Are colleges teaching athletes enough about gambling laws?
-
Paula Lavigne
Close
Paula Lavigne
ESPN Investigative Reporter
- Data analyst and reporter for ESPN’s Enterprise and Investigative Unit.
- Winner, 2014 Alfred I. duPont Columbia University Award; finalist, 2012 IRE broadcast award; winner, 2011 Gannett Foundation Award for Innovation in Watchdog Journalism; Emmy nominated, 2009.
-
Shwetha Surendran
Close
Shwetha Surendran
ESPN
- Shwetha Surendran is writer in ESPN’s investigative and enterprise unit.
THE SPREAD OF sports betting poses new legal risks for college athletes in states where gambling is allowed, but an ESPN analysis has found that most university athletic departments in those states typically don’t address the new legal pitfalls.
Using public records requested by the Student Press Law Center, ESPN reviewed sports-betting policies at 24 Power 5 public universities in states that had mobile sports betting by the end of 2023 and found that only four schools had policies that explicitly warn student-athletes of potential legal consequences.
While college athletes have long faced losing NCAA eligibility for betting on sports, the legal risks are new since the advent of legalized betting six years ago. State laws now often subject athletes to greater punishment — and may even criminalize — wagering by athletes.
It isn’t clear if the universities address the potential legal consequences at in-person sessions with athletes because 21 of the 24 schools contacted by ESPN declined to comment or did not respond to multiple emails asking about their educational efforts around gambling.
The apparent lack of information in policies could leave athletes unaware that engaging in the same betting activity as their non-athlete fellow students could leave them in a legal bind. A 2023 NCAA survey of 18- to 22-year-olds found that 58% have participated in at least one sports betting activity. Six percent said they had lost more than $500 on sports betting in a single day.
University of South Dakota football player Clayton Denker, a member of the school’s student-athlete advisory committee, said the athletic department emphasized the ban on sports gambling at the beginning of the school year and stressed that violations could bring “severe consequences” and a loss of eligibility.
However, Denker said, he had no idea that betting while a college athlete could be a felony in South Dakota.
“They should lead with that,” Denker told ESPN. “If [athletes] were to understand this affects the rest of my life, not just my sport, then I think they would take it more seriously.”
The issue of regulatory and criminal consequences has become more prominent in the past two years as athletes and coaches — to whom the ban and new laws also apply — from at least five schools in three states have been criminally charged.
“It seems to me to make sense that student-athletes are educated on their various state laws,” said Mark Hicks, the NCAA’s managing director of enforcement. He added that the job is better left to individual schools than to the NCAA, although the organization would support more consistency. “As much as we can advocate for consistent practices across state lines, that’s really helpful.”
A “majority” of the responsibility for educating athletes about state law does fall on the school, said John Carns, the senior associate athletic director for compliance at the University of Louisville.
“Student-athletes are only thinking about, probably their eligibility, but there are other legal consequences to it that they’re going to fall into,” he said. “And that’s not a great way to start your adult life.”
Any criminal conviction could have long-term repercussions for student-athletes, said Julie Sommer, executive director of The Drake Group, a nonprofit that advocates for reform in college sports. A conviction would possibly have to be disclosed to future employers or graduate schools and could affect future opportunities, such as taking the bar exam, she said.
“The penalties are really severe for college athletes, [such as] loss of scholarship,” Sommer said. “And the breaking of state and federal laws, that’s something that follows them for the rest of their lives.”
IN THE 38 states with legalized sports betting, all but two specifically restrict athletes from betting on sports, according to research compiled for this story by Legal Sports Report. Six states — Kentucky, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia — have “clear criminal penalties” when an athlete or other prohibited person places a bet, according to the research.
Among those states, the definition of crime varies.
In Tennessee, it’s a misdemeanor for any NCAA athlete to bet on sports. Virginia’s rule is specific to bets on “any event in a league in which such a person participates.” In South Dakota, it is a felony for athletes to bet on events in which they or their teams are participating.
