Four quick thoughts on the Protect College Sports Act: aka a college sports bill you should actually pay attention to

Good morning, and thanks for spending part of your day with Extra Points

Quick note before today’s story: Dennis and I will be at NACDA in a few weeks! I’m getting to Las Vegas on Sunday the 7th, and will be in town until the morning of the 10th. If you’re going to be at the event and want to say hello, drop me a line!

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. But a new bill was just introduced in Congress that would significantly change how college sports are regulated.

Unlike the sea of other proposals, from SCORE to SAFE to the myriad smaller pretenders, this latest effort, the “Protect College Sports Act”, is bipartisan. The product of months, (shoot, years) of negotiations between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and scores of congressional staffers, this latest legislative offering seeks to change everything from college agent requirements to the CSC, future broadcast rights to the “Lane Kiffin Rule”, and much more.

You can read the entire text of the bill here, but be warned. It’s over a hundred pages.

Now, a quick disclosure before I share what I think about the bill. Over the last year, along with many other reporters, academics, industry practitioners, etc…I’ve spoken to staffers who work for Cruz and Cantwell about potential legislation (along with other lawmakers in the Senate and House). I’ve given my personal opinion about potential regulations, as well as introduced other potential experts on college athletics reform. I’ll talk to almost any lawmaker who wants to know more about some of these issues.

After reading the bill, I think some of the specific ideas the lawmakers suggested are actually pretty good ones. Other proposals make less sense to me.

Here are four quick thoughts on the Protect College Sports Act, from what ideas make sense, which ones don’t, and perhaps most importantly, can this thing actually become law?

Short Courts makes beautiful and authentic framed replica courts and fields, perfect for your donors, fans and fundraisers. Whether football, soccer or ice hockey, Short Courts can build any replica field you’re interested in.

Designed to celebrate your program and thank the people who make it possible, Short Courts are hand crafted and customizable for any occasion.

Tristan and team will be at NACADA, booth 840, so stop by and say, and you’ll get an extra 10% off any purchase.

And the Buy 4, Get 1 Free special is always available.

Check out some more example courts and fields here.

If legislation is going to get out of this US Senate without getting filibustered, it needs 60 votes. Republicans only control 53 seats, so if every single Republican decides to vote for this bill, they need seven Democrats to join them.

For SCORE, the college sports legislation championed by the NCAA and House Republican leadership, that was never going to happen. Legislatively declaring that no college athlete could potentially be declared an employee, or have any collective bargaining ability, was going to be a complete non-starter for most Senate Democrats. Couple that with concerns that SCORE was too NCAA and major conference friendly on other counts, and it was DOA. Shoot, there’s a reason it never even got to a formal vote in the House.

The Protect College Sports Act conspicuously doesn’t take a stance on athlete employment. It also already has two Democratic sponsors, in Cantwell and Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE). Assuming the proposed bill doesn’t get completely rewritten during markup, there’s a very good chance you’ve got at least two Democrats willing to vote for the thing.

Based on what I’ve heard from Capitol Hill types over the last few months, I really do think there’s a potential 60+ vote coalition out there that could support some measure of NCAA antitrust protection around eligibility, transfers, Olympic sport scholarship protections, post-graduation health care, and agent regulation. There is bipartisan frustration with how roster construction, recruiting and “the NIL Market” works right now, even if regulating it would constrain earning potential for elite athletes or limit “the free market.”

But this is by no means a sure thing. For one, I don’t think one can automatically assume every Senate Republican is a lock to vote for this. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), for example, hasn’t been shy about expressing a lone libertarian-ish streak, and has previously been skeptical of SCORE and more comprehensive college sports bills. I think there is also a potential world where some outgoing Republicans, like Sen. Cassidy (R-LA) or Sen. Cornyn (R-TX), decide to stick it to Trump and vote against a project he supports (since Trump supported their primary challengers), if they aren’t completely ideologically on board with the bill.

Speaking of Trump, the fact that he has become so visible in this debate, (from his Executive Orders, to the Presidential Roundtable, etc) could make it harder for Senate Democrats to support any college sports legislation that Trump wants. With the midterms just a few months away and Democrats projected to take back the House (and maybe even the Senate), some leaders will wonder why any Democrat would want to give Trump a political “win” that would change the subject from Iran, gas prices, etc.

I think it is probably too late for this bill to get signed this year, but I do think it’s possible. There’s a way for enough Democrats (mostly older Senators who are either retiring or won’t face a tough election in a while) to vote for this while guys like Sen. Murphy vote against it.

But enough about whether this thing could actually pass. Is it a good bill?