How the Protect College Sports Act could reshape CU women’s sports
In the late 1990s, JR Payne spent four rewarding years at Saint Mary’s.
She earned a bachelor's degree in French while helping lead the Gaels to their first NCAA Tournament appearance, earning all-conference honors.
Now, as head coach of the Colorado Buffaloes, Payne wants her players to have the resources and opportunities she never had as a student-athlete.
“[I wish] I had all of it,” Payne said. “Everything that’s designed for not just support, but also to challenge our student-athletes to be great, certainly would’ve been nice to have.”
Payne played during an influential era for women's hoops, one that helped shape the game into what it is today. Now, name, image and likeness, money and the transfer portal are redefining the sport. As lawmakers look to close Pandora’s Box, the game could change again.
Enter: The Protect College Sports Act.
The Senate passed the legislation on Sept. 28 in a bipartisan 77-22 vote, sending it to the House for consideration. But the House did not vote on the bill before the midterm recess.
After Democrats won control of both chambers, its path forward became uncertain. The House is scheduled to return Nov. 9 for a lame-duck session, giving the outgoing Republican-controlled Congress a limited window to pass the bill.
The house must vote on the legislation in order for it to advance before the new congress is sworn in before Jan. 3. If not, the bill must be reintroduced, restarting its legislative process.
What the Protect College Sports Act aims to do is limit the transfer portal, let schools spend more to retain athletes and establish an antitrust exemption, on top of many other provisions. While the bill aims to reform the system as a whole, its provisions could directly affect women's sports.
The legislation would allow schools to exceed the existing revenue-sharing cap by up to $22.5 million to retain athletes who have spent one full season at that school.
Beyond the $22.5 million, schools could receive an additional allowance of up to $5 million, tied to how much they spend compensating athletes in women's and Olympic sports.
However, the bill does not guarantee funding for women’s sports. Instead, it gives schools more flexibility to spend on athletes in those programs, depending on how much each school chooses to invest.
At Colorado, women’s basketball is only one piece of the much larger women’s sports puzzle. The university has nine women’s varsity programs, including cross country, track and field, golf, lacrosse, skiing, soccer, tennis, volleyball and basketball.
Although CU sponsors more women's than men's sports, travel expenses illustrate the differences in spending between its basketball programs.
While travel expenses are one part of a larger financial picture, CU’s 2025 NCAA financial report shows the athletic department spent about $630,000 on women’s basketball travel, compared to about $1.15 million for men’s hoops.
While the bill includes provisions to protect women’s and Olympic sports, it's unclear how much more those non-revenue programs could receive.
At Colorado, that uncertainty matters. The university states on its fundraising website that it won’t cut any sports. But keeping a program alive and giving it the resources to compete are two different things.
Jared Bahir Browsh, CU's director of critical sports studies, said the bill treats women’s and Olympic sports as secondary rather than integral to an athletic department.
“[The Protect College Sports Act is] treating women and Olympic sports as charity cases,” Browsh said.
He pointed to Colorado’s nationally ranked cross-country teams and its successful volleyball program as examples that receive less attention than football.
“If you're gonna have an athletic department, not just a football and basketball department, then everything needs to be comprehensive," Browsh said.
Beyond the money, the legislation's transfer portal restrictions could also affect Colorado’s women’s teams.
Two of the Buffaloes’ major women’s sports, soccer and basketball, have used the portal to shape their rosters. Soccer has 11 total transfers on its roster, most from 2024, but also has exceptional homegrown talent.
Women’s basketball has especially relied on the portal, bringing in five new transfers this season after adding 11 over the previous two seasons. Colorado also lost three players to the portal this offseason, including its leading scorer.
“When you can just transfer as many times as you want to, you legitimately have no idea who you’re going to have on your team,” Payne said. “So I think that will really help.”
Roster stability may be a welcome change for coaches, but restrictions could limit athletes’ opportunities. Browsh argues that transferring gives athletes important opportunities to advance their academic and athletic careers.
"It's up to a student-athlete to decide what's best for their education,” Browsh said. “And athletics is part of that education."
That puts Colorado in a difficult position. The system that has helped Payne build successful rosters the past two years could become more restrictive of athletes’ autonomy.
During Colorado’s March Madness run last season, the team’s top scorer and rebounder were transfers. This offseason, Payne added last season’s AAC Freshman of the Year and a freshman All-WAC forward.
The transfer portal has become a major part of roster construction in college basketball, and Payne has found a way to make it work. But while Colorado has thrived amid turnover, other programs haven't been as fortunate.
Ask Kansas State.
The Wildcats finished fourth in the Big 12 in 2024-25 before losing four underclassmen to the transfer portal. With six seniors graduating, K-State had 10 players gone in one offseason. A season later, the Wildcats finished fourth-to-last in the conference.
While roster turnover is inevitable in the portal era, Payne believes that consistency is key to navigating the uncertainty.
“As a staff, we've done a really good job of keeping our priorities the same. Our priorities are to recruit good basketball players, great people that fit our system, that care about everything,” Payne said. “That philosophy hasn't changed at all. We're still developing players ... whether they stay for one year or five years.”
But maintaining that foundation also means finding ways to keep players in Boulder.
Colorado’s retention of last season’s second-leading scorer, Zyanna Walker, reflects what athletic director Fernando Lovo called an “increasing investment” in women’s basketball.
Though the additional $5 million is not guaranteed, the bill’s retention provision could give Colorado’s women’s sports programs another tool to keep players.
The question remains: how much is the university willing to invest in women’s sports?
Browsh said Colorado’s emphasis on football comes at the expense of other successful programs. Currently, the university is spending around $18 million to $21 million on football, according to The Athletic.
“I think there needs to be a larger discussion of the ecosystem, especially of football, and how it impacts everything else,” Browsh said. “[Schools that] have football programs that are popular … are still money vacuums.”
Despite funding football, Colorado has shown a willingness to invest in retaining its women’s basketball talent.
The Buffaloes kept seven players from last season’s March Madness squad — their most returning players in the transfer portal era.
“I think retention is really difficult for everyone, in this day and age,” Payne said. “When we’re able to get good players here that fit our system and love CU, you want to be able to keep them.”
Financial and roster stability are only part of the debate. The Protect College Sports Act’s antitrust exemption could also shift the balance of power between athletes and college athletics’ governing bodies.
Athletes have long used antitrust lawsuits to challenge NCAA restrictions on compensation, eligibility and other aspects of their college careers.
The proposed exemption could make those challenges harder, giving the NCAA more leeway to enforce their rules. That could leave athletes with fewer avenues to fight back in court.
For CU, the question is how that balance could affect its athletes.
“The antitrust provisions in the Protect College Sports Act essentially enable the NCAA to enforce its rules without continually getting sued,” CU Athletics spokesman Steve Hurlbert said in an email to Sko Buffs Sports. “So there’s no direct impact on any specific sport other than the broader cap and eligibility rules will be able to be enforced.”
However, Browsh said the implications could reach beyond sports that generate the most revenue.
He pointed to the NCAA’s media-rights agreements, arguing that women’s hoops has historically been undervalued. As women’s sports continue to grow, Browsh said, athletes' ability to fight back will become important.
“The ability for women's sports to collectively bargain is going to be important as we move into the future,” Browsh said. “Blocking that ability through the bill would ultimately cut off opportunities to fight against it.”
While the bill does not explicitly prohibit collective bargaining, Browsh argued that its antitrust exemption could make it harder for athletes to organize and push for a greater role in decision-making.
Athletes have raised similar concerns.
Oluchi Okananwa, a Maryland women’s basketball player and leader of the United College Athletes Association, said athletes should have a seat at the table.
“If college sports wants a professional structure when it comes to controlling athlete compensation and regulating our careers, then athletes deserve a professional structure when it comes to our rights,” Okananwa said in a statement. “If everyone else gets a seat at the table when the future of college sports is decided, the athletes who make college sports possible cannot be the ones left standing outside the room. Nothing about us without us.”
Payne has had a front-row seat to college basketball’s evolution, first as a player, then as a coach navigating the ever-changing collegiate landscape.
Still, she believes the foundation has not changed. After two decades of coaching, Payne wants her players to have the same experience that made her time at Saint Mary’s rewarding.
“I want people to have that same experience, even though it’s different now,” Payne said. “The root of it all is getting a great degree, playing amateur basketball at the highest level in the world, having great teammates, going through adversity, figuring out how to problem-solve. All the things that make sports so great are still there.”
Comments