(05-22-2025 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 07:07 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 09:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  While our discussion above stands as what I see as being the most likely next move, for the sake of freshness and to address possibilities others are tossing against the wall, and because it is a possibility due to the expansion of the CFP that both the SEC and Big Ten could prosper from additional AQ slots by further consolidation, let's look at plans for the SEC to move to 20. I'd like to tender four separate groupings for discussion to this end as I have heard a variety of ideas for this discussed and all of them have some merit.

Plan one split the baby between football brands and basketball brands and play it safe: Clemson and Florida State for football / North Carolina and Virginia for basketball and markets. And I would substitute Duke for Virginia as a variant.

Why? Clemson and Florida State would likely add the most value and do so by multiplying the number of higher viewer games versus an SEC schedule. North Carolina and Virginia add 20 million to the market reach of the SEC and North Carolina and Duke add the most basketball branding which multiplies the SEC's ratings for Winter sports.

Plan two maximize football revenue period: Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech

Why? Not only are you adding the top 3 football revenue producers for the ACC but North Carolina which is positioning to grow their value in that sport and already carry the highest number of viewers in a state of 11 million which would add to the SEC's markets.

Plan three maximize market expansion period: North Carolina, Virginia/Virginia Tech, Kansas, Florida State to attain and keep top add rates in Florida.

Why? Obviously it adds the 3 most logical contiguous markets and secures dominance in the 2nd largest market the SEC occupies.

Plan four dominate your expanded footprint: Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, N.C. State or Duke.

Why? Florida State gives the SEC 77% of the Florida college sports viewers when added to the U of Florida. Clemson gives the SEC nearly 100% of the South Carolina sports viewers when added to the U of South Carolina. Adding both North Carolina and a second school from the state (either N.C. State or Duke) gives the SEC the majority of college sports viewers in North Carolina a market of 11 million.

Why did I not mention Notre Dame? They'll stay independent though a scheduling agreement might be productive should we pursue one.

JR, I don’t see an SEC-ND scheduling agreement unless it look imminent that ND is joining the B1G. That would mean the SEC failed at bringing in ND after adding UNC plus friend(s) and to keep the Irish from being a solely B1G product, ESPN made the offer lucrative enough.

Now the interesting part will be the bidding war for UNC. We know both conferences want UNC and UVA. Rumors for years has been the sec would add those two and fsu and cu (football brands help pay for the other two) at a full share per the prorata contract.

What would the B1G ten’s counter offer be? UNC, uva, Miami and Duke on partial shares until next contract renewal? I doubt ESPN would want to offer a fifth full share just for Duke football, but since “Duke’s got money,” see if they’ll take the best offer ESPN gives them and call it a day,…or until ND comes calling.

Could FSU be an option with a Miami to the Big Ten if the SEC does get UNC? According to Matt Hayes: no. Although it was fun watching him rip apart the “social media clowns” that continuously said FSU had a done deal or landing spot with the B1G. FOX would want the Seminoles, not so much the presidents of the B1G

I've never believed the FSU and Clemson to the Big 10 nonsense even when Frank was pushing it.

I also believe the decision this time around will be made by ESPN which will seek to use the SEC to protect the product and markets they want to hang onto. The settlement was made because ESPN and FSU got something each wanted. Now we wait to find out what it was that each thought they were getting. My guess was that FSU could leave and ESPN would help them, but that ESPN wanted to hold onto their rights. If so I expect to see them in the SEC.

Now if ESPN doesn't care about FSU and freed them they did so know the Big 10 wasn't taking them and that they would wind up in the Big 12 where they cost ESPN half as much. Then you might see North Carolina, Virginia, Miami and either Duke or Kansas in the SEC which if Clemson and FSU don't have a Big 10 home would mean that the Big 10's bluff to take them will have been called and ESPN will hold onto Florida with Miami, and hold onto North Carolina possibly with Duke which is what North Carolina wanted if they were to head to the SEC in 2011, and part of Virginia.

What does that do for the SEC/ESPN? It protects markets and eases the degree of football difficulty a bit while adding major Winter brands.

If ESPN did want to keep FSU I think you have your answer on Clemson as well. Add those two to the SEC for football and viewership goes way up and the list of schools having won recent championships is stellar.

The question is what did ESPN want and did that include FSU? We'll see.

It's been a while, but I remember various ideas on the SEC and Big 12 essentially splitting the ACC. That's the scenario that leads to Florida State and Clemson going to the Big 12, and I think it would have to be that because otherwise they can just stick around in the ACC even if they lost face doing it.

For the Big 12 to be worth the move, I think they would have to be killing the ACC. And maybe the Big Ten would help if they were landing Notre Dame in the process.

Something like Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Pittsburgh to the Big 12.

In that scenario, this presumes something like UNC, Duke, Virginia, and Miami going to the SEC.

With 10 core schools gone, Notre Dame might finally give up the ghost and go to the Big Ten with Stanford or Georgia Tech.

But I tend to think Florida State and Clemson are heading to the SEC. Perhaps UNC is going to wait a while longer, but they could still come with Duke or Virginia. I think the idea of UNC and UVA moving as a pair is viable because there were certain reporters floating the idea long before the Twitterati and the YouTubers picked it up.

I could also see a scheduling agreement with Notre Dame, but I don't think of this in terms of a partial membership. A mutually beneficial agreement could be had that allows 4 games maybe? It gives ND more options and I trust SEC leadership not to give away the hog on an arrangement like that.

I believe that control of the Florida market is too important to ESPN to let it get fouled up by issues the Noles had with the ACC. I think FSU moves to the SEC and that was part of the behind the scenes agreement which led to the settlement. ESPN got the assurances of keeping the property and control of the Florida market and ESPN gets to have payments to the ACC withheld over a period a years by ESPN to cover their exit.

The question in my mind is whether Clemson is essential to the continued presence of Notre Dame? And if so was the scheduling agreement a release of Clemson to travel with FSU to the SEC, or was it a ploy to keep Clemson tied to the ACC. Frankly it could easily be either. If Clemson stays I look for Kansas to be partnered with FSU. If Clemson leaves they'll be FSU's partner to the SEC.

If N.D. stays and Tobacco Road doubles down on the ACC then that may end it all right there and the SEC and Big 10 will stick at 18.

Outside of N.D. there isn't anyone worth the effort if UNC stays put. And if UNC feels they must move I still suspect that what they requested in 2011 will be operative. They wanted Duke as their travel companion then and I believe the SEC presidents would go for it now.

UNC and Duke seems like a move that ESPN would want to make as well. Not that they haven't separated rivals before, but basketball season on ESPN is very different without the regular promotion of both those brands and the rivalry. Duke is a favorite of the promoters and marketers in Bristol so that very much makes sense.

The only real hurdle I see to that, assuming it's UNC's desire, is the power players in the State of NC making an issue of Duke getting the parachute instead of NC State. That to me was one of the reasons a VA school made sense as a partner for UNC. In that scenario, no, the 2nd state doesn't get to go, but neither does the elite private. UNC by themselves is more justifiable from a political perspective compared to a private school that doesn't represent very many people in the state. In the absence of an in-state rival, a closely related out-of-state rival made a lot of sense...especially coming from a market the SEC hadn't already penetrated.

(05-22-2025 11:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 07:07 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  JR, I don’t see an SEC-ND scheduling agreement unless it look imminent that ND is joining the B1G. That would mean the SEC failed at bringing in ND after adding UNC plus friend(s) and to keep the Irish from being a solely B1G product, ESPN made the offer lucrative enough.

Now the interesting part will be the bidding war for UNC. We know both conferences want UNC and UVA. Rumors for years has been the sec would add those two and fsu and cu (football brands help pay for the other two) at a full share per the prorata contract.

What would the B1G ten’s counter offer be? UNC, uva, Miami and Duke on partial shares until next contract renewal? I doubt ESPN would want to offer a fifth full share just for Duke football, but since “Duke’s got money,” see if they’ll take the best offer ESPN gives them and call it a day,…or until ND comes calling.

Could FSU be an option with a Miami to the Big Ten if the SEC does get UNC? According to Matt Hayes: no. Although it was fun watching him rip apart the “social media clowns” that continuously said FSU had a done deal or landing spot with the B1G. FOX would want the Seminoles, not so much the presidents of the B1G

I've never believed the FSU and Clemson to the Big 10 nonsense even when Frank was pushing it.

I also believe the decision this time around will be made by ESPN which will seek to use the SEC to protect the product and markets they want to hang onto. The settlement was made because ESPN and FSU got something each wanted. Now we wait to find out what it was that each thought they were getting. My guess was that FSU could leave and ESPN would help them, but that ESPN wanted to hold onto their rights. If so I expect to see them in the SEC.

Now if ESPN doesn't care about FSU and freed them they did so know the Big 10 wasn't taking them and that they would wind up in the Big 12 where they cost ESPN half as much. Then you might see North Carolina, Virginia, Miami and either Duke or Kansas in the SEC which if Clemson and FSU don't have a Big 10 home would mean that the Big 10's bluff to take them will have been called and ESPN will hold onto Florida with Miami, and hold onto North Carolina possibly with Duke which is what North Carolina wanted if they were to head to the SEC in 2011, and part of Virginia.

What does that do for the SEC/ESPN? It protects markets and eases the degree of football difficulty a bit while adding major Winter brands.

If ESPN did want to keep FSU I think you have your answer on Clemson as well. Add those two to the SEC for football and viewership goes way up and the list of schools having won recent championships is stellar.

The question is what did ESPN want and did that include FSU? We'll see.

It's been a while, but I remember various ideas on the SEC and Big 12 essentially splitting the ACC. That's the scenario that leads to Florida State and Clemson going to the Big 12, and I think it would have to be that because otherwise they can just stick around in the ACC even if they lost face doing it.

For the Big 12 to be worth the move, I think they would have to be killing the ACC. And maybe the Big Ten would help if they were landing Notre Dame in the process.

Something like Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Pittsburgh to the Big 12.

In that scenario, this presumes something like UNC, Duke, Virginia, and Miami going to the SEC.

With 10 core schools gone, Notre Dame might finally give up the ghost and go to the Big Ten with Stanford or Georgia Tech.

But I tend to think Florida State and Clemson are heading to the SEC. Perhaps UNC is going to wait a while longer, but they could still come with Duke or Virginia. I think the idea of UNC and UVA moving as a pair is viable because there were certain reporters floating the idea long before the Twitterati and the YouTubers picked it up.

I could also see a scheduling agreement with Notre Dame, but I don't think of this in terms of a partial membership. A mutually beneficial agreement could be had that allows 4 games maybe? It gives ND more options and I trust SEC leadership not to give away the hog on an arrangement like that.

I believe that control of the Florida market is too important to ESPN to let it get fouled up by issues the Noles had with the ACC. I think FSU moves to the SEC and that was part of the behind the scenes agreement which led to the settlement. ESPN got the assurances of keeping the property and control of the Florida market and ESPN gets to have payments to the ACC withheld over a period a years by ESPN to cover their exit.

The question in my mind is whether Clemson is essential to the continued presence of Notre Dame? And if so was the scheduling agreement a release of Clemson to travel with FSU to the SEC, or was it a ploy to keep Clemson tied to the ACC. Frankly it could easily be either. If Clemson stays I look for Kansas to be partnered with FSU. If Clemson leaves they'll be FSU's partner to the SEC.

If N.D. stays and Tobacco Road doubles down on the ACC then that may end it all right there and the SEC and Big 10 will stick at 18.

Outside of N.D. there isn't anyone worth the effort if UNC stays put. And if UNC feels they must move I still suspect that what they requested in 2011 will be operative. They wanted Duke as their travel companion then and I believe the SEC presidents would go for it now.

UNC and Duke seems like a move that ESPN would want to make as well. Not that they haven't separated rivals before, but basketball season on ESPN is very different without the regular promotion of both those brands and the rivalry. Duke is a favorite of the promoters and marketers in Bristol so that very much makes sense.

The only real hurdle I see to that, assuming it's UNC's desire, is the power players in the State of NC making an issue of Duke getting the parachute instead of NC State. That to me was one of the reasons a VA school made sense as a partner for UNC. In that scenario, no, the 2nd state doesn't get to go, but neither does the elite private. UNC by themselves is more justifiable from a political perspective compared to a private school that doesn't represent very many people in the state. In the absence of an in-state rival, a closely related out-of-state rival made a lot of sense...especially coming from a market the SEC hadn't already penetrated.

It will all boil down to what is in the greatest mutual self interest of both the SEC and ESPN. The SEC will be amenable to adding 2 or adding 4 if the 4 are the right schools.

ESPN will be amenable to what protects the greatest % of their holdings. If it is easier to hold the ACC together with just the loss of FSU then that's what happens. If Clemson is hellbent on leaving the N.D. deal at least helps hold some things together. If Clemson is staying it elevates both schools' SOS.

I think the worse case scenario for ESPN would be UNC insisting on leaving. Moving the 1 or both football brands along with UNC would erode the holdings quite a bit for ESPN. If it's UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU the SEC would be getting the best 4 brands the ACC has to offer and ESPN would be keeping them, but the rest would have a tough time maintaining value. That could destabilize Miami and Notre Dame.

It will get interesting.

(05-22-2025 11:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 11:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've never believed the FSU and Clemson to the Big 10 nonsense even when Frank was pushing it.

I also believe the decision this time around will be made by ESPN which will seek to use the SEC to protect the product and markets they want to hang onto. The settlement was made because ESPN and FSU got something each wanted. Now we wait to find out what it was that each thought they were getting. My guess was that FSU could leave and ESPN would help them, but that ESPN wanted to hold onto their rights. If so I expect to see them in the SEC.

Now if ESPN doesn't care about FSU and freed them they did so know the Big 10 wasn't taking them and that they would wind up in the Big 12 where they cost ESPN half as much. Then you might see North Carolina, Virginia, Miami and either Duke or Kansas in the SEC which if Clemson and FSU don't have a Big 10 home would mean that the Big 10's bluff to take them will have been called and ESPN will hold onto Florida with Miami, and hold onto North Carolina possibly with Duke which is what North Carolina wanted if they were to head to the SEC in 2011, and part of Virginia.

What does that do for the SEC/ESPN? It protects markets and eases the degree of football difficulty a bit while adding major Winter brands.

If ESPN did want to keep FSU I think you have your answer on Clemson as well. Add those two to the SEC for football and viewership goes way up and the list of schools having won recent championships is stellar.

The question is what did ESPN want and did that include FSU? We'll see.

It's been a while, but I remember various ideas on the SEC and Big 12 essentially splitting the ACC. That's the scenario that leads to Florida State and Clemson going to the Big 12, and I think it would have to be that because otherwise they can just stick around in the ACC even if they lost face doing it.

For the Big 12 to be worth the move, I think they would have to be killing the ACC. And maybe the Big Ten would help if they were landing Notre Dame in the process.

Something like Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Pittsburgh to the Big 12.

In that scenario, this presumes something like UNC, Duke, Virginia, and Miami going to the SEC.

With 10 core schools gone, Notre Dame might finally give up the ghost and go to the Big Ten with Stanford or Georgia Tech.

But I tend to think Florida State and Clemson are heading to the SEC. Perhaps UNC is going to wait a while longer, but they could still come with Duke or Virginia. I think the idea of UNC and UVA moving as a pair is viable because there were certain reporters floating the idea long before the Twitterati and the YouTubers picked it up.

I could also see a scheduling agreement with Notre Dame, but I don't think of this in terms of a partial membership. A mutually beneficial agreement could be had that allows 4 games maybe? It gives ND more options and I trust SEC leadership not to give away the hog on an arrangement like that.

I believe that control of the Florida market is too important to ESPN to let it get fouled up by issues the Noles had with the ACC. I think FSU moves to the SEC and that was part of the behind the scenes agreement which led to the settlement. ESPN got the assurances of keeping the property and control of the Florida market and ESPN gets to have payments to the ACC withheld over a period a years by ESPN to cover their exit.

The question in my mind is whether Clemson is essential to the continued presence of Notre Dame? And if so was the scheduling agreement a release of Clemson to travel with FSU to the SEC, or was it a ploy to keep Clemson tied to the ACC. Frankly it could easily be either. If Clemson stays I look for Kansas to be partnered with FSU. If Clemson leaves they'll be FSU's partner to the SEC.

If N.D. stays and Tobacco Road doubles down on the ACC then that may end it all right there and the SEC and Big 10 will stick at 18.

Outside of N.D. there isn't anyone worth the effort if UNC stays put. And if UNC feels they must move I still suspect that what they requested in 2011 will be operative. They wanted Duke as their travel companion then and I believe the SEC presidents would go for it now.

UNC and Duke seems like a move that ESPN would want to make as well. Not that they haven't separated rivals before, but basketball season on ESPN is very different without the regular promotion of both those brands and the rivalry. Duke is a favorite of the promoters and marketers in Bristol so that very much makes sense.

The only real hurdle I see to that, assuming it's UNC's desire, is the power players in the State of NC making an issue of Duke getting the parachute instead of NC State. That to me was one of the reasons a VA school made sense as a partner for UNC. In that scenario, no, the 2nd state doesn't get to go, but neither does the elite private. UNC by themselves is more justifiable from a political perspective compared to a private school that doesn't represent very many people in the state. In the absence of an in-state rival, a closely related out-of-state rival made a lot of sense...especially coming from a market the SEC hadn't already penetrated.

It will all boil down to what is in the greatest mutual self interest of both the SEC and ESPN. The SEC will be amenable to adding 2 or adding 4 if the 4 are the right schools.

ESPN will be amenable to what protects the greatest % of their holdings. If it is easier to hold the ACC together with just the loss of FSU then that's what happens. If Clemson is hellbent on leaving the N.D. deal at least helps hold some things together. If Clemson is staying it elevates both schools' SOS.

I think the worse case scenario for ESPN would be UNC insisting on leaving. Moving the 1 or both football brands along with UNC would erode the holdings quite a bit for ESPN. If it's UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU the SEC would be getting the best 4 brands the ACC has to offer and ESPN would be keeping them, but the rest would have a tough time maintaining value. That could destabilize Miami and Notre Dame.

It will get interesting.

This scenario wouldn't exactly be the betting favorite move, but let's say UNC and company are set on trying to save the ACC. Let's say ESPN would prefer that for the time being.

Florida State and Clemson could leave and the above priority could still be met.

Doing some quick math on the schedules. We currently have 16 schools playing 8 games a piece. That's 128 SEC games. If we added a 9th game with the current membership that we've bumped up the total to 144. If we had 18 members and 9 games then that total is 162. If we had 20 members and 9 games then that's all the way up to 180 games. That's a massive leap in available content over what we have as of today.

FSU and Clemson will help quite well. Going from 128 to 162 is an additional 34 games and if it's consumed with quality football programming then that sounds like a boon. Going to 180 games and 20 members with football powers would be good too, but that's not happening unless we're penetrating the ACC further. Personally, I would be fine with adding Virginia Tech and Miami.

In that scenario, we can figure out the basketball powers later. True enough that Notre Dame might be ready to depart in that scenario, but maybe not? If UNC and crew are sticking around then they can rebuild with Irish-friendly new members.

(05-25-2025 12:02 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 11:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 11:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It's been a while, but I remember various ideas on the SEC and Big 12 essentially splitting the ACC. That's the scenario that leads to Florida State and Clemson going to the Big 12, and I think it would have to be that because otherwise they can just stick around in the ACC even if they lost face doing it.

For the Big 12 to be worth the move, I think they would have to be killing the ACC. And maybe the Big Ten would help if they were landing Notre Dame in the process.

Something like Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Pittsburgh to the Big 12.

In that scenario, this presumes something like UNC, Duke, Virginia, and Miami going to the SEC.

With 10 core schools gone, Notre Dame might finally give up the ghost and go to the Big Ten with Stanford or Georgia Tech.

But I tend to think Florida State and Clemson are heading to the SEC. Perhaps UNC is going to wait a while longer, but they could still come with Duke or Virginia. I think the idea of UNC and UVA moving as a pair is viable because there were certain reporters floating the idea long before the Twitterati and the YouTubers picked it up.

I could also see a scheduling agreement with Notre Dame, but I don't think of this in terms of a partial membership. A mutually beneficial agreement could be had that allows 4 games maybe? It gives ND more options and I trust SEC leadership not to give away the hog on an arrangement like that.

I believe that control of the Florida market is too important to ESPN to let it get fouled up by issues the Noles had with the ACC. I think FSU moves to the SEC and that was part of the behind the scenes agreement which led to the settlement. ESPN got the assurances of keeping the property and control of the Florida market and ESPN gets to have payments to the ACC withheld over a period a years by ESPN to cover their exit.

The question in my mind is whether Clemson is essential to the continued presence of Notre Dame? And if so was the scheduling agreement a release of Clemson to travel with FSU to the SEC, or was it a ploy to keep Clemson tied to the ACC. Frankly it could easily be either. If Clemson stays I look for Kansas to be partnered with FSU. If Clemson leaves they'll be FSU's partner to the SEC.

If N.D. stays and Tobacco Road doubles down on the ACC then that may end it all right there and the SEC and Big 10 will stick at 18.

Outside of N.D. there isn't anyone worth the effort if UNC stays put. And if UNC feels they must move I still suspect that what they requested in 2011 will be operative. They wanted Duke as their travel companion then and I believe the SEC presidents would go for it now.

UNC and Duke seems like a move that ESPN would want to make as well. Not that they haven't separated rivals before, but basketball season on ESPN is very different without the regular promotion of both those brands and the rivalry. Duke is a favorite of the promoters and marketers in Bristol so that very much makes sense.

The only real hurdle I see to that, assuming it's UNC's desire, is the power players in the State of NC making an issue of Duke getting the parachute instead of NC State. That to me was one of the reasons a VA school made sense as a partner for UNC. In that scenario, no, the 2nd state doesn't get to go, but neither does the elite private. UNC by themselves is more justifiable from a political perspective compared to a private school that doesn't represent very many people in the state. In the absence of an in-state rival, a closely related out-of-state rival made a lot of sense...especially coming from a market the SEC hadn't already penetrated.

It will all boil down to what is in the greatest mutual self interest of both the SEC and ESPN. The SEC will be amenable to adding 2 or adding 4 if the 4 are the right schools.

ESPN will be amenable to what protects the greatest % of their holdings. If it is easier to hold the ACC together with just the loss of FSU then that's what happens. If Clemson is hellbent on leaving the N.D. deal at least helps hold some things together. If Clemson is staying it elevates both schools' SOS.

I think the worse case scenario for ESPN would be UNC insisting on leaving. Moving the 1 or both football brands along with UNC would erode the holdings quite a bit for ESPN. If it's UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU the SEC would be getting the best 4 brands the ACC has to offer and ESPN would be keeping them, but the rest would have a tough time maintaining value. That could destabilize Miami and Notre Dame.

It will get interesting.

This scenario wouldn't exactly be the betting favorite move, but let's say UNC and company are set on trying to save the ACC. Let's say ESPN would prefer that for the time being.

Florida State and Clemson could leave and the above priority could still be met.

Doing some quick math on the schedules. We currently have 16 schools playing 8 games a piece. That's 128 SEC games. If we added a 9th game with the current membership that we've bumped up the total to 144. If we had 18 members and 9 games then that total is 162. If we had 20 members and 9 games then that's all the way up to 180 games. That's a massive leap in available content over what we have as of today.

FSU and Clemson will help quite well. Going from 128 to 162 is an additional 34 games and if it's consumed with quality football programming then that sounds like a boon. Going to 180 games and 20 members with football powers would be good too, but that's not happening unless we're penetrating the ACC further. Personally, I would be fine with adding Virginia Tech and Miami.

In that scenario, we can figure out the basketball powers later. True enough that Notre Dame might be ready to depart in that scenario, but maybe not? If UNC and crew are sticking around then they can rebuild with Irish-friendly new members.

Twenty members and 180 games and you still need a bit of a bell curve. Why not address the bell curve with a couple of stellar hoops brands?

You beef up football with Clemson and FSU. North Carolina with Belichick will be an item. Duke helps with the bell curve but adds a major hoops brand to pair with Kentucky and North Carolina until the SEC's new brands are accepted more nationally.

If the ACC loses traction, you make that jump to 24. At that time Virginia Tech, Miami, maybe N.C. State to complete the Research Triangle, and one of Virginia or Kansas does all that is needed to protect the markets ESPN dominates. The football schools add to the middle, Kansas winds up the brand or Virginia the academic angle.

Now you have 198 truly marketable football games and you dominate hoops. And frankly none of it hurts with Softball, Baseball, or Women's Basketball.

It will come down to what ESPN wants. Kick that around some.

(05-25-2025 01:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2025 12:02 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 11:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 11:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I believe that control of the Florida market is too important to ESPN to let it get fouled up by issues the Noles had with the ACC. I think FSU moves to the SEC and that was part of the behind the scenes agreement which led to the settlement. ESPN got the assurances of keeping the property and control of the Florida market and ESPN gets to have payments to the ACC withheld over a period a years by ESPN to cover their exit.

The question in my mind is whether Clemson is essential to the continued presence of Notre Dame? And if so was the scheduling agreement a release of Clemson to travel with FSU to the SEC, or was it a ploy to keep Clemson tied to the ACC. Frankly it could easily be either. If Clemson stays I look for Kansas to be partnered with FSU. If Clemson leaves they'll be FSU's partner to the SEC.

If N.D. stays and Tobacco Road doubles down on the ACC then that may end it all right there and the SEC and Big 10 will stick at 18.

Outside of N.D. there isn't anyone worth the effort if UNC stays put. And if UNC feels they must move I still suspect that what they requested in 2011 will be operative. They wanted Duke as their travel companion then and I believe the SEC presidents would go for it now.

UNC and Duke seems like a move that ESPN would want to make as well. Not that they haven't separated rivals before, but basketball season on ESPN is very different without the regular promotion of both those brands and the rivalry. Duke is a favorite of the promoters and marketers in Bristol so that very much makes sense.

The only real hurdle I see to that, assuming it's UNC's desire, is the power players in the State of NC making an issue of Duke getting the parachute instead of NC State. That to me was one of the reasons a VA school made sense as a partner for UNC. In that scenario, no, the 2nd state doesn't get to go, but neither does the elite private. UNC by themselves is more justifiable from a political perspective compared to a private school that doesn't represent very many people in the state. In the absence of an in-state rival, a closely related out-of-state rival made a lot of sense...especially coming from a market the SEC hadn't already penetrated.

It will all boil down to what is in the greatest mutual self interest of both the SEC and ESPN. The SEC will be amenable to adding 2 or adding 4 if the 4 are the right schools.

ESPN will be amenable to what protects the greatest % of their holdings. If it is easier to hold the ACC together with just the loss of FSU then that's what happens. If Clemson is hellbent on leaving the N.D. deal at least helps hold some things together. If Clemson is staying it elevates both schools' SOS.

I think the worse case scenario for ESPN would be UNC insisting on leaving. Moving the 1 or both football brands along with UNC would erode the holdings quite a bit for ESPN. If it's UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU the SEC would be getting the best 4 brands the ACC has to offer and ESPN would be keeping them, but the rest would have a tough time maintaining value. That could destabilize Miami and Notre Dame.

It will get interesting.

This scenario wouldn't exactly be the betting favorite move, but let's say UNC and company are set on trying to save the ACC. Let's say ESPN would prefer that for the time being.

Florida State and Clemson could leave and the above priority could still be met.

Doing some quick math on the schedules. We currently have 16 schools playing 8 games a piece. That's 128 SEC games. If we added a 9th game with the current membership that we've bumped up the total to 144. If we had 18 members and 9 games then that total is 162. If we had 20 members and 9 games then that's all the way up to 180 games. That's a massive leap in available content over what we have as of today.

FSU and Clemson will help quite well. Going from 128 to 162 is an additional 34 games and if it's consumed with quality football programming then that sounds like a boon. Going to 180 games and 20 members with football powers would be good too, but that's not happening unless we're penetrating the ACC further. Personally, I would be fine with adding Virginia Tech and Miami.

In that scenario, we can figure out the basketball powers later. True enough that Notre Dame might be ready to depart in that scenario, but maybe not? If UNC and crew are sticking around then they can rebuild with Irish-friendly new members.

Twenty members and 180 games and you still need a bit of a bell curve. Why not address the bell curve with a couple of stellar hoops brands?

You beef up football with Clemson and FSU. North Carolina with Belichick will be an item. Duke helps with the bell curve but adds a major hoops brand to pair with Kentucky and North Carolina until the SEC's new brands are accepted more nationally.

If the ACC loses traction, you make that jump to 24. At that time Virginia Tech, Miami, maybe N.C. State to complete the Research Triangle, and one of Virginia or Kansas does all that is needed to protect the markets ESPN dominates. The football schools add to the middle, Kansas winds up the brand or Virginia the academic angle.

Now you have 198 truly marketable football games and you dominate hoops. And frankly none of it hurts with Softball, Baseball, or Women's Basketball.

It will come down to what ESPN wants. Kick that around some.

I have to believe that foursome of UNC, FSU, CU and Duke are probably the first four out the door as there has not even been a peek leaking out of the state of Virginia. These three schools over against ACC expansion in order to keep the exit paths less complicated to leave while Duke has supposedly been the most aggressive socializing school since e the settlement was announced. Virginia may need an ACC implosion to politically move away from the ACC.

(05-25-2025 07:14 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-25-2025 01:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2025 12:02 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 11:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2025 11:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  UNC and Duke seems like a move that ESPN would want to make as well. Not that they haven't separated rivals before, but basketball season on ESPN is very different without the regular promotion of both those brands and the rivalry. Duke is a favorite of the promoters and marketers in Bristol so that very much makes sense.

The only real hurdle I see to that, assuming it's UNC's desire, is the power players in the State of NC making an issue of Duke getting the parachute instead of NC State. That to me was one of the reasons a VA school made sense as a partner for UNC. In that scenario, no, the 2nd state doesn't get to go, but neither does the elite private. UNC by themselves is more justifiable from a political perspective compared to a private school that doesn't represent very many people in the state. In the absence of an in-state rival, a closely related out-of-state rival made a lot of sense...especially coming from a market the SEC hadn't already penetrated.

It will all boil down to what is in the greatest mutual self interest of both the SEC and ESPN. The SEC will be amenable to adding 2 or adding 4 if the 4 are the right schools.

ESPN will be amenable to what protects the greatest % of their holdings. If it is easier to hold the ACC together with just the loss of FSU then that's what happens. If Clemson is hellbent on leaving the N.D. deal at least helps hold some things together. If Clemson is staying it elevates both schools' SOS.

I think the worse case scenario for ESPN would be UNC insisting on leaving. Moving the 1 or both football brands along with UNC would erode the holdings quite a bit for ESPN. If it's UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU the SEC would be getting the best 4 brands the ACC has to offer and ESPN would be keeping them, but the rest would have a tough time maintaining value. That could destabilize Miami and Notre Dame.

It will get interesting.

This scenario wouldn't exactly be the betting favorite move, but let's say UNC and company are set on trying to save the ACC. Let's say ESPN would prefer that for the time being.

Florida State and Clemson could leave and the above priority could still be met.

Doing some quick math on the schedules. We currently have 16 schools playing 8 games a piece. That's 128 SEC games. If we added a 9th game with the current membership that we've bumped up the total to 144. If we had 18 members and 9 games then that total is 162. If we had 20 members and 9 games then that's all the way up to 180 games. That's a massive leap in available content over what we have as of today.

FSU and Clemson will help quite well. Going from 128 to 162 is an additional 34 games and if it's consumed with quality football programming then that sounds like a boon. Going to 180 games and 20 members with football powers would be good too, but that's not happening unless we're penetrating the ACC further. Personally, I would be fine with adding Virginia Tech and Miami.

In that scenario, we can figure out the basketball powers later. True enough that Notre Dame might be ready to depart in that scenario, but maybe not? If UNC and crew are sticking around then they can rebuild with Irish-friendly new members.

Twenty members and 180 games and you still need a bit of a bell curve. Why not address the bell curve with a couple of stellar hoops brands?

You beef up football with Clemson and FSU. North Carolina with Belichick will be an item. Duke helps with the bell curve but adds a major hoops brand to pair with Kentucky and North Carolina until the SEC's new brands are accepted more nationally.

If the ACC loses traction, you make that jump to 24. At that time Virginia Tech, Miami, maybe N.C. State to complete the Research Triangle, and one of Virginia or Kansas does all that is needed to protect the markets ESPN dominates. The football schools add to the middle, Kansas winds up the brand or Virginia the academic angle.

Now you have 198 truly marketable football games and you dominate hoops. And frankly none of it hurts with Softball, Baseball, or Women's Basketball.

It will come down to what ESPN wants. Kick that around some.

I have to believe that foursome of UNC, FSU, CU and Duke are probably the first four out the door as there has not even been a peek leaking out of the state of Virginia. These three schools over against ACC expansion in order to keep the exit paths less complicated to leave while Duke has supposedly been the most aggressive socializing school since e the settlement was announced. Virginia may need an ACC implosion to politically move away from the ACC.

Virginia may just need to be marketable to get away. Their numbers just don't work for either the SEC or Big Ten, though both conferences truly wished they did. Each would love to have the flagship of the State of Virginia in their ranks, but the networks and number crunchers simply can't justify it. Toss in that Virginia is not a state that has steller support numbers for college athletics and it becomes even more difficult to justify. Truly from a numbers standpont Virginia Tech is the healthier consideration.

If a conference took both Virginia and Virginia Tech they still wouldn't dominate the market of the state the way Texas/Texas A&M, Florida/FSU, or UNC/Duke or N.C. State would. Nor is the state like Georgia where UGA dominates college sports viewership with an 85% share throughout all areas of the state not in the Atlanta DMA and 52% of the Atlanta DMA share. Texas, Florida, and Georgia all have a large % of college sports viewers. Not Virginia.

The Big 10 presidents would love to add Virginia as an academic stalwart and another Beltway presence, like Maryland. The networks only see even another Stanford. The time was the Cavaliers always had solid basketball to go with mediocre football. For a brief time under Walsh, they had a solid football product. Now they have neither a dominant hoops program nor a mediocre football program.

Entertainment value is now the organizing principle of an athletic conference. Athletics are no longer the byproduct of an academic conference. And that's the issue facing some dramatically solid academic schools which could not imagine a world where their classroom achievements would not be enough to merit their inclusion.

https://tarheelswire.usatoday.com/story/...330380007/

Well how would you feel about North Carolina, Duke, Clemson and FSU?

We'll have to wait to see if any of the other MAG 7 get picked up. Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State. And if we do ever go that far I still like Kansas for #8. Why do it? It preserves with 7 schools ESPN's profit model for the ACC.

(07-24-2025 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://tarheelswire.usatoday.com/story/...330380007/

Well how would you feel about North Carolina, Duke, Clemson and FSU?

We'll have to wait to see if any of the other MAG 7 get picked up. Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State. And if we do ever go that far I still like Kansas for #8. Why do it? It preserves with 7 schools ESPN's profit model for the ACC.

It would be the SEC vs. Everybody. Bring it on.

(07-24-2025 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://tarheelswire.usatoday.com/story/...330380007/

Well how would you feel about North Carolina, Duke, Clemson and FSU?

We'll have to wait to see if any of the other MAG 7 get picked up. Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State. And if we do ever go that far I still like Kansas for #8. Why do it? It preserves with 7 schools ESPN's profit model for the ACC.

That could be the blend to appease the SEC and ESPN. As a hog fan I would love to add Duke. Coach Cal thinks the Thanksgiving night game against the blue devils could break records.


If fsu and or Clemson can’t get the votes, grab uva, vt, Kansas.

(07-26-2025 01:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://tarheelswire.usatoday.com/story/...330380007/

Well how would you feel about North Carolina, Duke, Clemson and FSU?

We'll have to wait to see if any of the other MAG 7 get picked up. Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State. And if we do ever go that far I still like Kansas for #8. Why do it? It preserves with 7 schools ESPN's profit model for the ACC.

That could be the blend to appease the SEC and ESPN. As a hog fan I would love to add Duke. Coach Cal thinks the Thanksgiving night game against the blue devils could break records.


If fsu and or Clemson can’t get the votes, grab uva, vt, Kansas.

Well I can't say I disagree with your sentiments. I suppose it will come down to how many ESPN needs to shelter in the SEC to keep the Big Ten from making a run at them for FOX.

If one school leaves, FSU add Kansas to them.
If two schools leave and UNC is one then FSU balances that pairing.
If it's four schools there are two ways to go:
(a) Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina
(b) Duke, Miami or FSU, North Carolina, Virginia

If (a) it will mean that ESPN is afraid of losing their key holdings and want to rebuild a better football product in the ACC.

If (b) they will be trying to keep the favorite targets away from the Big Ten.

And if the ACC is really threatened, I can see 8: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia & Virginia Tech. Those preserve all of the key states for ESPN's revenue stream.

Now we wait.

(10-05-2025 12:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2025 01:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://tarheelswire.usatoday.com/story/...330380007/

Well how would you feel about North Carolina, Duke, Clemson and FSU?

We'll have to wait to see if any of the other MAG 7 get picked up. Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State. And if we do ever go that far I still like Kansas for #8. Why do it? It preserves with 7 schools ESPN's profit model for the ACC.

That could be the blend to appease the SEC and ESPN. As a hog fan I would love to add Duke. Coach Cal thinks the Thanksgiving night game against the blue devils could break records.


If fsu and or Clemson can’t get the votes, grab uva, vt, Kansas.

Well I can't say I disagree with your sentiments. I suppose it will come down to how many ESPN needs to shelter in the SEC to keep the Big Ten from making a run at them for FOX.

If one school leaves, FSU add Kansas to them.
If two schools leave and UNC is one then FSU balances that pairing.
If it's four schools there are two ways to go:
(a) Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina
(b) Duke, Miami or FSU, North Carolina, Virginia

If (a) it will mean that ESPN is afraid of losing their key holdings and want to rebuild a better football product in the ACC.

If (b) they will be trying to keep the favorite targets away from the Big Ten.

And if the ACC is really threatened, I can see 8: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia & Virginia Tech. Those preserve all of the key states for ESPN's revenue stream.

Now we wait.

Well folks toss all speculation out and get ready. Congress may be stepping in and if the cap of 19 members (odd number intentionally) stands the Big Ten won't be adding anyone and will save #19 for Notre Dame. The SEC will likely be adding North Carolina (no surprise there) and Virginia (surprise!) because that adds two state AAU flagships to the SEC along with 20 million in population between them. ESPN likely would prefer to build around the footballs schools left in the ACC and will be able to add to accentuate their value. The SEC will get an academic infusion, a basketball infusion, and an all sports infusion. What it won't be getting is a football infusion, though Carolina is passable and Virginia has improved some this year. The best laid plans of mice and men have ended unexpectedly many times in history due to a governmental action, and it looks they have again. Now we'll see what timeline develops.

(09-21-2026 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2025 12:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2025 01:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://tarheelswire.usatoday.com/story/...330380007/

Well how would you feel about North Carolina, Duke, Clemson and FSU?

We'll have to wait to see if any of the other MAG 7 get picked up. Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State. And if we do ever go that far I still like Kansas for #8. Why do it? It preserves with 7 schools ESPN's profit model for the ACC.

That could be the blend to appease the SEC and ESPN. As a hog fan I would love to add Duke. Coach Cal thinks the Thanksgiving night game against the blue devils could break records.


If fsu and or Clemson can’t get the votes, grab uva, vt, Kansas.

Well I can't say I disagree with your sentiments. I suppose it will come down to how many ESPN needs to shelter in the SEC to keep the Big Ten from making a run at them for FOX.

If one school leaves, FSU add Kansas to them.
If two schools leave and UNC is one then FSU balances that pairing.
If it's four schools there are two ways to go:
(a) Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina
(b) Duke, Miami or FSU, North Carolina, Virginia

If (a) it will mean that ESPN is afraid of losing their key holdings and want to rebuild a better football product in the ACC.

If (b) they will be trying to keep the favorite targets away from the Big Ten.

And if the ACC is really threatened, I can see 8: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia & Virginia Tech. Those preserve all of the key states for ESPN's revenue stream.

Now we wait.

Well folks toss all speculation out and get ready. Congress may be stepping in and if the cap of 19 members (odd number intentionally) stands the Big Ten won't be adding anyone and will save #19 for Notre Dame. The SEC will likely be adding North Carolina (no surprise there) and Virginia (surprise!) because that adds two state AAU flagships to the SEC along with 20 million in population between them. ESPN likely would prefer to build around the footballs schools left in the ACC and will be able to add to accentuate their value. The SEC will get an academic infusion, a basketball infusion, and an all sports infusion. What it won't be getting is a football infusion, though Carolina is passable and Virginia has improved some this year. The best laid plans of mice and men have ended unexpectedly many times in history due to a governmental action, and it looks they have again. Now we'll see what timeline develops.

The 19 member cap is interesting for the reasons you've stated, but I do wonder if that holds up in Federal court. Someone is bound to sue over it, everybody does these days...lol.

While most of these schools are public institutions(although the Feds aren't directly funding athletics) and they are obviously engaging in interstate commerce, I still wonder if this sort of cap would be considered an illegal restraint of trade.

We don't have a functional monopoly in college athletics even if some dogs are clearly bigger than others. That and oddly enough, despite the exception that is the SEC, the athletic conferences are not regional anymore. No conference can really be accused of dominating a single region or a collection of regions. They're all spread out across the country to one degree or another. Obviously, they are still competing against each other for TV dollars and TV exposure among other things. Unlike the major pro sports leagues, any anti-trust exemption at this stage does not benefit any single national entity.

You could argue the NCAA benefits from it, but the conferences are private entities unto themselves. The cap isn't imposed on the NCAA, it's imposed on the member conferences assuming a certain income level. As long as the conferences all exist under the umbrella of the NCAA, any realignment is moving chess pieces on the same board...as far as the anti-trust exemption goes.

It clearly caps the ability of other schools to "move up in the world" by joining another conference that has already passed the income threshold. Some definitely won't like that prospect and another type of lawsuit could argue this is a form of discrimination(not racial). After all, the conferences are associations of member institutions. The cap is not a sanction on how a business can acquire other entities. My understanding on monopoly law rests on the notion that outright ownership of the assets and market access is what determines whether or not a single company is considered to have an unfair advantage. I'm obviously not an expert on monopoly law, but that's how it makes sense in my head.

The distinction here is we're not talking about assets or market access belonging to a single entity. Conferences don't actually acquire member institutions. The cap then is an effectively a sanction on how many member institutions are allowed to cooperate. If a school is already in then they're basically set for life. A school that is not in has no effective opportunity to improve their lot. It's not just an arbitrary depressor on the market, it affects individual member institutions far more than it affects conglomerates. The cap is trying to treat the conferences as conglomerates and that's not what they are.

You see some online arguing over freedom of association and I think that's valid, but it's one half of the coin. From Congress' perspective, and I do get their reasoning, if they're going to give any anti-trust exemption then some of the normal rules are thrown out the door. If schools want unusual protections then they have to give up something unusual. I get it and I can understand the thought that says this cap puts a compete stop to further consolidation...at least at the highest levels. Therefore it "saves" college sports in a form we more or less recognize. The problem is it imposes a socialist principle at that point.

It locks in an upper class and everyone else below them into a lower class. Upward mobility is capped in the same of "equality." Growth is stagnated by design, not by market forces. Sure, it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket....but it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket. The risk has been removed. The upper class no longer has anything to fear as long as they aren't completely stupid with their codified advantages. Everyone else below them is up the creek without a paddle. Hopefully, they're fiscally sound as of today because it's never getting any better from here on out.

So it's a completely different dynamic than suppressing a potential monopoly. We're not talking about one or even two companies growing beyond the ability to need to compete. We're talking about suppressing hundreds of smaller companies so that certain existing cooperatives(not companies) cannot grow their membership with any of the smaller companies. I'm not sure about that.

It's also not a traditional anti-trust exemption. The pro-sports have every ability to grow their access to the market, they just have certain rules. They add franchises periodically, but they do so based on their ability to generate new income. They're not capped based on current income levels, any rules are based on overall market access and the fact these organizations are effective monopolies. The pro sports franchises are individually sellable, true, but inextricably linked to their broader parent organization. The parent organization has the anti-trust exemption, not the franchises.

For example, no one is buying the Dallas Cowboys and taking them out of the NFL. The NFL is the product at the end of the day. The Cowboys are effectively worthless if they can't compete in the NFL. This isn't the same dynamic with college athletics. Their worth and existence is tied to many different aspects of life and no school would be effectively worthless if they were in the SEC or Big Ten or any other league. Their worth is affected by access to any league, but not wholly determined.

I think these are some interesting legal questions. I know a lot of people don't like Ted Cruz, but he's not dumb. He spent much of his career arguing in front of the Supreme Court. If he's backing these provisions hard then you can bet he thinks they're legally sound. Doesn't automatically make him right and again, I think my questions are valid, but this sort of bill isn't your run of the mill ideological regurgitation that Congress likes to impose every now and then. This is more nuanced and there are lots of constituents that maybe think this is better than the alternative.

(09-22-2026 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2026 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2025 12:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2025 01:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://tarheelswire.usatoday.com/story/...330380007/

Well how would you feel about North Carolina, Duke, Clemson and FSU?

We'll have to wait to see if any of the other MAG 7 get picked up. Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State. And if we do ever go that far I still like Kansas for #8. Why do it? It preserves with 7 schools ESPN's profit model for the ACC.

That could be the blend to appease the SEC and ESPN. As a hog fan I would love to add Duke. Coach Cal thinks the Thanksgiving night game against the blue devils could break records.


If fsu and or Clemson can’t get the votes, grab uva, vt, Kansas.

Well I can't say I disagree with your sentiments. I suppose it will come down to how many ESPN needs to shelter in the SEC to keep the Big Ten from making a run at them for FOX.

If one school leaves, FSU add Kansas to them.
If two schools leave and UNC is one then FSU balances that pairing.
If it's four schools there are two ways to go:
(a) Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina
(b) Duke, Miami or FSU, North Carolina, Virginia

If (a) it will mean that ESPN is afraid of losing their key holdings and want to rebuild a better football product in the ACC.

If (b) they will be trying to keep the favorite targets away from the Big Ten.

And if the ACC is really threatened, I can see 8: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia & Virginia Tech. Those preserve all of the key states for ESPN's revenue stream.

Now we wait.

Well folks toss all speculation out and get ready. Congress may be stepping in and if the cap of 19 members (odd number intentionally) stands the Big Ten won't be adding anyone and will save #19 for Notre Dame. The SEC will likely be adding North Carolina (no surprise there) and Virginia (surprise!) because that adds two state AAU flagships to the SEC along with 20 million in population between them. ESPN likely would prefer to build around the footballs schools left in the ACC and will be able to add to accentuate their value. The SEC will get an academic infusion, a basketball infusion, and an all sports infusion. What it won't be getting is a football infusion, though Carolina is passable and Virginia has improved some this year. The best laid plans of mice and men have ended unexpectedly many times in history due to a governmental action, and it looks they have again. Now we'll see what timeline develops.

The 19 member cap is interesting for the reasons you've stated, but I do wonder if that holds up in Federal court. Someone is bound to sue over it, everybody does these days...lol.

While most of these schools are public institutions(although the Feds aren't directly funding athletics) and they are obviously engaging in interstate commerce, I still wonder if this sort of cap would be considered an illegal restraint of trade.

We don't have a functional monopoly in college athletics even if some dogs are clearly bigger than others. That and oddly enough, despite the exception that is the SEC, the athletic conferences are not regional anymore. No conference can really be accused of dominating a single region or a collection of regions. They're all spread out across the country to one degree or another. Obviously, they are still competing against each other for TV dollars and TV exposure among other things. Unlike the major pro sports leagues, any anti-trust exemption at this stage does not benefit any single national entity.

You could argue the NCAA benefits from it, but the conferences are private entities unto themselves. The cap isn't imposed on the NCAA, it's imposed on the member conferences assuming a certain income level. As long as the conferences all exist under the umbrella of the NCAA, any realignment is moving chess pieces on the same board...as far as the anti-trust exemption goes.

It clearly caps the ability of other schools to "move up in the world" by joining another conference that has already passed the income threshold. Some definitely won't like that prospect and another type of lawsuit could argue this is a form of discrimination(not racial). After all, the conferences are associations of member institutions. The cap is not a sanction on how a business can acquire other entities. My understanding on monopoly law rests on the notion that outright ownership of the assets and market access is what determines whether or not a single company is considered to have an unfair advantage. I'm obviously not an expert on monopoly law, but that's how it makes sense in my head.

The distinction here is we're not talking about assets or market access belonging to a single entity. Conferences don't actually acquire member institutions. The cap then is an effectively a sanction on how many member institutions are allowed to cooperate. If a school is already in then they're basically set for life. A school that is not in has no effective opportunity to improve their lot. It's not just an arbitrary depressor on the market, it affects individual member institutions far more than it affects conglomerates. The cap is trying to treat the conferences as conglomerates and that's not what they are.

You see some online arguing over freedom of association and I think that's valid, but it's one half of the coin. From Congress' perspective, and I do get their reasoning, if they're going to give any anti-trust exemption then some of the normal rules are thrown out the door. If schools want unusual protections then they have to give up something unusual. I get it and I can understand the thought that says this cap puts a compete stop to further consolidation...at least at the highest levels. Therefore it "saves" college sports in a form we more or less recognize. The problem is it imposes a socialist principle at that point.

It locks in an upper class and everyone else below them into a lower class. Upward mobility is capped in the same of "equality." Growth is stagnated by design, not by market forces. Sure, it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket....but it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket. The risk has been removed. The upper class no longer has anything to fear as long as they aren't completely stupid with their codified advantages. Everyone else below them is up the creek without a paddle. Hopefully, they're fiscally sound as of today because it's never getting any better from here on out.

So it's a completely different dynamic than suppressing a potential monopoly. We're not talking about one or even two companies growing beyond the ability to need to compete. We're talking about suppressing hundreds of smaller companies so that certain existing cooperatives(not companies) cannot grow their membership with any of the smaller companies. I'm not sure about that.

It's also not a traditional anti-trust exemption. The pro-sports have every ability to grow their access to the market, they just have certain rules. They add franchises periodically, but they do so based on their ability to generate new income. They're not capped based on current income levels, any rules are based on overall market access and the fact these organizations are effective monopolies. The pro sports franchises are individually sellable, true, but inextricably linked to their broader parent organization. The parent organization has the anti-trust exemption, not the franchises.

For example, no one is buying the Dallas Cowboys and taking them out of the NFL. The NFL is the product at the end of the day. The Cowboys are effectively worthless if they can't compete in the NFL. This isn't the same dynamic with college athletics. Their worth and existence is tied to many different aspects of life and no school would be effectively worthless if they were in the SEC or Big Ten or any other league. Their worth is affected by access to any league, but not wholly determined.

I think these are some interesting legal questions. I know a lot of people don't like Ted Cruz, but he's not dumb. He spent much of his career arguing in front of the Supreme Court. If he's backing these provisions hard then you can bet he thinks they're legally sound. Doesn't automatically make him right and again, I think my questions are valid, but this sort of bill isn't your run of the mill ideological regurgitation that Congress likes to impose every now and then. This is more nuanced and there are lots of constituents that maybe think this is better than the alternative.

ATU, none of this will go to court. It will be a Bill by Congress Signed into law. Therefore, it will become law. The Supreme Court doesn't override Congress. Besides, it doesn't preclude the recommendations of Kavanaugh. The appeal process in this matter would be massive and extremely costly.

The only option I see is to reject the anti-trust exemption and start our own association, but it would have to include player's unions and collective bargaining. The House may tack that on anyway. We would have been better breaking away, seeking an exemption, and if denied doing this anyway because then there wouldn't be a myriad of agendas tacked on. You never ever ask government to get involved, but when they tell you what you must do to comply you do it to avoid a Senate Committee, a House Committee, all of their animus, and what they then compromise upon which may or may not contain what you want.

(09-22-2026 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-22-2026 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2026 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2025 12:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2025 01:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  That could be the blend to appease the SEC and ESPN. As a hog fan I would love to add Duke. Coach Cal thinks the Thanksgiving night game against the blue devils could break records.


If fsu and or Clemson can’t get the votes, grab uva, vt, Kansas.

Well I can't say I disagree with your sentiments. I suppose it will come down to how many ESPN needs to shelter in the SEC to keep the Big Ten from making a run at them for FOX.

If one school leaves, FSU add Kansas to them.
If two schools leave and UNC is one then FSU balances that pairing.
If it's four schools there are two ways to go:
(a) Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina
(b) Duke, Miami or FSU, North Carolina, Virginia

If (a) it will mean that ESPN is afraid of losing their key holdings and want to rebuild a better football product in the ACC.

If (b) they will be trying to keep the favorite targets away from the Big Ten.

And if the ACC is really threatened, I can see 8: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia & Virginia Tech. Those preserve all of the key states for ESPN's revenue stream.

Now we wait.

Well folks toss all speculation out and get ready. Congress may be stepping in and if the cap of 19 members (odd number intentionally) stands the Big Ten won't be adding anyone and will save #19 for Notre Dame. The SEC will likely be adding North Carolina (no surprise there) and Virginia (surprise!) because that adds two state AAU flagships to the SEC along with 20 million in population between them. ESPN likely would prefer to build around the footballs schools left in the ACC and will be able to add to accentuate their value. The SEC will get an academic infusion, a basketball infusion, and an all sports infusion. What it won't be getting is a football infusion, though Carolina is passable and Virginia has improved some this year. The best laid plans of mice and men have ended unexpectedly many times in history due to a governmental action, and it looks they have again. Now we'll see what timeline develops.

The 19 member cap is interesting for the reasons you've stated, but I do wonder if that holds up in Federal court. Someone is bound to sue over it, everybody does these days...lol.

While most of these schools are public institutions(although the Feds aren't directly funding athletics) and they are obviously engaging in interstate commerce, I still wonder if this sort of cap would be considered an illegal restraint of trade.

We don't have a functional monopoly in college athletics even if some dogs are clearly bigger than others. That and oddly enough, despite the exception that is the SEC, the athletic conferences are not regional anymore. No conference can really be accused of dominating a single region or a collection of regions. They're all spread out across the country to one degree or another. Obviously, they are still competing against each other for TV dollars and TV exposure among other things. Unlike the major pro sports leagues, any anti-trust exemption at this stage does not benefit any single national entity.

You could argue the NCAA benefits from it, but the conferences are private entities unto themselves. The cap isn't imposed on the NCAA, it's imposed on the member conferences assuming a certain income level. As long as the conferences all exist under the umbrella of the NCAA, any realignment is moving chess pieces on the same board...as far as the anti-trust exemption goes.

It clearly caps the ability of other schools to "move up in the world" by joining another conference that has already passed the income threshold. Some definitely won't like that prospect and another type of lawsuit could argue this is a form of discrimination(not racial). After all, the conferences are associations of member institutions. The cap is not a sanction on how a business can acquire other entities. My understanding on monopoly law rests on the notion that outright ownership of the assets and market access is what determines whether or not a single company is considered to have an unfair advantage. I'm obviously not an expert on monopoly law, but that's how it makes sense in my head.

The distinction here is we're not talking about assets or market access belonging to a single entity. Conferences don't actually acquire member institutions. The cap then is an effectively a sanction on how many member institutions are allowed to cooperate. If a school is already in then they're basically set for life. A school that is not in has no effective opportunity to improve their lot. It's not just an arbitrary depressor on the market, it affects individual member institutions far more than it affects conglomerates. The cap is trying to treat the conferences as conglomerates and that's not what they are.

You see some online arguing over freedom of association and I think that's valid, but it's one half of the coin. From Congress' perspective, and I do get their reasoning, if they're going to give any anti-trust exemption then some of the normal rules are thrown out the door. If schools want unusual protections then they have to give up something unusual. I get it and I can understand the thought that says this cap puts a compete stop to further consolidation...at least at the highest levels. Therefore it "saves" college sports in a form we more or less recognize. The problem is it imposes a socialist principle at that point.

It locks in an upper class and everyone else below them into a lower class. Upward mobility is capped in the same of "equality." Growth is stagnated by design, not by market forces. Sure, it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket....but it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket. The risk has been removed. The upper class no longer has anything to fear as long as they aren't completely stupid with their codified advantages. Everyone else below them is up the creek without a paddle. Hopefully, they're fiscally sound as of today because it's never getting any better from here on out.

So it's a completely different dynamic than suppressing a potential monopoly. We're not talking about one or even two companies growing beyond the ability to need to compete. We're talking about suppressing hundreds of smaller companies so that certain existing cooperatives(not companies) cannot grow their membership with any of the smaller companies. I'm not sure about that.

It's also not a traditional anti-trust exemption. The pro-sports have every ability to grow their access to the market, they just have certain rules. They add franchises periodically, but they do so based on their ability to generate new income. They're not capped based on current income levels, any rules are based on overall market access and the fact these organizations are effective monopolies. The pro sports franchises are individually sellable, true, but inextricably linked to their broader parent organization. The parent organization has the anti-trust exemption, not the franchises.

For example, no one is buying the Dallas Cowboys and taking them out of the NFL. The NFL is the product at the end of the day. The Cowboys are effectively worthless if they can't compete in the NFL. This isn't the same dynamic with college athletics. Their worth and existence is tied to many different aspects of life and no school would be effectively worthless if they were in the SEC or Big Ten or any other league. Their worth is affected by access to any league, but not wholly determined.

I think these are some interesting legal questions. I know a lot of people don't like Ted Cruz, but he's not dumb. He spent much of his career arguing in front of the Supreme Court. If he's backing these provisions hard then you can bet he thinks they're legally sound. Doesn't automatically make him right and again, I think my questions are valid, but this sort of bill isn't your run of the mill ideological regurgitation that Congress likes to impose every now and then. This is more nuanced and there are lots of constituents that maybe think this is better than the alternative.

ATU, none of this will go to court. It will be a Bill by Congress Signed into law. Therefore, it will become law. The Supreme Court doesn't override Congress. Besides, it doesn't preclude the recommendations of Kavanaugh. The appeal process in this matter would be massive and extremely costly.

The only option I see is to reject the anti-trust exemption and start our own association, but it would have to include player's unions and collective bargaining. The House may tack that on anyway. We would have been better breaking away, seeking an exemption, and if denied doing this anyway because then there wouldn't be a myriad of agendas tacked on. You never ever ask government to get involved, but when they tell you what you must do to comply you do it to avoid a Senate Committee, a House Committee, all of their animus, and what they then compromise upon which may or may not contain what you want.

Federal law can be challenged in lower courts. Does it make it to SCOTUS? You never know. Usually, it depends on how unique a case is before it gets that far, but it's certainly possible. Everything SCOTUS takes up(things the everyday person cares about anyway) is a matter of Federal law being challenged, local/State laws being challenged on the basis of existing Federal statutes, or in some cases an appeal to Federal law on matters of rights...basically, a charge that some entity is abusing its authority. The latter category is what gave us Alston or the OU/UGA ruling back in the 80s that ironically started us down this path.

