This is an opinion post that is likely affected by pro-SEC and pro-Alabama Crimson Tide blinders. At least, unlike so many others, I am willing to admit I've got a dog in the hunt.
Any ignore list for participants in the protecting college sports debate should be long. Much longer than one name. Any credible 'to be trusted' list can only be short. It would be easy to point fingers of blame at Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell. More accurately, their failing is the presumption that federal government intervention will override all countervailing court actions. The bill's sponsors and the NCAA argue that federal legislation will neutralize state courts. The SEC's Greg Sankey claims the bill would actually increase litigation.
There is another reason why broad federal action would prove unwieldy. College sports have undergone rapid change. There is no reason to expect the pace of change will slow significantly.
Amending federal legislation is a slow process. Future efforts to remedy flaws in the legislation or to address new issues could be ponderously slow and/or unsuccessful.
Returning to the list of those to be ignored in the debate, one person stands out. Texas Tech billionaire booster Cody Campbell is the most fervent supporter of the proposed legislation. That his motivation is clearly self-serving does not define him as most deserving of being ignored. Self-serving motivations are widespread. What makes Campbell dangerous is that he appears to believe his actions are driven solely by what is best for college sports. The recent Sorsby-gambling-eligibility debacle should have exposed that Texas Tech and Campbell were not the least bit concerned about what's best for college sports. Only a Red Raider fan or someone woefully gullible could believe otherwise.
Another college sports voice is who should be getting the most attention. Alabama football fans might believe that person is Nick Saban. No doubt Saban is motivated by what is best for college sports. Unfortunately, his warnings have gone unheeded for years.
That person is Notre Dame Director of Athletics, Pete Bevacqua, who has broadcast experience with NBC Sports. He understands the value of media deals better than those who have not worked in the industry. Like Nick Saban, Bevavqua supports the Protect College Sports Act. And like Saban, he believes that flawed legislation is far better than no attempt to solve the many problems facing college sports.
In Bevacua's testimony, he stated his opposition to a college football Super League. But he understands that a Super League would be a financial success via increased media rights benefiting 20-30 teams. The Notre Dame leader agreed that any pooling of media rights should be voluntary. Bevacqua also tactfully testified: "Flooding the market, aggregating the market, bringing it to an aggregate form to major media companies, I'm not sure that's going to drive the value some say it will."
According to Bevacua, unlike Super League programs, other programs might not gain large financial boosts, and some programs could regress financially.
Cody Campbell has claimed there are huge potential dollar increases in media deals that would benefit all teams. If Bevacqua is right and Campbell is wrong, the legislation could cause financial damage to some college football programs and fail to benefit the non-revenue sports of many schools.
The college sports world would be best served by ignoring Cody Campbell and heeding Pete Bevacqua.
Add us as a preferred source on Google