Why are Murphy, Blumenthal supporting anti-CT sports bill?

Aug. 11—Here is the premise, which admittedly could be perceived as naïve, given our country's current political cesspool:

U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy would champion legislation that necessarily benefits Connecticut residents, institutions and interests first, given that Connecticut is state they represent.

If such a presumption is accepted, can someone explain why Blumenthal and Murphy would be banging drums for the latest version of the College Athlete Bill of Rights, many of whose tenets would potentially harm state schools, if they even apply to them at all?

On the surface, the Bill of Rights' platform appears to have universal appeal, with sections about gender equity, scholarships, health and safety and school accountability. But a deeper dive uncovers some frightening possibilities tied to revenues — or lack thereof as they apply to Central Connecticut, Fairfield, Quinnipiac, Sacred Heart and even UConn — that could cripple their athletic departments.

"To me, the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer," an athletic official from a Connecticut university said Thursday, asking for anonymity to not run afoul of the politicos. "I haven't gotten into the weeds on this because it doesn't really affect us. We're just trying to survive."

Note the words: "It doesn't really affect us."

"Other than grandstanding or picking the popular side of an issue, I'd love to hear Blumenthal or Murphy talk about how this benefits people in Connecticut," said Old Lyme native Brian Barrio, the athletic director at Div. I Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) and the former AD at Central Connecticut.

"Why are two Connecticut senators supporting something that has little to do with people in Connecticut? It's going after a problem that doesn't exist in Connecticut. The only impact it would have is that it would hurt Connecticut schools."

Barrio, who wrote extensively on the bill when it was first introduced in 2020, said the baseline of understanding college athletics in Connecticut begins with the concept of "DI-AAA" schools — Division I schools that do not sponsor FBS football "and have significantly smaller budgets and more modest student-athlete populations than Power 5 institutions."

That would be Central, Quinnipiac, Sacred Heart and Fairfield. It's also worth noting that UConn, the state's lone FBS program, has a $47 million budget deficit.

Barrio said DI-AAA athletic departments have little to no ability to generate outside dollars (media deals, merchandising, etc.) and are not members of conferences with multi-million dollar media rights contracts. DI-AAA schools have as few as 10 percent of their student-athletes receiving full athletic scholarships and in many cases more than half of the total student-athletes are non-scholarship, paying fully to attend school.

Barrio said that with very few exceptions, a mere handful of athletes get full DI-AAA full scholarships — mostly men's and women's basketball players. He said they're receiving "more in scholarship benefits than they could earn anywhere else playing their sport."

"At DI-AAA schools, athletics exist to help generate enrollment and create visibility," Barrio said, noting that his school's cachet increased dramatically when UMBC upset Virginia in the 2018 NCAA Tournament. "That's why schools spend money on athletics. Nobody makes money except for 20 or 30 schools.

"It's silly to think all this extra money is being generated. I guarantee it doesn't work that way at any school in Connecticut."

Barrio said a common mistake in examining athletic department "revenues" is to assume that university subsidies aimed to help balance athletic department budgets are considered "revenue." Translation: Athletic departments at Connecticut state universities aren't making money. They rely on university subsidies to survive. It's not revenue in the traditional sense — or certainly as it applies to this bill.

And this is where Blumenthal and Murphy are betraying their constituency. Sports Illustrated reported recently the new bill is "substantively identical" to the version that was introduced in December of 2020 except that it does not feature a revenue-sharing concept, mandating that student-athletes annually receive money directly based on the revenue surpluses they help their teams generate.

However, New Jersey Senator Corey Booker plans to introduce a separate, standalone bill regarding revenue sharing, a Booker staff member told SI.

Blumenthal and Murphy should oppose that vehemently.

"Could I ever share revenue?" an athletic official from a state university said. "If I had to, I would cease to exist."

This is not the time for Blumenthal and Murphy to grandstand. They must understand that athletic departments at state universities are in permanent scramble mode. Example: Why is Central Connecticut playing UConn in football next month at Rentschler Field? Not because East Hartford is lovely this time of year or because they love the smell of 25,000 empty seats in the morning. The Blue Devils will receive a guaranteed $270,000 — money the athletic department needs more than a lung.

"At our school, we generate a couple hundred thousand in ticket sales in basketball," Barrio said. "Every dollar of revenue I bring it is being used to offset expenses, like to keep buses running. You start taking that revenue away and giving it to student-athletes, I've got to find more money somewhere else to keep buses running. The idea that all this excess revenue sloshing around is true at about 20 schools."

And none of those 20 schools are in the state Blumenthal and Murphy represent.

"This bill is attempting to address perceived issues of exploitation and waste that exist only for elite athletes barred by age limits from participating in major professional sports leagues," Barrio said. "Mainly men's basketball and football players who due to age restrictions are not permitted to enter the draft. This is a problem that exists on 15 or 20 campuses, but suddenly might affect thousands of schools throughout the country. They need a scalpel to fix this and they've chosen a chainsaw."

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro