracts ESPN has with each Power Five conference, as well as with Group of Five leagues. All told, ESPN pays more than $1 billion annually to televise college football. Paying that kind of money produces plenty of clout.

“Somebody might say, ‘We’re rights-holders to certain properties, we have the choice,’ ” Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said. “But this subject has been sensitive for so long, I’m really surprised it has risen to this level.”

ESPN declined to make any executives available for interviews. In a statement released through spokeswoman Keri Potts, the network indicated its shift was simply an acknowledgment of the growing interest in gambling on sports.

“Coverage of sports betting has been carefully considered over a long period of time,” the ESPN statement said. “We recognize that fans are increasingly interested in this conversation and that millions engage in legal sports betting. Our coverage has mirrored that larger trend in recent years and this is another step. We will approach this subject the way we do any beat we cover — providing information while examining trends, topics and stories that are shaping the wider conversation. Our mission is to serve fans and we believe this is consistent with that.”

Conversely, college administrators insist their mission is to serve student-athletes. Several athletic directors contacted by USA TODAY Sports were hesitant to speak on the record, given the business relationship with ESPN, but suggested the new emphasis would undermine the NCAA’s historic stance against gambling.

Arizona athletic director Greg Byrne, while noting his athletic department’s sponsorship deals with local casinos (which do not have sports books), said he’s concerned.

“Anytime there’s anything to do with sports gambling and college sports, understandably that will be something I would hope at some point will be discussed,” Byrne said.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey declined to discuss specific developments, saying he had spent the opening weekend either at games or traveling to them, and hadn’t seen much television coverage. But speaking generally of the trend toward acceptance of sports gambling, he referenced an opinion column published last November in The New York Times where NBA commissioner Adam Silver called for betting on professional sports to be legalized.

“There is an existing concern about the inexorable march toward gambling being more and more central to sport,” Sankey told USA TODAY Sports. “It has clearly gotten more momentum based on messaging out of the NBA last year. We have to be mindful of the realities of the culture developing around us.”

Though it appears on the surface to be unrelated, several athletic directors connected the apparent new emphasis on sports betting with ESPN’s business relationships with companies like DraftKings and FanDuel, daily online fantasy sports businesses that promise cash prizes to winners. Last spring, according to multiple reports, ESPN’s parent company, Walt Disney Co., agreed to invest $250 million in DraftKings, but then backed out, apparently because of concerns that the enterprise too closely resembled gambling. Although the deal never came to fruition, DraftKings is spending several hundred million dollars in advertising over the next two years with ESPN, according to Sports Business Journal.

Although the bulk of the fantasy sports business — traditional or the daily version — has been centered on professional sports, college football is a growing portion of the business. The idea that fantasy sports would use college players’ names and performances to determine winners and payouts concerns athletic directors. Among other reasons, they’re concerned college athletes might be enticed to play the daily games — perhaps choosing themselves.

“We’ve been wrestling with all the issues around DraftKings and FanDuel,” Bowlsby said, “which I don’t think anybody can suggest isn’t gambling.”

But that’s exactly what ESPN and businesses like DraftKings and FanDuel suggest. Bowlsby noted that the Big 12’s TV contracts prohibit advertisements for gambling, other than for state-authorized lotteries, “but our television partners assert that it (fantasy sports games) isn’t gambling.”

Through a spokesperson, the NCAA declined an interview request. The organization's "Don't bet on it" campaign is one of its most prominent messages, one that is geared toward preventing gambling by university athletic staff or athletes, as well as participation in fantasy sports leagues with monetary investment and prizes for winning.

It’s possible that fantasy college football and more overt references to gambling like “cover alerts” will just become an accepted part of the conversation about college sports. But the sudden shift, according to Castiglione and several other college officials, was jarring. Castiglione echoed other officials in saying he had heard ESPN would focus more on sports gambling, but didn’t quite understand what it would entail.

“I can’t speak for everybody, but I noticed it — and I’m concerned,” he said. “A lot of us had heard about the plans to talk a little bit more about it during telecasts, but we didn’t necessarily know what it really meant. When you see it, it sort of takes on a different meaning.”

GALLERY: SCENES OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL