(10-07-2026 12:13 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 02:22 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:13 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:05 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  And who's in their ears? Not the consumers.

The SEC and B1G have PLENTY of consumers. You and a lot of folks here look at expansion through the lens of a consumer, but there are other factors the powers that be are heavily considering.

I have little doubt the presidents have been saying that. But when the ADs talk to the networks, Virginia will be further down the list.

The Big Ten really wanted Stanford, but the networks weren't interested.

Stanford is a redundant market because So Cal and UCLA garnered full carriage rates across California.

Yes, presidents like them, but UVa and Carolina add two new states plus DC suburbs to the SEC. Networks like that. AD's at some schools probably don't want to bring in Clemson and FSU on equal footing.

And, we're circling back to, They don't add enough of two new states, especially with the influx of out-of-staters.

Boy I hope you’re correct here

(10-07-2026 11:09 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Need to remove the rose-colored glasses on this specific issue. Historically, UNC had always been anti-expansion. Now the UNC-Ch Chancellor is being very transparent…increasing the cap and eliminating the independence requirement enables more realignment.

What’s interesting to me is that only 4 out of the 14 NC representatives in the US House provided cover for UNC-Ch’s approach. Folks in Raleigh, Wilmington, Charlotte, etc. may have different concerns. Although Durham can be silently supportive, the Winston-Salem contingent can be more influential.

Interesting observation. This could be a factor in the presidents’ request to bump up the conference cap to 22.
__

(10-07-2026 10:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 10:28 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 07:08 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Due to the variety of state rules on filling vacancies, it is not unusual for the number of voting members to fall short of the total number of seats. Presently 2 seats are vacant, so there are presently 433 voting members.

Senate vacancies are filled right away via an appointment by the governor in most states. Lindsey Graham died and his sister took office three days later.

House vacancies seem to take their time. A special election is held but there is no strict timeline. The two vacancies both happened in April when each party lost a member for being sleazy, one in Texas and one in Florida. The Texas guy resigned the same day as Eric Swalwell but Swalwell’s seat was filled last month.

State laws determine how Congressional vacancies are handled. State laws do vary.

Well, that and there's often jockeying for the appointment, even in cases where the Governor and removed/retired/died/etc Congressman are from the same party. It also matters a lot if a vote is needed immediately on key legislation or if the Governor can drag his feet on the appointment. As we learned from Rod Blagojevich, this sort of thing is very valuable, even to honest Governors who just want to score political points rather than financial ones.

Mike Alford, Florida State’s erstwhile AD, said he wanted to see these five football teams play each other annually:

Clemson
Florida State
Miami
North Carolina
Virginia Tech

Worthy of note: Four of the five are represented by the authors of this letter, who proposed raising the conference membership cap to 22.

(10-03-2026 08:05 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

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

The SEC's chief lobbying firm to Greg Sankey on the Protect College Sports Act:
"There is no legislative alternative that gets better for the SEC."

Democrats' asks "begin with employee status, collective bargaining rights, and end with private right of action."

The July 31 internal summary, later forwarded to SEC presidents, also warned: "After the election, because of who is likely to win the House, you won't see this bill ... being considered."

Its last line: "Let's get this done."

https://x.com/jloesche88/status/2107979560394317876

(10-07-2026 07:12 PM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  The SEC's chief lobbying firm to Greg Sankey on the Protect College Sports Act:
"There is no legislative alternative that gets better for the SEC."

Democrats' asks "begin with employee status, collective bargaining rights, and end with private right of action."

The July 31 internal summary, later forwarded to SEC presidents, also warned: "After the election, because of who is likely to win the House, you won't see this bill ... being considered."

Its last line: "Let's get this done."

https://x.com/jloesche88/status/2107979560394317876

Interesting. Nice share. Maybe they'll rein in their FLA reps lol

(10-07-2026 08:57 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:12 PM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  The SEC's chief lobbying firm to Greg Sankey on the Protect College Sports Act:
"There is no legislative alternative that gets better for the SEC."

Democrats' asks "begin with employee status, collective bargaining rights, and end with private right of action."

The July 31 internal summary, later forwarded to SEC presidents, also warned: "After the election, because of who is likely to win the House, you won't see this bill ... being considered."

Its last line: "Let's get this done."

https://x.com/jloesche88/status/2107979560394317876

Interesting. Nice share. Maybe they'll rein in their FLA reps lol

The fear for everyone should be this: if the next sessions of Congress gets involved, conferences and schools may have less input and wind up with new regulations being forced upon them…

… including the pooling of all media rights.

(10-07-2026 08:57 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:12 PM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  The SEC's chief lobbying firm to Greg Sankey on the Protect College Sports Act:
"There is no legislative alternative that gets better for the SEC."

