Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

California State Funded Travel Ban

The Alabaster Yak

The Alabaster Yak

Club Member
Club Member
Wasn't sure if there was already a thread about this or not, but read an article discussing the self-imposed, publicly funded travel ban from CA to Alabama, Texas, SD, Kentucky, Tenn, NC, Miss, and Kansas. Don't really care to get into the political discussion about the travel ban, but more about how it affects collegiate sports for the major public universities (UCLA and Cal).

This year in college football UCLA plays at Memphis, California plays at UNC, and Fresno State plays at Alabama. If all three of these contracts hadn’t been signed before this bill went into effect in 2017, these games wouldn’t be allowed to take place under state law. (And it’s not just football. This would apply for all sports contests between state of California teams that take place in these eight banned states.)
Under this law UCLA would not be able to travel to Texas A&M to play a football game and UCLA wouldn’t be able to travel to Kentucky for a basketball game. Even crazier, UCLA and Cal would not be able to play in the national title semifinal for football in Texas in 2018 or many of the NCAA tourney locations. In fact, neither UCLA, Cal nor any other state of California team would be able to play in the first or second round of the NCAA tournament if seeded for games in Nashville, TN, Wichita, KS, Dallas, TX, or Charlotte, NC. That’s half of the NCAA tournament sites in 2018.
What’s more, the Final Four is in San Antonio, Texas in 2018 so if any California school advanced to the Final Four they would technically be unable to play there based upon this state travel ban.
Click to expand...

The other aspect is recruiting. UCLA is somewhat of a national recruiting program for both basketball and football, but how does this affect both theirs and Cal's (among others including Fresno State, SJSU, etc) recruiting efforts in Texas?

Some of you probably don't like Clay Travis, and I don't really care if you agree with him in his article, but he brings up some good points about the sports aspect. The second half of it is more about his general view of Federalism and why he thinks the CA law is insane.

https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/...state-travel-sets-dangerous-sports-precedent/
 
I saw an article this morning that this will not impact Fresno State's trip to Alabama. Must be some wiggle room.
 
Buffnik said:
I saw an article this morning that this will not impact Fresno State's trip to Alabama. Must be some wiggle room.
Click to expand...
UCLA and Cal both have games that would be affected, as well, but he mentions in the part I quoted that because these contracts were signed prior to the bill going into effect in 2017, none of this year's games will be impacted (I also assume any for next year or the year after as well, as most contracts are signed a few years in advance). The basketball stuff is a little more interesting... The next Final Four is played in San Antonio, and even half the 1st/2nd round games are scheduled for cities in a banned state.
 
Buffnik said:
I saw an article this morning that this will not impact Fresno State's trip to Alabama. Must be some wiggle room.
Click to expand...

Looks like the key term is "taxpayer funds." If the school can show that their expenses are coming from other funds like donations, media revenues, or a payout provided by the host team or sponsor then they can say they are in compliance.

Agree with the author of the column though. Looks like another case of ridiculous political grandstanding.
 
If they carry this to it's illogical end though does it have a serious impact on the entire PAC12. What happens if California schools can't participate in the NCAA BB tourney because of the location of the final 4 or the regionals. What happens if the FB championship is in Texas or they keep adding states and LA or FL get added.
 
MtnBuff said:
If they carry this to it's illogical end though does it have a serious impact on the entire PAC12. What happens if California schools can't participate in the NCAA BB tourney because of the location of the final 4 or the regionals. What happens if the FB championship is in Texas or they keep adding states and LA or FL get added.
Click to expand...
Is the conference going to lose its bowl tie-ins with the Alamo and Sun Bowls?
 
The impact of this might be being overblown. I'm pretty sure UCLA already had to play a game in Tennessee for the Sweet 16 this year. When it happened they just said they didn't use public funds to pay for the travel and went about their business. Given the size of most AD budgets, and how dependent they are on donors, ticket sales, and TV revenue, I wouldn't think it would be all that hard to play a shell game with the limited public funds they get to make sure all that money gets earmarked into campus facilities or educational support for the athletes. It also isn't supposed to impact pre-existing contracts.
 
SuperD said:
The impact of this might be being overblown. I'm pretty sure UCLA already had to play a game in Tennessee for the Sweet 16 this year. When it happened they just said they didn't use public funds to pay for the travel and went about their business. Given the size of most AD budgets, and how dependent they are on donors, ticket sales, and TV revenue, I wouldn't think it would be all that hard to play a shell game with the limited public funds they get to make sure all that money gets earmarked into campus facilities or educational support for the athletes. It also isn't supposed to impact pre-existing contracts.
Click to expand...

What happens if the politicians change the law from taxpayer funds to any state funds regardless of source? They they have huge issues.
 
I wonder if this could bring revenue into the PAC 12 footprint if the NCAA stars moving more major pieces into that area to avoid the ban. A sort of economic sports protectionism act.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Does California prevent its employees from traveling to foreign countries with laws that don't live up to its standards?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the answer is "yes."

California is not the only state to actually put their money where their mouth is on "political" questions. You should see the (IMO) absolutely ridiculous prohibitions Texas puts on their various state retirement fund investments - I absolutely know that they (Texas teachers, police, firemen, etc retirement funds) miss out on some high return opportunities because of those restrictions.

But their government, like California's, has said that their values are important to them - even if (when) it costs them something like investment returns or bowl game opportunities.

If you fold on questions about your values (whether they are "left" or "right") whenever it causes any sort of pain, how much should you expect anyone to believe that those values are actually important to you?

Also, I wouldn't really have any problem with the Pac-12 not renewing a bowl game contract due to this (assuming a majority of the other universities are on board). I don't see much difference between that and the NFL pulling the Super Bowl out of Arizona in the early 90s.
 
Here is the operative part of the actual Act:

(b) A state agency, department, board, authority, or commission, including an agency, department, board, authority, or commission of the University of California, the Board of Regents of the University of California, or the California State University, and the Legislature shall not do either of the following:
(1) Require any of its employees, officers, or members to travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or repealing, existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression or has enacted a law that authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, including any law that creates an exemption to antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
(2) Approve a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or repealing, existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, or has enacted a law that authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, including any law that creates an exemption to antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.​

I don't know how "state funded" is defined, as there is no definition in the statute, but I could see it being defined as anything that comes out of a state bank account, regardless of the source of funds. Also, I think that pretty much any trip by a state employee is going to be "state-sponsored," so I think that this ban is a little more expensive than some think.
 
Not require is a different standard than outright prohibit.

So if a member of the Cal athletic department doesn't want to fly to Texas on a chartered airplane that is paid for by the university, he or she is not obligated to do so.

But if the Cal athletic department member voluntarily wants to fly to Texas, then the state will pay the fare and allow the travel to proceed.

That's how I interpreted the language above.
 
Moonbeam is an idiot...has inhaled a few too many bong hits in his life....Live in California amongst the fruit and nuts.....
 
As Clay pointed out, it's a case of politicians creating needless controversy to score political points.

Especially because, in an amazing show of hypocrisy, California doesn’t restrict the expenditure of state dollars on international travel to countries with heinous records of human rights abuse. You want to travel on state tax dollars to China or Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, all three countries which restrict gay rights infinitely more than any state in our country, have at it, but don’t you dare travel to North Carolina or Texas.
....
....
One of the biggest problems with politics today is the tendency of political leaders to make rash decisions to appeal to a left or right wing base at the expense of national unity. Those actions, which may make the politician’s base happy, then provoke an equally rash response on the other end of the political spectrum and before all is said and done we end up in a needless political debate that spills over into sports. Such was the case with the dispute over the use of public bathrooms in North Carolina.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top