I read fine. Yes, basis of sex. Is the sex based on what their body shows it is or what their identity says it is? That isn't covered anywhere, Professor.

You're reading into this what you want it to be. Just because you say it is doesn't make any of it a "pointless obfuscation."

As l understand it, relevant cases are making their way through the courts so they're the ones who get to decide. You'll just have to wait to see if a physical man competing as a woman is a "pointless obfuscation."

No, actually, it is covered. Bostock v. Clayton County (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618) in 2019 ruled (with a 6-3 majority with some conservative justices joining) that transgendered individuals cannot be discriminated against or fired because of their "new" sex conflicting with their biological sex. This transposes pretty easily into Title IX of the same act (https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1383026/download) since the language is essentially interchangeable. And historically, the Court has interpreted Title IX's language broadly, since the language itself is broad (as established in North
Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-986). Adding these pointless obfuscating adjectives like "assigned" or "identity" in front of the word "sex" goes against the broad nature of the statute, according to the courts. If Congress wants to clarify by adding those words, fine, they can pass a new law, but until they do the language of the statue is pretty clear, and Bostock affirms that.

So if a woman born as a man is taking hormone therapy you are fine with them competing as a woman?

How about you stop responding to my posts and l'll do likewise. You are only trolling me at this point.

How about you stop responding to my posts and l'll do likewise. You are only trolling me at this point.

You can't even figure out what you are arguing for or against now. Sad.

No, actually, it is covered. Bostock v. Clayton County (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618) in 2019 ruled (with a 6-3 majority with some conservative justices joining) that transgendered individuals cannot be discriminated against or fired because of their "new" sex conflicting with their biological sex. This transposes pretty easily into Title IX of the same act (https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1383026/download) since the language is essentially interchangeable. And historically, the Court has interpreted Title IX's language broadly, since the language itself is broad (as established in North
Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-986). Adding these pointless obfuscating adjectives like "assigned" or "identity" in front of the word "sex" goes against the broad nature of the statute, according to the courts. If Congress wants to clarify by adding those words, fine, they can pass a new law, but until they do the language of the statue is pretty clear, and Bostock affirms that.

Title XI is written so whoever is the President at the time can interpret and apply the law as he/she wants, which is what Biden did with his executive order. The SCOTUS ruling was about Title VII Employment discrimination and not Title lX Public School Education.

Biden's Justice Department is making their own interpretation that the Title VII ruling applies to Title IX which is their right. They simply change the Trump Justice Department interpretation which was their right. You state the statute language is pretty clear which is simply untrue. Title IX is a one sentence statute that can change with the POTUS.

That's why lawsuits are pending so we'll have to see whose right are being violated. This is the case that's being run up the Federal court ladder.

https://apnews.com/article/connecticut-high-school-sports-lawsuits-gender-identity-laws-299951f62de1fc93a109d6128687af82

Title XI is written so whoever is the President at the time can interpret and apply the law as he/she wants, which is what Biden did with his executive order. The SCOTUS ruling was about Title VII Employment discrimination and not Title lX Public School Education.

Biden's Justice Department is making their own interpretation that the Title VII ruling applies to Title IX which is their right. They simply change the Trump Justice Department interpretation which was their right. You state the statute language is pretty clear which is simply untrue. Title IX is a one sentence statute that can change with the POTUS.

That's why lawsuits are pending so we'll have to see whose right are being violated. This is the case that's being run up the Federal court ladder.

https://apnews.com/article/connecticut-high-school-sports-lawsuits-gender-identity-laws-299951f62de1fc93a109d6128687af82

This is a pretty profound misunderstanding of how things work. POTUS can direct his education and justice departments to make certain statements and regulatory interpretations in house, but the actual legal interpretation of the law is up to the Courts, not POTUS. And under Bostock, the Courts have shown that their interpretation "on the basis of sex" is indeed broad, which aligns with their earlier Title IX ruling in North Haven. To go against that in a Title IX case would be hugely ignorant of the existing precedent (and would require Gorsuch and Roberts to suddenly do an about face without a legal leg to stand on).

This is a pretty profound misunderstanding of how things work. POTUS can direct his education and justice departments to make certain statements and regulatory interpretations in house, but the actual legal interpretation of the law is up to the Courts, not POTUS. And under Bostock, the Courts have shown that their interpretation "on the basis of sex" is indeed broad, which aligns with their earlier Title IX ruling in North Haven. To go against that in a Title IX case would be hugely ignorant of the existing precedent (and would require Gorsuch and Roberts to suddenly do an about face without a legal leg to stand on).

Well, that's precisely what l've been saying at the end of thelast couple of posts. Of course the courts have the final say.

The administrations still have very different ways of interpreting the rule even still. The longer it goes on, the more lawsuits will consistently define it. Harking to another post where someone criticized me for bringing up hypotheticals, had the original Congress who passed the law anticipated hypotheticals, many of these suits could have been avoided. As it is, the bureaucrats have been setting guidelines that, recently, have gone from one extreme to the other.fy458i9

"Congress kept the core provision of Title IX very brief, only one sentence long. The interpretation and implementation of Title IX was left to the executive, whom Congress expressly "authorized and directed to effectuate the [statute] by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of [its] objectives ..."[3]"

Regardless of a very few, rare cases...

What on earth is our state legislature doing making this a priority?

It's political grandstanding and if you can't see that, their methods are just playing to your political bias and need to constantly construct 'evil forces' instead of dealing with real problems in our state and society in general.

exactly this... regardless how you feel about this... we have way more important things to be trying to solve, why is this even an issue being brought up by our legislature?

exactly this... regardless how you feel about this... we have way more important things to be trying to solve, why is this even an issue being brought up by our legislature?

Because it's a cultural wedge issue that panders to their base.

Like this has any real importance other than that.

Where in the bill of rights is this covered? I don't see one saying you have the right to participate in women's athletics even though you are physically a man. Are we inventing a new right to apply?

You might take a look at a U.S. History book sometime. This is exactly how civil rights activism and legislation has worked from the Reconstruction Amendments to the Civil Rights Act to the Oberfell decision among many others. So, yes, this is kind of equivalent to how some White controlled schools and districts decided that Black athletes could play before others. These cases are not just decided for everyone, but in schools, districts, and states in the meantime.


Like this has any real importance other than that.

There is only one group who are truly impacted by this legislation: transgender youth. They are often the most marginalized, bullied, and vulnerable kids in our schools. If you read the articles earlier, the transgender athletes discussed how humanizing it was to have institutional support. I'm glad the NCAA is doing the right thing here. How important is this issue to the bullies at the state capitol? Are they willing to throw away once of OKC's best annual events?

Because it's a cultural wedge issue that panders to their base.

Like this has any real importance other than that.

It does matter to women athletes, otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits filed by them. If it weren't important to someone, Biden wouldn't have issued an Executive Order on the issue.

It does matter to women athletes, otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits filed by them. If it weren't important to someone, Biden wouldn't have issued an Executive Order on the issue.

I think there are a few lawsuits being filed. https://apnews.com/article/connecticut-high-school-sports-lawsuits-gender-identity-laws-299951f62de1fc93a109d6128687af82 is the one I know of

It does matter to women athletes, otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits filed by them. If it weren't important to someone, Biden wouldn't have issued an Executive Order on the issue.

A very small number of athletes. Lawsuits are filed all the time.

And the only reason Biden is getting involved is that a bunch of legislators are trying to make this into another cultural war by demonizing people who should be treated with compassion rather than made into an enemy to be exploited for political gain.

There are also a very small number of transgendered women while far more female athletes. As l said earlier, l see the olympics as being the place it really comes out but the CT case will likely try to make it to the Supreme Court. We'll see.

There are also a very small number of transgendered women while far more female athletes. As l said earlier, l see the olympics as being the place it really comes out but the CT case will likely try to make it to the Supreme Court. We'll see.

This is about discriminating against a group of people, just like making a big deal out of gay marriage.

You and everyone knows darn well this is about feeding red meat to a certain base of political supporters who loved the ban of trans people in the military and the "othering" of immigrants and similar theatrics.


The bottom line is, OKC has a very real chance of losing the Women's College World Series and a bunch of other NCAA events that bring a lot of interest and money to the state; not to mention once again making us all look like a bunch of redneck, intolerant rubes as we try to court businesses and their employees to the state. It's nothing about some mock concern over some hypothetical female athletes somewhere, some time.


If this becomes an issue, let the Olympics deal with it then and there. it's absurd for legislators in Oklahoma to be spending time on this absolute foolishness and only bad things can come of it.

this. . . ^^^

You might take a look at a U.S. History book sometime. This is exactly how civil rights activism and legislation has worked from the Reconstruction Amendments to the Civil Rights Act to the Oberfell decision among many others. So, yes, this is kind of equivalent to how some White controlled schools and districts decided that Black athletes could play before others. These cases are not just decided for everyone, but in schools, districts, and states in the meantime.



There is only one group who are truly impacted by this legislation: transgender youth. They are often the most marginalized, bullied, and vulnerable kids in our schools. If you read the articles earlier, the transgender athletes discussed how humanizing it was to have institutional support. I'm glad the NCAA is doing the right thing here. How important is this issue to the bullies at the state capitol? Are they willing to throw away once of OKC's best annual events?

According to this quote from bill co-author, Sheila Dills, from Tulsa they most definitely are willing to throw away one of OKC's best annual events.
“We all want to promote business and economic development opportunities in our state and our local communities, and we certainly love athletics. But we cannot sacrifice our Oklahoma values, which include fairness in sport and the protection of opportunities for women and girls in Oklahoma, for the sake of dollars or even the popularity of such events."

Oklahoma City's opportunity to host a 64 team WCWS bubble.

https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/image/fetch/c_fill,h_500,q_75,w_800/https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/image/upload/crm/oklahoma/HOFcomplex1_5b5eaa5f-5056-a36a-06caebdc646642b4.jpg

https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/large960_blur-4a7c5f2b890830e84f1864a148c43c66.jpg

https://nfca.org/images/General_Releases/2020/USA-Softball-Hall-of-Fame-Complex-2020.jpg

"We are already the home of the Women’s College World Series, of course. Got an expanded and renovated stadium all ready for it, too. But we’ve got way more than that — we’ve got the ability to do the whole NCAA softball tournament.

Now, this might seem like a pie-in-the-sky idea. But as one person who works in the world of softball reminded me, everyone is thinking outside the box right now. When it comes to ideas about how to give teams an opportunity to play, nothing is too far fetched...

...The NCAA softball tournament is a three-week event that starts with 64 teams. They are seeded into four-team, double-elimination regionals, then the winners of the 16 regionals advance to two-team, best-of-three super regionals. The eight winners of the super regionals advance to the WCWS.

So, how would May Madness in OKC work?

The biggest issue would be where everyone plays and how our available facilities are put to use, but we have enough high-quality fields as long as a couple small tweaks are allowed...

...By the way, I’m told the metro has plenty of hotel rooms to accommodate teams and ancillary tournament personnel. Everyone might not get to stay in downtown OKC, but if the fields at OU and OSU are used, for example, everyone might not want to stay downtown.

Another aside, I wouldn’t allow OU or OSU to play on their home fields. That’s how the men’s basketball tournament is doing business — games will be held at Indiana, Purdue and Butler, but those teams won’t play on their home courts if they make the tournament — so that rule could easily apply to softball.

Listen, I know this plan would require sacrifices. Sacrifices by the teams. Sacrifices by the NCAA. Sacrifices by the facilities.

But the benefits are numerous.

For the NCAA, travel costs would be slashed. That’s the tournament’s biggest expense, and while lodging costs would rise, not having to buy hundreds of plane tickets on short notice for players, coaches and support staff to jet all around the country would make up the difference.

For the metro, we would get a softball-stravaganza that would be a balm for the loss of the WCWS last year. That was a complete and total gut punch, but we could have three full weeks of NCAA games. It would be great for the city and a boost to the economy.--Jenni Carlson, January 7, 2021 Oklahoman.

Oklahoma City has an opportunity to really host an event (64-team WCWS softball tournament) with an economic impact boost to our city's hotels that could be a real shot-in-the-arm with out-of-state money flowing into our local economy.




https://static-12.sinclairstoryline.com/resources/media/73674eb9-d670-408f-88e8-5c559cae340a-large3x4_20180503OMNIOKC11highres.jpg?153842239649 3

http://www.cfmedia.vfmleonardo.com/imageRepo/7/0/120/998/117/okcsi-exterior-4315-ver-clsc_O.jpg

https://media2.fdncms.com/okgazette/imager/u/original/6826204/embassy_suites.jpg



Oklahoma City Downtown Hotel Summary: https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=34292

Great idea (and it's looking so good post-updates), but if the leg has its way......

Need to let the NCAA govern women's college sports!! Not the Ok Legislature!

How about MAYhem?

The amazing thing for me is that people think that there is a significant number of teenage kids who are willing to undergo life altering medical procedures, spend a huge amount of money on procedures that may not be coveted by insurance, undergo bullying with verbal (and often physical) assault from classmates and their parents, only to gain a slight competitive edge in high school sports...

Where in the bill of rights is this covered? I don't see one saying you have the right to participate in women's athletics even though you are physically a man. Are we inventing a new right to apply?

Two potential areas-- equal protection, though I doubt the conservative Justices could be swayed. Probably the most likely issue is that there is no rational basis seeking to accomplish any legitimate governmental goal in banning trans athletes. Especially when groups like the OSSAA have been handling this for years with very few issues.

Sure, some athletes are going to have a bit of a leg up, but I don't think anyone's going to go through a gender transition just to win at sportsball. While we're on those physical advantages, Michael Phelps has an unnatural wingspan. Should he be banned from swimming because it's just not fair to the competition?

Well, of course no one is going to have a sex change solely to win a contest and Michael Phelps having long arms is a fair advantage because 1. There are plenty of other men with long arms and 2. It's physical equals competing against each other. Same with Usain Bolt being 6-5, it's still physical equals. Let's not stoop to absurdities. Protecting women from being forced to compete on the same level as physical men may not be your cup of tea but it's far from an absurdity.

We'll see how the courts see it.

I have lots of different and differing thoughts on trans-gender athletes in college sports. But since this is a softball thread I'll say this. If this year's OU softball team came up against a team with two or three trans-gender players in the WCWS finals I'd still bet the house on OU. Maybe even to sweep by run rules. So I'm not sure it's that big a deal in some sports. In others maybe it is a bigger deal.

Let's not stoop to absurdities.

A weird stance for someone who earlier was clutching their pearls in fear of Trae Young or Steph Curry transitioning to dominate the WNBA.

I have lots of different and differing thoughts on trans-gender athletes in college sports. But since this is a softball thread I'll say this. If this year's OU softball team came up against a team with two or three trans-gender players in the WCWS finals I'd still bet the house on OU. Maybe even to sweep by run rules. So I'm not sure it's that big a deal in some sports. In others maybe it is a bigger deal.

lol this is funny ..

a team of all guys that have played softball all year would crush this OU womens team

just like the womens us national soccer team lost to 8th grade boys .. and a good high schools boys team would beat the team usa womens bball team ..

lol this is funny ..

a team of all guys that have played softball all year would crush this OU womens team

just like the womens us national soccer team lost to 8th grade boys .. and a good high schools boys team would beat the team usa womens bball team ..

A all men's team yes. That's not what I said.

A all men's team yes. That's not what I said.

i guess it depends on if one of the is a pitcher .... elite women throw around 70 .... men 85-90

Your words, not mine:




If Trae Young or Buddy Heild or Stephan Curry became trans, would it be fair to let them compete in the WNBA? What if it were Kevin Durant or James Hardin? Their skills wouldn't change much if they transitioned.

Wow, https://twitter.com/carmenmforman/status/1384296921779478530?s=21

Wow, https://twitter.com/carmenmforman/status/1384296921779478530?s=21

not sure why that is surprising ..

about 30+ states will have this same legislation this year ..

not sure why that is surprising ..

about 30+ states will have this same legislation this year ..
Because of the economic consequences, but please continue playing stupid.

duplicate

Because of the economic consequences, but please continue playing stupid.

if you thought this wasn't going pass .. you would have been playing stupid ...... and that has nothing to do with my thoughts for or against the bill

about 30+ states will have this same legislation this year ..

Which means there are 20 states that will be happy to take the Women's College World Series and about 20 other NCAA national and regional events that are scheduled for the state.

The negative impact of this could easily reach into the billions. Not to mention the loss of the national exposure and tourism we get as a result; you simply can't buy that type of positive PR.


And super glad we just spent $28 million for a softball complex that is now going to gather dust.

And in the long run, these kinds of laws will be struck down anyways for violating the equal protection clause and portions of the Civil Rights act. It's a legislative temper tantrum for no real gain but a significant amount of PR and monetary losses. Just so profoundly stupid and self-defeating.

Which means there are 20 states that will be happy to take the Women's College World Series and about 20 other NCAA national and regional events that are scheduled for the state.

The negative impact of this could easily reach into the billions. Not to mention the loss of the national exposure and tourism we get as a result; you simply can't buy that type of positive PR.


And super glad we just spent $28 million for a softball complex that is now going to gather dust.

doubt the ncaa can get out of their current contract with Okc ... and if 30 states pass the legislation they would have the majority of member votes to not allow them to be banned from hosting ncaa comps ..

lets also not forget that the NCAA already has rules in place, and i think the OSSAA already does as well... so in reality, they law doesn't actually do anything except cost Oklahoma tourism, PR, and money.

found it... in June 2015... the OSSAA adopted a policy that requires male-to-female students to complete at least one year of hormone therapy before being allowed to participate on girls teams.

so instead of taking the policies of these sports governing bodies and waiting to see if there is any issues that come up. we are going to pass a blanket law for literally no reason.

^

Yeah, just like MLB baseball couldn't get out of its contract with Georgia for the all-star game.


Things get canceled all the time over similar issues.

^

Yeah, just like MLB baseball couldn't get out of its contract with Georgia for the all-star game.


Things get canceled all the time over similar issues.

that is not really the same thing ..

the ncaa agreed to a long term agreement with Oklahoma city in return for millions of dollars in improvements to the stadium

OKC has poured the millions of dollars of improvements into the stadium ..... (over 27million)

It is the same thing.

Both involve recently passed legislation that sports governing bodies have deemed discriminatory.

And the NCAA has already issued a statement about this.

It is the same thing.

Both involve recently passed legislation that sports governing bodies have deemed discriminatory.

And the NCAA has already issued a statement about this.

mlb didn't have a contract with the state of georgia or a city in georgia to have the all start game in return for millions of dollars in incentives

mlb didn't have a contract with the state of georgia or a city in georgia to have the all start game in return for millions of dollars in incentives

Of course they had a contract.

And of course Atlanta had to shell out money as part of the deal.

Of course they had a contract.

And of course Atlanta had to shell out money as part of the deal.

do you have a link to those incentives?? all star games in the big 4 American sports are not really bid on in the way most things are .. most are awarded as prizes ..... in the braves case .. as a reward to Cobb county (unincorporated area) for building the braves a new stadium

^

Google it yourself. All types of articles on the cost to host cities/counties/teams related to hosting all-star games.

^

Google it yourself. All types of articles on the cost to host cities/counties/teams related to hosting all-star games.

cobb county was paying 2 mil for extra security .... that is all ..

cobb county was paying 2 mil for extra security .... that is all ..

You don't know that is the only cost.

NBA cities pay millions in related costs to host allstar games. So the fact that OKC has spent money on the stadium by no means guarantees the NCAA can't break their contract.


And by the way, the main tenant of our softball complex is USA Softball. They could easily end their contract over this boondoggle.

doubt the ncaa can get out of their current contract with Okc ... and if 30 states pass the legislation they would have the majority of member votes to not allow them to be banned from hosting ncaa comps ..

Not meaning to sound smart aleck, but I don't think NCAA member schools will endorse any of the state laws on transgender athletes. Universities are usually socially liberal.

Also, about the only remedy for the Softball contract if the NCAA pulls out is money. Civil contracts rarely (if ever) compel performance. They award money for non-compliance. And I'm almost certain the contract as currently written has an out for the NCAA.

Not meaning to sound smart aleck, but I don't think NCAA member schools will endorse any of the state laws on transgender athletes. Universities are usually socially liberal.

Also, about the only remedy for the Softball contract if the NCAA pulls out is money. Civil contracts rarely (if ever) compel performance. They award money for non-compliance. And I'm almost certain the contract as currently written has an out for the NCAA.

your second point i totally agree with money would be the best case scenario ..

on the first .. if 30 states pass this same bill i doubt the NCAA will do anything other then posture .... they are on very very shaky ground with the power 5 conf schools already

if 30 states pass this same bill i doubt the NCAA will do anything other then posture .... they are on very very shaky ground with the power 5 conf schools already

Lots of states have passed or in the process of passing voting restrictions and MLB still found plenty of places to host the allstar game on short notice.

The NCAA has already come out with a strong statement on this matter.


Merely hoping they don't follow through when the state and city stand to lose a lot is not a very good strategy.

If you have the facilities to host a conference tourney, you can host a national tournament. Places like the Wilpon Complex in Ann Arbor that routinely hosts the Big Ten tournament MI or the ballpark in Rosemont, IL that hosts the Big East tournament could easily accommodate the national championships, and those communities would have no problem working on short notice to host such an event. There's not a lot of leverage Oklahoma has here.

I imagine the thinking of the legislature, many of whom I know do know better than this, are of the belief that they can pass this legislation and that the courts will dispose of it, and no harm/no foul. They can blame the lifetime appointed justices while running victory laps for sticking up for their Christlike approach to transgender discrimination in sports. It works every year with abortion legislation. The net effect here might even be that transgendered individuals begin to see their Constitutional rights crystallize as things move through the courts much as folks seeking same-sex marriages saw their rights finally spelled out in 50 states because someone challenged legislation threatening their rights.

I imagine the thinking of the legislature, many of whom I know do know better than this, are of the belief that they can pass this legislation and that the courts will dispose of it, and no harm/no foul. They can blame the lifetime appointed justices while running victory laps for sticking up for their Christlike approach to transgender discrimination in sports.

And dealing with the inevitable court cases will just cost taxpayers money for this idiocy.

And dealing with the inevitable court cases will just cost taxpayers money for this idiocy.

Here's hoping that the famous landmark case which sets out transgendered people as a protected class is forever known as [someone's name] v. Stitt.

your second point i totally agree with money would be the best case scenario ..

on the first .. if 30 states pass this same bill i doubt the NCAA will do anything other then posture .... they are on very very shaky ground with the power 5 conf schools already

I can't imagine the Presidents or Board of Regents of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, University of Texas, etc...voting to support these laws.

No, actually, it is covered. Bostock v. Clayton County (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618) in 2019 ruled (with a 6-3 majority with some conservative justices joining) that transgendered individuals cannot be discriminated against or fired because of their "new" sex conflicting with their biological sex. This transposes pretty easily into Title IX of the same act (https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1383026/download) since the language is essentially interchangeable. And historically, the Court has interpreted Title IX's language broadly, since the language itself is broad (as established in North
Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-986). Adding these pointless obfuscating adjectives like "assigned" or "identity" in front of the word "sex" goes against the broad nature of the statute, according to the courts. If Congress wants to clarify by adding those words, fine, they can pass a new law, but until they do the language of the statue is pretty clear, and Bostock affirms that.

This post is worth re-posting.

Gorsuch and Roberts voted with the majority in this. Assuming ACB would vote to overturn, that'd still be 5-4 in favor. I can't imagine Title IX's anti-discrimination language re gender be interpreted differently than Title VII. And I see you with the oyez reference. That's such a cool site.

This post is worth re-posting.

Gorsuch and Roberts voted with the majority in this. Assuming ACB would vote to overturn, that'd still be 5-4 in favor. I can't imagine Title IX's anti-discrimination language re gender be interpreted differently than Title VII. And I see you with the oyez reference. That's such a cool site.

thank you for reposting i misss that the first time

Concerning whether the NCAA can "get out" of its contract with OKC, I would be quite confident that when the following statement was drafted, the lawyers were sure to quote language that exists in their current contracts so as to make the message quite clear to the counterparties.



When determining where championships are held, NCAA policy directs that only locations where hosts can commit to providing an environment that is safe, healthy and free of discrimination should be selected. We will continue to closely monitor these situations to determine whether NCAA championships can be conducted in ways that are welcoming and respectful of all participants.”

Said another way, I'm sure there's language in the contract that allows the NCAA to terminate the deal if OKC can't provide an environment "free of discrimination." All that stuff is usually called "boilerplate" until it suddenly matters.

https://okcfriday.com/clients/okcfriday/sports-oge-energy-field-upgrade-2.jpg

It would be tragic if Oklahoma City lost the NCAA softball tournament related to some IMO stupid bonehead move the Oklahoma State Legislature made to put its stamp on a transgender related argument. Also, I can't imagine a guy having his most precious jewel removed so he could compete as a woman in softball.

BTW, does the Oklahoma legislation have better things to do than concern themselves with transgender issues that probably won't impact the sport. Also does the NCAA need to concern themselves with this becoming a future issue.

Oklahoma City has a 13,000 seat (Second to none, Softball Stadium) ready to welcome the NCAA's Women's College World Series and the economic impact this will generate for our city. We've invested $27.5 million in upgrades to keep this tournament thru 2035. This is one of our economic impact events for our city besides those of horse show industry:


“Teams and fans flood local hotels, restaurants and shops during each tournament and their direct economic impact is more than $15 million,” said Mike Carrier, president of the Oklahoma City Convention & Visitors Bureau.

Every game is broadcast on ESPN and, as a result, Oklahoma City is mentioned multiple times during each game to a national audience, in addition to broadcasting shots of the Adventure District, the downtown skyline, the city’s many amenities and other images indicative of OKC’s renaissance.

According to Carrier, “You can’t buy that kind of positive exposure.”--VeloCity, June 3, 2019

Think of the additional seating (4,000) with 9,000 permanent seats and the fact the the tournament could be expanded to a 16, 32 or 64 team bubble adding an impact of $20 million to $25 million depending on the expansion of the tournament in a bubble style environment.

Also the opportunity to beef up the Adventure District with a future hotel in the area to serve Remington Park, OKC Zoo, National Softball Hall of Fame, National Cowboy Western Heritage & Firefighter's Museums and the annual softball tournament.

.

I'm watching the OU-OSU Big 12 championship game on ESPN2 right now and it seems like the updates included extending the field, which means there's a temporary softball wall and then a deeper permanent wall. So, there's like a decent gap between the fence used in softball games and the deeper fence. In the past, there were fans sitting in the outfield, but now they can't because the field extends well beyond the softball wall. Am I looking at this correct? Is this in an aim to host baseball too? I hope I'm misunderstanding because this really reduces the benefit and intimate feel of a softball-only field.