IRVING, Texas — College athletic directors like Kansas State’s Gene Taylor had one less thing to worry about prior to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on sports gambling.

He, and many others, could drop an “eh” and figuratively throw their hands up since it was illegal outside of Nevada.

Taylor’s attitude has since changed. Pandora’s box may soon be open.

“It makes me nervous,” Taylor said this week at Big 12 meetings from the Four Seasons Hotel and Resort.

“It takes a step that just gets uncomfortable for a lot of people. We’ll have to figure out how to control it if it does pass and how to manage it better.”

In May, the Supreme Court struck down a 1992 federal law that prohibited statewide sports gambling — except in Nevada and limited betting in Oregon, Delaware and Montana — a move that has caused rapid speculation and raised concerns on the effects it will have in college athletics.

“It’s imperative to point out we’ve had safeguards in place for many, many years, very proactive with everything from education to monitoring those things we can,” Oklahoma Athletic Director Joe Castiglione told CNHI on Thursday. “Bringing sports betting in a legalized way closer to home is an entirely new situation for virtually any school in the United States.”

The reality is, as Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby noted Wednesday, each of the five states in the league’s footprint will produce different rules and laws.

Understandably, sports gambling is a sizable topic at this week’s league meetings. Some administrators vehemently oppose it; others aren’t nearly as fearful.

“I don’t believe this is in the best interest of sporting. I would not advocate for it,” West Virginia President Gordon Gee said. “The purpose of that is my strong belief that this opens up yet another venue for athletes to be approached by folks that do not have the best interest of intercollegiate athletics in mind.”

Interestingly, West Virginia is the most likely of the league’s 10 schools to see a direct impact. The state previously passed a law to legalize sports gambling in the event of a Supreme Court ruling. Iowa and Oklahoma reportedly could be the next to follow, although they may have to wait until 2019.

When — or if — it does occur, athletic directors like Shane Lyons at West Virginia must adjust.

“We’ll have to step up our game from an education and compliance standpoint to make sure our student-athletes and others are educated on gambling and the do’s and don’ts involved in that,” he said.

Part of the discussion with the state and lottery commission is an integrity fee, a quarter of a percent payment back to the school on each bet placed on West Virginia athletics. Gee said they are still negotiating the fee and hope to have a resolution soon.

Lyons said the money, likely in the several hundred thousand range, would go toward costs of hiring additional staff and adding educational aspects.

“It’s not going to go to coaches salaries; it’s not going to go to capital projects. It’s going to benefit the student-athlete,” Lyons said.

Taylor said he suggested hiring someone with a sports gaming background to catch any potential issues along with adding one or two compliance administrators specifically dedicated to prevent student-athletes from betting on their own sport.

Compared to their colleagues, Texas Athletic Director Chris Del Conte and Iowa State Athletic Director Jamie Pollard said they weren’t too concerned about the topic.

Del Conte cited the prevalence of sports gambling in Las Vegas and the growth of casinos in only a handful of states years ago to a presence in 30-plus states.

Pollard even sees a day where sports gambling makes an in-house appearance.

“I don’t know what it will exactly look like, but 10 years from now we’ll probably be trying to capitalize on the fact that you could come to the stadium and place bets and do whatever,” he told CNHI.

Del Conte said hedoesn’t have a reason for concern, at least just yet. His state hasn’t shown much interest in legalizing gambling in the near future, so the likes of Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU would be unaffected.

If someday that becomes mainstream, TCU Athletic Director Jeremiah Donati sees a silver lining as long as integrity is kept at the forefront: The big winner could be television partners.

“Let’s just say gambling does become much more widespread, I don’t think it will do anything but increase and improve the viewership and participation from a fan experience standpoint,” Donati said.

“It could potentially be good for the game just to add more exposure to it — if you will — from a fan standpoint. You see that when you go to Las Vegas; you see those casinos and sports book are packed. It will ultimately have that kind of impact on us.”

Bowlsby said he isn’t so sure sports betting leading to more television exposure is in the best interest of college athletics. He’s gone as far as to inform the Big 12’s television partners he prefers they not mention game lines during broadcasts. But he expects it to become more commonplace with the Supreme Court’s reversal.

“It has to be above reproach. If it takes gambling and suspicions of nefarious behavior to generate that revenue and generate that interest, then we might want to be satisfied not to have that interest,” he said.

Isabella covers the Big 12 for CNHI Sports.