The NCAA has finally announced new guidelines for reinstatement for student-athletes involved in wagering on teams at their school. Unfortunately, in an about-face from proposed changes in October, the new guidelines will not return currently-suspended Iowa senior defensive tackle Noah Shannon to the field of competition.
Effective immediately, reinstatement guidelines for student-athletes who wager on teams at their school — excluding their own team — will start at requiring one season of ineligibility and a loss of one year of eligibility. Student-athletes will also be required to participate in sports wagering rules and prevention education as a condition of reinstatement. Previous guidelines, as approved in June, prescribed permanent ineligibility for those cases. The adjusted guidelines may be applied to cases in which student-athletes are currently serving suspensions related to wagering on a different team at their own school that were reported on or after May 2, 2023.
The previous punishment for student-athletes charged with wagering on teams (other than their own) at their own school was permanent loss of eligibility; now it will be one year of eligibility. That's little comfort to Shannon, who had just one year of eligibility remaining after returning to Iowa for his sixth and final season back in January.
Shannon had returned to practice during the rule review process, and coaches and teammates were raving about his performance as he awaited the final word — though head football coach Kirk Ferentz had already begun throwing water on the fire.
"None of us are getting our hopes up too high based on the way things go with the NCAA," Ferentz said Tuesday. "It would be great to get him back. He's a tremendous young person. He started practicing here a couple weeks ago, looks great. It would be great."
The updated guidelines mark (for now) the end of a saga that has cost Shannon his final year at Iowa and put the actions of student-athletes at Iowa and Iowa State under a microscope as a result of an investigation by the state of Iowa in sports-wagering — an investigation that has not been duplicated by any other state in the country.
The newly-announced guidelines are significantly stricter than what was being discussed by the NCAA around reform to the reinstatement guidelines a month ago:
Draft concepts under consideration include:
* On a first offense, eliminate penalties that result in student-athletes being withheld from competition — regardless of the dollar value of the wagers and including bets placed on other sports at a student-athlete's school — and require education on sports wagering rules and prevention.
* On a second offense, potentially involve withholding penalties, depending on the dollar value of the bet(s) in question.
* On a third or subsequent offense, resulting penalty could be a loss of one full season of eligibility.
Those guidelines suggested the elimination of penalties that result in a loss of eligibility or being withheld from competition on a first offense. A second offense might "potentially involve withholding penalties," depending on the amount of the bets involved.
However, it seems likely that those "withholding penalties" would involve only the loss of a few games rather than the entire season, given that the guidance for third and subsequent offenses specifically calls out "loss of one full season of eligibility" as a penalty.
In the span of a month, NCAA rulemakers went from thinking that a year-long suspension might only be warranted in the case of 3+ sports-wagering violations to deciding that a single violation was sufficient for loss of an entire year of eligibility. The newly-announced reinstatement guidelines did not indicate why the previously-discussed draft guidelines were cast aside.
In October, the NCAA offered this rationale for why it made sense to overhaul the current reinstatement guidelines around sports-wagering infractions: "The commissioners and the council underscored a desire to re-center student-athlete health and well-being as a primary focus and prioritize treatment and education over sanctions when integrity of competition is not in question, particularly in the rapidly evolving wagering landscape in which online gambling is prevalent." (emphasis added)
Just a month later, those stated beliefs evidently no longer hold merit. The newly-announced reinstatement guidelines firmly prioritize sanctions over treatment and education, albeit with sanctions that are not quite as harsh as the previous sanctions. The idea that a year-long suspension reflects any desire to "re-center student-athlete health and well-being as a primary focus" is too absurd to even contemplate.
The NCAA's newly-announced reinstatement guidelines will apply to all student-athletes impacted by the state of Iowa's sports-wagering investigation. In addition to Shannon, several members of Iowa men's wrestling team were also involved in that investigation and will now be subject to one-year suspensions.
In a statement to Chad Leistikow of The Des Moines Register, Iowa assistant coach Terry Brands identified Cobe Siebrecht (157 pounds), Nelson Brands (174), Abe Assad (184), and Tony Cassioppi as four wrestlers involved in the investigation and facing year-long suspensions. Those year-long suspensions could effectively end their careers as many of them, like Shannon, were in their final year of eligibility. Brands criticized the unequal penalty being applied by the NCAA and called for "logic to prevail."
We'll continue to provide any further updates on this story as they become available.
UPDATE, 8:40 PM: Kirk Ferentz has released a statement via the UI on the NCAA's decision:
“I am heartbroken for Noah (Shannon) and his family that the NCAA has come to this conclusion. Noah did not break any laws. He did not commit any crimes. And yet he is being severely over-punished by a membership committee that refuses to see perspective or use common sense. I have said many times that I think it is peculiar that the state of Iowa is uniquely the focus of this investigation. Noah is being sidelined because the NCAA is ruling on an investigation that they did not instigate, using an uneven system of justice to severely punish an excellent young man. It is just wrong.”
Ferentz also appeared on the weekly Hawk Talk broadcast on Wednesday evening, addressing the Shannon situation starting at the 46:00 mark of the video below:
