(10-08-2026 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:27 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 10:35 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:14 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Campbell doesn’t want this. This is much bigger than Texas Tech.

I’ve seen no evidence Campbell is.
....

Campbell is just trying to keep his name in the public eye. The pressure is coming from the schools, and it is out a fear of being left out of something the public likely knows nothing about as of yet. There's been a lot of cooperation between the SEC leadership and the Big Ten's leadership as they've worked through issues pertaining to the CFP expansion. They may or may not agree about that. But they are coming to grips with the likelihood of a scheduling alliance and have come ideas about where to go beyond that.

Yes, they were content with the cap at 19.
....

Randy Levine and Cody Campbell were content with it. That we know. They are the people squealing right now about any raise of the cap over 20.

Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti? They don’t seem to be as bothered as those two. And why should they be? Their conferences can expand or not as they please, deciding their own cap absent any external one.

When Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell sound alarms about schools “blowing up” the ACC, they sure don’t sound like people who share your belief that the P2 conferences are wedded to the status quo.

We’ll see how things go.

My belief? It's what has been asserted over and over again by conference officials. The problem with caps is that there are more entities who can exploit them than just the SEC or Big Ten. The more they pay the best, the fewer the contracts the networks need and the more they can do without unless they are streaming only and paid by the stream. Consolidation is a network endeavor. If it is going to happen the SEC and Big Ten have some ideas on what is and isn't acceptable to them, but it is a network idea. Consolidating your most popular units to create purchase synergy is simply business 101.

Same difference, though. If it ‘has been asserted over and over again by conference officials’ that the P2 feel blissed out at 18–20, for some reason Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell don’t seem very reassured by those assertions. And for some reason Mr. Sankey and Mr. Petitti don’t show much concern that they don’t.

Meanwhile, it’s an odd Business 101 class where university presidents in a pair of billion-dollar conferences referred to as “Power Two” have no agency—in which these helpless victims don’t really want their enterprises to expand, but a handful of schools can somehow invite themselves in at gunpoint because networks.

Could be true, though. And I admit that last bit sounds entertaining.

Let’s see what happens.

(10-09-2026 12:29 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:27 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 10:35 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  I’ve seen no evidence Campbell is.
....

Campbell is just trying to keep his name in the public eye. The pressure is coming from the schools, and it is out a fear of being left out of something the public likely knows nothing about as of yet. There's been a lot of cooperation between the SEC leadership and the Big Ten's leadership as they've worked through issues pertaining to the CFP expansion. They may or may not agree about that. But they are coming to grips with the likelihood of a scheduling alliance and have come ideas about where to go beyond that.

Yes, they were content with the cap at 19.
....

Randy Levine and Cody Campbell were content with it. That we know. They are the people squealing right now about any raise of the cap over 20.

Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti? They don’t seem to be as bothered as those two. And why should they be? Their conferences can expand or not as they please, deciding their own cap absent any external one.

When Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell sound alarms about schools “blowing up” the ACC, they sure don’t sound like people who share your belief that the P2 conferences are wedded to the status quo.

We’ll see how things go.

My belief? It's what has been asserted over and over again by conference officials. The problem with caps is that there are more entities who can exploit them than just the SEC or Big Ten. The more they pay the best, the fewer the contracts the networks need and the more they can do without unless they are streaming only and paid by the stream. Consolidation is a network endeavor. If it is going to happen the SEC and Big Ten have some ideas on what is and isn't acceptable to them, but it is a network idea. Consolidating your most popular units to create purchase synergy is simply business 101.

Same difference, though. If it ‘has been asserted over and over again by conference officials’ that the P2 feel blissed out at 18–20, for some reason Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell don’t seem very reassured by those assertions. And for some reason Mr. Sankey and Mr. Petitti don’t show much concern that they don’t.

Meanwhile, it’s an odd Business 101 class where university presidents in a pair of billion-dollar conferences referred to as “Power Two” have no agency—in which these helpless victims don’t really want their enterprises to expand, but a handful of schools can somehow invite themselves in at gunpoint because networks.

Could be true, though. And I admit that last bit sounds entertaining.

Let’s see what happens.

Nah, it seems to me that the only ones who are concerned are the ones who sued to get out of the bad relationship only to find that getting all dressed up to start a new courtship didn't get them the attention they wanted and now they are pissed that their exes are the ones getting the attention. So they are the ones pushing to get in.

(10-09-2026 06:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 12:29 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:27 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Campbell is just trying to keep his name in the public eye. The pressure is coming from the schools, and it is out a fear of being left out of something the public likely knows nothing about as of yet. There's been a lot of cooperation between the SEC leadership and the Big Ten's leadership as they've worked through issues pertaining to the CFP expansion. They may or may not agree about that. But they are coming to grips with the likelihood of a scheduling alliance and have come ideas about where to go beyond that.

Yes, they were content with the cap at 19.
....

Randy Levine and Cody Campbell were content with it. That we know. They are the people squealing right now about any raise of the cap over 20.

Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti? They don’t seem to be as bothered as those two. And why should they be? Their conferences can expand or not as they please, deciding their own cap absent any external one.

When Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell sound alarms about schools “blowing up” the ACC, they sure don’t sound like people who share your belief that the P2 conferences are wedded to the status quo.

We’ll see how things go.

My belief? It's what has been asserted over and over again by conference officials. The problem with caps is that there are more entities who can exploit them than just the SEC or Big Ten. The more they pay the best, the fewer the contracts the networks need and the more they can do without unless they are streaming only and paid by the stream. Consolidation is a network endeavor. If it is going to happen the SEC and Big Ten have some ideas on what is and isn't acceptable to them, but it is a network idea. Consolidating your most popular units to create purchase synergy is simply business 101.

Same difference, though. If it ‘has been asserted over and over again by conference officials’ that the P2 feel blissed out at 18–20, for some reason Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell don’t seem very reassured by those assertions. And for some reason Mr. Sankey and Mr. Petitti don’t show much concern that they don’t.

Meanwhile, it’s an odd Business 101 class where university presidents in a pair of billion-dollar conferences referred to as “Power Two” have no agency—in which these helpless victims don’t really want their enterprises to expand, but a handful of schools can somehow invite themselves in at gunpoint because networks.

Could be true, though. And I admit that last bit sounds entertaining.

Let’s see what happens.

Nah, it seems to me that the only ones who are concerned are the ones who sued to get out of the bad relationship only to find that getting all dressed up to start a new courtship didn't get them the attention they wanted and now they are pissed that their exes are the ones getting the attention. So they are the ones pushing to get in.

The four schools who have proposed raising the conference cap to 22 are Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and North Carolina.

Mr. Levine targeted two and Mr. Campbell targeted all four in recent accusations of seeking to “undermine” or “sabotage” their “amazing” bill. I am quoting.

It’s fair to characterise these outbursts as expressions of ‘concern’ on their part, I’d say.

There’s more than just a little of that to go around, apparently. We’ll see how things go.

__

The major takeaway is that the Anti-Bill 4 want to sunset PE prevention. That is essentially a P1 prevention. Is it a negotiation tactic?

So the fours schools could be saying if you’re not going to expand with us, we are going to link up with PE and get the gears turning on a P1. Bold move, but not one I think has any chance of working because they’ve only got 21 (?) signatures of support.

Could it be 3D chess to create panic in SEC/B1G reps to try and push this thing through before the Blue Wave comes crashing down and washes this bill away?

(10-09-2026 06:48 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 06:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 12:29 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:27 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Randy Levine and Cody Campbell were content with it. That we know. They are the people squealing right now about any raise of the cap over 20.

Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti? They don’t seem to be as bothered as those two. And why should they be? Their conferences can expand or not as they please, deciding their own cap absent any external one.

When Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell sound alarms about schools “blowing up” the ACC, they sure don’t sound like people who share your belief that the P2 conferences are wedded to the status quo.

We’ll see how things go.

My belief? It's what has been asserted over and over again by conference officials. The problem with caps is that there are more entities who can exploit them than just the SEC or Big Ten. The more they pay the best, the fewer the contracts the networks need and the more they can do without unless they are streaming only and paid by the stream. Consolidation is a network endeavor. If it is going to happen the SEC and Big Ten have some ideas on what is and isn't acceptable to them, but it is a network idea. Consolidating your most popular units to create purchase synergy is simply business 101.

Same difference, though. If it ‘has been asserted over and over again by conference officials’ that the P2 feel blissed out at 18–20, for some reason Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell don’t seem very reassured by those assertions. And for some reason Mr. Sankey and Mr. Petitti don’t show much concern that they don’t.

Meanwhile, it’s an odd Business 101 class where university presidents in a pair of billion-dollar conferences referred to as “Power Two” have no agency—in which these helpless victims don’t really want their enterprises to expand, but a handful of schools can somehow invite themselves in at gunpoint because networks.

Could be true, though. And I admit that last bit sounds entertaining.

Let’s see what happens.

Nah, it seems to me that the only ones who are concerned are the ones who sued to get out of the bad relationship only to find that getting all dressed up to start a new courtship didn't get them the attention they wanted and now they are pissed that their exes are the ones getting the attention. So they are the ones pushing to get in.

The four schools “pushing to get in” are Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and North Carolina.

And as usual one of those is a spy to see what the rest of you are actually doing. North Carolina, Virginia, and possibly Duke are the exes. Clemson and FSU wanted out and sued to get free. The cap hurts Clemson and FSU because the only real suitor for them is the SEC who wants new markets.