Would any of the conferences or schools take on the burden of fighting it out in court? Maybe not. I agree that it would be costly, but depending on the stakes, I could see multiple entities making a challenge that the bill oversteps Constitutional bounds.

I do see some version of the bill passing the House, but they could very well have a fight over key provisions. How much is changed before it hits the President's desk? We don't know.

I don't disagree with your preferred course of action. Kavanaugh really did the conferences a favor by giving them a strong hint of what to do. They decided they wanted something as close to the old NCAA model as possible and here we are.

(09-23-2026 01:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-22-2026 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-22-2026 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2026 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2025 12:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well I can't say I disagree with your sentiments. I suppose it will come down to how many ESPN needs to shelter in the SEC to keep the Big Ten from making a run at them for FOX.

If one school leaves, FSU add Kansas to them.
If two schools leave and UNC is one then FSU balances that pairing.
If it's four schools there are two ways to go:
(a) Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina
(b) Duke, Miami or FSU, North Carolina, Virginia

If (a) it will mean that ESPN is afraid of losing their key holdings and want to rebuild a better football product in the ACC.

If (b) they will be trying to keep the favorite targets away from the Big Ten.

And if the ACC is really threatened, I can see 8: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia & Virginia Tech. Those preserve all of the key states for ESPN's revenue stream.

Now we wait.

Well folks toss all speculation out and get ready. Congress may be stepping in and if the cap of 19 members (odd number intentionally) stands the Big Ten won't be adding anyone and will save #19 for Notre Dame. The SEC will likely be adding North Carolina (no surprise there) and Virginia (surprise!) because that adds two state AAU flagships to the SEC along with 20 million in population between them. ESPN likely would prefer to build around the footballs schools left in the ACC and will be able to add to accentuate their value. The SEC will get an academic infusion, a basketball infusion, and an all sports infusion. What it won't be getting is a football infusion, though Carolina is passable and Virginia has improved some this year. The best laid plans of mice and men have ended unexpectedly many times in history due to a governmental action, and it looks they have again. Now we'll see what timeline develops.

The 19 member cap is interesting for the reasons you've stated, but I do wonder if that holds up in Federal court. Someone is bound to sue over it, everybody does these days...lol.

While most of these schools are public institutions(although the Feds aren't directly funding athletics) and they are obviously engaging in interstate commerce, I still wonder if this sort of cap would be considered an illegal restraint of trade.

We don't have a functional monopoly in college athletics even if some dogs are clearly bigger than others. That and oddly enough, despite the exception that is the SEC, the athletic conferences are not regional anymore. No conference can really be accused of dominating a single region or a collection of regions. They're all spread out across the country to one degree or another. Obviously, they are still competing against each other for TV dollars and TV exposure among other things. Unlike the major pro sports leagues, any anti-trust exemption at this stage does not benefit any single national entity.

You could argue the NCAA benefits from it, but the conferences are private entities unto themselves. The cap isn't imposed on the NCAA, it's imposed on the member conferences assuming a certain income level. As long as the conferences all exist under the umbrella of the NCAA, any realignment is moving chess pieces on the same board...as far as the anti-trust exemption goes.

It clearly caps the ability of other schools to "move up in the world" by joining another conference that has already passed the income threshold. Some definitely won't like that prospect and another type of lawsuit could argue this is a form of discrimination(not racial). After all, the conferences are associations of member institutions. The cap is not a sanction on how a business can acquire other entities. My understanding on monopoly law rests on the notion that outright ownership of the assets and market access is what determines whether or not a single company is considered to have an unfair advantage. I'm obviously not an expert on monopoly law, but that's how it makes sense in my head.

The distinction here is we're not talking about assets or market access belonging to a single entity. Conferences don't actually acquire member institutions. The cap then is an effectively a sanction on how many member institutions are allowed to cooperate. If a school is already in then they're basically set for life. A school that is not in has no effective opportunity to improve their lot. It's not just an arbitrary depressor on the market, it affects individual member institutions far more than it affects conglomerates. The cap is trying to treat the conferences as conglomerates and that's not what they are.

You see some online arguing over freedom of association and I think that's valid, but it's one half of the coin. From Congress' perspective, and I do get their reasoning, if they're going to give any anti-trust exemption then some of the normal rules are thrown out the door. If schools want unusual protections then they have to give up something unusual. I get it and I can understand the thought that says this cap puts a compete stop to further consolidation...at least at the highest levels. Therefore it "saves" college sports in a form we more or less recognize. The problem is it imposes a socialist principle at that point.

It locks in an upper class and everyone else below them into a lower class. Upward mobility is capped in the same of "equality." Growth is stagnated by design, not by market forces. Sure, it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket....but it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket. The risk has been removed. The upper class no longer has anything to fear as long as they aren't completely stupid with their codified advantages. Everyone else below them is up the creek without a paddle. Hopefully, they're fiscally sound as of today because it's never getting any better from here on out.

So it's a completely different dynamic than suppressing a potential monopoly. We're not talking about one or even two companies growing beyond the ability to need to compete. We're talking about suppressing hundreds of smaller companies so that certain existing cooperatives(not companies) cannot grow their membership with any of the smaller companies. I'm not sure about that.

It's also not a traditional anti-trust exemption. The pro-sports have every ability to grow their access to the market, they just have certain rules. They add franchises periodically, but they do so based on their ability to generate new income. They're not capped based on current income levels, any rules are based on overall market access and the fact these organizations are effective monopolies. The pro sports franchises are individually sellable, true, but inextricably linked to their broader parent organization. The parent organization has the anti-trust exemption, not the franchises.

For example, no one is buying the Dallas Cowboys and taking them out of the NFL. The NFL is the product at the end of the day. The Cowboys are effectively worthless if they can't compete in the NFL. This isn't the same dynamic with college athletics. Their worth and existence is tied to many different aspects of life and no school would be effectively worthless if they were in the SEC or Big Ten or any other league. Their worth is affected by access to any league, but not wholly determined.

I think these are some interesting legal questions. I know a lot of people don't like Ted Cruz, but he's not dumb. He spent much of his career arguing in front of the Supreme Court. If he's backing these provisions hard then you can bet he thinks they're legally sound. Doesn't automatically make him right and again, I think my questions are valid, but this sort of bill isn't your run of the mill ideological regurgitation that Congress likes to impose every now and then. This is more nuanced and there are lots of constituents that maybe think this is better than the alternative.

ATU, none of this will go to court. It will be a Bill by Congress Signed into law. Therefore, it will become law. The Supreme Court doesn't override Congress. Besides, it doesn't preclude the recommendations of Kavanaugh. The appeal process in this matter would be massive and extremely costly.

The only option I see is to reject the anti-trust exemption and start our own association, but it would have to include player's unions and collective bargaining. The House may tack that on anyway. We would have been better breaking away, seeking an exemption, and if denied doing this anyway because then there wouldn't be a myriad of agendas tacked on. You never ever ask government to get involved, but when they tell you what you must do to comply you do it to avoid a Senate Committee, a House Committee, all of their animus, and what they then compromise upon which may or may not contain what you want.

Federal law can be challenged in lower courts. Does it make it to SCOTUS? You never know. Usually, it depends on how unique a case is before it gets that far, but it's certainly possible. Everything SCOTUS takes up(things the everyday person cares about anyway) is a matter of Federal law being challenged, local/State laws being challenged on the basis of existing Federal statutes, or in some cases an appeal to Federal law on matters of rights...basically, a charge that some entity is abusing its authority. The latter category is what gave us Alston or the OU/UGA ruling back in the 80s that ironically started us down this path.

Would any of the conferences or schools take on the burden of fighting it out in court? Maybe not. I agree that it would be costly, but depending on the stakes, I could see multiple entities making a challenge that the bill oversteps Constitutional bounds.

I do see some version of the bill passing the House, but they could very well have a fight over key provisions. How much is changed before it hits the President's desk? We don't know.

I don't disagree with your preferred course of action. Kavanaugh really did the conferences a favor by giving them a strong hint of what to do. They decided they wanted something as close to the old NCAA model as possible and here we are.

Well, it won't come to that. Today the Senate held voice votes on amendments and one that passed raised the cap to 20 on the PCSA. Clemson, FSU, UNC, and either Virginia or Duke are back on the table.

It's going to be rough on the ACC.

(09-29-2026 12:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2026 01:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-22-2026 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-22-2026 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2026 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well folks toss all speculation out and get ready. Congress may be stepping in and if the cap of 19 members (odd number intentionally) stands the Big Ten won't be adding anyone and will save #19 for Notre Dame. The SEC will likely be adding North Carolina (no surprise there) and Virginia (surprise!) because that adds two state AAU flagships to the SEC along with 20 million in population between them. ESPN likely would prefer to build around the footballs schools left in the ACC and will be able to add to accentuate their value. The SEC will get an academic infusion, a basketball infusion, and an all sports infusion. What it won't be getting is a football infusion, though Carolina is passable and Virginia has improved some this year. The best laid plans of mice and men have ended unexpectedly many times in history due to a governmental action, and it looks they have again. Now we'll see what timeline develops.

The 19 member cap is interesting for the reasons you've stated, but I do wonder if that holds up in Federal court. Someone is bound to sue over it, everybody does these days...lol.

While most of these schools are public institutions(although the Feds aren't directly funding athletics) and they are obviously engaging in interstate commerce, I still wonder if this sort of cap would be considered an illegal restraint of trade.

We don't have a functional monopoly in college athletics even if some dogs are clearly bigger than others. That and oddly enough, despite the exception that is the SEC, the athletic conferences are not regional anymore. No conference can really be accused of dominating a single region or a collection of regions. They're all spread out across the country to one degree or another. Obviously, they are still competing against each other for TV dollars and TV exposure among other things. Unlike the major pro sports leagues, any anti-trust exemption at this stage does not benefit any single national entity.

You could argue the NCAA benefits from it, but the conferences are private entities unto themselves. The cap isn't imposed on the NCAA, it's imposed on the member conferences assuming a certain income level. As long as the conferences all exist under the umbrella of the NCAA, any realignment is moving chess pieces on the same board...as far as the anti-trust exemption goes.

It clearly caps the ability of other schools to "move up in the world" by joining another conference that has already passed the income threshold. Some definitely won't like that prospect and another type of lawsuit could argue this is a form of discrimination(not racial). After all, the conferences are associations of member institutions. The cap is not a sanction on how a business can acquire other entities. My understanding on monopoly law rests on the notion that outright ownership of the assets and market access is what determines whether or not a single company is considered to have an unfair advantage. I'm obviously not an expert on monopoly law, but that's how it makes sense in my head.

The distinction here is we're not talking about assets or market access belonging to a single entity. Conferences don't actually acquire member institutions. The cap then is an effectively a sanction on how many member institutions are allowed to cooperate. If a school is already in then they're basically set for life. A school that is not in has no effective opportunity to improve their lot. It's not just an arbitrary depressor on the market, it affects individual member institutions far more than it affects conglomerates. The cap is trying to treat the conferences as conglomerates and that's not what they are.

You see some online arguing over freedom of association and I think that's valid, but it's one half of the coin. From Congress' perspective, and I do get their reasoning, if they're going to give any anti-trust exemption then some of the normal rules are thrown out the door. If schools want unusual protections then they have to give up something unusual. I get it and I can understand the thought that says this cap puts a compete stop to further consolidation...at least at the highest levels. Therefore it "saves" college sports in a form we more or less recognize. The problem is it imposes a socialist principle at that point.

It locks in an upper class and everyone else below them into a lower class. Upward mobility is capped in the same of "equality." Growth is stagnated by design, not by market forces. Sure, it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket....but it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket. The risk has been removed. The upper class no longer has anything to fear as long as they aren't completely stupid with their codified advantages. Everyone else below them is up the creek without a paddle. Hopefully, they're fiscally sound as of today because it's never getting any better from here on out.

