Scott hopes to schedule a call for this week to address the players' concerns and demandsGETTY IMAGES
Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott sent a letter to the group of football players threatening to boycott the '20 season, saying that he is "open to holding dialogue," according to Ross Dellenger of SI.com. Scott also said that Pac-12 officials are "reviewing #WeAreUnited’s list of demands and documents." He wrote, "I will come back to you in the coming days following discussion with our members and student-athlete leaders to schedule a call for this week to discuss the matters that you have raised." Scott wrote the health of athletes is the conference's "No. 1 priority." In regard to many of the players' demands, Scott "cites multiple initiatives that the Pac-12 has championed over the years" (SI.com, 8/3). In L.A., McCollough, Bolch & Nguyen note Scott in his letter "pointed to the Pac-12's decision to guarantee the scholarship and team standing of any players who opted out due to COVID-19." He also said that the league "supports the passage of a one-time transfer waiver, along with name, image and likeness rights, which are expected to be granted to players" in January '21 (L.A. TIMES, 8/4).
PLAYERS RESPOND: ESPN.com's Kyle Bonagura notes leaders from the #WeAreUnited campaign responded late last night "asking for more immediate action." An email approved by the group's leadership reads, "While we appreciate the response, we are looking to move on a faster timeline than you have proposed. We are two weeks from fall camp and would like to work to come to a resolution so that we can play this season." Bonagura notes Scott's response "did not address several demands listed in the Players' Tribune article, including a call for a drastic reduction of Scott's salary," which has been reported to be more than $5M annually, and the "distribution of 50% of each sport's total conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports" (ESPN.com, 8/4).
UPDATE FROM PULLMAN: USA TODAY's Jace Evans reports Washington State coach Nick Rolovich last night released a statement "attempting to clarify the situation" after his reported comments discouraging WR Kassidy Woods from joining the #WeAreUnited group "created a stir." Rolovich "maintains that their conversation occurred before the release of the '#WeAreUnited' group's platform, and that his words seemingly opposing players being in the group were misconstrued." He said those joining the group "will continue to be welcome to all team-related activities" (USA TODAY, 8/4). Rolovich also reportedly "addressed the situation in a team meeting" yesterday (Spokane SPOKESMAN-REVIEW, 8/4).
INFLECTION POINT: ESPN's Mina Kimes on the #WeAreUnited group said, "We’ve got a group of players who are not only very brave, because this took courage, but also very smart. They did us a service in drawing a connection between everything … race, money, health. It’s all connected. It’s always been connected, but that connection has never been more apparent than in this moment." ESPN's Pablo Torre added, "As the NCAA is revealed to be pretty powerless in this pandemic in terms of their ability to solve any of the crises facing their athletes and their coaches and administrators, the athletes themselves are more organized than they’ve ever been" (“Around the Horn,” ESPN, 8/3). ESPN's Michael Wilbon: “This could be the last straw. This could knock the NCAA completely out. The Pac-12, you’re not talking about some small, hidden away conference. We’re talking about the Power Five" (“PTI,” ESPN, 8/4).
LONG TIME COMING: The WALL STREET JOURNAL’s Jason Gay wrote the formation of a group like that in the Pac-12 "was bound to happen." Players have long realized that their sport "had bloomed into a free-market economy in which everyone was taking a cut of the free market except for one party: the talent on the field." Gay: "The jig is up. The players have leverage, and they know it“ (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 8/3). In Omaha, Tom Shatel writes this is “high drama unlike anything we’ve ever seen heading into a college football season.” The timing of this move "looks smart," as schools financially “can’t afford to lose a football season.” However, the season “might shut down anyway” due to coronavirus concerns. Still, Shatel asks, “Will the Pac-12 give in to the players’ demands? Would all these players actually boycott practice and games? And how many? Is this the beginning of a movement in other conferences -- and the formation of a college players union?” (OMAHA WORLD-HERALD, 8/4).
MISSING THE MARK? In Austin, Kirk Bohls wrote the players are “wise to finally try to use their leverage to force meaningful change.” However, they are “not speaking with one collective, strong voice, and they will get severe blowback from the just-play crowd.” Bohls: “They’d be wise to laser-focus their demands for health insurance, medical protocols and five years of eligibility.” Also in Austin, Cedric Golden wrote this is a “brave undertaking, but there are a lot of voices coming from several directions, which is problematic.” Some of the demands “will fall under the can’t-win-this-one category, but I don’t blame them one bit for wanting to be heard” (AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 8/3). In St. Louis, Jeff Gordon wrote college sports administrators “are obviously OK with players opting out of playing due to the pandemic, but they aren’t interested in negotiating much else when athletic departments are bleeding red ink” (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 8/3).
CRACKS IN THE FOUNDATION: In Utah, Dick Harmon wrote the move is “destined to wash out,” as it “comes too late” in the preseason. Harmon: “It just isn’t going to fly with the majority of Pac-12 players who are hungry, eager and anxious to get this season kicked off -- if there is a season. As concerned as many are becoming these days, there are limits to reality and how things work as the wheels of time grind forward” (DESERET NEWS, 8/3). In San Diego, Mark Zeigler writes college athletes apparently “aren’t going to stop asking for more even as they receive concession after concession.” Zeigler: “Here’s a suggestion: Go ahead, boycott away. Your loss. … College athletic administrators need to make a choice: Are they going to continue backpedaling, or are they going to make a tackle?” (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 8/4).
