(09-30-2026 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 09:34 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 09:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 09:14 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 06:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree, those are the biggest draws for the ACC.

IMO, the idea that the ACC can raid the nB12 if it loses teams around 2030 is a very iffy proposition. It's kind of like the old quip "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me". If the ACC loses say UNC and FSU, then why does it really want to pry away any nB12 teams? There's nobody in the nB12 that adds much value, probably not enough to be worth the extra mouths to feed. And if the ACC does want say Arizona State and Texas Tech to "bridge" the geographical gap with its California schools, why would those schools want to leave a conference they are much closer to geographically and culturally for what would likely be a small amount of extra ACCn money and an ACC that no longer has its two biggest brands?

Conversely, if the ACC suffers a significantly bigger hit, say four to six schools, then the ACC isn't really strong enough to be attractive to nB12 schools. It would likely be in more danger of being raided by the nB12 than the reverse.

Is it possible an ACC that loses teams could raid the nB12? Sure. But IMO the window for doing that, the combination of ACC losses that makes them want to add nB12 teams and that makes the ACC attractive to nB12 teams targeted, is pretty tight.

None of these scenarios go beyond surface level.

The ACC won't lose any schools to the Big XII because nobody in their right mind leaves a known TV deal (security) for an unknown. They certainly don't pay at least $75 million to make equal money either.

The Big XII is more vulnerable because their TV deal is up in a precarious position on the timeline which happens to be right after B1G negotiations (which FOX will pony up for) and before ESPN's negotiations with the SEC—which they better have an absolute BANK ready.

I have never been one to believe the ACC should target the 4C anyway. Could it work? Sure. But spreading a conference out far and wide when you aren't making B1G money is dubious at best. I would look to the closer schools which create synergy within the majority of the footprint. West Virginia is committed to the new paradigm, has a large fanbase, and creates synergy with no less than three current ACC clubs. That would be my target.

First of all, the long term of the ACC deal is a handicap, not an asset. They are undervalued on Tier I and II. The Big 12 is known for the next 5 years, which is an eternity in realignment circles. The Big 12 is less vulnerable because they already lost their 4 best assets and are still around. The networks know what they have.

When you look at how time slots and networks are allocated, there's no reason to believe the networks need less P4 inventory. Not much room for more, but they don't need less.

That makes no sense. When a contract is up, the properties are vulnerable. Full stop. We literally just saw this happen to the Pac and we've seen the ACC maintain membership for over a decade.

I agree there is no reason for less inventory, but ESPN could simply opt out of the Big XII deal next go around and gain B1G inventory. The B1G wants to diversify. We need to see how the B1G deal is sliced up before promoting this "security" for the Monster XII. They are next on the chopping block whether their fans like it or not.

Just because a contract is up doesn't mean they are vulnerable. The market has never been better for college football. Yes, there's a chance if you drive to the grocery store today, you could be in an accident and your car totalled, but that's not likely. Its not something you factor into your decision of going to the grocery store.

The PAC never countered ESPN"s offer. They ticked off their media partner, so they moved on. And they hadn't performed well on the field or on TV. At that point in time, only Stanford and Utah of the remaining 8 were above the Big 12 or ACC average in TV ratings. And they apparently did have a deal that would have paid $15-$25 million a school (there was some conflicting information and uncertainty how much the Amazon deal was actually worth, but ASU and Utah wanted to accept the deal), less than the Big 12 or ACC, but well above G level.

Uh, yes it does. The schools that are vulnerable are the schools bringing less value. If they weigh down negotiations then that's a major concern in the open market.

CFB rights are at an all-time high. FOX and ESPN are not. They will be spending beaucoup bucks to remain relevant in the forthcoming deals with the bell cow conferences.

I'm just putting two and two together.

(09-30-2026 10:03 AM)Squiggles Wrote:  https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2105306359277162843

Per Dellenger, a letter is being signed by more than a dozen legislators to House leadership encouraging them to remove the expansion provisions.

This is the least surprising news of this bill lol. Can't believe it took 2 days to have a draft made.

(09-30-2026 10:31 AM)SFLFB Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:03 AM)Squiggles Wrote:  https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2105306359277162843

Per Dellenger, a letter is being signed by more than a dozen legislators to House leadership encouraging them to remove the expansion provisions.

This is the least surprising news of this bill lol. Can't believe it took 2 days to have a draft made.

LOL! "This water lives in Mombasa anyway."

