College basketball player admits to purposely missing shots as part of sports betting scheme

Charlotte Capewell

18 November 2025 at 6:55am UTC-5

Source: Shutterstock

Email, LinkedIn, and more

Cedquavious ‘Dae Dae’ Hunter, a former guard for the University of New Orleans, has admitted that he participated in a point-shaving scheme during the 2024–25 season.

Along with Hunter, two other University of New Orleans players, Dyquavian Short and Jamond Vincent, have been accused by the NCAA of purposely throwing games to lose by more than the point spread, according to the Associated Press.

Article continues below ad

Speaking on Good Morning America, Hunter recounted a time when he and two teammates were approached by an unnamed bettor based in Las Vegas. He said he would sometimes make a few shots, but then intentionally miss, to influence the point spread.

In his interview, Hunter stated that he felt compelled to participate in the scheme to provide for his unborn child. “I did go out there and not do my best: basically, shooting the ball and not actually trying to make it. I just had a child. The school wasn’t paying me, so I was trying to get money to actually take care of my child.”

Hunter, Short, and Vincent are among six players who have seen their eligibility to play college basketball revoked by the NCAA.

Article continues below ad

An investigation was sparked in October after sportsbooks flagged suspicious bets tied to a gambling syndicate that was targeting NCAA basketball.

Arizona State’s Chatton ‘BJ’ Freeman, Mississippi Valley State’s Donovan Sanders, and Alvin Stredic have also been accused of altering their performances to influence betting lines.

Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.

View Charlotte Capewell's bio and articles.

Locations:

Verticals:

Sports Betting

Sectors:

Topics:

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

What set this off in New Orleans

The warning signs appeared long before public admissions. On Jan. 27, four New Orleans Privateers were abruptly removed from competition for violating team rules, a move that later intersected with concerns about gambling activity. ESPN first surfaced the suspensions of James White, Jah Short, Dae Dae Hunter and Jamond Vincent, all top scorers, as the NCAA looked into possible rules breaches. The school did not immediately tie the decision to betting, but the timing and scope underscored a shifting landscape in college sports compliance. The episode, detailed in a report on New Orleans players suspended amid suspected online gambling violations, foreshadowed wider scrutiny. It also reflected the NCAA’s zero tolerance policy that bars student-athletes, coaches and staff from wagering on any collegiate contests or sharing inside information.

The New Orleans case did not occur in a vacuum. By late winter, the trickle of suspicious betting reports had become a steady stream flagged by sportsbooks and integrity monitors across multiple conferences. Investigators were tracking patterns that pointed to organized bettors testing the edges of a rapidly expanding legal market. That broader context helps explain why early, vague suspensions often precede later, more precise allegations and discipline.

Probe widens beyond one team

Within days of the Privateers’ suspensions, a parallel inquiry was unfolding 2,000 miles away. Fresno State men’s basketball withheld players as it probed alleged violations of NCAA betting rules, later focusing on accusations that two athletes wagered on games in which they played. According to reporting on the Fresno State betting investigation, junior forward Mykell Robinson was removed from the team while Jalen Weaver and Zaon Collins were suspended pending eligibility reviews. The case stood out because it involved alleged bets on a team’s underperformance in points and rebounds, a scenario that raises integrity risks for both game outcomes and in-game markets.

Fresno State’s head coach alerted administrators after learning of possible gambling activity, triggering an internal review and NCAA involvement. That sequence shows how compliance protocols now rely on early detection, data sharing with books and integrity firms, and swift sidelining of implicated players. It also illustrates how different fact patterns — betting on one’s own team, performance-based wagers, or information sharing — can intersect with evolving college and state regulations.

Federal lens turns to gambling rings and props

Federal investigators were already tracing a suspected NBA-linked gambling ring that placed illegal wagers across professional and collegiate events. As the inquiry widened, it swept in at least three men’s programs this season. Accounts tied to the ring reportedly placed large prop bets involving NBA players and wagered against Eastern Michigan, Mississippi Valley State and North Carolina A&T. Three A&T players were later suspended indefinitely for violating team rules, though no official link to betting allegations was disclosed. The broader federal effort, outlined in coverage of the NBA gambling ring investigation touching college games, underscores how player-specific markets can be targeted for manipulation or insider exploitation.

The NCAA stresses it works with integrity monitoring services and state regulators to evaluate suspicious reports. The mix of legal and illegal activity complicates enforcement. Regulated sportsbooks flag anomalies, but illicit channels can still route wagers that evade standard controls. When both spheres converge, as alleged in the NBA-centric ring, college athletes become high-risk targets because they live in smaller media markets and often have fewer financial safeguards than pros.

Policy whiplash reshapes the rulebook

Policymakers are trying to close some avenues. New Jersey advanced a ban on college player props, with SB 3080 moving through a Senate committee without opposition. Sponsors framed the measure as a response to athlete harassment and integrity risks, echoing NCAA calls to end college player-specific props nationwide. The bill’s progress, captured in a report on the New Jersey college player prop ban, reflects an emerging state-by-state approach to a national problem: player props are popular and profitable, yet vulnerable to micro-level manipulation.

At the same time, the NCAA is loosening other restrictions. Beginning Nov. 1, athletes and staff will be allowed to bet on professional sports like the NFL, NBA and MLB. The change, explained in coverage of the landmark rule allowing pro-sports betting by college athletes, does not extend to collegiate events. Administrators argue that aligning with the realities of legal sports betting while leaning on harm reduction and education can reduce off-book risks. Critics counter that any expansion risks muddying enforcement and normalizing wagering among populations already under intense social and financial pressure.

The policy split — curbing college player props while permitting pro wagers — reveals a pragmatic compromise. Regulators aim to deter the most manipulable markets directly tied to student performance, while acknowledging the ubiquity of legal betting on professional leagues. Whether that balance works will be tested as education programs roll out and states tighten or relax prop markets.

Integrity, money and the new risk calculus

The rapid legalization of sports betting has created opportunity and exposure. College athletics sits at the intersection. Games draw significant handle, but participant pay remains limited outside of name, image and likeness deals, and compliance resources vary by school. That mismatch can make athletes susceptible to offers from bettors seeking an edge or a fix. When a player alters shot selection or effort, it can swing spread or prop outcomes without changing the game’s winner. Those gray-zone incidents are harder to detect than blatant match-fixing and can travel through both legal and illegal channels.

For sportsbooks, the business incentive is to protect market integrity to maintain customer trust and retain licensure. That means investing in monitoring tools, setting lower limits on vulnerable markets, and collaborating with leagues, the NCAA and law enforcement. For schools, it requires education, reporting pathways and swift discipline that balances due process with the need to limit damage. For athletes, the consequences can end careers and jeopardize academic standing, while public scrutiny can spill over to families and teammates.

Recent investigations from New Orleans to Fresno and the federal probe touching multiple campuses show how quickly localized issues can become systemic. As states like New Jersey move to restrict college player props and the NCAA allows pro wagering with guardrails, the policy map is still being drawn. The core challenge remains unchanged: preventing small acts of manipulation that carry outsized consequences for competitive integrity. How regulators, schools and books coordinate in the next year will determine whether these cases are cautionary one-offs or a template for sustained enforcement in the college game’s betting era.