Some of the Iowa State and University of Iowa athletes arrested in a state police investigation last year were reported to have bet on their own teams, as did New England Patriots wide receiver Kayshon Boutte, according to police. Boutte was charged earlier this year with felony computer fraud and misdemeanor underage gambling while a player at LSU.
In Kentucky, it is not only illegal for athletes to bet on events in which they participate, but it is also a misdemeanor for “spouses and close family members” to wager on those events.
Kentucky men’s basketball player Brennan Canada, a member of his school’s student-athlete advisory committee, said athletic department officials told athletes at the beginning of the year that gambling violates NCAA rules and state law. But he said he was not aware of the additional provision about family. When informed by ESPN, Canada laughed and said, “I’m an only child.”
The number of NCAA investigations into prohibited and underage betting has almost doubled each year: 15 in 2021, 30 in 2022, 50 in 2023. This year’s numbers follow a similar trend, according to Hicks. At least a third of college students nationwide are under the standard legal betting age of 21, according to federal education data, and athletes are more susceptible to charges of underage gambling because they are often under greater scrutiny and subject to more reporting requirements.
Legal experts have said that athletes — in part because they know they’re not supposed to be betting — are more likely to use someone else’s account or identity to access betting apps, which could make them subject to other fraud and identity crimes.
Former Iowa State running back Jirehl Brock faced records tampering charges last year after he allegedly used a betting app under someone else’s name. The charge, an aggravated misdemeanor, was later dropped. Brock admitted to placing the bets and said it was such a common activity it just seemed acceptable. He and a few other athletes arrested in Iowa said they didn’t grasp the possible criminal consequences.
“That’s how it plays out, it’s kind of a video game on your phone that you can possibly win money with,” Brock said.
ESPN’S REVIEW OF college sports betting policies comes from documents obtained by the Student Press Law Center, which sent records requests to 27 major-conference public universities in states that allowed mobile sports wagering as of the end of 2023. The SPLC requested copies of policies pertaining to sports wagering, agreements for integrity monitoring services and reports on proven or possible suspicious behavior or violations.
Michigan and Central Florida said they had “no responsive records,” including to the request for a copy of “any policy related to sports betting for student athletes.” UCF noted there was “no separate and distinct policy — other than following NCAA rules.” Michigan’s chief compliance officer did not respond to multiple emails and calls asking for clarification. Kansas State did not respond to the request, which was sent out in December. Ohio State and Arizona never produced records, and Oregon officials noted they needed more time to process the records.
The records provided showed that written policies vary greatly across schools. Some athletic departments borrow excerpts directly from a sports wagering booklet called “Don’t Bet On It” by the National Endowment for Financial Education and the NCAA. Others list the gambling rules under subsections like “Athletic Department rules and expectations for student-athletes,” and some create school-specific policies that lean heavily on the NCAA regulations. At Rutgers, gambling is listed under “social expectations” alongside several other bullet points on drugs, alcohol, social media, hazing and sexual misconduct. Rutgers said this was a standard team rules template used by coaches.
Some schools like Virginia Tech note that disciplinary actions for sports wagering violations can also come from “local, state, and/or federal prosecution.”
Derek Gwinn, the executive associate AD who oversees compliance for Virginia Tech, said that presentations to student-athletes often include examples of high-profile cases, such as the Iowa investigation. Gwinn said that as sports betting spreads, the education provided to the athletes has been “enhanced” to include repercussions for them and their eligibility.
“We emphasized the importance because it was so readily available to them now through mobile applications and things like that,” he said. “So, we just [say] ignore all the influence, and the commercials that you see constantly, and all the ads in your Twitter feeds, and things like that. So, just remember that it’s still prohibited, per NCAA rules.”
Gwinn said student-athletes occasionally ask which sports they are allowed to bet on, but the school’s message is clear: “Avoid it entirely.”
A senior Iowa athletic department official told ESPN they also focus on preventing sports wagering rather than emphasizing the penalties. The official said athletes receive NCAA compliance training at the start of the year and receive reminders around major events such as the Super Bowl and March Madness.