The irony here Gitanole is that between the late 70's and early 80's FSU pushed sweetly to get into the SEC. For most of that time the SEC was happy at 10 and didn't see the need to expand. They didn't reject FSU, they were just happy with the status quo. And what was the point anyway as the NCAA was the sole arbitar of selling college football rights to ABC sports. 1983 and OU/UGa vs the NCAA changed that but nobody really knew what to do when the case was initially settled. In stepped ESPN who grasped the fact that there were conferences to be dealt with and that those conferences hadn't been built with media revenue in mind.

The SWC had only a two-state footprint. The first ones to get snapped up were independents and Arkansas who was that non Texas school in the SWC. The SEC looked around and decided that FSU held some allure so they offered them a slot. After all of the inquiries and solicitations made by FSU the SEC was rejected. Okay, U of Fl carried most of the state anyway. Clemson was also flirted with by the SEC and their trustee involved in part of the discussion called a buddy at South Carolina when they backed out of the talks with the SEC. South Carolina took their place.

Thirty years passed. The SEC got stronger, got wealthier, the ACC didn't advance at the same speed and their 2 million dollar better payout in 1991, largely due to basketball at the time, didn't keep up with the new football money. Why? Football had been liberated from the NCAA but basketball had not.

Now the cable value isn't determined by footprint but rather something similar in nature, market reach. The game and its payout have been redefined by the factors important to the carriers. The sad irony here is that opportunity knocked in 1991 and Clemson and FSU turned it down for what then looked like a large 2 million. The SEC had a school in Florida, and thanks to a Clemson trustee acquired one in South Carolina. Now the same entity that helped the ACC gain your school for their market purposes in Florida, will pay the SEC more handsomely to take those you are seeking to flee. And will do so to keep them out of their competitor's hands and to hold onto your brand and Clemson's to prop up the value of those who would remain in the ACC.

The 19-member cap perfectly fit Notre Dame, Duke, North Carolina and Virginia for an exit. The Big Ten was interested in Notre Dame and would likely settle for any kind of a relationship with them. The SEC is interested in the North Carolina and Virginia markets because they add 20 million potential viewers to their footprint. The SEC doesn't reject the two most SEC like schools not in its conference and is still fond of FSU and Clemson. They just aren't interested because we aren't getting paid enough to take them but would be rewarded to take the markets of the others.

The only thing pressuring Congress to bump the cap are your representatives and your Senators should this bill wind up in negotiation with the House.

Like some of my fellow SEC fans who post here I had hoped to one day see FSU and Clemson in the conference. I realize now that the likelihood of that is dwindling. It's not our fault, and it's not really yours but it is the nature of the business model we are now under. And that model is now controlled by corporate profit models imposed upon the schools by the carriers who push our product, and unfortunately don't know when to stop changing it.

The true irony is that those schools which dragged their feet to keep control in the ACC from being corporatized are the ones most likely to jump ship for the bigger payday. And it's that irony I relate here, not the nostalgia of what might have been.

(10-09-2026 06:48 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The four schools who have proposed raising the conference cap to 22 are Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and North Carolina.

We’ll see how things go.

___

This is why as much as the SEC and Big Ten say they have no interest in expanding the four schools have every interest in joining.

The other question is how much of an interest FOX and ESPN have in these schools joining.

Like it or not, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and North Carolina aren't Texas, Oklahoma, and USC. If Texas and Oklahoma want to join the SEC, ESPN will be interested. If USC (not necessarily UCLA but they're a package) wants to join the Big 10, FOX will be interested. The only way the SEC/Big 10 will want extra members is if they get the same/more money.

The other main difference is when Texas/Oklahoma, USC/UCLA (and Oregon/Washington) were seeking new conferences, their current conference media rights were close to expiring. ESPN could justify paying Texas/Oklahoma more money by paying the Little 8 less. FOX can justify paying USC/UCLA and even Oregon/Washington more. How much are they paying Washington State/Oregon State now? With ESPN and the ACC, their contract is through 2036-37. If they move ACC teams to the SEC they pay those teams SEC money without paying the rest of the ACC less. Now FOX could have incentive to gain ACC schools and get into Atlantic markets.

(10-09-2026 07:10 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  The major takeaway is that the Anti-Bill 4 want to sunset PE prevention. That is essentially a P1 prevention. Is it a negotiation tactic?

So the fours schools could be saying if you’re not going to expand with us, we are going to link up with PE and get the gears turning on a P1. Bold move, but not one I think has any chance of working because they’ve only got 21 (?) signatures of support.

Could it be 3D chess to create panic in SEC/B1G reps to try and push this thing through before the Blue Wave comes crashing down and washes this bill away?

The PE detail is an eyebrow raiser, but it may simply be a mechanism to help the four schools and/or the P2 leagues finance more migration in a brief period of time. If needed.

When in doubt, it’s often useful to think prosaic.

An example scenario (not a forecast): As we know, the ACC exit fee doesn’t drop to $75M for a few years yet. What if interest exists in getting a last flurry of realignment done before then? In time to organize, say, for a revised postseason? Maybe it helps all involved to widen the financing options.