The Big Ten media deal ends in 2030. The Big 12 media deal ends in 2031. The SEC concludes in 2034. The ACC is done in 2036.

I would have no doubt that the Big Ten expands to 20 to add to the TV deal, national market outreach and acquisition of athletic brands. The SEC will too. The Big 12 has already seen its top brands leave and it has survived (and even grown in some ways) because of its on-field/on-court performance, its strong Texas presence as well as the acquiring of the 4C schools (made possible by the destruction of the PAC). If the ACC were to lose five or six of its top brands (FSU, Miami, North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia and/or Duke), it's top football brands are gone, it's Florida and South Carolina presence is gone (with one less school in Virginia) and one, maybe two, of its elite blue blood basketball brands are gone as well. Regardless of what those exit fees are, those will only run through 2036 and not beyond. Who is carrying the torch as the media/viewership driver for the ACC in football at that point? Louisville? Georgia Tech? And who is available, based on that hypothetical that can recoup that lost value? USF? UConn? Memphis?

It really is no different than what happened with the Big East. Lose Syracuse. Lose Pittsburgh. Lose West Virginia. Lose Rutgers. Lose Louisville. Lose Notre Dame (as a non-football member). There was no replaceable value with any call-up that would come close to what they had been earning or what they had been expecting to earn (and to zero fault of those programs that were promoted). The C7 was fortunate to have a willing TV partner that was willing to just pay for basketball (and them exclusively) as a non-football league.

(09-30-2026 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The Big Ten media deal ends in 2030. The Big 12 media deal ends in 2031. The SEC concludes in 2034. The ACC is done in 2036.

I would have no doubt that the Big Ten expands to 20 to add to the TV deal, national market outreach and acquisition of athletic brands. The SEC will too. The Big 12 has already seen its top brands leave and it has survived (and even grown in some ways) because of its on-field/on-court performance, its strong Texas presence as well as the acquiring of the 4C schools (made possible by the destruction of the PAC). If the ACC were to lose five or six of its top brands (FSU, Miami, North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia and/or Duke), it's top football brands are gone, it's Florida and South Carolina presence is gone (with one less school in Virginia) and one, maybe two, of its elite blue blood basketball brands are gone as well. Regardless of what those exit fees are, those will only run through 2036 and not beyond. Who is carrying the torch as the media/viewership driver for the ACC in football at that point? Louisville? Georgia Tech? And who is available, based on that hypothetical that can recoup that lost value? USF? UConn? Memphis?

It really is no different than what happened with the Big East. Lose Syracuse. Lose Pittsburgh. Lose West Virginia. Lose Rutgers. Lose Louisville. Lose Notre Dame (as a non-football member). There was no replaceable value with any call-up that would come close to what they had been earning or what they had been expecting to earn (and to zero fault of those programs that were promoted). The C7 was fortunate to have a willing TV partner that was willing to just pay for basketball (and them exclusively) as a non-football league.

Why?

If the B1G expands first, the SEC/ESPN would be foolish to expand right away.
ESPN would have access to the remaining ACC value teams at bargain basement prices, with those schools having absolutely no place to go anyway.

(09-30-2026 10:49 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The Big Ten media deal ends in 2030. The Big 12 media deal ends in 2031. The SEC concludes in 2034. The ACC is done in 2036.

I would have no doubt that the Big Ten expands to 20 to add to the TV deal, national market outreach and acquisition of athletic brands. The SEC will too. The Big 12 has already seen its top brands leave and it has survived (and even grown in some ways) because of its on-field/on-court performance, its strong Texas presence as well as the acquiring of the 4C schools (made possible by the destruction of the PAC). If the ACC were to lose five or six of its top brands (FSU, Miami, North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia and/or Duke), it's top football brands are gone, it's Florida and South Carolina presence is gone (with one less school in Virginia) and one, maybe two, of its elite blue blood basketball brands are gone as well. Regardless of what those exit fees are, those will only run through 2036 and not beyond. Who is carrying the torch as the media/viewership driver for the ACC in football at that point? Louisville? Georgia Tech? And who is available, based on that hypothetical that can recoup that lost value? USF? UConn? Memphis?

It really is no different than what happened with the Big East. Lose Syracuse. Lose Pittsburgh. Lose West Virginia. Lose Rutgers. Lose Louisville. Lose Notre Dame (as a non-football member). There was no replaceable value with any call-up that would come close to what they had been earning or what they had been expecting to earn (and to zero fault of those programs that were promoted). The C7 was fortunate to have a willing TV partner that was willing to just pay for basketball (and them exclusively) as a non-football league.

