The Bold Type

The Bold Type, with Commissioner Dan Butterly - Sept. 21, 2026

Good morning! 

  

With the Protect College Sports Act one vote away from passing in the Senate, the song of the day is “I'm Just a Bill" from the legendary Schoolhouse Rock. 

If only the legislative process were still as simple as a three-minute cartoon. 

Last week, the Protect College Sports Act moved closer to a Senate vote after years of hearings, negotiations and competing proposals. The bill’s support grew from 74 senators on Tuesday to 77 on Thursday, providing the strongest indication yet that Congress may finally be prepared to establish a national framework for college athletics. 

While Washington debates the future, our student-athletes continue creating it. The Big West has two nationally ranked men’s soccer teams, five nationally ranked men’s water polo teams, a women’s volleyball program receiving votes and another outstanding group of Athletes of the Week. CSUN women's water polo goalkeeper Marin Byars also represented The Big West on Capitol Hill as part of the national conversation surrounding college athletics. 

There is plenty happening—from the competition field to Congress. 

  

Let’s get to The Bold Type. 


 

   THE BIG WEST – IN CASE YOU MISSED IT   

Chloe Clark highlights some shutouts, braces, five-set thrillers and history made over the weekend: 





 

   CONGRATULATIONS!  

 


 

   “JOURNEY OUT WEST” WITH DAN TORTORA   

Friday's episode of “Journey Out West” with Dan Tortora featured Cal State Bakersfield women’s basketball coach Ray Alvarado.

Next week's guest is scheduled to be new Cal State Fullerton Director of Athletics Shondell Reed. Wake Up Call starts at 6 a.m. PT daily, with Journey Out West each Friday beginning at 7:15 a.m. PT. MIXLR Internet Radio | YouTube | Facebook 




   WELCOME TO HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH   

For Hispanic Heritage Month, The Big West is inviting student-athletes, staff and alumni to share their heritage, traditions, and stories through a short questionnaire here: bigwest.org/HHM  

This year’s theme, "Unidos, Somos Más" (Together, We Are More), allows us to celebrate the many Hispanic and Latino voices that make up our conference. Join us in participating and helping bring these stories to life throughout the month.   



 

   BIG WEST UNDIVIDED CONDUCTS FIRST MEETING OF 2026-27   

The Big West Undivided Committee opened the 2026–27 year by welcoming new representatives and identifying priorities focused on education, visibility and greater awareness of the committee’s work. Members also discussed supporting Heritage Month storytelling, developing Undivided-focused announcements for conference championships and exploring a conference-wide Undivided Night during basketball season. The committee will continue sharing campus initiatives and best practices to strengthen collaboration across the membership. 


 

   ORANGE COUNTY SPORTS SUMMIT 2026   

Should you have interest, I will be part of a panel on college sports at the Orange County Sports Summit 2026 on Thursday, October 15, hosted by Concordia University Irvine.  (LINK)  



 

   BLUE RIBBON COLLEGE BASKETBALL PREDICTIONS FOR BIG WEST MEN'S COLLEGE BASKETBALL   

It is getting closer to the start of basketball season, and Chris Dortch, who is editor and publisher of Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook, provided the conference office with the preseason rankings and teams to distribute to our member institutions.  

  

BLUE RIBBON FORECAST 

  1. UC Irvine 
  2. Cal Poly 
  3. UC San Diego 
  4. CSUN 
  5. UC Santa Barbara 
  6. Cal State Fullerton 
  7. Sacramento State 
  8. Cal State Bakersfield 
  9. Utah Valley 
  10. California Baptist 
  11. UC Riverside 
  12. Long Beach State 

  

ALL-CONFERENCE TEAM 

  • F-Leo Beath, SR, UC San Diego 
  • G/F-Hamad Mousa, JR, Cal Poly 
  • G-Larry Hughes II, SR, Sacramento State 
  • G-Cayden Ward, JR, Cal Poly 
  • G-Josiah Davis, SR, CSUN   


PLAYER OF THE YEAR 

  • Hamad Mousa, JR, Cal Poly   


NEWCOMER OF THE YEAR 

  • Rahmir Barno, SR, UC San Diego 

  

The publication is available for purchase at blueribbonyearbook.com.  

  

 

   PROTECT COLLEGE SPORTS ACT CLEARS MAJOR SENATE HURDLE   

After years of congressional hearings, competing legislative proposals and repeated calls for a national framework governing college athletics, the Protect College Sports Act took its most consequential step forward this week. 

The United States Senate voted 74–24 (LINK) on Tuesday to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of the legislation. On Thursday, the subsequent motion bringing the bill formally to the Senate floor received an even stronger 77 votes. Senator Chris Coons, who was absent Tuesday, joined Senators Tommy Tuberville and Alex Padilla in supporting the latest motion. Senators Tuberville and Padilla had voted against Tuesday’s procedural motion before changing their votes Thursday. 

That distinction remains important: The Senate has not yet passed the bill. However, the increasingly strong bipartisan support allowed the Senate to begin formally considering it and suggests the legislation has cleared its most difficult procedural hurdles in that chamber. 

In an era of closely divided government, securing 74 votes for almost anything is notable. Securing them for comprehensive college sports legislation—after years in which Congress has struggled to reach consensus on the subject—is particularly significant. 

Members of the Mid-Major Conference Coalition received an update Wednesday on the vote, the remaining Senate process and the anticipated path through the House of Representatives. 

  

What the Growing Senate Support Means 

Under Senate rules, legislation frequently must clear a 60-vote threshold before it can advance to debate. Tuesday’s vote comfortably exceeded that requirement, with a sizable group of Democrats joining Republicans in supporting consideration of the bill. 

Although senators can vote to consider legislation and later oppose its final passage, that is generally uncommon. A vote to advance a bill can easily be interpreted politically as support for the measure, meaning senators who strongly oppose legislation often register their opposition at the procedural stage. 

For that reason, Tuesday’s 74–24 vote provided a reasonable indication of the support available when the Protect College Sports Act reaches final passage. Thursday’s 77-vote total strengthened that indication. Rather than losing support after the initial vote, the legislation gained three additional votes—including two senators who had opposed advancing it only two days earlier. 

The change by Senator Padilla is especially notable for The Big West and its California member institutions. Both California senators opposed Tuesday’s initial procedural motion, but Padilla supported Thursday’s motion bringing the legislation to the floor. Senator Adam Schiff continued to oppose advancing the bill. Neither senator has publicly provided a detailed explanation of his position, but Padilla’s change provides further evidence that support for allowing the Senate to consider the legislation continues to grow. 

Final passage will require only a simple majority. 

There may first be another cloture vote to conclude debate. Because opponents are not expected to surrender their remaining debate time, a final Senate vote will likely occur Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. 

Nothing is complete until the final vote is recorded, but the bill enters the next stage in a very strong position. 

  

What Happens During the Amendment Process? 

Senators will now have an opportunity to offer amendments. That opportunity may be limited, however. Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Thursday that he could “fill the amendment tree,” a procedural step that would accelerate consideration of the bill while preventing other senators from receiving votes on their amendments. Thune said the decision may depend upon the level of cooperation Senate leaders receive from Democrats.  If amendments are permitted, they are likely to fall into three general categories. 

First, there may be a series of noncontroversial or technical amendments already accepted by the bill’s principal authors, Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell. These proposals may receive floor consideration so their sponsors can publicly present them, but they are not expected to alter the fundamental substance or political coalition supporting the bill. 

A second category may include amendments offered by opponents seeking to change central provisions of the legislation or place senators on record on politically sensitive subjects. Potential proposals could address employee status, collective bargaining, antitrust protections or other contested elements of the national college athletics debate. 

Those amendments are unlikely to receive sufficient support for adoption. Senator Cruz and Senator Cantwell have maintained a bipartisan agreement around the legislation, with each responsible for preventing members of their respective party from adding provisions that could fracture the coalition or jeopardize final passage. 

A third category may include amendments introduced primarily to call attention to an issue. A senator could present a proposal, discuss its importance and then withdraw it after receiving assurances that the subject will continue to be considered. 

One issue receiving attention involves international student-athletes and their ability to participate fully in name, image and likeness opportunities. Senator Jon Husted of Ohio has expressed interest in the subject. However, current expectations are that his proposal is unlikely to receive a vote during consideration of this legislation and could instead become part of a future congressional discussion. 

The amendment process always introduces some uncertainty. At present, however, there does not appear to be an amendment with sufficient support to derail the bill. 

  

The Hawley Amendment 

An amendment associated with Senator Josh Hawley and the Alliance Defending Freedom helped bring approximately 10 Republican senators into the coalition necessary to advance the legislation. 

The provision establishes a federal policy that institutions participating in intercollegiate athletics should prioritize domestic students when selecting student-athletes and awarding athletics opportunities, including scholarships and roster positions. Although the language does not include an explicit mandate or enforcement mechanism, its breadth and potential implications for international student-athletes remain concerning. 

Concerns remain that the amendment was written imprecisely and did not incorporate all the clarifications stakeholders had requested. The NCAA and others reportedly communicated those concerns to the bill’s authors. 

However, because the amendment had already become public and was connected to a consequential group of Republican votes, Senate leaders elected not to reopen its language. The concern was that renegotiating the provision could elevate the controversy surrounding it and endanger the broader agreement necessary to advance the bill. 

As a result, the amendment is expected to remain in its present form through Senate consideration, with any technical or interpretive concerns potentially requiring attention later. 

  

The House Will Have to Wait 

Even if the Senate passes the Protect College Sports Act next week, the House of Representatives adjourned after only seven days in session and is not expected to return before the November election. 

That means the legislation will likely not receive House consideration until the second or third week of November, during the post-election session. 

The delay creates an extended period in which opponents can continue organizing against the bill and political circumstances can change. At the same time, Senate passage with support approaching Thursday’s 77-vote total would give the legislation considerable momentum when it returns to the House. 

Before opposition to the SCORE Act became increasingly partisan, an estimated 15 to 20 House Democrats were believed to be prepared to support that legislation. A strong bipartisan Senate vote for the compromise bill could give those representatives—and potentially others—political room to support the Protect College Sports Act. 

The outcome of the November election also will matter. If control of the House is scheduled to change in January, current House leaders could have additional incentive to complete major priorities during the post-election session. 

President Trump is also expected to press congressional Republicans to send the legislation to his desk. With the overwhelming majority of House Republicans and a meaningful group of Democrats potentially supporting it, advocates believe the bill would be positioned to clear the House. 

There will undoubtedly be complications. The House has repeatedly proven less predictable than the Senate, particularly on politically charged issues. But Senate passage by a wide bipartisan margin would substantially strengthen the likelihood that the bill could reach the president before the current Congress adjourns. 

  

The Arguments Against the Bill 

The bill’s most vocal Senate opponents, Senators Chris Murphy and Cory Booker, argue that the legislation protects what they describe as an exploitative college athletics system rather than adequately protecting the athletes themselves. 

Senator Murphy has focused on four principal objections. He contends that the bill provides college athletics with an unprecedented antitrust exemption, imposes artificial limits on student-athlete earning capacity while leaving highly compensated coaches and administrators largely unaffected, and preserves a system in which athletes lack the collective-bargaining rights available in professional sports. 

Senator Booker similarly maintains that the legislation “falls way short” of protecting athletes and could compromise their welfare and long-term economic opportunities. He has intensified his criticism during the Senate debate, arguing that coaches are compensated excessively while the bill unfairly limits what student-athletes can earn. Booker has also asserted that no student-athlete organizations support the legislation, a characterization supporters of the bill strongly dispute. 

Those arguments reflect a legitimate philosophical disagreement about whether college athletes should be treated as employees and whether collective bargaining should become the foundation of college athletics. They do not, however, fully account for several important provisions contained in the legislation. 

First, the bill does not provide college athletics with an unlimited antitrust exemption. Its protection is targeted to specific areas addressed by the legislation, including NIL and institutional compensation, eligibility, transfers, recruiting, representation by agents and enforcement of those standards. Other conduct would remain subject to existing antitrust law. 

Second, the bill expressly protects a student-athlete’s ability to enter legitimate third-party NIL agreements and earn compensation from the commercial use of the athlete’s name, image and likeness. The legislation does establish limits on direct institutional compensation, but those limitations are tied initially to the revenue-sharing structure approved through the House settlement. 

The bill would also permit an institution to exceed that amount by as much as $22.5 million annually through a retention fund for student-athletes who have completed at least one full competitive season at the institution. An institution could exceed the limit by another $5 million in proportion to the compensation it provides to athletes participating in women’s and Olympic sports. 

Those provisions represent a substantial expansion of institutional compensation—not a return to the system that existed before NIL and revenue sharing. 

Third, the legislation does not determine that student-athletes are nonemployees or prohibit future collective bargaining. Section 122 expressly states that the bill is neutral regarding the employee or nonemployee status of student-athletes. Senator Murphy may believe that Congress should affirmatively designate college athletes as employees, but the legislation does not resolve that issue in either direction. 

It is fair to observe that the bill does not impose a general ceiling on coaching or administrative salaries. It is not accurate, however, to suggest that those expenditures are entirely ignored. Institutions generating more than $80 million in annual athletics revenue could not use funds outside athletics revenue or athletics-directed contributions to provide more than $500,000 in compensation to a coach, assistant coach, general manager or other person managing a team. 

The bill also requires certain high-revenue institutions seeking financial-hardship relief from women’s and Olympic sports protections to reduce the total compensation of coaching staffs in their revenue-producing sports by the same proportion as any proposed reduction in expenditures for non-revenue sports. 

Most importantly, the legislation contains significant protections specifically for student-athletes. It establishes academic, medical, health, safety, NIL and transfer protections; creates an Office of the Student Athlete Ombudsman; requires student-athlete representation within athletics governance; protects scholarships under specified circumstances; and provides athletes with a private right of action to enforce numerous provisions. 

The legislation is not perfect, nor does it answer every economic or legal question facing college athletics. The appropriate comparison, however, is not between this bill and an ideal system upon which every stakeholder agrees. No such consensus exists. 

The appropriate comparison is between a national framework containing enforceable student-athlete protections and the system currently developing through conflicting state laws, individual court rulings and rules that can change from one jurisdiction—or one week—to the next. 

Collective bargaining may sound like a cleaner alternative, but establishing it across public and private institutions, differing state labor laws, dozens of sports, multiple NCAA divisions and hundreds of thousands of athletes would be enormously complicated. The House settlement, NIL reform and the proposed federal legislation have already brought substantial compensation into the marketplace more quickly than a national collective-bargaining system likely could have achieved. 

The arguments raised by Senators Murphy and Booker should be heard and evaluated. But so should the full language of the legislation and the protections, compensation and stability it would provide. 

  

A National Framework Is Within Reach 

The Protect College Sports Act will not resolve every challenge facing college athletics. No single piece of legislation could. 

It can, however, replace an unsustainable collection of state laws, conflicting court decisions and temporary policy responses with a more coherent national structure. It can provide greater clarity regarding NIL, revenue sharing, transfers, eligibility, recruiting and enforcement. It can preserve broad-based athletics opportunities, protect scholarships and establish meaningful representation for conferences and institutions beyond the wealthiest programs. 

For The Big West and other basketball-centric conferences, that representation remains particularly important. A national framework cannot be designed solely around major college football. It must recognize the full breadth of Division I, the value of the automatic-qualification system and the thousands of opportunities created by institutions committed to broad-based athletics programs. 

This week’s procedural votes did not finish the work. The Senate must complete debate, determine whether amendments will receive consideration and pass the legislation. The House must then act during a compressed and potentially unpredictable post-election session. 

But after years of discussion without resolution, Congress may finally be approaching a bipartisan answer. 

The bill’s support grew from 74 votes to 77 as it moved toward the Senate floor. The most difficult procedural votes may now be behind it. The votes that will determine whether college athletics will finally receive a national framework are still to come. 

  



  
   MEDIA REPORTS ON THE BIG WEST, NCAA,  LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE UPDATES   

  • U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) pushes back on the idea that college sports are in “chaos,” writing on X: “The ‘chaos’ is that (mostly black) athletes now have bargaining power and white coaches and sports industry execs hate it. Revenue for college sports – especially football and basketball (the ones in the supposed ‘crisis’) - is booming. The SEC - clamoring for this bill - gave out a record $1 BILLION to its schools last year. The new football playoff TV deal is $1.3B - triple the last deal. Women's sports are growing, not shrinking. Division 1 schools have added 87 programs in recent years. Women's BB attendance hit 13M in 2025 - a record. And fwiw, there is no enforceable requirement that new $$ schools get from the bill go to women's sports anyway. Fan interest is at an all-time high. More proof that athlete empowerment has annoyed coaches, but drawn MORE fans. ESPN football viewership was UP 16% last year. March Madness had a 30-year viewership high. Fans like it when kids are paid what they are worth. Sure the eligibility, transfer and compensation rules need to be cleaned up. But college sports doesn't need a groundbreaking anti-trust exemption for that! The ‘crisis’ is made up. The only crisis is schools and coaches having to work harder to recruit and keep athletes.” (link) 
  • Grand Canyon AD Jamie Boggs responds to Murphy’s post, dismissing his proof as “rhetoric,” adding: “Here are the real numbers and the real story: ‘Revenue for college sports is booming.’ Maybe at the very top, but 94% of DI athletics programs spend more than they generate, including 49 of 69 ‘Power’ programs. Great for the SEC that it distributed $1B. That’s 16 schools. There are hundreds of schools in DI. What about everyone else? Maybe you mean the sports supposedly driving all the profits? Still wrong. 76% of DI men’s basketball and 67% of DI football programs don’t generate enough revenue to cover even their own operating expenses. Revenue is NOT profit.” Boggs continues…  
    • ‘Women’s sports are growing.’ Great. Let’s protect that. College athletics is intentionally a broad-based participation model. DI schools are required to sponsor multiple men’s and women’s sports. It isn’t a professional league designed to operate only profitable teams.”  
    • “‘Ratings prove fans like athletes getting paid.’ No. Ratings prove fans love college sports. Fans support the front of the jersey. Players graduate, transfer and turn pro. The fans remain.”  
    • “‘There is no chaos.’ Conflicting state laws. Constant litigation. Rising costs ultimately borne by universities, students, donors and, at many publicly funded universities, taxpayers. That’s not a sustainable way to govern a national system. And turning this debate to race ignores the diversity of the athletes whose opportunities are at stake. There are nearly 90,000 Black student-athletes across the NCAA and more than half compete in sports other than football and men’s basketball. What about them? Their opportunities matter too. Using the economics of a small fraction of DI programs to define all of college athletics isn’t the full story. It’s misleading rhetoric. What about the 94%? … Who pays? And what happens to everyone else? (link) 
  • Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) says the Protect College Sports Act would likely be taken up by the House following the midterm elections and not before as Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman reports Thursday’s House voting schedule has now been cancelled with today serving as the legislative body’s last in session before the midterms. Sherman: “Johnson said he would try to build support for the Senate's NIL bill if it passes. He says it’s a lame duck item, most likely.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) says he may fill the amendment tree on the college sports bill, which would allow it to pass faster but also prevent amendment votes from senators. “We'll find out what level of cooperation we can get from Democrats. But that's an option. This has been a pretty well vetted bill through a long process, including committee markup and everything else. And I think, for the most part, with the big vote that we had last night, most people should be ready to go on it.” (link, link, link, link)  
  • This week’s Oregon Employment Relations Board hearing to determine if members of the Oregon State women's basketball team can unionize as public university employees could have a significant impact on college athletics’ future, per USA Today’s Mitchell Northam. The United College Athletes Association argues OSU’s compensated women’s basketball players meet Oregon's public employee standard, with the school paying the student-athletes “a collective total of $543K per year” for competing for the Beavers “and performing other services dependent on their status as OSU Women’s Basketball athletes.” Oregon State counters that the student-athletes aren’t employees, framing NIL and financial aid as non-wage benefits and warning a union classification would heavily impact tax, Title IX and competitive dynamics nationwide. Two current OSU student-athletes were slated to testify in front of the board on Monday, with university academic officials scheduled to go on Tuesday. The hearing will re-convene over October 19-20 and a decision isn’t expected until late November. (link, link) 
  • CalMatters filed a lawsuit against Cal in Alameda County (CA) Superior Court, seeking to force the university to release financial information on how much its student-athletes receive from NIL deals, per CalMatters’ Mikhail Zinshteyn, who notes the suit is nearly identical to the one the nonprofit news outlet filed against UCLA back in August 2025. In both cases, the institutions refused to divulge how much they compensate student-athletes as a result of the House settlement. “UC Berkeley has not produced records sufficient to show how those public funds are being distributed,” the suit alleges, arguing state taxpayers are entitled to learn the names of players universities pay and the teams for which they compete. Overall, CalMatters filed numerous California Public Records Act requests to public universities across the state, while spending almost a year seeking the data from Cal. Several campuses offered paltry data in response. Others, however, produced at least partial records, indicating the payment records and contracts the newsroom seeks are public records, according to the lawsuit. (link) 



 

   LET'S CLOSE IT OUT   

This week is another reminder that progress takes many forms. 

It is reflected in nationally ranked teams, student-athletes earning recognition, conference representatives exchanging ideas and Marin Byars carrying The Big West’s voice to Capitol Hill. It is also reflected in the difficult work of building consensus around legislation that will help determine the future of college athletics. 

We will not agree with every provision, predict every consequence or eliminate every uncertainty. Leadership does not require perfect information. It requires us to understand the landscape, advocate for the people and institutions we represent, protect the opportunities at the heart of college athletics and continue moving forward with purpose. 

The future will not arrive fully formed. We have a responsibility to help shape it. 

Be informed. Be engaged. BE BOLD! 




 

   QUOTE TO FINISH STRONG   

“The essence of leadership is essentially taking the responsibility of trying to interpret the future to the present.”  – Paul Keating, former Prime Minister of Australia 


 

Dan