First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.
California has
banned any "
STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.
As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a
dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.
If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?
I hope everyone keeps it civil.
(02-06-2017 07:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.
California has banned any "STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.
As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.
If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?
I hope everyone keeps it civil.
I checked and Wyoming isn't scheduled to play San Diego St again until 2019. So they have a few years to work it out.
Cheers!
(02-06-2017 07:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.
California has banned any "STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.
As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.
If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?
I hope everyone keeps it civil.
According to your link, Texas is in that list. Houston is a state school, so I guess San Diego St can't play Houston on the road if they ever join the AAC's western wing. They can't play us (ECU) or Memphis either if that link means what you are saying.
Cheers!
(02-06-2017 07:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2017 07:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.
California has banned any "STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.
As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.
If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?
I hope everyone keeps it civil.
According to your link, Texas is in that list. Houston is a state school, so I guess San Diego St can't play Houston on the road if they ever join the AAC's western wing. They can't play us (ECU) or Memphis either if that link means what you are saying.
Cheers!
We haven't passed a bathroom bill yet. The Lt. Gov. wants one, and the Gov. does not. I doubt it passes. We really do not have a bathroom problem, just a politician problem.
(02-06-2017 07:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2017 07:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.
California has banned any "STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.
As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.
If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?
I hope everyone keeps it civil.
According to your link, Texas is in that list. Houston is a state school, so I guess San Diego St can't play Houston on the road if they ever join the AAC's western wing. They can't play us (ECU) or Memphis either if that link means what you are saying.
Cheers!
The link you're referring to is the list of the states that are considering bathroom bills. Texas hasn't passed a bathroom bill yet. The full list:
Already Passed a Bathroom Bill
Kansas
Mississippi
North Carolina
Tennessee
Has a Bathroom Bill Introduced to the Legislature, but hasn't passed it yet:
Alabama
Illinois
Kansas (I don't know why they're on this list too)
Kentucky
Minnesota
Missouri
South Carolina
Texas
Washington
Wyoming
It also says, "Legislation in 10 states is pending (as of 2/1/17). Legislation in South Dakota and Virginia failed to pass."
(02-06-2017 08:02 PM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2017 07:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2017 07:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.
California has banned any "STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.
As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.
If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?
I hope everyone keeps it civil.
According to your link, Texas is in that list. Houston is a state school, so I guess San Diego St can't play Houston on the road if they ever join the AAC's western wing. They can't play us (ECU) or Memphis either if that link means what you are saying.
Cheers!
We haven't passed a bathroom bill yet. The Lt. Gov. wants one, and the Gov. does not. I doubt it passes. We really do not have a bathroom problem, just a politician problem.
The OP wanted a comment on California public schools canceling games in the 4 states that California has identified as a no-go: North Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas and Mississippi, and the "dozen more states" that were in his link. I don't follow this issue, but if this means games will be impacted, like UCLA, USC etc. decide to cancel games vs teams in the states they disagree with on this issue, I would think those 3 would have to leave the conference and go Independent, as all conferences would have a team that is located in states that go another way (against their political beliefs)
Cheers!
(02-06-2017 08:13 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2017 07:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Captain Bearcat' pid='14068110' dateline='1486427478']
First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.
California has banned any "STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.
As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.
If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?
I hope everyone keeps it civil.
According to your link, Texas is in that list. Houston is a state school, so I guess San Diego St can't play Houston on the road if they ever join the AAC's western wing. They can't play us (ECU) or Memphis either if that link means what you are saying.
Cheers!
The link you're referring to is the list of the states that are considering bathroom bills. Texas hasn't passed a bathroom bill yet. The full list:
Already Passed a Bathroom Bill
Kansas--so you're saying no games for California schools here?
Mississippi--no games for California schools here?
North Carolina--no games for California schools here?
Tennessee--no games for California schools here?
Maybe no road games for California schools in these states if they become politically like the above 4 states?
Alabama
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Minnesota
Missouri
South Carolina
Texas
Washington
Wyoming
They would have to leave the PAC 12 and MWC and start their own conference where non-California states/potential conference mates align with their political beliefs. I don't believe this will happen.
Cheers!
(02-06-2017 08:02 PM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ]We haven't passed a bathroom bill yet. The Lt. Gov. wants one, and the Gov. does not. I doubt it passes. We really do not have a bathroom problem, just a politician problem.
Even though Stanford and Rice are private, playing in Australia, rather than Houston, avoids this thorny issue.
(02-06-2017 08:47 PM)ESE84 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2017 08:02 PM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ]We haven't passed a bathroom bill yet. The Lt. Gov. wants one, and the Gov. does not. I doubt it passes. We really do not have a bathroom problem, just a politician problem.
Even though Stanford and Rice are private, playing in Australia, rather than Houston, avoids this thorny issue.
That had nothing to do with this though did it? I never heard a word of games being moved by California schools until this thread.
Cheers!
From the bill
Quote:Exceptions
The Legislature created exceptions in AB 1887 that allow travel to banned states in certain circumstances. (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. ©.) These exceptions only apply if travel to a subject state is "required." (Ibid.)
Specifically, AB 1887 does not apply to state travel that is required for any of the following purposes:
Enforcement of California law, including auditing and revenue collection.