Why?

If the B1G expands first, the SEC/ESPN would be foolish to expand right away.
ESPN would have access to the remaining ACC value teams at bargain basement prices, with those schools having absolutely no place to go anyway.

Yea, with regards to the B1G expanding to 20......at that point, the SEC can take their time and do whatever they want. B1G will be stuck and locked in. They will no longer be an outside threat to the SEC, so the SEC can take their time. Maybe have discussions with their network partners and who to add to maximize their next contract in in the early 2030s.

(09-30-2026 10:31 AM)SFLFB Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:03 AM)Squiggles Wrote:  https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2105306359277162843

Per Dellenger, a letter is being signed by more than a dozen legislators to House leadership encouraging them to remove the expansion provisions.

This is the least surprising news of this bill lol. Can't believe it took 2 days to have a draft made.

Whoa, Nellie. lol

(09-30-2026 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The Big Ten media deal ends in 2030. The Big 12 media deal ends in 2031. The SEC concludes in 2034. The ACC is done in 2036.

I would have no doubt that the Big Ten expands to 20 to add to the TV deal, national market outreach and acquisition of athletic brands. The SEC will too. The Big 12 has already seen its top brands leave and it has survived (and even grown in some ways) because of its on-field/on-court performance, its strong Texas presence as well as the acquiring of the 4C schools (made possible by the destruction of the PAC). If the ACC were to lose five or six of its top brands (FSU, Miami, North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia and/or Duke), it's top football brands are gone, it's Florida and South Carolina presence is gone (with one less school in Virginia) and one, maybe two, of its elite blue blood basketball brands are gone as well. Regardless of what those exit fees are, those will only run through 2036 and not beyond. Who is carrying the torch as the media/viewership driver for the ACC in football at that point? Louisville? Georgia Tech? And who is available, based on that hypothetical that can recoup that lost value? USF? UConn? Memphis?

It really is no different than what happened with the Big East. Lose Syracuse. Lose Pittsburgh. Lose West Virginia. Lose Rutgers. Lose Louisville. Lose Notre Dame (as a non-football member). There was no replaceable value with any call-up that would come close to what they had been earning or what they had been expecting to earn (and to zero fault of those programs that were promoted). The C7 was fortunate to have a willing TV partner that was willing to just pay for basketball (and them exclusively) as a non-football league.

I’ve already compared it to the romanticized Big East. Assuming South Florida is brought in and maybe even UConn, the following schools don’t change:

UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and South Florida

The Big East had Rutgers, Cincinnati, and WVU

The ACC would have Virginia Tech, NC State, Georgia Tech, and SMU in addition to BC, Cal, Wake, Dook, and probably Stanford.

I can see the Independence provision eliminated. Conferences already have a notice built into league bylaws which allows regrouping.

My only interest in the Indy provision is to gauge actual market value.

(09-30-2026 11:12 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  I can see the Independence provision eliminated. Conferences already have a notice built into league bylaws which allows regrouping.

My only interest in the Indy provision is to gauge actual market value.

The independence provision has no rational basis other than being punitive to every school not named Notre Dame.

The limit of 20 does have a basis, limiting the accumulation of market power.

(09-30-2026 11:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:12 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  I can see the Independence provision eliminated. Conferences already have a notice built into league bylaws which allows regrouping.

My only interest in the Indy provision is to gauge actual market value.

The independence provision has no rational basis other than being punitive to every school not named Notre Dame.

The limit of 20 does have a basis, limiting the accumulation of market power.

That's true, however limits on conference size also impinge freedom of association, especially for schools trapped in a raided conference where that limitation is frequently measured in revenue.

It will be interesting to see if the House does eliminate the cap. If they do it sets all thinking about realignment back to the Fall of 2025 when speculation about larger conferences, especially for market accumulation, were being discussed.

I saw equity in the logic of essentially capping it at 18. The odd number 19 perhaps done as a favor for the Big Ten to pursue N.D. once again is what led to the bumping to 20. The Big Ten and SEC benefitted from 20, but the SEC would have been more efficiently assembled at 18.

If the cap is removed the pressure to keep up on inventory and grow markets, whether you consider that dilutive or not, will once again be a reality. The excuse will be preserving rivalries for the SEC and national reach for the Big Ten, but what one decides to do will be matched by the other.

The original Bill sought to stop the consolidation of conferences and preserve the P4. Looks likely now that we may have just a Super 2. And no, I don't think that will be good for the game in the long run.

(09-30-2026 10:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:31 AM)SFLFB Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:03 AM)Squiggles Wrote:  https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2105306359277162843

Per Dellenger, a letter is being signed by more than a dozen legislators to House leadership encouraging them to remove the expansion provisions.

This is the least surprising news of this bill lol. Can't believe it took 2 days to have a draft made.

LOL! "This water lives in Mombasa anyway."

As many of us have stated before, this bill is going to change in the House, what will be interesting is whether or not the Senate is quick to accept the changes or if the bill dies because of them. The expansion provisions are a more significant issue than many here seem to believe. Interesting times ahead

I wonder what expanding to 20 would actually add to the Big Ten's tv deal. As far as I can tell the amount of games already outpaces the amount of available slots. It would really depend on adding two at least decent draws to compete for one of the three first slots of any given week. Otherwise I think they're waiting for more pro ratas. Thats fine, the tv deal resets about the same time as the three year mandatory independence period anyway so nobody's joining right away. A lot of it comes down to what networks are willing to pay and how many are still actively competing in sports come 2031. The past two years has actually been pretty good for sports, terrestrial sports viewing has held up well and it at least seems like building a streaming service isn't piling money in a furnace anymore. If anything there's probably more fear of broad financial issues for the whole nation than there are for the big media companies specifically, which is a reverse of a few years ago. Awful for you and I but great for college athletics' media rights sales.

(09-30-2026 11:34 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:31 AM)SFLFB Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:03 AM)Squiggles Wrote:  https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2105306359277162843

Per Dellenger, a letter is being signed by more than a dozen legislators to House leadership encouraging them to remove the expansion provisions.

This is the least surprising news of this bill lol. Can't believe it took 2 days to have a draft made.

LOL! "This water lives in Mombasa anyway."

As many of us have stated before, this bill is going to change in the House, what will be interesting is whether or not the Senate is quick to accept the changes or if the bill dies because of them. The expansion provisions are a more significant issue than many here seem to believe. Interesting times ahead

I'm of the opinion that the bill either stays exactly as it is written right now and is passed in October or it fails to pass in this congress at all and gets restarted in a different form next year. Or the December rider option, I suppose.

(09-30-2026 11:34 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  As many of us have stated before, this bill is going to change in the House, what will be interesting is whether or not the Senate is quick to accept the changes or if the bill dies because of them. The expansion provisions are a more significant issue than many here seem to believe. Interesting times ahead

I suspect some Senators have been counting on changes.
___

(09-30-2026 11:34 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:31 AM)SFLFB Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 10:03 AM)Squiggles Wrote:  https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2105306359277162843

Per Dellenger, a letter is being signed by more than a dozen legislators to House leadership encouraging them to remove the expansion provisions.

This is the least surprising news of this bill lol. Can't believe it took 2 days to have a draft made.

LOL! "This water lives in Mombasa anyway."

As many of us have stated before, this bill is going to change in the House, what will be interesting is whether or not the Senate is quick to accept the changes or if the bill dies because of them. The expansion provisions are a more significant issue than many here seem to believe. Interesting times ahead

Indeed. If it ultimately fails, it will have at least accomplished one important thing. School presidents, ADs, and Commissioners will have to return to Kavanaugh's recommendation, permit unions for players whether players wish to join them or not then becomes their business, offer collective bargaining, and avoid anti-trust issues without seeking an exemption, without having Congress jointly change the bill and turn it 180 degrees from some of its original intentions, and ultimately realize that it's time to move into a new era of college sports possibly sans the NCAA and fully monetize all sports capable of turning a profit and in true collegiate fashion then use some of the proceeds of those revenue sports to fund the rest.

What that will accomplish is that those schools who can afford sports will have them. Those who can't will simply offer fewer sports, and those which are heavily subsidized may just have to focus on imparting an education. Universities, like people, want to live above their means. And as with people you are truly only secure if you live within them.

My quip was as you likely know, a reference to the damming of a river, which broke its confines and moved on to its destination. You can't stop schools which can move, from doing so. Especially if they need to move. It's a natural force like a river which will break its confines to seek its destination every time. You can slow it, but you can't stop it. It's wiser to use its energy and control its rate of flow, but it is going to its ultimate destination.

(09-30-2026 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:12 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  I can see the Independence provision eliminated. Conferences already have a notice built into league bylaws which allows regrouping.

My only interest in the Indy provision is to gauge actual market value.

The independence provision has no rational basis other than being punitive to every school not named Notre Dame.

The limit of 20 does have a basis, limiting the accumulation of market power.

That's true, however limits on conference size also impinge freedom of association, especially for schools trapped in a raided conference where that limitation is frequently measured in revenue.

It will be interesting to see if the House does eliminate the cap. If they do it sets all thinking about realignment back to the Fall of 2025 when speculation about larger conferences, especially for market accumulation, were being discussed.

I saw equity in the logic of essentially capping it at 18. The odd number 19 perhaps done as a favor for the Big Ten to pursue N.D. once again is what led to the bumping to 20. The Big Ten and SEC benefitted from 20, but the SEC would have been more efficiently assembled at 18.

If the cap is removed the pressure to keep up on inventory and grow markets, whether you consider that dilutive or not, will once again be a reality. The excuse will be preserving rivalries for the SEC and national reach for the Big Ten, but what one decides to do will be matched by the other.

The original Bill sought to stop the consolidation of conferences and preserve the P4. Looks likely now that we may have just a Super 2. And no, I don't think that will be good for the game in the long run.

We could see a potential compromise in the form of, say, a conference cap at 24. The argument would be that the number is based on real, practical needs of athletic competition, while at the same time being expansive enough to enable movement and choice for individual schools.

If desired, a provision could allow for periodic review and modification of the cap amount down the road.

One could argue a cap at ~24 produces a Super Two anyway. (I’d say we are already there. The time to head off that development was years ago and no one did it.)

Whatever the effect, if ~24 is the decision the reconciliation committee would then need to work out the difference in caps.
___

(09-30-2026 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:12 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  I can see the Independence provision eliminated. Conferences already have a notice built into league bylaws which allows regrouping.

My only interest in the Indy provision is to gauge actual market value.

The independence provision has no rational basis other than being punitive to every school not named Notre Dame.

The limit of 20 does have a basis, limiting the accumulation of market power.

That's true, however limits on conference size also impinge freedom of association, especially for schools trapped in a raided conference where that limitation is frequently measured in revenue.

It will be interesting to see if the House does eliminate the cap. If they do it sets all thinking about realignment back to the Fall of 2025 when speculation about larger conferences, especially for market accumulation, were being discussed.

I saw equity in the logic of essentially capping it at 18. The odd number 19 perhaps done as a favor for the Big Ten to pursue N.D. once again is what led to the bumping to 20. The Big Ten and SEC benefitted from 20, but the SEC would have been more efficiently assembled at 18.

If the cap is removed the pressure to keep up on inventory and grow markets, whether you consider that dilutive or not, will once again be a reality. The excuse will be preserving rivalries for the SEC and national reach for the Big Ten, but what one decides to do will be matched by the other.

The original Bill sought to stop the consolidation of conferences and preserve the P4. Looks likely now that we may have just a Super 2. And no, I don't think that will be good for the game in the long run.

Regarding your statement about “freedom of association”: I’m not a lawyers or even a scholar, but I don’t think that public universities enjoy Civil Liberties (nor do I think that they should).

Private schools are probably a different animal, at least to a degree… although as we’ve seen, their public funding can be taken away from them by the federal government.

(09-30-2026 11:53 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:12 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  I can see the Independence provision eliminated. Conferences already have a notice built into league bylaws which allows regrouping.

My only interest in the Indy provision is to gauge actual market value.

The independence provision has no rational basis other than being punitive to every school not named Notre Dame.

The limit of 20 does have a basis, limiting the accumulation of market power.

That's true, however limits on conference size also impinge freedom of association, especially for schools trapped in a raided conference where that limitation is frequently measured in revenue.

It will be interesting to see if the House does eliminate the cap. If they do it sets all thinking about realignment back to the Fall of 2025 when speculation about larger conferences, especially for market accumulation, were being discussed.

I saw equity in the logic of essentially capping it at 18. The odd number 19 perhaps done as a favor for the Big Ten to pursue N.D. once again is what led to the bumping to 20. The Big Ten and SEC benefitted from 20, but the SEC would have been more efficiently assembled at 18.

If the cap is removed the pressure to keep up on inventory and grow markets, whether you consider that dilutive or not, will once again be a reality. The excuse will be preserving rivalries for the SEC and national reach for the Big Ten, but what one decides to do will be matched by the other.

The original Bill sought to stop the consolidation of conferences and preserve the P4. Looks likely now that we may have just a Super 2. And no, I don't think that will be good for the game in the long run.

We could see a potential compromise in the form of, say, a conference cap at 24. The argument would be that the number is based on real, practical needs of athletic competition, while at the same time being expansive enough to enable movement and choice for individual schools.

If desired, a provision could allow for periodic review and modification of the cap amount down the road.

One could argue a cap at ~24 produces a Super Two anyway. (I’d say we are already there. The time to head off that development was years ago and no one did it.)

Whatever the effect, if ~24 is the decision the reconciliation committee would then need to work out the difference in caps.
___

I think that you’re correct: a compromise is likely to be agreed upon.

My bet is that at the very least, the 3-year indy clause will be altered significantly.

(09-30-2026 11:53 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2026 11:12 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  I can see the Independence provision eliminated. Conferences already have a notice built into league bylaws which allows regrouping.

My only interest in the Indy provision is to gauge actual market value.

The independence provision has no rational basis other than being punitive to every school not named Notre Dame.

The limit of 20 does have a basis, limiting the accumulation of market power.

That's true, however limits on conference size also impinge freedom of association, especially for schools trapped in a raided conference where that limitation is frequently measured in revenue.

It will be interesting to see if the House does eliminate the cap. If they do it sets all thinking about realignment back to the Fall of 2025 when speculation about larger conferences, especially for market accumulation, were being discussed.

I saw equity in the logic of essentially capping it at 18. The odd number 19 perhaps done as a favor for the Big Ten to pursue N.D. once again is what led to the bumping to 20. The Big Ten and SEC benefitted from 20, but the SEC would have been more efficiently assembled at 18.

If the cap is removed the pressure to keep up on inventory and grow markets, whether you consider that dilutive or not, will once again be a reality. The excuse will be preserving rivalries for the SEC and national reach for the Big Ten, but what one decides to do will be matched by the other.

The original Bill sought to stop the consolidation of conferences and preserve the P4. Looks likely now that we may have just a Super 2. And no, I don't think that will be good for the game in the long run.

We could see a potential compromise in the form of, say, a conference cap at 24. The argument would be that the number is based on real, practical needs of athletic competition, while at the same time being expansive enough to enable movement and choice for individual schools.

If desired, a provision could allow for periodic review and modification of the cap amount down the road.

One could argue a cap at ~24 produces a Super Two anyway. (I’d say we are already there. The time to head off that development was years ago and no one did it.)

Whatever the effect, if ~24 is the decision the reconciliation committee would then need to work out the difference in caps.
___

What most people will never realize is that all of this is the result of the NCAA's sole right to sell TV rights for college football which was overturned by the SCOTUS in 1983 with OU/UGa vs the NCAA. Corporate media saw their chance to jump into the game in a big way. Conferences were offered more revenue to grow and valuations from the media companies helped them to steer which schools would go to which destinations. They started assembling the conferences and grouping them with like sized and like funded institutions.

This was a breath of fresh air for the conferences which were making more money than ever from football. And being with similar kinds of schools provided a competitive synergy which also drove public interests.

No longer were they all lumped into a group with many smaller schools and had their sports sold by a parent entity which profited by it, the NCAA.

The contrast between the NCAA and the Networks seemed stark and the Networks appeared to be freeing them to prosper. It was just one master being overthrown by another. But the second knew how to maximize the schools' revenue and their own.

Yes, we are a super two now in terms of prestige and revenue generation. But what we have not done is to assemble all of our peers within that grouping.

There will always be arguments on the fringe of any range or number of schools to be included. Some will argue that historically there have been about 65 which should be included. Even 24 member conferences would mean a much harsher culling of that number. Might it not be easier to entertain a barrier conference between what we call the P category of schools and the G category. Yes, the SEC and Big Ten would have inventory enough to supply their providers with 24 members each and without the providers having to sign too many other smaller conferences to contracts to meet the need. But might we not have a better division with a third conference of 24 inclusive of the G schools capable of financing and competing in the upper tier? If we don't that total number of schools may need to advance to two conferences of 28, which are really just two leagues.

Oh, and one other thing never mentioned here. Consolidation into 2 leagues of 24 or 28 accomplishes something else beneficial for all of the schools involved. It reduces the conference expenses by splitting the overhead with more schools. You have 1 set of buildings to upkeep not 2. You have 1 commissioner to pay and his staff, not 2. It will save all of the schools significantly enough in overhead. And the consumed conference can sell its properties and distribute the money equally among its institutions wherever they may be. Duplicated expense at the conference level for multiple smaller conferences was not economically efficient.