(07-05-2017 12:35 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: California has drawn a line in the sand. Soon half the country will be banned, and it will be VERY difficult politically for CA to back down.
I'm an employee at one of the institutions affected, and I'm pissed off at being used as a pawn in an economic war against other Americans.
However, you presumably work for an institution whose owners (the taxpayers of California) have decided under what conditions they will engage in activities that will subject their citizens to discriminatory laws in other jurisdictions, that have been clearly enacted for the purpose of targeting that minority.
There will be individual persons and institutions that will be caught up in this. The problem the 'let sports be sports' people have is that especially in major male team sports, no one has done anything to include or engage the community that is now clamoring for the ban. What has Fresno State or SDSU done to work with their LGBT communities and to ensure that to the extent that they are LGBT players, that they feel comfortable in those programs? Or have any buy-in whatsoever there?
For years, major college sports (FBS, mens basketball, baseball) have been largely dismissive of wide swaths of their funding public (e.g., their student bodies and the taxpayers). If there was some history of inclusion or even an attempt to include other groups, perhaps they could try to get 'the dogs called off'. This is something that pretty much all the FBS/D1 programs could work on. At some point you might need their support. And its not just LGBT persons, but non-American born students, persons who don't come from an American football culture, etc.
And California's political dynamic is Texas turned on its head. The groups marginalized in Texas are usually swing voters in California's primary elections. These voters could largely care less about the impact of the ban on institutions that largely exclude or ignore them.
The other problem is that this bill and the AG's rulings have been sold as 'no public travel/endorsement'. Having UCLA sign a deal to play at say - Kansas State in football, would be very public.
Having, the Pac12 vote to add UT would be extremely public and would cause many issues.
I don't think Texas caves. I don't think California caves. I don't the the conservative circuit court covering Texas strikes the discriminatory bills down. I don't think the liberal circuit court covering California strikes down the California laws. There is no chance that any bill resolving this in Congress will pass in the next two years or so. And probably for the next four. We're going to be stuck with this for a while.
And its possible that MORE states join California. Several others have bans that are by Gubernatorial order.
But for now, I'd argue that there's little reason to discuss realignment involving the Pac12, the MWC, the Big West, or the Big Sky involving teams from banned states. And I don't know what the WAC is going to do about Bakersfield.
---
By the way, I said....'TRY to keep this non-political'. Its a political act, so there's going to be some political discussion. Maybe I should have said...try to keep it as non-political as the subject allows.