Litigation.
To meet contractual obligations incurred before January 1, 2017.
To comply with requests by the federal government to appear before committees.
To participate in meetings or training required by a grant or required to maintain grant funding.
To complete job-required training necessary to maintain licensure or similar standards required for holding a position, in the event that comparable training cannot be obtained in California or a different state not subject to the travel prohibition.
For the protection of public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the affected agency, department, board, authority, or commission, or by the affected legislative office.
So any games with a signed contract before Jan. 1 would be exempt from the bill. As for conference play, I'm no legal expert but if conference affiliation is considered a contract for this purpose, that would clear the way for UCLA and Cal to go to Washington and Washington State for PAC 12 games if Washington goes through with its bill.
It would put a crimp in future non-conference scheduling for sure, though I'm guessing with the exception of Kansas/North Carolina/Duke basketball, there won't be a lot of non-con games involving trips to the states in question.
Could this California bathroom bill entice P12 schools outside of California to move to the B12.
It can put teams in an awkward position, especially for the NCAA Tournament for Olympic sports where you can't really control where teams go.
Last year UC Santa Barbara baseball was sent to Vanderbilt for a regional. Let's say we were to meet them in a Super Regional. The travel ban prevents us from going to Nashville, and our facility is not suitable for hosting. What then?
NC HB2 causing problems for Elon's 2017 football schedule (link to full article is below/not a long article if you want to read it)
"Elon is slated to play the State University of New York at Albany in a home game in 2017, but New York’s ban on nonessential travel to the state of North Carolina has created complications for the two schools and the Colonial Athletic Association (CAA).
And while most schools in the CAA have released their schedules during the past few days, Elon’s and UAlbany’s remain in limbo while the schools and CAA commissioner Joe D’Antonio attempt to work out a way to play the game.
When New York Governor Andrew Cuomo banned all non-essential state travel to North Carolina March 28, 2016, the CAA did not feel an immediate impact from the move. The only all-sports school from New York — Hofstra University — is a private institution, and thus not beholden to the ban.
But two football-only schools — UAlbany and Stony Brook University — are state schools. Elon played at UAlbany Oct. 29, 2016, and Albany is supposed to return to face the Phoenix in 2017.
In a phone interview Saturday, Jan. 21, CAA spokesman Rob Washburn said the parties are exploring all alternatives, but didn’t comment when asked if the
game may not be played at all." (Bold is mine)
http://www.elonnewsnetwork.com/article/2...y-new-york
Don't think the ACC has any scheduling issues (besides they can't get NCAA sanctioned events). I don't know about other schools here in NC but HB2 is certainly having an impact on Elon.
The bathroom bill not so much
The larger question of social construct gender vs biological/genetic sex though has huge implications for women's collegiate sports. For example, if men who identify as women are allowed to play on women's teams, how long before few if any biological females are playing college basketball?
I'll be curious to see how restrooms are designed at stadiums and arenas in the future. It's not uncommon already for small restaurants to have two non-gender-specific restrooms, at least in the East Coast cities where I'm likely to be. This would be impractical at a sports facility where you can't dedicate that sort of space to giving everyone exclusive use of a toilet and sink for however long they want. Could we see non-gender-specific sink areas? And larger, more private stalls that aren't gender-specific?
(02-07-2017 09:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]The bathroom bill not so much
The larger question of social construct gender vs biological/genetic sex though has huge implications for women's collegiate sports. For example, if men who identify as women are allowed to play on women's teams, how long before few if any biological females are playing college basketball?
Didn't that happen at the most recent Olympic games? If it begins to happen more often there might be some push back from biological females.
The Alabama version - which I don't believe has been formally introduced yet - actually includes Bathroom Police.
If the University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa athletic department considers it a problem, it not only will never pass, its sponsor, Phil Williams, will disappear. In fact, that may be what just happened:
http://www.alreporter.com/2016/01/07/sta...stigation/
Williams was apparently also angling for the Sessions senate seat, which the AG also covets, and that may be a different reason for the ethics investigation (no one familiar with Alabama politics believes you come under ethics investigation because of, you know, poor ethics).
(02-07-2017 10:44 AM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]The Alabama version - which I don't believe has been formally introduced yet - actually includes Bathroom Police.
If the University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa athletic department considers it a problem, it not only will never pass, its sponsor, Phil Williams, will disappear. In fact, that may be what just happened:
http://www.alreporter.com/2016/01/07/sta...stigation/
Williams was apparently also angling for the Sessions senate seat, which the AG also covets, and that may be a different reason for the ethics investigation (no one familiar with Alabama politics believes you come under ethics investigation because of, you know, poor ethics).
These Bills are all just dumb. They seek to solve an issue that isn't an issue.
Where exactly do they think transgendered people have been going to the bathroom for the last 100 years? Never in my entire life have I seen a man in a womens dress using a mens public restroom. The reality is transgendered folks have been using the restrooms that they identify with for years without incident. These are laws designed to fix an issue that hasn't been an issue. It never has been an issue. The whole thing is a manufactured crisis and its silly. I hope Texas doesn't lose any major events by passing one of these useless laws. I don't even know how you'd go about enforcing these things without having bathroom police--which apparently Alabama realized.