Virginia Tech is also one of only four schools, according to records, that have had direct agreements with monitoring companies such as U.S. Integrity since January 2019. Sixteen schools said that they have no direct contracts with any integrity monitors, and four referenced monitoring contracts at the conference level.
Monitoring agreements can include education and consulting services. LSU’s agreement with U.S. Integrity in 2023 gave “LSU Athletics staff and athletes education on inappropriate involvement in sports betting.”
Gwinn said that Virginia Tech’s integrity monitor provides perspective on how gambling incidents occur, a sense of wagering activity on Hokies games, and additional protection for student-athletes from social media harassment.
Sommer, the Seattle sports attorney, said athletes benefit when their schools receive direct information. “The more preventative and monitoring measures you take, the greater the chance of success and catching the bad actors, reducing the harms [for] the college athletes and the student population as well the integrity of the game.”
Clint Hangebrauck, the NCAA’s managing director of enterprise risk management, said while schools do a good job of informing athletic staff and athletes about the rules, the recent high-profile cases have prompted compliance staffs to think about better ways to educate. He cited the NCAA’s partnership with international advocacy group EPIC Risk Management, which brings in former problem gamblers to speak with athletes and staff.
“I do think there’s certainly an interest in growing what that looks like because it has become so prevalent in our society,” he said. “Student-athletes are coming into college, and many have engaged in betting in some form or fashion and so it’s entrenched. It’s an ongoing conversation on how best do we educate. I would imagine it’s going to get more and more robust as we go along.”
Denker, the South Dakota football player, said sharing examples of other violations, especially criminal cases, would help athletes.
“Our athletic department makes sure that they cover every topic at the beginning of the year,” he said. “I think that there hasn’t been enough of a crackdown or enforcement across the NCAA for this to be at the forefront of policies.”
ESPN Senior writer Adam Rittenberg, ESPN researcher John Mastroberardino and Student Press Law Center legal fellow Ellen Goodrich contributed to this story.
-
Bill Connelly
Almost no word in the English language makes a college football fan more defensive than the L-word: luck.
We weren’t lucky to have a great turnover margin — our coaches are just really good at emphasizing ball security! We’re tougher than everyone else — that’s why we recovered all those fumbles!
We weren’t lucky to win all those close games — we’re clutch! Our coaches know how to press all the right buttons! Our quarterback is a cool customer!
We weren’t lucky to have fewer injuries than everyone else — our strength-and-conditioning coach is the best in America! And again: We’re just tougher!
As loath as we may be to admit it, a large percentage of a given college football season — with its small overall sample of games — is determined by the bounce of a pointy ball, the bend of a ligament and the whims of fate. Certain teams will end up with an unsustainably good turnover margin that turns on them the next year. Certain teams (often the same ones) will enjoy a great run of close-game fortune based on some combination of great coaching, sturdy quarterback play, timely special teams contributions … and massive amounts of unsustainable randomness. Certain teams will keep their starting lineups mostly intact for 12 or more games while another is watching its depth chart change dramatically on a week-to-week basis.
As we prepare for the 2025 college football season, it’s worth stepping back and looking at who did, and didn’t, get the bounces in 2024. Just because Lady Luck was (or wasn’t) on your side one year, doesn’t automatically mean your fortunes will flip the next, but that’s often how these things go. Be it turnovers, close-game fortune or injuries, let’s talk about the teams that were dealt the best and worst hands last fall.
Jump to a section:
Turnover luck | Close games luck
Injuries and general shuffling | Turnaround candidates
Turnover luck
In last year’s ACC championship game, Clemson bolted to a 24-7 halftime lead, then white-knuckled it to the finish. SMU came back to tie the score at 31 with only 16 seconds left, but Nolan Hauser‘s 56-yard field goal at the buzzer gave the Tigers a 34-31 victory and a spot in 2024’s College Football Playoff at Alabama’s expense.
In the first series of the game, Clemson’s T.J. Parker pulled a perfect sack-and-strip of SMU QB Kevin Jennings, forcing and falling on a loose ball at the SMU 33-yard line. Clemson scored two plays later to take a 7-0 lead. Late in the first quarter, Khalil Barnes picked off a Jennings pass near midfield, ending what could have become a scoring threat with one more first down. A few minutes later, Clemson’s Cade Klubnik fumbled at the end of a 14-yard gain, but tight end Jake Briningstool recovered it at midfield, preventing another potential scoring threat from developing. (Klubnik fumbled seven times in the 2024 season but lost only one of them.)
Early in the third quarter, after SMU cut Clemson’s lead to 24-14, David Eziomume fumbled the ensuing kickoff at the Clemson 6, but teammate Keith Adams Jr. recovered it right before two SMU players pounced.
Over 60 minutes, both teams fumbled twice, and Clemson defended (intercepted or broke up) eight passes to SMU’s seven. On average, 50% of fumbles are lost and about 21% of passes defended become INTs, so Clemson’s expected turnover margin in this game was plus-0.2 (because of the extra pass defended). The Tigers’ actual turnover margin was plus-2, a difference of 1.8 turnovers in a game they barely won.
Clemson was obviously a solid team in 2024, but the Tigers probably wouldn’t have reached the CFP without turnovers luck. For the season, they fumbled 16 times but lost only three, and comparing their expected (based on the averages above) and actual turnover margins, almost no one benefited more from the randomness of a bouncing ball.
It probably isn’t a surprise to see that, of last year’s 12 playoff teams, eight benefited from positive turnovers luck, and six were at plus-3.3 or higher. You’ve got to be lucky and good to win, right?
You aren’t often lucky for two straight years, though. It might be noteworthy to point out that, of the teams in Mark Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early 2025 rankings, five were in the top 20 in terms of turnovers luck: No. 5 Georgia, No. 7 Clemson, No. 9 BYU, No. 11 Iowa State and No. 17 Indiana (plus two others from his Teams Also Considered list: Army and Baylor).
It’s also noteworthy to point out that three teams on Schlabach’s list — No. 6 Oregon, No. 8 LSU and No. 15 SMU — ranked in the triple-digits in terms of turnovers luck. Oregon started the season 13-0 without the benefit of bounces. For that matter, Auburn, a team on the Also Considered list, ranked 125th in turnovers luck in a season that saw the Tigers go just 1-3 in one-score finishes. There might not have been a more what-could-have-been team in the country than Hugh Freeze’s Tigers.
Close games
One of my favorite tools in my statistical toolbox is what I call postgame win expectancy. The idea is to take all of a game’s key, predictive stats — all the things that end up feeding into my SP+ rankings — and basically toss them into the air and say, “With these stats, you could have expected to win this game X% of the time.”
Alabama‘s 40-35 loss to Vanderbilt on Oct. 5 was one of the most impactful results of the CFP race. It was also one of the least likely results of the season in terms of postgame win expectancy. Bama averaged 8.8 yards per play to Vandy’s 5.6, generated a 56% success rate* to Vandy’s 43% and scored touchdowns on all four of its trips into the red zone. It’s really hard to lose when you do all of that — in fact, the Crimson Tide’s postgame win expectancy was a whopping 98.5%. (You can see all postgame win expectancy data here)
(* Success rate: how frequently an offense is gaining at least 50% of necessary yardage on first down, 70% on second and 100% on third and fourth. It is one of the more reliable and predictive stats you’ll find, and it’s a big part of SP+.)
Vandy managed to overcome these stats in part because of two of the most perfect bounces you’ll ever see. In the first, Jalen Milroe had a pass batted at the line, and it deflected high into the air and, eventually, into the arms of Randon Fontenette, who caught it on the run and raced 29 yards for a touchdown and an early 13-0 lead.
