Hill: It’s worth hearing other side of the Protect College Sports Act debate

Something was very noticeable about Saturday’s appearance of Senator Ted Cruz on ESPN’s “College Gameday” to support the Protect College Sports Act.

Beyond the boos and derogatory chants from the Austin, Texas, crowd.

It was more about what wasn’t seen.

Because despite a wave of criticism for presenting only one side of the argument on the importance of the passing of the bill last week, the sport’s most influential television program did it again.

Cruz, one of the bill’s sponsors, espoused the virtues of the legislation largely unchecked on a show that has been unequivocal in its support.

At least we can assume that’s what he was saying during responses that were drowned out by the boos. Maybe they should have shot this interview in a studio or inside a building on campus if they wanted his words to be understood.

But the intent was undeniable. If you missed the interview, plenty of commercials in support of passage of the bill aired throughout the day during college football game broadcasts.

There is a concerted effort to sell this bill as being good for all sides and as the only path to reign in the chaos that has been unleashed on college sports, particularly football and men’s basketball. But something is unsettling about pretending there is no counter argument.

Selfishly, it probably is a good thing.

The bill would restrict movement and restore order to college athletics, which is probably an ideal outcome for fans and consumers. It’s also a good thing for athletic departments and boosters to get some of the spending under control. Fans once again can have players to root for over several years, and some of the conference realignment will be curbed.

Yay, for everyone. Except the athletes.

Their voices weren’t heard nearly enough in the drafting of this legislation and are conspicuously absent during the lobbying.

That’s unfortunate because it’s a complicated issue that is screaming for a collaborative solution.

The fascinating part of the argument is that the bill as it is written is probably something that is good for me. It’s good for about 99 percent of the people reading these words. We get some semblance of the version of college sports we knew and loved for so long back. It’s a favorable outcome, right?

The bill still allows players to get paid with restrictions and transfer once like in the old days.

These ungrateful athletes should be happy they get anything, right?

That is the attitude of too many people screaming from high on their horses for passage of this bill.

Yet this is a difficult problem to solve. Athletes went from decades of being egregiously exploited to the past few years of unfettered freedom and earning potential.

They’ve had it just as good as the coaches and administrators have had it for decades. And we can’t allow that to continue.

The power brokers in the sport don’t seem to like how the tables have turned and want to make sure they offer a reminder of who is in charge.

Their broadcast partners are willing messengers, starting with how many natural advocates are employed and have a vested interest in going back to the way things were when the rich and powerful kept all the money and power.

The bill is probably going to pass because of who wants it to pass. The overwhelming majority of the public probably wouldn’t change their opinion even if they heard the dissenting points of view.

But it’s only fair to hear all sides, and they should be presented.

The best and most fair way for all parties to fix this is through collective bargaining. For all of the vested points of view to have a seat at the table and come up with a set of standards that control the chaos while also allowing more freedom and power for the players. There would have to be give and take on both sides, but at least there would be a voice.

And maybe some of those voices also would be given a platform to express a dissenting and unpopular view.