Quote:The leaders of Florida State, Miami, Clemson and North Carolina sent a letter to House leadership earlier this week requesting changes to the (PCSA) bill’s realignment rules.

In its current form, the PCSA caps power conferences at 20 members and requires any school moving from one power conference to another to spend three years as an independent before joining its new league. That waiting period would expire six years after the law takes effect.

The letter, obtained by Tomahawk Nation (SB Nation subgroup) in a Freedom of Information request, was addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Majority Whip Tom Emmer and starts off by noting the schools’ larger support for the bill as a whole, but then quickly moves into: “There is, however, one provision that we believe warrants adjustment—Section 205 as it pertains to institutional movement between conferences.”

“The three-year independence requirement would impose a significant additional consequence on an institution seeking to change conferences, particularly when conferences and their members have already negotiated the financial terms surrounding an exit.”

The schools are clearly working as a group, as noted by the statement: “As the legislation moves to the House, our coalition has worked together to identify a compromise that addresses our concerns…”

It concludes with the main asks: “Increase the conference membership cap from 20 to 22 institutions” and “Remove the independence requirement for an institution departing one covered conference before joining another.”

....
Complete report
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/exclus...33994.html

__

Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

22-team cap or no cap. Both have the effect of crushing the ACC.

(10-03-2026 08:21 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

22-team cap or no cap. Both have the effect of crushing the ACC.

Maybe. If so, it would simultaneously have the effect of helping out more ACC schools.
__

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

All 22 does is allow the B1G to pick up 2 schools.

I don't think those schools will be Stanford/Cal as their FB prospects are too low.

Probably UVA/Miami since both would prefer a B1G invite over SEC. Imagine a schedule pod with Miami, UVA, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State every year.

(10-03-2026 08:21 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

22-team cap or no cap. Both have the effect of crushing the ACC.

And killing the chance of g schools moving up. If both find it worthwhile to go to 22, then Wake Forest and one other get relegated.

24 is better to protect existing schools and preserve moveup opportunities. 19 and 20 are good limits. 24 eventually leads to a split

(10-03-2026 08:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:21 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

22-team cap or no cap. Both have the effect of crushing the ACC.

Maybe. If so, it would simultaneously have the effect of helping out more ACC schools.
__

By watching the best football leave?

(10-03-2026 08:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:21 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

22-team cap or no cap. Both have the effect of crushing the ACC.

And killing the chance of g schools moving up. If both find it worthwhile to go to 22, then Wake Forest and one other get relegated.

Huh? The PCSA specifically protects membership from dropping below eight. People seem to forget this. Call it the Pac 12 Clause.

(10-03-2026 10:34 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:21 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

22-team cap or no cap. Both have the effect of crushing the ACC.

And killing the chance of g schools moving up. If both find it worthwhile to go to 22, then Wake Forest and one other get relegated.

Huh? The PCSA specifically protects membership from dropping below eight. People seem to forget this. Call it the Pac 12 Clause.

Where?

(10-03-2026 10:34 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:21 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

22-team cap or no cap. Both have the effect of crushing the ACC.

And killing the chance of g schools moving up. If both find it worthwhile to go to 22, then Wake Forest and one other get relegated.

Huh? The PCSA specifically protects membership from dropping below eight. People seem to forget this. Call it the Pac 12 Clause.

That section is poorly worded and does nothing to prevent schools from leaving without a pre-announced home. Which is entirely duplicated, for now, by the 3 year independence clause. I suppose it does become relevant when that sunsets.

It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

Could be that, N-Low. But I also wonder if UNC would like to continue to be aligned with Duke.

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

Can't speak for the others but I'm sure Carolina wants as many options as possible. State politics could also be in play. Carolina has a lot of moving parts, new arena,North campus expansion,possible engineering school, undergrad expansion, NC Children's hospital campus(with Duke) etc

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

You can set caps at 18 or 36 it doesn't matter. Either they wind up being legal or they don't. 24 accomplishes more than 22 if inclusion of schools which can raise enough to be competitive is the point.

Somebody will sue over the caps, and the courts will determine if they are valid or not. If they are then you worry about the number. We aren't there yet. And there is way too much political wrangling to be done before we might even get to a final version of the Bill to know whether there is collective support of the final product by the schools or not.

In the meantime, there will be oodles of threads about what each cap number might accomplish or the situations that could arise out of them, and that's good for the board because so far, it's a dull football season in which the usual suspects are being rounded up and some of the fresh faces are fading already.

And frankly, if the 24-school playoff passes, we may get so accustomed to having the same schools showing up every year there that one day we will refer to them as the Dirty 2 Dozen. We'll see, but I'm never surprised by the audacity or brazenness of those who to milk as much as they can from every little change.

(10-03-2026 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

You can set caps at 18 or 36 it doesn't matter. Either they wind up being legal or they don't. 24 accomplishes more than 22 if inclusion of schools which can raise enough to be competitive is the point.

Somebody will sue over the caps, and the courts will determine if they are valid or not. If they are then you worry about the number. We aren't there yet. And there is way too much political wrangling to be done before we might even get to a final version of the Bill to know whether there is collective support of the final product by the schools or not.

In the meantime, there will be oodles of threads about what each cap number might accomplish or the situations that could arise out of them, and that's good for the board because so far, it's a dull football season in which the usual suspects are being rounded up and some of the fresh faces are fading already.

And frankly, if the 24-school playoff passes, we may get so accustomed to having the same schools showing up every year there that one day we will refer to them as the Dirty 2 Dozen. We'll see, but I'm never surprised by the audacity or brazenness of those who to milk as much as they can from every little change.

You're really pounding down on this but its pretty clear to everyone else that its constitutional.

(10-03-2026 09:57 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

You can set caps at 18 or 36 it doesn't matter. Either they wind up being legal or they don't. 24 accomplishes more than 22 if inclusion of schools which can raise enough to be competitive is the point.

Somebody will sue over the caps, and the courts will determine if they are valid or not. If they are then you worry about the number. We aren't there yet. And there is way too much political wrangling to be done before we might even get to a final version of the Bill to know whether there is collective support of the final product by the schools or not.

In the meantime, there will be oodles of threads about what each cap number might accomplish or the situations that could arise out of them, and that's good for the board because so far, it's a dull football season in which the usual suspects are being rounded up and some of the fresh faces are fading already.

And frankly, if the 24-school playoff passes, we may get so accustomed to having the same schools showing up every year there that one day we will refer to them as the Dirty 2 Dozen. We'll see, but I'm never surprised by the audacity or brazenness of those who to milk as much as they can from every little change.

You're really pounding down on this but its pretty clear to everyone else that its constitutional.

First, you assume the wrong motivation. Apparently, the concept of not getting wrapped around the cord prematurely about a matter working its way out politically until you know what it is being proposed isn't apparent to everyone. Constitutionality isn't the issue. Amendments are the issue. And we won't know what we are facing with those until they are adopted in the House Bill and then worked out with the Senate.

Besides, from some things I've heard recently there is likely a game within the one most think is being played out. IOW, until much more comes out, the only thing coming out of our discussions is amusement. That's a fun thing, but hardly definitive. There's a lot more going on behind the CFP expansion than a number and when it eventually emerges it will redefine our understanding of the rest of it.

(10-03-2026 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 09:57 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

You can set caps at 18 or 36 it doesn't matter. Either they wind up being legal or they don't. 24 accomplishes more than 22 if inclusion of schools which can raise enough to be competitive is the point.

Somebody will sue over the caps, and the courts will determine if they are valid or not. If they are then you worry about the number. We aren't there yet. And there is way too much political wrangling to be done before we might even get to a final version of the Bill to know whether there is collective support of the final product by the schools or not.

In the meantime, there will be oodles of threads about what each cap number might accomplish or the situations that could arise out of them, and that's good for the board because so far, it's a dull football season in which the usual suspects are being rounded up and some of the fresh faces are fading already.

And frankly, if the 24-school playoff passes, we may get so accustomed to having the same schools showing up every year there that one day we will refer to them as the Dirty 2 Dozen. We'll see, but I'm never surprised by the audacity or brazenness of those who to milk as much as they can from every little change.

You're really pounding down on this but its pretty clear to everyone else that its constitutional.

First, you assume the wrong motivation. Apparently, the concept of not getting wrapped around the cord prematurely about a matter working its way out politically until you know what it is being proposed isn't apparent to everyone. Constitutionality isn't the issue. Amendments are the issue.

Well we're talking about overturning the law via court case. That's absolutely about constitutionality. Every section of Title One is severable (that is to say, if found unconstitutional, only those individual portions will be removed from the legal code, the whole rest of the law will survive.) Titles 2 and 3 aren't but they're also both blatantly constitutional (or, if Title 3 is not, then the separate classification of HBCU as a class that can be treated differently at all is out the window, a huge change to the status quo.)

(10-03-2026 10:24 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 09:57 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 08:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Asking for a cap of 22 looks pretty modest when another proposal on the table is to remove the cap entirely.

You can set caps at 18 or 36 it doesn't matter. Either they wind up being legal or they don't. 24 accomplishes more than 22 if inclusion of schools which can raise enough to be competitive is the point.

Somebody will sue over the caps, and the courts will determine if they are valid or not. If they are then you worry about the number. We aren't there yet. And there is way too much political wrangling to be done before we might even get to a final version of the Bill to know whether there is collective support of the final product by the schools or not.

In the meantime, there will be oodles of threads about what each cap number might accomplish or the situations that could arise out of them, and that's good for the board because so far, it's a dull football season in which the usual suspects are being rounded up and some of the fresh faces are fading already.

And frankly, if the 24-school playoff passes, we may get so accustomed to having the same schools showing up every year there that one day we will refer to them as the Dirty 2 Dozen. We'll see, but I'm never surprised by the audacity or brazenness of those who to milk as much as they can from every little change.

You're really pounding down on this but its pretty clear to everyone else that its constitutional.

First, you assume the wrong motivation. Apparently, the concept of not getting wrapped around the cord prematurely about a matter working its way out politically until you know what it is being proposed isn't apparent to everyone. Constitutionality isn't the issue. Amendments are the issue.

Well we're talking about overturning the law via court case. That's absolutely about constitutionality. Every section of Title One is severable (that is to say, if found unconstitutional, only those individual portions will be removed from the legal code, the whole rest of the law will survive.) Titles 2 and 3 aren't but they're also both blatantly constitutional (or, if Title 3 is not, then the separate classification of HBCU as a class that can be treated differently at all is out the window, a huge change to the status quo.)

We aren't talking about the same things. First, I'm talking about there is no point to getting upset about any of this until we have a bill that is passed. The details of that Bill will become law. Somebody will likely challenge it. There's no story in any of that as it will simply be what it is. The real story is obscured by all of that, and it resides behind the scenes in the negotiations about the 24-team playoff. When that story, should it continue to gain cooperation between the involved parties, emerges it will redefine everything that seems to be happening and do so in profound ways. Then the real story will light this board up like a Christmas tree.

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

All these schools have old friends they want to bring along if they can.

Of the four, North Carolina has the most incentive to make some more room.

I’d expect Florida State and Miami do want to strengthen their mutual positions. They each have an interest in ensuring that P2 leagues, should they be interested in both, are not in a position where they feel forced to choose only one.

__