In the second half, with Bama driving to potentially take the lead, Miles Capers sacked Milroe and forced a fumble; the ball sat on the ground for what felt like an eternity before Yilanan Ouattara outwrestled a Bama lineman for it. Instead of trailing, Vandy took over near midfield and scored seven plays later. It took turnovers luck and unlikely key-play execution — despite a 43% success rate, Diego Pavia and the Commodores went 12-for-18 on third down and 1-for-1 on fourth — for Vandy to turn a 1.5% postgame win expectancy into a victory. It also wasn’t Alabama’s only incredibly unlikely loss: The Tide were at 87.8% to beat Michigan in the ReliaQuest Bowl but fell 19-13.
(Ole Miss can feel the Tide’s pain: The Rebels were at 76.0% postgame win expectancy against Kentucky and 73.7% against Florida. There was only a 6% chance that they would lose both games, and even going 1-1 would have likely landed them a CFP bid. They lost both.)
Adding up each game’s postgame win expectancy is a nice way of seeing how many games a team should have won on average. I call this a team’s second-order win total. Alabama was at 10.7 second-order wins but went 9-4. That was one of the biggest differences of the season. Somehow, however, Iron Bowl rival Auburn was even more unfortunate.
Based solely on stats, Arkansas State should have won about four games, and Auburn should have won about eight. Instead, the Red Wolves went 8-5 and the Tigers went 5-7.
Comparing win totals to these second-order wins is one of the surest ways of identifying potential turnaround stories for the following season. In 2023, 15 teams had second-order win totals at least one game higher than their actual win totals — meaning they suffered from poor close-game fortune. Ten of those 15 teams saw their win totals increase by at least two games in 2024, including East Carolina (from 2-10 to 8-5), TCU (5-7 to 9-4), Pitt (3-9 to 7-6), Boise State (8-6 to 12-2) and Louisiana (6-7 to 10-4). On average, these 15 teams improved by 1.9 wins.
On the flip side, 19 teams overachieved their second-order win totals by at least 1.0 wins in 2023. This list includes both of 2023’s national title game participants, Washington and Michigan. The Huskies and Wolverines sank from a combined 29-1 in 2023 to 14-12 in 2024, and it could have been even worse. Michigan overachieved again, going 8-5 despite a second-order win total of 6.0. Other 2023 overachievers weren’t so lucky. Oklahoma State (from 10-4 to 3-9), Wyoming (from 9-4 to 3-9), Northwestern (from 8-5 to 4-8) and NC State (from 9-4 to 6-7) all won more games than the stats expected in 2023, and all of them crumpled to some degree in 2024. On average, the 19 overachieving teams regressed by 1.9 wins last fall.
It’s worth keeping in mind that several teams in Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early Top 25 — including No. 6 Oregon, No. 8 LSU, No. 11 Iowa State, No. 13 Illinois and, yes, No. 21 Michigan — all exceeded statistical expectations in wins last season, as did Also Considered teams like Army, Duke, Missouri and Texas Tech. The fact that Oregon and LSU overachieved while suffering from poor turnovers luck is (admittedly) rather unlikely and paints a conflicting picture.
Meanwhile, one should note that three Way-Too-Early teams — No. 12 Alabama, No. 23 Miami and No. 25 Ole Miss (plus Washington and, of course, Auburn from the Also Considered list) — all lost more games than expected last season. With just a little bit of good fortune, they could prove to be awfully underrated.
Injuries and general shuffling
Injuries are hard to define in college football — coaches are frequently canny in the information they do and do not provide, and with so many teams in FBS, it’s impossible to derive accurate data regarding how many games were missed due to injury.
We can glean quite a bit from starting lineups, however. Teams with lineups that barely changed throughout the season were probably pretty happy with their overall results, while teams with ever-changing lineups likely succumbed to lots of losses. Below, I’ve ranked teams using a simple ratio: I compared (a) the number of players who either started every game or started all but one for a given team to (b) the number of players who started only one or two games, likely as a stopgap. If you had far more of the former, your team likely avoided major injury issues and, with a couple of major exceptions, thrived. If you had more of the latter, the negative effects were probably pretty obvious.
Despite the presence of 1-11 Purdue and 2-10 Kennesaw State near the top of the list — Purdue fielded one of the worst power conference teams in recent memory and barely could blame injury for its issues — you can still see a decent correlation between a positive ratio and positive results. The six teams with a ratio of at least 2.8 or above went a combined 62-22 in 2024, while the teams with a 0.5 ratio or worse went 31-56.