So it's a completely different dynamic than suppressing a potential monopoly. We're not talking about one or even two companies growing beyond the ability to need to compete. We're talking about suppressing hundreds of smaller companies so that certain existing cooperatives(not companies) cannot grow their membership with any of the smaller companies. I'm not sure about that.

It's also not a traditional anti-trust exemption. The pro-sports have every ability to grow their access to the market, they just have certain rules. They add franchises periodically, but they do so based on their ability to generate new income. They're not capped based on current income levels, any rules are based on overall market access and the fact these organizations are effective monopolies. The pro sports franchises are individually sellable, true, but inextricably linked to their broader parent organization. The parent organization has the anti-trust exemption, not the franchises.

For example, no one is buying the Dallas Cowboys and taking them out of the NFL. The NFL is the product at the end of the day. The Cowboys are effectively worthless if they can't compete in the NFL. This isn't the same dynamic with college athletics. Their worth and existence is tied to many different aspects of life and no school would be effectively worthless if they were in the SEC or Big Ten or any other league. Their worth is affected by access to any league, but not wholly determined.

I think these are some interesting legal questions. I know a lot of people don't like Ted Cruz, but he's not dumb. He spent much of his career arguing in front of the Supreme Court. If he's backing these provisions hard then you can bet he thinks they're legally sound. Doesn't automatically make him right and again, I think my questions are valid, but this sort of bill isn't your run of the mill ideological regurgitation that Congress likes to impose every now and then. This is more nuanced and there are lots of constituents that maybe think this is better than the alternative.

ATU, none of this will go to court. It will be a Bill by Congress Signed into law. Therefore, it will become law. The Supreme Court doesn't override Congress. Besides, it doesn't preclude the recommendations of Kavanaugh. The appeal process in this matter would be massive and extremely costly.

The only option I see is to reject the anti-trust exemption and start our own association, but it would have to include player's unions and collective bargaining. The House may tack that on anyway. We would have been better breaking away, seeking an exemption, and if denied doing this anyway because then there wouldn't be a myriad of agendas tacked on. You never ever ask government to get involved, but when they tell you what you must do to comply you do it to avoid a Senate Committee, a House Committee, all of their animus, and what they then compromise upon which may or may not contain what you want.

Federal law can be challenged in lower courts. Does it make it to SCOTUS? You never know. Usually, it depends on how unique a case is before it gets that far, but it's certainly possible. Everything SCOTUS takes up(things the everyday person cares about anyway) is a matter of Federal law being challenged, local/State laws being challenged on the basis of existing Federal statutes, or in some cases an appeal to Federal law on matters of rights...basically, a charge that some entity is abusing its authority. The latter category is what gave us Alston or the OU/UGA ruling back in the 80s that ironically started us down this path.

Would any of the conferences or schools take on the burden of fighting it out in court? Maybe not. I agree that it would be costly, but depending on the stakes, I could see multiple entities making a challenge that the bill oversteps Constitutional bounds.

I do see some version of the bill passing the House, but they could very well have a fight over key provisions. How much is changed before it hits the President's desk? We don't know.

I don't disagree with your preferred course of action. Kavanaugh really did the conferences a favor by giving them a strong hint of what to do. They decided they wanted something as close to the old NCAA model as possible and here we are.

Well, it won't come to that. Today the Senate held voice votes on amendments and one that passed raised the cap to 20 on the PCSA. Clemson, FSU, UNC, and either Virginia or Duke are back on the table.

It's going to be rough on the ACC.

That’s a good cap to give the bill the best chance today to get passed by both houses. Obviously there are more than 6 ACC schools wanting a spot in the Big Ten or SEC, let’s not forget the Big 12 schools are still waiting for their tv contracts to expire in a couple more years so they too can have meaningful realignment talks.

The next step is to help find additional funding to pay for this round of expansion; college football playoff expansion. Increasing the revenue and payouts for that tournament should help facilitate adding more members to the P2.

Big Ten and the SEC want new markets. Big Ten wants rich southeastern cities while the sec wants rich untapped contiguous states.

Just gotta keep waiting until the dominos start to drop.

(09-29-2026 07:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-29-2026 12:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2026 01:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-22-2026 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-22-2026 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The 19 member cap is interesting for the reasons you've stated, but I do wonder if that holds up in Federal court. Someone is bound to sue over it, everybody does these days...lol.

While most of these schools are public institutions(although the Feds aren't directly funding athletics) and they are obviously engaging in interstate commerce, I still wonder if this sort of cap would be considered an illegal restraint of trade.

We don't have a functional monopoly in college athletics even if some dogs are clearly bigger than others. That and oddly enough, despite the exception that is the SEC, the athletic conferences are not regional anymore. No conference can really be accused of dominating a single region or a collection of regions. They're all spread out across the country to one degree or another. Obviously, they are still competing against each other for TV dollars and TV exposure among other things. Unlike the major pro sports leagues, any anti-trust exemption at this stage does not benefit any single national entity.

You could argue the NCAA benefits from it, but the conferences are private entities unto themselves. The cap isn't imposed on the NCAA, it's imposed on the member conferences assuming a certain income level. As long as the conferences all exist under the umbrella of the NCAA, any realignment is moving chess pieces on the same board...as far as the anti-trust exemption goes.

It clearly caps the ability of other schools to "move up in the world" by joining another conference that has already passed the income threshold. Some definitely won't like that prospect and another type of lawsuit could argue this is a form of discrimination(not racial). After all, the conferences are associations of member institutions. The cap is not a sanction on how a business can acquire other entities. My understanding on monopoly law rests on the notion that outright ownership of the assets and market access is what determines whether or not a single company is considered to have an unfair advantage. I'm obviously not an expert on monopoly law, but that's how it makes sense in my head.

The distinction here is we're not talking about assets or market access belonging to a single entity. Conferences don't actually acquire member institutions. The cap then is an effectively a sanction on how many member institutions are allowed to cooperate. If a school is already in then they're basically set for life. A school that is not in has no effective opportunity to improve their lot. It's not just an arbitrary depressor on the market, it affects individual member institutions far more than it affects conglomerates. The cap is trying to treat the conferences as conglomerates and that's not what they are.

You see some online arguing over freedom of association and I think that's valid, but it's one half of the coin. From Congress' perspective, and I do get their reasoning, if they're going to give any anti-trust exemption then some of the normal rules are thrown out the door. If schools want unusual protections then they have to give up something unusual. I get it and I can understand the thought that says this cap puts a compete stop to further consolidation...at least at the highest levels. Therefore it "saves" college sports in a form we more or less recognize. The problem is it imposes a socialist principle at that point.

It locks in an upper class and everyone else below them into a lower class. Upward mobility is capped in the same of "equality." Growth is stagnated by design, not by market forces. Sure, it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket....but it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket. The risk has been removed. The upper class no longer has anything to fear as long as they aren't completely stupid with their codified advantages. Everyone else below them is up the creek without a paddle. Hopefully, they're fiscally sound as of today because it's never getting any better from here on out.

So it's a completely different dynamic than suppressing a potential monopoly. We're not talking about one or even two companies growing beyond the ability to need to compete. We're talking about suppressing hundreds of smaller companies so that certain existing cooperatives(not companies) cannot grow their membership with any of the smaller companies. I'm not sure about that.

It's also not a traditional anti-trust exemption. The pro-sports have every ability to grow their access to the market, they just have certain rules. They add franchises periodically, but they do so based on their ability to generate new income. They're not capped based on current income levels, any rules are based on overall market access and the fact these organizations are effective monopolies. The pro sports franchises are individually sellable, true, but inextricably linked to their broader parent organization. The parent organization has the anti-trust exemption, not the franchises.

For example, no one is buying the Dallas Cowboys and taking them out of the NFL. The NFL is the product at the end of the day. The Cowboys are effectively worthless if they can't compete in the NFL. This isn't the same dynamic with college athletics. Their worth and existence is tied to many different aspects of life and no school would be effectively worthless if they were in the SEC or Big Ten or any other league. Their worth is affected by access to any league, but not wholly determined.

I think these are some interesting legal questions. I know a lot of people don't like Ted Cruz, but he's not dumb. He spent much of his career arguing in front of the Supreme Court. If he's backing these provisions hard then you can bet he thinks they're legally sound. Doesn't automatically make him right and again, I think my questions are valid, but this sort of bill isn't your run of the mill ideological regurgitation that Congress likes to impose every now and then. This is more nuanced and there are lots of constituents that maybe think this is better than the alternative.

ATU, none of this will go to court. It will be a Bill by Congress Signed into law. Therefore, it will become law. The Supreme Court doesn't override Congress. Besides, it doesn't preclude the recommendations of Kavanaugh. The appeal process in this matter would be massive and extremely costly.

The only option I see is to reject the anti-trust exemption and start our own association, but it would have to include player's unions and collective bargaining. The House may tack that on anyway. We would have been better breaking away, seeking an exemption, and if denied doing this anyway because then there wouldn't be a myriad of agendas tacked on. You never ever ask government to get involved, but when they tell you what you must do to comply you do it to avoid a Senate Committee, a House Committee, all of their animus, and what they then compromise upon which may or may not contain what you want.

Federal law can be challenged in lower courts. Does it make it to SCOTUS? You never know. Usually, it depends on how unique a case is before it gets that far, but it's certainly possible. Everything SCOTUS takes up(things the everyday person cares about anyway) is a matter of Federal law being challenged, local/State laws being challenged on the basis of existing Federal statutes, or in some cases an appeal to Federal law on matters of rights...basically, a charge that some entity is abusing its authority. The latter category is what gave us Alston or the OU/UGA ruling back in the 80s that ironically started us down this path.

Would any of the conferences or schools take on the burden of fighting it out in court? Maybe not. I agree that it would be costly, but depending on the stakes, I could see multiple entities making a challenge that the bill oversteps Constitutional bounds.

I do see some version of the bill passing the House, but they could very well have a fight over key provisions. How much is changed before it hits the President's desk? We don't know.

I don't disagree with your preferred course of action. Kavanaugh really did the conferences a favor by giving them a strong hint of what to do. They decided they wanted something as close to the old NCAA model as possible and here we are.

Well, it won't come to that. Today the Senate held voice votes on amendments and one that passed raised the cap to 20 on the PCSA. Clemson, FSU, UNC, and either Virginia or Duke are back on the table.

It's going to be rough on the ACC.

That’s a good cap to give the bill the best chance today to get passed by both houses. Obviously there are more than 6 ACC schools wanting a spot in the Big Ten or SEC, let’s not forget the Big 12 schools are still waiting for their tv contracts to expire in a couple more years so they too can have meaningful realignment talks.

The next step is to help find additional funding to pay for this round of expansion; college football playoff expansion. Increasing the revenue and payouts for that tournament should help facilitate adding more members to the P2.

Big Ten and the SEC want new markets. Big Ten wants rich southeastern cities while the sec wants rich untapped contiguous states.

Just gotta keep waiting until the dominos start to drop.

If the House approves it with the same cap of 20, I would think that somebody within college sports with a brain would say, let the Big Ten and SEC go ahead and add the schools they will be taking. That makes it easier on everyone else to know what to do. Exit fees can be withheld as a % of their new earnings in their new conferences.

What good does it serve college sports to keep this going any longer than is necessary? People are getting far more turned off by it now than interested. Traffic here indicates that strongly. In the past we would have 10's of thousands of visitors reading up to see what is going on. Now it's maybe 10 thousand or less and on the weekends mostly. Fans are weary. The sooner they end it now the better for the sport.

If the Big Ten and SEC are in agreement on who they want, they can go ahead and add the uncontested ones, settle any that might be contested and finish it. Then they can begin their negotiations on post seasons and scheduling agreements. It seems the Big Ten is willing to offer Notre Dame a scheduling agreement as is the SEC. I can see them remaining independent but playing a set number of games with both the SEC and Big Ten.

The sooner the ACC can backfill or the Big 12, if necessary, the quicker we can get back to just enjoying the sport. Realignment enthusiasts like many here, are in the vast minority compared to the viewing public. Dragging this out six years will prove unprofitable and off-putting.

(09-29-2026 07:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2026 07:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-29-2026 12:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2026 01:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-22-2026 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ATU, none of this will go to court. It will be a Bill by Congress Signed into law. Therefore, it will become law. The Supreme Court doesn't override Congress. Besides, it doesn't preclude the recommendations of Kavanaugh. The appeal process in this matter would be massive and extremely costly.

The only option I see is to reject the anti-trust exemption and start our own association, but it would have to include player's unions and collective bargaining. The House may tack that on anyway. We would have been better breaking away, seeking an exemption, and if denied doing this anyway because then there wouldn't be a myriad of agendas tacked on. You never ever ask government to get involved, but when they tell you what you must do to comply you do it to avoid a Senate Committee, a House Committee, all of their animus, and what they then compromise upon which may or may not contain what you want.

Federal law can be challenged in lower courts. Does it make it to SCOTUS? You never know. Usually, it depends on how unique a case is before it gets that far, but it's certainly possible. Everything SCOTUS takes up(things the everyday person cares about anyway) is a matter of Federal law being challenged, local/State laws being challenged on the basis of existing Federal statutes, or in some cases an appeal to Federal law on matters of rights...basically, a charge that some entity is abusing its authority. The latter category is what gave us Alston or the OU/UGA ruling back in the 80s that ironically started us down this path.

Would any of the conferences or schools take on the burden of fighting it out in court? Maybe not. I agree that it would be costly, but depending on the stakes, I could see multiple entities making a challenge that the bill oversteps Constitutional bounds.

I do see some version of the bill passing the House, but they could very well have a fight over key provisions. How much is changed before it hits the President's desk? We don't know.

I don't disagree with your preferred course of action. Kavanaugh really did the conferences a favor by giving them a strong hint of what to do. They decided they wanted something as close to the old NCAA model as possible and here we are.

Well, it won't come to that. Today the Senate held voice votes on amendments and one that passed raised the cap to 20 on the PCSA. Clemson, FSU, UNC, and either Virginia or Duke are back on the table.

It's going to be rough on the ACC.

That’s a good cap to give the bill the best chance today to get passed by both houses. Obviously there are more than 6 ACC schools wanting a spot in the Big Ten or SEC, let’s not forget the Big 12 schools are still waiting for their tv contracts to expire in a couple more years so they too can have meaningful realignment talks.

The next step is to help find additional funding to pay for this round of expansion; college football playoff expansion. Increasing the revenue and payouts for that tournament should help facilitate adding more members to the P2.

Big Ten and the SEC want new markets. Big Ten wants rich southeastern cities while the sec wants rich untapped contiguous states.

Just gotta keep waiting until the dominos start to drop.

If the House approves it with the same cap of 20, I would think that somebody within college sports with a brain would say, let the Big Ten and SEC go ahead and add the schools they will be taking. That makes it easier on everyone else to know what to do. Exit fees can be withheld as a % of their new earnings in their new conferences.

What good does it serve college sports to keep this going any longer than is necessary? People are getting far more turned off by it now than interested. Traffic here indicates that strongly. In the past we would have 10's of thousands of visitors reading up to see what is going on. Now it's maybe 10 thousand or less and on the weekends mostly. Fans are weary. The sooner they end it now the better for the sport.

If the Big Ten and SEC are in agreement on who they want, they can go ahead and add the uncontested ones, settle any that might be contested and finish it. Then they can begin their negotiations on post seasons and scheduling agreements. It seems the Big Ten is willing to offer Notre Dame a scheduling agreement as is the SEC. I can see them remaining independent but playing a set number of games with both the SEC and Big Ten.

The sooner the ACC can backfill or the Big 12, if necessary, the quicker we can get back to just enjoying the sport. Realignment enthusiasts like many here, are in the vast minority compared to the viewing public. Dragging this out six years will prove unprofitable and off-putting.

I too am tired of the realignment can getting kicked down the road repeatedly. If the CFP gets expanded to 24, then that will be a strong signal as to how much money the P2 is expecting from postseason play and should help finance the next round of expansion. Everyone has been talking and preparing since the FSU vs ACC settlement. Let the dominos drop already.

Notre Dame as a partial just to keep them out of the Big Ten? Their fanbase is not exactly in the south, but to screw over the Big Ten I’m sure the boys in Birmingham could come to an agreement to make that happen. Could add another partial member to keep things balanced. How serious do you think those talks, ND/SEC, are if the ACC does lose six or more?

(09-30-2026 08:20 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-29-2026 07:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2026 07:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-29-2026 12:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2026 01:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Federal law can be challenged in lower courts. Does it make it to SCOTUS? You never know. Usually, it depends on how unique a case is before it gets that far, but it's certainly possible. Everything SCOTUS takes up(things the everyday person cares about anyway) is a matter of Federal law being challenged, local/State laws being challenged on the basis of existing Federal statutes, or in some cases an appeal to Federal law on matters of rights...basically, a charge that some entity is abusing its authority. The latter category is what gave us Alston or the OU/UGA ruling back in the 80s that ironically started us down this path.

Would any of the conferences or schools take on the burden of fighting it out in court? Maybe not. I agree that it would be costly, but depending on the stakes, I could see multiple entities making a challenge that the bill oversteps Constitutional bounds.

I do see some version of the bill passing the House, but they could very well have a fight over key provisions. How much is changed before it hits the President's desk? We don't know.

I don't disagree with your preferred course of action. Kavanaugh really did the conferences a favor by giving them a strong hint of what to do. They decided they wanted something as close to the old NCAA model as possible and here we are.

Well, it won't come to that. Today the Senate held voice votes on amendments and one that passed raised the cap to 20 on the PCSA. Clemson, FSU, UNC, and either Virginia or Duke are back on the table.

It's going to be rough on the ACC.

That’s a good cap to give the bill the best chance today to get passed by both houses. Obviously there are more than 6 ACC schools wanting a spot in the Big Ten or SEC, let’s not forget the Big 12 schools are still waiting for their tv contracts to expire in a couple more years so they too can have meaningful realignment talks.

The next step is to help find additional funding to pay for this round of expansion; college football playoff expansion. Increasing the revenue and payouts for that tournament should help facilitate adding more members to the P2.

Big Ten and the SEC want new markets. Big Ten wants rich southeastern cities while the sec wants rich untapped contiguous states.

Just gotta keep waiting until the dominos start to drop.

If the House approves it with the same cap of 20, I would think that somebody within college sports with a brain would say, let the Big Ten and SEC go ahead and add the schools they will be taking. That makes it easier on everyone else to know what to do. Exit fees can be withheld as a % of their new earnings in their new conferences.

What good does it serve college sports to keep this going any longer than is necessary? People are getting far more turned off by it now than interested. Traffic here indicates that strongly. In the past we would have 10's of thousands of visitors reading up to see what is going on. Now it's maybe 10 thousand or less and on the weekends mostly. Fans are weary. The sooner they end it now the better for the sport.

If the Big Ten and SEC are in agreement on who they want, they can go ahead and add the uncontested ones, settle any that might be contested and finish it. Then they can begin their negotiations on post seasons and scheduling agreements. It seems the Big Ten is willing to offer Notre Dame a scheduling agreement as is the SEC. I can see them remaining independent but playing a set number of games with both the SEC and Big Ten.

The sooner the ACC can backfill or the Big 12, if necessary, the quicker we can get back to just enjoying the sport. Realignment enthusiasts like many here, are in the vast minority compared to the viewing public. Dragging this out six years will prove unprofitable and off-putting.

I too am tired of the realignment can getting kicked down the road repeatedly. If the CFP gets expanded to 24, then that will be a strong signal as to how much money the P2 is expecting from postseason play and should help finance the next round of expansion. Everyone has been talking and preparing since the FSU vs ACC settlement. Let the dominos drop already.

Notre Dame as a partial just to keep them out of the Big Ten? Their fanbase is not exactly in the south, but to screw over the Big Ten I’m sure the boys in Birmingham could come to an agreement to make that happen. Could add another partial member to keep things balanced. How serious do you think those talks, ND/SEC, are if the ACC does lose six or more?

Well things changed again yesterday evening. 12 House members signed an amendment to the PCSA which kills the time for waiting as an independent and wipes out the caps. If that amendment passes the House and the Senate doesn't oppose it and it becomes law, it wipes out all of the above. If it doesn't pass the House and neither does the Bill that wipes it out as well. It would take both the House rejecting the amendment and passing the bill for the Senate to approve it and the cap remain at 20 and the time as an independent at 3 minutes. We may be looking at 24 again.

(09-30-2026 08:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 08:20 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-29-2026 07:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2026 07:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-29-2026 12:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, it won't come to that. Today the Senate held voice votes on amendments and one that passed raised the cap to 20 on the PCSA. Clemson, FSU, UNC, and either Virginia or Duke are back on the table.

It's going to be rough on the ACC.

That’s a good cap to give the bill the best chance today to get passed by both houses. Obviously there are more than 6 ACC schools wanting a spot in the Big Ten or SEC, let’s not forget the Big 12 schools are still waiting for their tv contracts to expire in a couple more years so they too can have meaningful realignment talks.

The next step is to help find additional funding to pay for this round of expansion; college football playoff expansion. Increasing the revenue and payouts for that tournament should help facilitate adding more members to the P2.

Big Ten and the SEC want new markets. Big Ten wants rich southeastern cities while the sec wants rich untapped contiguous states.

Just gotta keep waiting until the dominos start to drop.

If the House approves it with the same cap of 20, I would think that somebody within college sports with a brain would say, let the Big Ten and SEC go ahead and add the schools they will be taking. That makes it easier on everyone else to know what to do. Exit fees can be withheld as a % of their new earnings in their new conferences.

What good does it serve college sports to keep this going any longer than is necessary? People are getting far more turned off by it now than interested. Traffic here indicates that strongly. In the past we would have 10's of thousands of visitors reading up to see what is going on. Now it's maybe 10 thousand or less and on the weekends mostly. Fans are weary. The sooner they end it now the better for the sport.

If the Big Ten and SEC are in agreement on who they want, they can go ahead and add the uncontested ones, settle any that might be contested and finish it. Then they can begin their negotiations on post seasons and scheduling agreements. It seems the Big Ten is willing to offer Notre Dame a scheduling agreement as is the SEC. I can see them remaining independent but playing a set number of games with both the SEC and Big Ten.

The sooner the ACC can backfill or the Big 12, if necessary, the quicker we can get back to just enjoying the sport. Realignment enthusiasts like many here, are in the vast minority compared to the viewing public. Dragging this out six years will prove unprofitable and off-putting.

I too am tired of the realignment can getting kicked down the road repeatedly. If the CFP gets expanded to 24, then that will be a strong signal as to how much money the P2 is expecting from postseason play and should help finance the next round of expansion. Everyone has been talking and preparing since the FSU vs ACC settlement. Let the dominos drop already.

Notre Dame as a partial just to keep them out of the Big Ten? Their fanbase is not exactly in the south, but to screw over the Big Ten I’m sure the boys in Birmingham could come to an agreement to make that happen. Could add another partial member to keep things balanced. How serious do you think those talks, ND/SEC, are if the ACC does lose six or more?

Well things changed again yesterday evening. 12 House members signed an amendment to the PCSA which kills the time for waiting as an independent and wipes out the caps. If that amendment passes the House and the Senate doesn't oppose it and it becomes law, it wipes out all of the above. If it doesn't pass the House and neither does the Bill that wipes it out as well. It would take both the House rejecting the amendment and passing the bill for the Senate to approve it and the cap remain at 20 and the time as an independent at 3 minutes. We may be looking at 24 again.

If the bills passes without caps or probation, or fails to pass the senate amendment vote which kills the bill, we are back into the Wild West and expansion is wide open. To be honest, too much leg work has been done by all sides for there not to be some movement, if not a lot.