__

(10-09-2026 07:47 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:10 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  The major takeaway is that the Anti-Bill 4 want to sunset PE prevention. That is essentially a P1 prevention. Is it a negotiation tactic?

So the fours schools could be saying if you’re not going to expand with us, we are going to link up with PE and get the gears turning on a P1. Bold move, but not one I think has any chance of working because they’ve only got 21 (?) signatures of support.

Could it be 3D chess to create panic in SEC/B1G reps to try and push this thing through before the Blue Wave comes crashing down and washes this bill away?

The PE detail is an eyebrow raiser, but it may simply be a mechanism to help the four schools and/or the P2 leagues finance more migration in a brief period of time. If needed.

When in doubt, it’s often useful to think prosaic.

An example scenario (not a forecast): As we know, the ACC exit fee doesn’t drop to $75M for a few years yet. What if interest exists in getting a last flurry of realignment done before then? In time to organize, say, for a revised postseason? Maybe it helps all involved to widen the financing options.

__

I'm pretty damned sure that PE will be a deal breaker for the SEC and Big Ten. Use of it will be a poisoned pill for whoever tries it. Networks can finance moves and pay themselves back by contract and creative, but legal, bookkeeping especially if the movement is managed in house.

I don't think anyone in the upper tier of college sports wants to set up a system that would mandate their exclusion from competition with the Big Ten or SEC and PE will do that.

(10-09-2026 07:10 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  The major takeaway is that the Anti-Bill 4 want to sunset PE prevention. That is essentially a P1 prevention. Is it a negotiation tactic?

So the fours schools could be saying if you’re not going to expand with us, we are going to link up with PE and get the gears turning on a P1. Bold move, but not one I think has any chance of working because they’ve only got 21 (?) signatures of support.

Could it be 3D chess to create panic in SEC/B1G reps to try and push this thing through before the Blue Wave comes crashing down and washes this bill away?

PE is a huge threat to all the P2 schools that would NOT make a P1 league.
Besides preventing a P1, barring PE also prevents the formation of an M1 conference. I think the Anti-Bill 4 have a place in the P2, but only IF the P2 actually expands. They don’t need a 22 cap to get in.

One way to force the P2 to expand is to create a viable M1 that closes the revenue gap a little. The B12 and ACC are currently less than the sum of their parts due to partitioning of rivalries and making scheduling schools that have no inherent interest in each other. Repackaging the best of both conferences pushes the M closer to the P2 and likely forces P2 expansion to re-establish the gap.

(10-09-2026 07:47 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:10 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  The major takeaway is that the Anti-Bill 4 want to sunset PE prevention. That is essentially a P1 prevention. Is it a negotiation tactic?

So the fours schools could be saying if you’re not going to expand with us, we are going to link up with PE and get the gears turning on a P1. Bold move, but not one I think has any chance of working because they’ve only got 21 (?) signatures of support.

Could it be 3D chess to create panic in SEC/B1G reps to try and push this thing through before the Blue Wave comes crashing down and washes this bill away?

The PE detail is an eyebrow raiser, but it may simply be a mechanism to help the four schools and/or the P2 leagues finance more migration in a brief period of time. If needed.

When in doubt, it’s often useful to think prosaic.

An example scenario (not a forecast): As we know, the ACC exit fee doesn’t drop to $75M for a few years yet. What if interest exists in getting a last flurry of realignment done before then? In time to organize, say, for a revised postseason? Maybe it helps all involved to widen the financing options.

__

PE is still allowed at the individual level so no that makes no sense.

There are some puzzling elements to this, to be sure.

To what extent might these Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse be proposing changes they know some P2-affiliated parties want?

(10-08-2026 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 10:35 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:14 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Campbell doesn’t want this. This is much bigger than Texas Tech.

I’ve seen no evidence Campbell is.

Campbell is just trying to keep his name in the public eye. The pressure is coming from the schools, and it is out a fear of being left out of something the public likely knows nothing about as of yet. There's been a lot of cooperation between the SEC leadership and the Big Ten's leadership as they've worked through issues pertaining to the CFP expansion. They may or may not agree about that. But they are coming to grips with the likelihood of a scheduling alliance and have some ideas about where to go beyond that.

Yes, they were content with the cap at 19. It permitted both to still land what they have been most after without altering the landscape of the P4 in a dramatic way, and had the SEC decided to land the ones they wanted it would have freed the ACC to make some football first backfills perhaps improving their situation.

I believe the appeal to bump the number to 20 which raised possible defections to 6 from the ACC has created a mini-panic among its football first schools. If the SEC and Big Ten pull off a scheduling alliance it leaves less for all of them, especially if the SEC plays 10 conference games and only has one slot left for a 7th home buy game, or accepts only 6 home games while alternating the Big Ten obligation and the season ending rivalry with several of the ACC schools.

And then there is a speculated upon potentiality for a more aggressive move for the two at a later date.