Seven of nine conference champions had a ratio of at least 1.3, and 11 of the 12 CFP teams were at 1.44 or higher (five were at 2.6 or higher). Indiana, the most shocking of CFP teams, was second on the list above; epic disappointments like Oklahoma and, especially, Florida State were near the bottom. (The fact that Georgia won the SEC and reached the CFP despite a pretty terrible injury ratio speaks volumes about the depth Kirby Smart has built in Athens. Of course, the Dawgs also enjoyed solid turnovers luck.)
Major turnaround candidates
It’s fair to use this information as a reason for skepticism about teams like Indiana (turnovers luck and injuries luck), Clemson (turnovers luck), Iowa State (close-games luck), Penn State (injuries luck) or Sam Houston (all of the above, plus a coaching change), but let’s end on an optimistic note instead. Here are five teams that could pretty easily enjoy a big turnaround if Lady Luck is a little kinder.
Auburn Tigers: Auburn enjoyed a better success rate than its opponents (44.7% to 38.5%) and made more big plays as well (8.9% of plays gained 20-plus yards versus 5.7% for opponents). That makes it awfully hard to lose! But the Tigers made exactly the mistake they couldn’t make and managed to lose games with 94%, 76% and 61% postgame win expectancy. There’s nothing saying this was all bad luck, but even with a modest turnaround in fortune, the Tigers will have a very high ceiling in 2025.
Florida Gators: The Gators improved from 41st to 20th in SP+ and from 5-7 to 8-5 overall despite starting three quarterbacks and 12 different DBs and ranking 132nd on the list above. That says pretty spectacular things about their overall upside, especially considering their improved experience levels on the O-line, in the secondary and the general optimism about sophomore quarterback DJ Lagway.
Florida Atlantic Owls: Only one team ranked 111th or worse in all three of the tables above — turnovers luck (111th), second-order win difference (121st) and injury ratio (131st). You could use this information to make the case that the Owls shouldn’t have fired head coach Tom Herman, or you could simply say that new head coach Zach Kittley is pretty well-positioned to get some bounces and hit the ground running.
Florida State Seminoles: There was evidently plenty of poor fortune to go around in the Sunshine State last season, and while Mike Norvell’s Seminoles suffered an epic hangover on the field, they also didn’t get a single bounce: They were 129th in turnovers luck, 99th in second-order win difference and 110th in injury ratio. Norvell has brought in new coordinators and plenty of new players, and the Noles are almost guaranteed to jump up from 2-10. With a little luck, that jump could be a pretty big one.
Utah Utes: Along with UCF, Utah was one of only two teams to start four different quarterbacks in 2024. The Utes were also among only four teams to start at least 11 different receivers or tight ends and among five teams to start at least nine defensive linemen. If you’re looking for an easy explanation for how they fell from 65th to 96th in offensive SP+ and from 8-5 to 5-7 overall, that’s pretty succinct and telling.
-
Dan Wetzel
It once seemed improbable that the most compelling figure of the college football offseason would be Bill Belichick’s 24-year-old girlfriend, but somehow, here we are.
Jordon Hudson’s spot in Belichick’s life has always been a public talking point. After all, they started dating two years ago, when Belichick was 71. Of late, though, she’s become an obsession.
Belichick is arguably the greatest coach in the history of the sport, winner of six Super Bowls leading the New England Patriots. His jump to the college ranks and the University of North Carolina is, for purely football reasons, of great intrigue.
Would this work? Could this work?
Currently though, the focus is on Hudson, who takes an active role in managing Belichick’s affairs, including running point on publicity for his new book, “The Art of Winning: Lessons from My Life in Football.”
That includes a viral clip from a “CBS Sunday Morning” interview when Hudson shut down a question about how the two met and was deemed a “constant presence.” That led to all sorts of attention on the relationship, not to mention Belichick’s acuity and Hudson’s recent real estate holdings. Former Patriots great Ted Johnson even told WEEI radio in Boston that “the Tar Heels should consider firing Bill Belichick.”