Democrats' asks "begin with employee status, collective bargaining rights, and end with private right of action."

The July 31 internal summary, later forwarded to SEC presidents, also warned: "After the election, because of who is likely to win the House, you won't see this bill ... being considered."

Its last line: "Let's get this done."

https://x.com/jloesche88/status/2107979560394317876

Interesting. Nice share. Maybe they'll rein in their FLA reps lol

Permanently consigning Miami and maybe FSU to the dustbin of history because UF is afraid of classifying athletes as employees seems to be a bit much to me. Maybe the Gainesville rep will do it but I wouldn't expect much more.

(10-07-2026 09:12 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 08:57 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:12 PM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  The SEC's chief lobbying firm to Greg Sankey on the Protect College Sports Act:
"There is no legislative alternative that gets better for the SEC."

Democrats' asks "begin with employee status, collective bargaining rights, and end with private right of action."

The July 31 internal summary, later forwarded to SEC presidents, also warned: "After the election, because of who is likely to win the House, you won't see this bill ... being considered."

Its last line: "Let's get this done."

https://x.com/jloesche88/status/2107979560394317876

Interesting. Nice share. Maybe they'll rein in their FLA reps lol

The fear for everyone should be this: if the next sessions of Congress gets involved, conferences and schools may have less input and wind up with new regulations being forced upon them…

… including the pooling of all media rights.

That would likely fall afoul of the constitution if the legislation is truly mandatory and not opt in. I'd need to dig deeper but outside of wartime or communications interoperability I cannot recall it ever happening.

edit: Thats also Cody Campbell's baby. He loses most (but not all, he'd still have Trump,) of his influence over this if Democrats control both houses.

(10-07-2026 07:12 PM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  The SEC's chief lobbying firm to Greg Sankey on the Protect College Sports Act:
"There is no legislative alternative that gets better for the SEC."

Democrats' asks "begin with employee status, collective bargaining rights, and end with private right of action."

The July 31 internal summary, later forwarded to SEC presidents, also warned: "After the election, because of who is likely to win the House, you won't see this bill ... being considered."

Its last line: "Let's get this done."

https://x.com/jloesche88/status/2107979560394317876

Reads to me that they’ve run out of time . Elections are almost three weeks away and Democratics are favored to win the house. Wonder what the play is for Sankey and Co.

(10-07-2026 04:00 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 11:09 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Need to remove the rose-colored glasses on this specific issue. Historically, UNC had always been anti-expansion. Now the UNC-Ch Chancellor is being very transparent…increasing the cap and eliminating the independence requirement enables more realignment.

What’s interesting to me is that only 4 out of the 14 NC representatives in the US House provided cover for UNC-Ch’s approach. Folks in Raleigh, Wilmington, Charlotte, etc. may have different concerns. Although Durham can be silently supportive, the Winston-Salem contingent can be more influential.

Interesting observation. This could be a factor in the presidents’ request to bump up the conference cap to 22.
__

You’re underestimating the political challenge: it’s the privileged with 4 votes versus the at-risk schools with likely 10 votes. The UNC Chancellor represents the privileged…he’ll give it the college try. But the at-risk group led by Wake (which has a an existential concern, aka Wazzou case study) plus NC State (which has a Cal-style loss in stature/money concerns) and 15 other D1 schools (App, ECU, Elon, UNCC, UNCW, UNCG, et al…which are the core public policy interest of astute politicians) will all be more passionate. IMHO, this is a no win issue for the UNC Chancellor…which explains why Duke remains as a silent party and allows UNC-CH to do their bidding.

(10-07-2026 10:17 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:12 PM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  The SEC's chief lobbying firm to Greg Sankey on the Protect College Sports Act:
"There is no legislative alternative that gets better for the SEC."

Democrats' asks "begin with employee status, collective bargaining rights, and end with private right of action."

The July 31 internal summary, later forwarded to SEC presidents, also warned: "After the election, because of who is likely to win the House, you won't see this bill ... being considered."

Its last line: "Let's get this done."

https://x.com/jloesche88/status/2107979560394317876

Reads to me that they’ve run out of time . Elections are almost three weeks away and Democratics are favored to win the house. Wonder what the play is for Sankey and Co.

There is no play, they're not elected representatives, they have no vote, they've already came out in support of PCSA and even put weight into supporting it. If it doesn't pass they've also already outlined plan B, enshrining the House decision in conference bylaws. That might last as little as 1 year (if the new congress passes sonething and Trump signs it,) as long as three if the legislature and executive refuse to compromise or even longer if political divides become entrenched on this.

(10-07-2026 10:34 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 04:00 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 11:09 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Need to remove the rose-colored glasses on this specific issue. Historically, UNC had always been anti-expansion. Now the UNC-Ch Chancellor is being very transparent…increasing the cap and eliminating the independence requirement enables more realignment.

What’s interesting to me is that only 4 out of the 14 NC representatives in the US House provided cover for UNC-Ch’s approach. Folks in Raleigh, Wilmington, Charlotte, etc. may have different concerns. Although Durham can be silently supportive, the Winston-Salem contingent can be more influential.

Interesting observation. This could be a factor in the presidents’ request to bump up the conference cap to 22.
__

You’re underestimating the political challenge: it’s the privileged with 4 votes versus the at-risk schools with likely 10 votes. The UNC Chancellor represents the privileged…he’ll give it the college try. But the at-risk group led by Wake (which has a an existential concern, aka Wazzou case study) plus NC State (which has a Cal-style loss in stature/money concerns) and 15 other D1 schools (App, ECU, Elon, UNCC, UNCW, UNCG, et al…which are the core public policy interest of astute politicians) will all be more passionate. IMHO, this is a no win issue for the UNC Chancellor…which explains why Duke remains as a silent party and allows UNC-CH to do their bidding.

Supporting FSU, USF or Clemson in their quest to leave the ACC is at worst break-even politically, and gets more money flowing into the state. Helping UNC leave the ACC? Might cost you votes. TBH I am surprised that any of them signed on. Oerhaps some are swayed by ideological arguments?

(10-07-2026 04:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 10:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 10:28 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 07:08 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Due to the variety of state rules on filling vacancies, it is not unusual for the number of voting members to fall short of the total number of seats. Presently 2 seats are vacant, so there are presently 433 voting members.

Senate vacancies are filled right away via an appointment by the governor in most states. Lindsey Graham died and his sister took office three days later.

House vacancies seem to take their time. A special election is held but there is no strict timeline. The two vacancies both happened in April when each party lost a member for being sleazy, one in Texas and one in Florida. The Texas guy resigned the same day as Eric Swalwell but Swalwell’s seat was filled last month.

State laws determine how Congressional vacancies are handled. State laws do vary.

Well, that and there's often jockeying for the appointment, even in cases where the Governor and removed/retired/died/etc Congressman are from the same party. It also matters a lot if a vote is needed immediately on key legislation or if the Governor can drag his feet on the appointment. As we learned from Rod Blagojevich, this sort of thing is very valuable, even to honest Governors who just want to score political points rather than financial ones.

Governors don’t appoint to fill house vacancies, only senate.

(10-07-2026 07:12 PM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  The SEC's chief lobbying firm to Greg Sankey on the Protect College Sports Act:
"There is no legislative alternative that gets better for the SEC."

Democrats' asks "begin with employee status, collective bargaining rights, and end with private right of action."

The July 31 internal summary, later forwarded to SEC presidents, also warned: "After the election, because of who is likely to win the House, you won't see this bill ... being considered."

Its last line: "Let's get this done."

https://x.com/jloesche88/status/2107979560394317876

Interesting discovery.

Things are likely not so apocalyptic as that for the Greg Sankeys of the world. Sure, odds are that the post-election climate would boost consideration of athletes’ rights. But as a suits-friendly version of the PCSA is already past the Senate, a House debate in that climate could actually result in a more balanced work of legislation.

One caveat, though: If the lame-duck House wrangling becomes too contentious, the whole PCSA matter becomes much easier to drop.

We’ll see how things go.

(10-07-2026 11:01 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 10:34 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 04:00 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 11:09 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Need to remove the rose-colored glasses on this specific issue. Historically, UNC had always been anti-expansion. Now the UNC-Ch Chancellor is being very transparent…increasing the cap and eliminating the independence requirement enables more realignment.

What’s interesting to me is that only 4 out of the 14 NC representatives in the US House provided cover for UNC-Ch’s approach. Folks in Raleigh, Wilmington, Charlotte, etc. may have different concerns. Although Durham can be silently supportive, the Winston-Salem contingent can be more influential.

Interesting observation. This could be a factor in the presidents’ request to bump up the conference cap to 22.

You’re underestimating the political challenge: it’s the privileged with 4 votes versus the at-risk schools with likely 10 votes. The UNC Chancellor represents the privileged…he’ll give it the college try. But the at-risk group led by Wake (which has a an existential concern, aka Wazzou case study) plus NC State (which has a Cal-style loss in stature/money concerns) and 15 other D1 schools (App, ECU, Elon, UNCC, UNCW, UNCG, et al…which are the core public policy interest of astute politicians) will all be more passionate. IMHO, this is a no win issue for the UNC Chancellor…which explains why Duke remains as a silent party and allows UNC-CH to do their bidding.

Supporting FSU, USF or Clemson in their quest to leave the ACC is at worst break-even politically, and gets more money flowing into the state. Helping UNC leave the ACC? Might cost you votes. TBH I am surprised that any of them signed on. Oerhaps some are swayed by ideological arguments?

Supporting USF in a quest to leave the ACC would be an odd political play.

Not that someone wouldn’t try it these days...

Wahoowa’s point is well taken about the political difficulties for UNC.

__

(10-07-2026 10:34 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 04:00 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 11:09 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Need to remove the rose-colored glasses on this specific issue. Historically, UNC had always been anti-expansion. Now the UNC-Ch Chancellor is being very transparent…increasing the cap and eliminating the independence requirement enables more realignment.

What’s interesting to me is that only 4 out of the 14 NC representatives in the US House provided cover for UNC-Ch’s approach. Folks in Raleigh, Wilmington, Charlotte, etc. may have different concerns. Although Durham can be silently supportive, the Winston-Salem contingent can be more influential.

Interesting observation. This could be a factor in the presidents’ request to bump up the conference cap to 22.
__

You’re underestimating the political challenge: it’s the privileged with 4 votes versus the at-risk schools with likely 10 votes. The UNC Chancellor represents the privileged…he’ll give it the college try. But the at-risk group led by Wake (which has a an existential concern, aka Wazzou case study) plus NC State (which has a Cal-style loss in stature/money concerns) and 15 other D1 schools (App, ECU, Elon, UNCC, UNCW, UNCG, et al…which are the core public policy interest of astute politicians) will all be more passionate. IMHO, this is a no win issue for the UNC Chancellor…which explains why Duke remains as a silent party and allows UNC-CH to do their bidding.

Carolina is simply looking after it's best interest. Carolina's leadership has a completely different mindset than we are accustomed to. So while some political positioning is occuring behind the scenes, the alternative could be worse. If nothing passes within the next year then we likely see movement to get ahead of any legislation that might be unfavorable

But, if people oppose this bill on both sides of the aisle kills this bill and the ACC winds up to be like the PAC 12? Who loses in all of this? The athletes, the left behind schools and the fans and it gives the win to the Networks who are trying to turn the P2 into an NFL like college sports which leaves out half of the country not in the P2. This would actually hurt UConn from joining a P4 same as USF, Memphis, Tulane, Buffalo,UMass, Delaware, UTSA, Rice, Boise State, Colorado State, UNLV, UNR, San Diego State, Fresno State and New Mexico. USF is in a large media market. So are Memphis, Tulane, UMass., UTSA, Rice, Colorado State, UNLV, UNR, San Diego State and New Mexico.

(10-08-2026 07:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  But, if people oppose this bill on both sides of the aisle kills this bill and the ACC winds up to be like the PAC 12? Who loses in all of this? The athletes, the left behind schools and the fans and it gives the win to the Networks who are trying to turn the P2 into an NFL like college sports which leaves out half of the country not in the P2. This would actually hurt UConn from joining a P4 same as USF, Memphis, Tulane, Buffalo,UMass, Delaware, UTSA, Rice, Boise State, Colorado State, UNLV, UNR, San Diego State, Fresno State and New Mexico. USF is in a large media market. So are Memphis, Tulane, UMass., UTSA, Rice, Colorado State, UNLV, UNR, San Diego State and New Mexico.

The ACC is unlikely to “wind up like the PAC.” The conference at full count has 6 more members than the PAC ever did and its media contract is structured very differently.

That said: “P4” is a polite fiction. We already have a P2 running everything.

Below the P2 there is an M2 which gets certain privileges (like getting to fancy itself part of a “P4”). Then a G6. After that the FCS, and on you go.

(10-07-2026 10:17 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:12 PM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  The SEC's chief lobbying firm to Greg Sankey on the Protect College Sports Act:
"There is no legislative alternative that gets better for the SEC."

Democrats' asks "begin with employee status, collective bargaining rights, and end with private right of action."

The July 31 internal summary, later forwarded to SEC presidents, also warned: "After the election, because of who is likely to win the House, you won't see this bill ... being considered."

Its last line: "Let's get this done."

https://x.com/jloesche88/status/2107979560394317876

Reads to me that they’ve run out of time . Elections are almost three weeks away and Democratics are favored to win the house. Wonder what the play is for Sankey and Co.

Even if they win the House the new Congress doesn’t take office until January 3, 2027. So there will be a lame duck session after the elections. I don’t know when it would convene or how long it would last. If the Dems do win in November, the Republicans might be motivated to cram everything they could through before they lose power. I don’t know what affect that would have on this bill. If they make any changes the Senate would have to approve the new bill and there isn’t a lot of time for it to ping pong back and forth.