Therefore while the total movement, even at 20 isn't fatal, being left out of the movement could be seen as such since the margin of revenue difference between the SEC/Big Ten and the ACC/Big 12 is going to grow, perhaps later even more significantly.

Nobody in the press is going to be clued in and if they get bits and pieces of the rumor, they have nothing to pin it to. So they sit on it. But the pipeline of such speculation is enough to engender anxiety in athletic departments whether there is truth to the speculation or not. It's like something out of Dr. Strangelove, "Mr. President we cannot permit there to be a mineshaft gap!" when referring to preparations for doomsday. I think such a mindset exists outside of the offices of the Big Ten and SEC. I believe that fear is what is driving demand for greater accessibility to the P2 by the M2. It is a demand driven by what might be, rather than by what is. The SEC and Big Ten were quite content at a likely 18 or 19 at the most. They'll be as contented at 20, but perhaps not arranged as efficiently as they might have been at 18.

The result will be confused instructions to House members and Senators, and it may prove to be that fear becomes the greatest obstacle to obtaining the exemption.

Maybe if the House and Senate go to joint restructuring of the bill we will stop at 20, hopefully remove any requirement for years of independence, and everyone will see the wisdom of bringing all of this to the swiftest possible conclusion.

At 18 members each we could have had a P4 of 72 members adding 4 more schools to the tier plus Notre Dame. At 20 we might wind up more exclusive with 3 conferences, 60 members plus Notre Dame. That kind of potential reduction in the upper tier is what is helping to drive the panic. All of the AD's and presidents can do the math, grasp the potentialities, and worry. That's why 18 posing as 19 was the safer number for everyone. That's why 20 is creating panic. If some idiot pushes for 22, it will be catastrophic for the P4 if the networks wanted to pay for it and encouraged it, and why not? The more they can make from a smaller upper tier the better off they are and the more control over it they'll want. In the end you could easily wind up with a Super 2 of 24 members each and only 48 schools paid premier carriage rates. Everyone else relegated to a limbo tier between the S2 and the G6 and forever labeled the M2.

It's the math of 20 that stirred the fears. IMO, 18 would not have created that. But some of those lobbying the Senate's writing of the Bill squeezed in some self interest and voila, here we are.

What do you mean by "the schools"?

You surely don't mean the students or the academics. Maybe the FAR is involved, maybe not.

The role of the governing board varies from state to state. The president or chancellor might be a new hire.

Cody Campbell is the chair of the Board of Regents for Texas Tech.

Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell negotiated the PCSA line by line. Who wanted the cap and why?

(10-09-2026 11:32 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 10:35 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 09:14 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Campbell doesn’t want this. This is much bigger than Texas Tech.

I’ve seen no evidence Campbell is.

Campbell is just trying to keep his name in the public eye. The pressure is coming from the schools, and it is out a fear of being left out of something the public likely knows nothing about as of yet. There's been a lot of cooperation between the SEC leadership and the Big Ten's leadership as they've worked through issues pertaining to the CFP expansion. They may or may not agree about that. But they are coming to grips with the likelihood of a scheduling alliance and have some ideas about where to go beyond that.

Yes, they were content with the cap at 19. It permitted both to still land what they have been most after without altering the landscape of the P4 in a dramatic way, and had the SEC decided to land the ones they wanted it would have freed the ACC to make some football first backfills perhaps improving their situation.

I believe the appeal to bump the number to 20 which raised possible defections to 6 from the ACC has created a mini-panic among its football first schools. If the SEC and Big Ten pull off a scheduling alliance it leaves less for all of them, especially if the SEC plays 10 conference games and only has one slot left for a 7th home buy game, or accepts only 6 home games while alternating the Big Ten obligation and the season ending rivalry with several of the ACC schools.

And then there is a speculated upon potentiality for a more aggressive move for the two at a later date.

Therefore while the total movement, even at 20 isn't fatal, being left out of the movement could be seen as such since the margin of revenue difference between the SEC/Big Ten and the ACC/Big 12 is going to grow, perhaps later even more significantly.

Nobody in the press is going to be clued in and if they get bits and pieces of the rumor, they have nothing to pin it to. So they sit on it. But the pipeline of such speculation is enough to engender anxiety in athletic departments whether there is truth to the speculation or not. It's like something out of Dr. Strangelove, "Mr. President we cannot permit there to be a mineshaft gap!" when referring to preparations for doomsday. I think such a mindset exists outside of the offices of the Big Ten and SEC. I believe that fear is what is driving demand for greater accessibility to the P2 by the M2. It is a demand driven by what might be, rather than by what is. The SEC and Big Ten were quite content at a likely 18 or 19 at the most. They'll be as contented at 20, but perhaps not arranged as efficiently as they might have been at 18.

The result will be confused instructions to House members and Senators, and it may prove to be that fear becomes the greatest obstacle to obtaining the exemption.

Maybe if the House and Senate go to joint restructuring of the bill we will stop at 20, hopefully remove any requirement for years of independence, and everyone will see the wisdom of bringing all of this to the swiftest possible conclusion.

At 18 members each we could have had a P4 of 72 members adding 4 more schools to the tier plus Notre Dame. At 20 we might wind up more exclusive with 3 conferences, 60 members plus Notre Dame. That kind of potential reduction in the upper tier is what is helping to drive the panic. All of the AD's and presidents can do the math, grasp the potentialities, and worry. That's why 18 posing as 19 was the safer number for everyone. That's why 20 is creating panic. If some idiot pushes for 22, it will be catastrophic for the P4 if the networks wanted to pay for it and encouraged it, and why not? The more they can make from a smaller upper tier the better off they are and the more control over it they'll want. In the end you could easily wind up with a Super 2 of 24 members each and only 48 schools paid premier carriage rates. Everyone else relegated to a limbo tier between the S2 and the G6 and forever labeled the M2.

It's the math of 20 that stirred the fears. IMO, 18 would not have created that. But some of those lobbying the Senate's writing of the Bill squeezed in some self interest and voila, here we are.

What do you mean by "the schools"?

You surely don't mean the students or the academics. Maybe the FAR is involved, maybe not.

The role of the governing board varies from state to state. The president or chancellor might be a new hire.

Cody Campbell is the chair of the Board of Regents for Texas Tech.

Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell negotiated the PCSA line by line. Who wanted the cap and why?

The "why for the cap" I can't answer as that information was not stated. The who were the ones who had input with Cantwell and Cruz prior to the drafting of the Bill, officials from Notre Dame and the ACC as I was led to believe. Sankey and Petitti had input but not early during the drafting process is my understanding.

When I say schools I'm speaking of those particular institutions, their president, likely their AD and some trustees who are working at the local political level to bump the cap up so as to have a likelier path into the P2. Look at some of the Mag 7 from the ACC perhaps a few more former PAC schools still hoping to get into the Big Ten. And of course, I'm not talking about academics or students, or even student athletes. And when I reference Campbell I'm simply pointing out that as the front man for the push to included Texas Tech the longer he stays recognizable to the public the longer Tech remains part of any discussion ever how unlikely their inclusion may be.

(10-08-2026 07:27 PM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  A private equity backed third power conference is intriguing.


UNC, Duke, VT, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, Kansas, Colorado, Utah


Three of the top four college basketball brands. Four of the top 10.

Three of the top 15 college football brands. Six of the top 30.

Home and away basketball.

Round robin football.

Could be something there.

Nah.

I don’t think an all-sports conference with the Big 12 schools is the idea here.

Pure speculation, but let’s think about this.

1. The Gang of Four allegedly considers a PE-funded structure outside of a traditional conference.
2. The current PCSA bill requires at least three years of independence.
3. The settlement terms between FSU/Clemson and the ACC let ACC schools (at least six members) leave the ACC to join a “single sport league, conference or other association.”

So what I can envision is an association of independent schools only for football.

They would play other independent schools in that association, but there would be no rules forcing them to. They could schedule anyone they want.

The association would negotiate the collective media deal for them, with the money split based on the contribution each member makes.

This would be only for football so they would continue playing basketball and other sports in their current conference. Technically, ND could join this “association of independents” for football.

Again, this is pure speculation and I don’t think it will happen, but it’s the type of idea FSU and Clemson would explore as a fallback option in my view.

(10-09-2026 07:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:47 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:10 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  The major takeaway is that the Anti-Bill 4 want to sunset PE prevention. That is essentially a P1 prevention. Is it a negotiation tactic?

So the fours schools could be saying if you’re not going to expand with us, we are going to link up with PE and get the gears turning on a P1. Bold move, but not one I think has any chance of working because they’ve only got 21 (?) signatures of support.

Could it be 3D chess to create panic in SEC/B1G reps to try and push this thing through before the Blue Wave comes crashing down and washes this bill away?

The PE detail is an eyebrow raiser, but it may simply be a mechanism to help the four schools and/or the P2 leagues finance more migration in a brief period of time. If needed.

When in doubt, it’s often useful to think prosaic.

An example scenario (not a forecast): As we know, the ACC exit fee doesn’t drop to $75M for a few years yet. What if interest exists in getting a last flurry of realignment done before then? In time to organize, say, for a revised postseason? Maybe it helps all involved to widen the financing options.

__

I'm pretty damned sure that PE will be a deal breaker for the SEC and Big Ten. Use of it will be a poisoned pill for whoever tries it. Networks can finance moves and pay themselves back by contract and creative, but legal, bookkeeping especially if the movement is managed in house.

I don't think anyone in the upper tier of college sports wants to set up a system that would mandate their exclusion from competition with the Big Ten or SEC and PE will do that.

I wouldn't be so sure that PE would be a deal breaker for either conference, or any other.

LSU has reportedly shown some interest, as has Ohio State and several other B10 schools.

What makes you think that PE would be a deal breaker?

(10-09-2026 12:28 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:47 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:10 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  The major takeaway is that the Anti-Bill 4 want to sunset PE prevention. That is essentially a P1 prevention. Is it a negotiation tactic?

So the fours schools could be saying if you’re not going to expand with us, we are going to link up with PE and get the gears turning on a P1. Bold move, but not one I think has any chance of working because they’ve only got 21 (?) signatures of support.

Could it be 3D chess to create panic in SEC/B1G reps to try and push this thing through before the Blue Wave comes crashing down and washes this bill away?

The PE detail is an eyebrow raiser, but it may simply be a mechanism to help the four schools and/or the P2 leagues finance more migration in a brief period of time. If needed.

When in doubt, it’s often useful to think prosaic.

An example scenario (not a forecast): As we know, the ACC exit fee doesn’t drop to $75M for a few years yet. What if interest exists in getting a last flurry of realignment done before then? In time to organize, say, for a revised postseason? Maybe it helps all involved to widen the financing options.

__

I'm pretty damned sure that PE will be a deal breaker for the SEC and Big Ten. Use of it will be a poisoned pill for whoever tries it. Networks can finance moves and pay themselves back by contract and creative, but legal, bookkeeping especially if the movement is managed in house.

I don't think anyone in the upper tier of college sports wants to set up a system that would mandate their exclusion from competition with the Big Ten or SEC and PE will do that.

I wouldn't be so sure that PE would be a deal breaker for either conference, or any other.

LSU has reportedly shown some interest, as has Ohio State and several other B10 schools.

What makes you think that PE would be a deal breaker?

Sankey and Petitti are opposed to it and that was reason #1 for their support of the PCSA and was stated as such.

LSU may have been open to it by the nature of their conduct, but stating so they did not. Perhaps Ohio State showed interest, but I don't recall their administration making such a claim.

You do understand that listening to a proposition and being interested in it are two different things. A lot of schools were invited in the offseason to presentations about P.E. So far none of them have signed up for it.

North Carolina:



Clemson:
[

(10-09-2026 06:48 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 06:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 12:29 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:27 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Randy Levine and Cody Campbell were content with it. That we know. They are the people squealing right now about any raise of the cap over 20.

Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti? They don’t seem to be as bothered as those two. And why should they be? Their conferences can expand or not as they please, deciding their own cap absent any external one.

When Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell sound alarms about schools “blowing up” the ACC, they sure don’t sound like people who share your belief that the P2 conferences are wedded to the status quo.

We’ll see how things go.

My belief? It's what has been asserted over and over again by conference officials. The problem with caps is that there are more entities who can exploit them than just the SEC or Big Ten. The more they pay the best, the fewer the contracts the networks need and the more they can do without unless they are streaming only and paid by the stream. Consolidation is a network endeavor. If it is going to happen the SEC and Big Ten have some ideas on what is and isn't acceptable to them, but it is a network idea. Consolidating your most popular units to create purchase synergy is simply business 101.

Same difference, though. If it ‘has been asserted over and over again by conference officials’ that the P2 feel blissed out at 18–20, for some reason Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell don’t seem very reassured by those assertions. And for some reason Mr. Sankey and Mr. Petitti don’t show much concern that they don’t.

Meanwhile, it’s an odd Business 101 class where university presidents in a pair of billion-dollar conferences referred to as “Power Two” have no agency—in which these helpless victims don’t really want their enterprises to expand, but a handful of schools can somehow invite themselves in at gunpoint because networks.

Could be true, though. And I admit that last bit sounds entertaining.

Let’s see what happens.

Nah, it seems to me that the only ones who are concerned are the ones who sued to get out of the bad relationship only to find that getting all dressed up to start a new courtship didn't get them the attention they wanted and now they are pissed that their exes are the ones getting the attention. So they are the ones pushing to get in.

The four schools who have proposed raising the conference cap to 22 are Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and North Carolina.

Mr. Levine targeted two and Mr. Campbell targeted all four in recent accusations of seeking to “undermine” or “sabotage” their “amazing” bill. I am quoting.

It’s fair to characterise these outbursts as expressions of ‘concern’ on their part, I’d say.

There’s more than just a little of that to go around, apparently. We’ll see how things go.

__

Yep!

But only two of them sued their own conference.

(10-09-2026 09:24 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:47 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The PE detail is an eyebrow raiser, but it may simply be a mechanism to help the four schools and/or the P2 leagues finance more migration in a brief period of time. If needed.

When in doubt, it’s often useful to think prosaic.

An example scenario (not a forecast): As we know, the ACC exit fee doesn’t drop to $75M for a few years yet. What if interest exists in getting a last flurry of realignment done before then? In time to organize, say, for a revised postseason? Maybe it helps all involved to widen the financing options.

PE is still allowed at the individual level so no that makes no sense.

It makes sense. There are more ways for interested parties to handle so-far-undetermined capital expenses than at the ‘individual level’ (presumably you mean university level) provided one has not placed them out of reach a priori.

(10-09-2026 07:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 06:48 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 06:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 12:29 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-08-2026 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  My belief? It's what has been asserted over and over again by conference officials. The problem with caps is that there are more entities who can exploit them than just the SEC or Big Ten. The more they pay the best, the fewer the contracts the networks need and the more they can do without unless they are streaming only and paid by the stream. Consolidation is a network endeavor. If it is going to happen the SEC and Big Ten have some ideas on what is and isn't acceptable to them, but it is a network idea. Consolidating your most popular units to create purchase synergy is simply business 101.

Same difference, though. If it ‘has been asserted over and over again by conference officials’ that the P2 feel blissed out at 18–20, for some reason Mr. Levine and Mr. Campbell don’t seem very reassured by those assertions. And for some reason Mr. Sankey and Mr. Petitti don’t show much concern that they don’t.

Meanwhile, it’s an odd Business 101 class where university presidents in a pair of billion-dollar conferences referred to as “Power Two” have no agency—in which these helpless victims don’t really want their enterprises to expand, but a handful of schools can somehow invite themselves in at gunpoint because networks.

Could be true, though. And I admit that last bit sounds entertaining.

Let’s see what happens.

Nah, it seems to me that the only ones who are concerned are the ones who sued to get out of the bad relationship only to find that getting all dressed up to start a new courtship didn't get them the attention they wanted and now they are pissed that their exes are the ones getting the attention. So they are the ones pushing to get in.

The four schools “pushing to get in” are Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and North Carolina.

And as usual one of those is a spy to see what the rest of you are actually doing. North Carolina, Virginia, and possibly Duke are the exes. Clemson and FSU wanted out and sued to get free. The cap hurts Clemson and FSU because the only real suitor for them is the SEC who wants new markets.

The irony here Gitanole is that between the late 70's and early 80's FSU pushed sweetly to get into the SEC. For most of that time the SEC was happy at 10 and didn't see the need to expand. They didn't reject FSU, they were just happy with the status quo. And what was the point anyway as the NCAA was the sole arbitar of selling college football rights to ABC sports. 1983 and OU/UGa vs the NCAA changed that but nobody really knew what to do when the case was initially settled. In stepped ESPN who grasped the fact that there were conferences to be dealt with and that those conferences hadn't been built with media revenue in mind.

The SWC had only a two-state footprint. The first ones to get snapped up were independents and Arkansas who was that non Texas school in the SWC. The SEC looked around and decided that FSU held some allure so they offered them a slot. After all of the inquiries and solicitations made by FSU the SEC was rejected. Okay, U of Fl carried most of the state anyway. Clemson was also flirted with by the SEC and their trustee involved in part of the discussion called a buddy at South Carolina when they backed out of the talks with the SEC. South Carolina took their place.

Thirty years passed. The SEC got stronger, got wealthier, the ACC didn't advance at the same speed and their 2 million dollar better payout in 1991, largely due to basketball at the time, didn't keep up with the new football money. Why? Football had been liberated from the NCAA but basketball had not.

Now the cable value isn't determined by footprint but rather something similar in nature, market reach. The game and its payout have been redefined by the factors important to the carriers. The sad irony here is that opportunity knocked in 1991 and Clemson and FSU turned it down for what then looked like a large 2 million. The SEC had a school in Florida, and thanks to a Clemson trustee acquired one in South Carolina. Now the same entity that helped the ACC gain your school for their market purposes in Florida, will pay the SEC more handsomely to take those you are seeking to flee. And will do so to keep them out of their competitor's hands and to hold onto your brand and Clemson's to prop up the value of those who would remain in the ACC.

The 19-member cap perfectly fit Notre Dame, Duke, North Carolina and Virginia for an exit. The Big Ten was interested in Notre Dame and would likely settle for any kind of a relationship with them. The SEC is interested in the North Carolina and Virginia markets because they add 20 million potential viewers to their footprint. The SEC doesn't reject the two most SEC like schools not in its conference and is still fond of FSU and Clemson. They just aren't interested because we aren't getting paid enough to take them but would be rewarded to take the markets of the others.

The only thing pressuring Congress to bump the cap are your representatives and your Senators should this bill wind up in negotiation with the House.

Like some of my fellow SEC fans who post here I had hoped to one day see FSU and Clemson in the conference. I realize now that the likelihood of that is dwindling. It's not our fault, and it's not really yours but it is the nature of the business model we are now under. And that model is now controlled by corporate profit models imposed upon the schools by the carriers who push our product, and unfortunately don't know when to stop changing it.

The true irony is that those schools which dragged their feet to keep control in the ACC from being corporatized are the ones most likely to jump ship for the bigger payday. And it's that irony I relate here, not the nostalgia of what might have been.