A few days into this modern controversy, where a social media clip redefines someone with decades in the public eye, can we all settle down for a moment?
As with any relationship, only Belichick and Hudson are privy to what is transpiring between them. But as sensationalistic as all the TikTok comments and website stories currently are, when it comes to actually coaching a football team, let’s settle back on one undeniable truth.
This is Bill Belichick.
Sure, the current attention can be fairly labeled as the kind of “distraction” that might personally crush and professionally derail most people. Belichick is not most people.
“Never been too worried about what everyone else thinks,” Belichick told CBS.
If you allow his history — a lesson from his life in football, if you will — to inform, then you would know that there has rarely, if ever, been any personal feud, situation, tabloid headline or bit of accusational strife that has derailed the man’s single-minded focus on winning.
Belichick doesn’t just thrive in the briar patch of controversy — he seems to prefer it. The more external noise, the better.
A former player standing trial for murder? Win the Super Bowl.
Accused of illegally videotaping opponents? Post a 16-0 season.
A star quarterback alleged to have cheated to win the AFC Championship Game by deflating footballs? Name-drop “My Cousin Vinny” in a news conference, then win the Super Bowl.
Have the team get fined and stripped of a first-round draft pick and the quarterback suspended for the start of the season? Win another Super Bowl.
Maybe this isn’t what he was expecting from the book release, but let’s be clear, he was expecting to create a major media stir.
Belichick is famously passive-aggressive. When he never once mentioned Patriots owner Robert Kraft in his memoir — not even in the acknowledgments — he did so expecting a commotion. This was likely to make it clear that Belichick believed the Patriots’ success during their 24 years together was more based on the coaches and players than the very front-facing owner who, depending whose version you believe, fired Belichick in January 2024.
This was throwing red meat to the sports media machine. It just turned out that the Hudson situation represented even more red meat to the far larger American pop culture/social media machine.
Belichick might not have seen this coming, but this is how he has always operated. He welcomes speculation and even being painted as the villain. Even his closest confidants, from Bill Parcells to Tom Brady, often wind up in prolonged, public ice-outs. There are the endless scraps with the media, the league office, officials or other coaches.
The public questioning his actions and motivation? Please.
Consider that back nearly two decades ago, the NFL made a deal with Reebok for its coaches to wear approved clothes. Belichick bristled at being told what to wear. In an act of fashion defiance, both Patriots and Belichick sources say, he took a plain gray sweatshirt and cut off the sleeves to make it ugly. (It inadvertently became a huge seller, labeled the “BB Hoodie” in the Patriots Pro Shop.)
Or when, in an effort to protest the NFL making teams categorize player injuries — doubtful, questionable, etc. — Belichick began listing Brady as “probable” on the report with a shoulder injury week after week for years despite there being no known injury. Brady would just laugh when asked about it.
Or when he thought the NFL was getting too commercialized, so he refused to have his name used by EA Sports in the Madden video game — “NE Coach” was all that was listed — even though he would make money for literally doing nothing.
Or maybe consider in 2000, when he reversed course on accepting the head coaching job with the New York Jets. Rather than get all apologetic, he handwrote a note that read: “I resign as HC of the NYJ.”
He loves this stuff. Like many highly competitive people, finding an enemy, or some doubt, or some negative opinion about him seemingly feeds him. It certainly doesn’t cause him to wilt.
The current kerfuffle isn’t much different from past ones. He’s been through divorce, and his dating life was even fodder for the New York tabloids. It didn’t matter. He just kept winning.
All of that makes it unlikely that Hudson is somehow bossing Belichick around — or that she would even want to. This is just BB.
Whatever happens with the couple — we wish them the best — is one thing, but anyone who thinks Belichick is somehow incapable of weathering some gossip or jokes, or won’t be laser-focused on coaching, teaching and preparing his players, hasn’t been paying attention.
Here’s guessing Belichick will be fine. He always has been.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway