Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50

Thread: Is CA Law AB 1887 Already Affecting Cal Sports?

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    Did this play a part in Cuonzo's decision to leave, which likely lead to players other than Rabb and Bird leaving? If so, then the law is already affecting Cal basketball.
    IMHO Coach Martin's departure was a good thing. But I'm not going to give the California Legislature credit for that.

  2. #17
    Golden Bear Strykur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    5,197
    Quote Originally Posted by stu View Post
    IMHO Coach Martin's departure was a good thing. But I'm not going to give the California Legislature credit for that.
    It wasn't bad, but it wasn't exactly fantastic either. He is still a young coach and he will eventually get past the Sweet 16, just my thought.

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by stu View Post
    IMHO Coach Martin's departure was a good thing. But I'm not going to give the California Legislature credit for that.
    yea id say that thats a stretch to say that the law was the reason Martin left. More like he left because someone gave him a whole lot more money than we could.

  4. #19
    My 2 main concerns moving forward are;

    1) Will AB 1887 be repealed or revised to allow for state school athletes to travel to banned states.

    2) Until #1 happens, will Cal allow it's sports teams to self fund trips to banned states. I don't think it's a given the Cal admin will be willing to defy the spirit of the law. I've read that Cal men's basketball cut off talks of going to Kansas because of the new law, that's not encouraging. I'll be very interested to hear Cal's stance on this law.

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    My 2 main concerns moving forward are;

    1) Will AB 1887 be repealed or revised to allow for state school athletes to travel to banned states.

    2) Until #1 happens, will Cal allow it's sports teams to self fund trips to banned states. I don't think it's a given the Cal admin will be willing to defy the spirit of the law. I've read that Cal men's basketball cut off talks of going to Kansas because of the new law, that's not encouraging. I'll be very interested to hear Cal's stance on this law.
    Cal sources have said exactly what Ursa said. The law is about public funding of travel and Cal will use private funds. The athletic department has ample private funds to support travel.

    If Cal actually broke off talks with Kansas for this reason, a GIGANTIC if in my opinion, it was more likely because they were either sympathetic with the issue or didn't want any political fallout.

    Cuonzo got a fat raise that we wouldn't match because it was far more than his value.

    This subject was discussed intelligently at length in a thread a couple months ago. If you want answers you should search for that thread.

  6. #21
    One simple point. "The spirit of the law" is a meaningless phrase and is not the law. The law is what the law says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    My 2 main concerns moving forward are;

    1) Will AB 1887 be repealed or revised to allow for state school athletes to travel to banned states.

    2) Until #1 happens, will Cal allow it's sports teams to self fund trips to banned states. I don't think it's a given the Cal admin will be willing to defy the spirit of the law. I've read that Cal men's basketball cut off talks of going to Kansas because of the new law, that's not encouraging. I'll be very interested to hear Cal's stance on this law.

  7. #22
    Real Bear BeachedBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Havering at Manny's
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    One simple point. "The spirit of the law" is a meaningless phrase and is not the law. The law is what the law says.
    Hear, hear! Furthermore, the 'spirit' of the legislators that sponsored the law, had very little to do with college sports. It was clearly about getting media coverage by using the CA legislature to influence the laws of another state. It was obviously for political grandstanding and intended to have little actual civic effect. Otherwise, this could have been handled much simpler (and quieter) by the Executive with an instruction to impacted agencies to curtail spending on such travel.

    I get it, the concept actually worked pretty well (albeit very slowly) to disrupt apartheid in South Africa. But that was a different time, place and situation.



  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    One simple point. "The spirit of the law" is a meaningless phrase and is not the law. The law is what the law says.
    "But we also think schools should be modifying their activities in order to comply with the spirit of the law, and we understand they've been doing that from the discussions we've had"
    -Rick Zbur, Equality California Executive Director
    (The largest LGBT civil rights group in CA who sponsored AB 1887)

    San Diego Union Tribune article regarding AB 1887 and the impact on CA public schools;
    http://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribu...375d8b&pnum=61

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    "But we also think schools should be modifying their activities in order to comply with the spirit of the law, and we understand they've been doing that from the discussions we've had"
    -Rick Zbur, Equality California Executive Director
    (The largest LGBT civil rights group in CA who sponsored AB 1887)

    San Diego Union Tribune article regarding AB 1887 and the impact on CA public schools;
    http://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribu...375d8b&pnum=61
    1. In my opinion, the law is stupid. It may be unconstitutional. It is extremely poorly thought out. It should be repealed.
    2. What Equality California and Rick Zbur have in mind means exactly nothing.
    3. As Donald Trump is demonstrating, the intent backers of a law have and what they can actually get put into place are often different. The law specifically says that they can't use public funds. I don't care if they think the spirit of the law means that no public body should have any travel to those states. If they could have passed that, they should have. They didn't
    4. That article is a whole lot of "What ifs". There is nothing substantive there except the short part which talks about using non-public funds for travel and how that gives an advantage to Cal and UCLA
    5. Cal and UCLA have plenty of money to fund their travel without public funds. In fact, little public funds are spent on athletics. They are already doing this. Recruiting trips have not been stopped. I imagine smaller public schools have a problem and I feel sorry for them. It sucks.
    6. It makes perfect sense for Cal to avoid scheduling someone on the list for now. As they are still working out exactly what the rules are, there is no reason to deliberately thumb their noses at the whole concept. Also, many Cal fans either agree with the law or at least agree with boycotting. And do not want Cal playing these schools. No reason to push this right now. (For myself, I would wholeheartedly support boycotting an actual institution that directly engages in discrimination. I do not support boycotting an institution because it happens to be in a particular state, especially when in many cases those institutions are the one's fighting for change in those states).
    7. Courts are normally pretty good at choosing a practical alternative when given multiple reasonable interpretations of the law. I see no reason why they would interpret the law to mean that any organization that takes public funds would not be able to travel using entirely private funds. The law is pretty clear on that point, IMO. And I have every confidence that if the result of the law is such that college athletics will not be able to travel for recruiting purposes, for games within their conference, or for playoffs, the law will be modified or repealed quickly. A lot of law makers are sports fans and even more of their constituents are. Now I could see a compromise position that disallows scheduling nonconference games in these locations, which I would not be in favor of, but will not be a calamity. (and for Cal may be the political reality at this point with its fanbase anyway.)

    I'm not dismissing your concern. It's just that your concerns have been discussed and addressed previously. This is not likely to have a major impact on Cal athletics. If and when it does, we can deal with it then.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by OaktownBear View Post
    I'm not dismissing your concern. It's just that your concerns have been discussed and addressed previously. This is not likely to have a major impact on Cal athletics. If and when it does, we can deal with it then.
    I have come to realize that until we know Cal's stance we can't possibly know if this law is already affecting Cal sports. It is possible Cal is choosing to follow the spirit of the law, if any school did it would be Cal, if so it's already affecting scheduling. Personally, I don't think Cal will go against the intentions of Equality California and AB 1887.

  11. #26
    Is this whole thread a law school project gone off the rails?

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    I have come to realize that until we know Cal's stance we can't possibly know if this law is already affecting Cal sports. It is possible Cal is choosing to follow the spirit of the law, if any school did it would be Cal, if so it's already affecting scheduling. Personally, I don't think Cal will go against the intentions of Equality California and AB 1887.
    given the fact that Equality California's spokesman was quoted in the article saying that their hope is that tournament and conference games won't be sited in these states and California schools should use their advocacy to ensure they aren't, I guarantee you, Cal is going against the intentions of Equality California. (It also shows the spokesman has no idea how college sports works) If Cal is schedule for any NCAA/Conference games in these states, Cal will play them.

    As I said, I can very much see Cal not scheduling voluntary non-conference games in these states, but there is no way they are going to effectively ban recruiting in these states and forfeit tournament/playoff games or conference games if it comes to that.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    I have come to realize that until we know Cal's stance we can't possibly know if this law is already affecting Cal sports. It is possible Cal is choosing to follow the spirit of the law, if any school did it would be Cal, if so it's already affecting scheduling. Personally, I don't think Cal will go against the intentions of Equality California and AB 1887.
    I think it may affect future scheduling for OOC games. Actually what it is more likely to affect is our non-revenue sports where i'm not sure where our funding always comes from and kind of varies from sport to sport. However, if we play NCAA tournament games or football bowl games or if the Arizona schools end up on that list, I fully expect that we will show up and fulfill our obligations. I think we will go up to a certain point to satisfy the intent of the law, but we arent throwing money away from the PAC-12 TV deal and we arent throwing money away from the NCAA or bowl games.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    I have come to realize that until we know Cal's stance we can't possibly know if this law is already affecting Cal sports. It is possible Cal is choosing to follow the spirit of the law, if any school did it would be Cal, if so it's already affecting scheduling. Personally, I don't think Cal will go against the intentions of Equality California and AB 1887.
    The law CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY says 'state-funded', therefore, it is not against the spirit of the law to travel to affected states on non-state funds.

    If the lawmakers intended for the law to include all travel, then that could easily have been written into the law. Of course it may not have passed, or may have been found unconstitutional.

    This isn't some arcane legal definition here using language from constitutional times - it's pretty simple, it the 'spirit of the law' was what you suggest, the language of the law would have been different.

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoBear1 View Post
    The law CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY says 'state-funded', therefore, it is not against the spirit of the law to travel to affected states on non-state funds.

    If the lawmakers intended for the law to include all travel, then that could easily have been written into the law. Of course it may not have passed, or may have been found unconstitutional.

    This isn't some arcane legal definition here using language from constitutional times - it's pretty simple, it the 'spirit of the law' was what you suggest, the language of the law would have been different.
    Did you see this from my earlier post?

    "But we also think schools should be modifying their activities in order to comply with the spirit of the law, and we understand they've been doing that from the discussions we've had"
    -Rick Zbur, Equality California Executive Director
    (The largest LGBT civil rights group in CA who sponsored AB 1887)

    Which schools are they talking to that are complying with the spirit of the law? Cal would be my first guess.

    Cal is going to be put to the test, sending teams to banned states will be going directly against the wishes of the CA LGBT activist groups and their true purpose for the law, which is to punish the banned states for discriminatory laws and force them to repeal those laws. If it's business as usual in the banned states then the law hasn't accomplished anything.

    I get no pleasure from this, I was shocked and upset when I learned this law would impact college sports.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •