(10-09-2026 05:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:29 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 04:09 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  It could make a two- or three-year difference.

The ACC exit fee reaches $75 million in 2030-31. Schools going indie in one sport could get started as early as 2027 for the same amount.

Three years... hmm. Where have we heard that span of time mentioned before?

CFP changes are also on the calendar. Another factor to log under ‘field awareness.’

But there are no indications the B1G or SEC are on the verge of expanding at this point. B1G ends in 2029-30 and SEC ends 2033-34. They could even extend a few years afterward.

Now I think if the B1G decides to expand in 2029 it will put more pressure on the SEC to also do the same if Florida State, Miami, UNC end up in a bidding war of sorts. Possibly it will be a few years beyond 2029 even. It also depends on the economy at the time and if sports valuations continue to grow.

Also no indications they aren’t. The variables are many and we’re not in the meetings.

Field awareness, as I said. I just showed you a multimillion-dollar difference a university president has to consider where you were under the impression something ‘hardly matters.’

Point acknowledged about the media contracts. Obviously these represent another factor in the picture.

Again I do think it hardly matters when the exit fee for 2030-31 (joining 4 years from now) is 75 million dollars. I really don't think an ACC gang of schools will be joining before that. We are already past the standard 1 year required notice of 2027-28. If the P2 announced expansion tomorrow you would then be talking 2028-29 at the earliest and there is no indication that is imminent. If notice isn't given by June 30th (8 months away) next year that kicks back to 2029-30.

What is to stop Florida State and whomever else to request joining a P2 2030-31 to ensure a reduced fee? It is very unlikely a P2 will force them in early costing them to pay more.

P2 is more focused on the playoff expansion and getting the PCSA passed right now more than anything. Its unclear yet what the final form of the PCSA will be at this moment but they want something passed.

1. College presidents and ADs can multitask. The PCSA is a priority but one they can't babysit because it's in the hands of Congress.

2. The CFP expansion is a perfunctory task that is dependent on financial impact studies.

3. Neither the SEC or Big Ten will wait if a school they really would love to have in the conference calls. All these message board agendas about contract expirations being required for getting more money immediately, etc are a fiction. It's a convenience if the moves are sure. It's an obstacle if you need to act and their media partners are quite aware of that and aware of the particular importance of this round of realignment. FOX will have pre-approved the schools they would like to see under Big Ten control and ESPN will simply know from both parties whether a move is happening because both contracts belong fully to ESPN and the Big 12's is 50% theirs. Moves may happen later if independence is require but the relationships will be formalized and their entry accounted for in revenue when it happens. Nobody is waiting for anything to happen. Assuming that the caps will not move backwards to 18, the Big Ten can plan on two and the SEC up to 4 if the cap stays at 20. And they'll know by January if that's going to be the case.

You are essentially agreeing with me because you are saying the money (e.g. exit fees) aren't a detriment if they want these move to happen.

Texas & Oklahoma were invited to the SEC July 29th, 2021. Its been over 5 years since the SEC announced any additions. This whole FSU, Clemson, UNC thing started with battling the high exit fee which they were able to bargin down. It was also about all those years left on the ACC TV contract and there is not as many years left as there was.

Again I doubt the SEC will demand FSU get in for the 2027 season without customary notice or 2028 for that matter. They still have not expanded with them afterall these years. SEC schools will probably want at this moment a 10% media raise to make it worthwhile to expand.

In addition to the low probability we are just not talking that much time before 2030-31 anymore.

(10-09-2026 05:51 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

Gang of four vs Money & Power

Ted Cruz is a moron. No I in team? WTH

(10-09-2026 05:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 04:09 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 04:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It hardly matters at this point with the ACC exit fee winding down each year to 75 million anyways.

It could make a two- or three-year difference.

The ACC exit fee reaches $75 million in 2030-31. Schools going indie in one sport could get started as early as 2027 for the same amount.

Three years... hmm. Where have we heard that span of time mentioned before?

CFP changes are also on the calendar. Another factor to log under ‘field awareness.’

__

But there are no indications the B1G or SEC are on the verge of expanding at this point. B1G ends in 2029-30 and SEC ends 2033-34. They could even extend a few years afterward.

Now I think if the B1G decides to expand in 2029 it will put more pressure on the SEC to also do the same if Florida State, Miami, UNC end up in a bidding war of sorts. Possibly it will be a few years beyond 2029 even. It also depends on the economy at the time and if sports valuations continue to grow.

The Big Ten and SEC will say that they are not interested in additions at this time and it will be true. But if the schools that either or both wants were to become available, they aren't going to wait for a contract period to act. In the case of the SEC ESPN would be clued in anyway. For FOX they will have pre-approved the ones they are interested in seeing in the Big Ten and funds will be there in either case to make it happen. This is likely to be the last set of additions made for quite a while. They aren't playing this round assuming the same conveniences with which they approached the previous additions. Both will be playing the realignment game for keeps.

I feel safe saying though if Florida State wants to hold off joining a P2 until 2030-31 that request will be honored. A normal full year notice at this point puts you at 2028-29. There is the thinking the P2 wants to expand ASAP and if that was the case they would have already done it.

Nobody is expanding until the Congressional terms contained in the PCSA are a known entity. The court rulings including the SCOTUS ruling meant that seeking an exemption for anti-trust was the preferred priority of the P4 conferences. But that will be early next year so not a long wait. As to FSU, I'm not even sure they'll be in the six getting a P2 ticket. That one is a we'll see? Saying if they wanted to they would have already done so was not an option if seeking an exemption. Now they have to wait and see if the Bill even passes and if so how it is altered to gain its passage. Maybe there will be a waiting period, maybe not. Maybe there will be caps on conference size, maybe not. But nobody is acting right now other than lining things up until the details required by Congress are known.

(10-09-2026 05:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  ....
P2 is more focused on the playoff expansion and getting the PCSA passed right now more than anything. Its unclear yet what the final form of the PCSA will be at this moment but they want something passed.

So you say, and it may be, but Cody Campbell and his lobbyists are clearly afraid the P2 lions are not done eating.

You don’t squawk like he does when you’re sure the big cats are fat and happy.

(10-09-2026 03:27 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 02:50 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  I am pretty sure the 6 schools leaving provision does not allow 6 schools to leave with the final $75 mil exit fee floor
....

ACC schools will now have what is formally known as an “option of limited withdrawal” that allows six or more member institutions to disassociate from the conference in a specific sport to join a “single sport league, conference or other association” along with other schools in the group. Should a group of ACC schools exercise this option, they’d each owe $75 million or 50% of the current withdrawal fee to the conference (whichever is greater).

https://awfulannouncing.com/college-foot...emson.html

Thx for proving me right.

Cody Campbell is afraid the P2 will go to 44 or 48.

Right now, there are four power conferences and two of them are stronger than the others.

If UNC, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Duke, Kansas, Miami, Arizona State, Utah, and Virginia Tech (or a similar combination) all leave for the Big Ten and SEC, it is lights out for Texas Tech as a power conference school.

They need a strong ACC and Big 12 because he knows Texas Tech isn't a realistic candidate for a 44 or 48 school P2.

(10-09-2026 07:18 PM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  Cody Campbell is afraid the P2 will go to 44 or 48.

Right now, there are four power conferences and two of them are stronger than the others.

If UNC, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Duke, Kansas, Miami, Arizona State, Utah, and Virginia Tech (or a similar combination) all leave for the Big Ten and SEC, it is lights out for Texas Tech as a power conference school.

They need a strong ACC and Big 12 because he knows Texas Tech isn't a realistic candidate for a 44 or 48 school P2.

They could be a part of a 3rd conference, best of the rest, but still part of a top 66 to 74 schools. The least valuable of the top 74 college football schools would still be worth a lot of money.

There is far too much equity in the ACC for it to collapse. If 6 schools bolt (Miami, Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Notre Dame and some other like Virginia or Duke) then the conference will get a windfall of nearly half a billion dollars (combination of exit fees and surrendered basketball credits and some distributions). They can likely pad that by a combination of entry fee and lower initial distributions for the minimum of 2 schools they invite as backfill, likely 4 to make sure they are at or above that contract 15 threshold --unless ESPN agrees to pay them not to expand beyond 14 similar to how the Big 12 was incentivized not to expand when they were 10--. This could add an extra $50-60M per school that remains. That will settle it down.

(10-09-2026 05:51 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

Gang of four vs Money & Power

What a bunch of sanctimonious poppycock. Everyone else has been able to move for the past 36 years (and, indeed, for the past 138 years,) but when these four schools want to make an extra 40 million dollars a year its somehow selfish? Ted Cruz wants to permanently cripple them by placing them in a bad conference that earns significantly less than their own programs would if placed among equals. They want the freedom to be with peer institutions. The "compromise" is to only cripple some of them? Given that they have the power, possibly, to delay enough to kill PCSA maybe the "compromise" should be that you give them what they want and they let the rest of your bill through. Especially since 205 is just a rider to protect Texas schools that you got to insert since you were writing the bill.

FWIW Cruz is no dummy, dummies don't clerk for Supreme Court justices.

(10-09-2026 07:50 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:51 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

Gang of four vs Money & Power

What a bunch of sanctimonious poppycock. Everyone else has been able to move for the past 36 years (and, indeed, for the past 138 years,) but when these four schools want to make an extra 40 million dollars a year its somehow selfish? Ted Cruz wants to permanently cripple them by placing them in a bad conference that earns significantly less than their own programs would if placed among equals. They want the freedom to be with peer institutions. The "compromise" is to only cripple some of them? Given that they have the power, possibly, to delay enough to kill PCSA maybe the "compromise" should be that you give them what they want and they let the rest of your bill through. Especially since 205 is just a rider to protect Texas schools that you got to insert since you were writing the bill.

FWIW Cruz is no dummy, dummies don't clerk for Supreme Court justices.

I don’t agree with the 3-year wait, but the cap, the PE, that’s over the top.

How are they permanently crippled? Second time I’ve straight up asked you this.

Also, why after 136 years are they are where they are?

(10-09-2026 09:18 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:50 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:51 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

Gang of four vs Money & Power

What a bunch of sanctimonious poppycock. Everyone else has been able to move for the past 36 years (and, indeed, for the past 138 years,) but when these four schools want to make an extra 40 million dollars a year its somehow selfish? Ted Cruz wants to permanently cripple them by placing them in a bad conference that earns significantly less than their own programs would if placed among equals. They want the freedom to be with peer institutions. The "compromise" is to only cripple some of them? Given that they have the power, possibly, to delay enough to kill PCSA maybe the "compromise" should be that you give them what they want and they let the rest of your bill through. Especially since 205 is just a rider to protect Texas schools that you got to insert since you were writing the bill.

FWIW Cruz is no dummy, dummies don't clerk for Supreme Court justices.

I don’t agree with the 3-year wait, but the cap, the PE, that’s over the top.

How are they permanently crippled? Second time I’ve straight up asked you this.

Also, why after 136 years are they are where they are?

Because they're in a conference with only 3 top 20 football brands while the Big Ten has 7 and the SEC has 9. And thus they will permanently make less money than their competitors, will see their power and influence wane, will have less money to spend and be unable to keep up.

As to why are they where they are? There was no need to switch conferences prior to the Oklahoma ruling, the first twenty-five years post-Oklahoma were still ones where conferences picked up neighboring schools and a select few foolish decisions were made regarding whether to apply for SEC nembership back in the 90s.

(10-09-2026 07:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is far too much equity in the ACC for it to collapse. If 6 schools bolt (Miami, Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Notre Dame and some other like Virginia or Duke) then the conference will get a windfall of nearly half a billion dollars (combination of exit fees and surrendered basketball credits and some distributions). They can likely pad that by a combination of entry fee and lower initial distributions for the minimum of 2 schools they invite as backfill, likely 4 to make sure they are at or above that contract 15 threshold --unless ESPN agrees to pay them not to expand beyond 14 similar to how the Big 12 was incentivized not to expand when they were 10--. This could add an extra $50-60M per school that remains. That will settle it down.

The ACC is a big conference, and it’s pre-backfilled. It’s built to take a gut punch.

An unsung aspect of the new revenue distribution is the possibilities that could open for members when other schools move on. Depending on how things break with the media partner, a resurgent SMU or Syracuse could actually do better with money.

Much would depend on the core league, though, and how it builds back out. And that is if anyone exits at all. This could still play out a lot of ways.

__

(10-09-2026 07:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is far too much equity in the ACC for it to collapse. If 6 schools bolt (Miami, Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Notre Dame and some other like Virginia or Duke) then the conference will get a windfall of nearly half a billion dollars (combination of exit fees and surrendered basketball credits and some distributions). They can likely pad that by a combination of entry fee and lower initial distributions for the minimum of 2 schools they invite as backfill, likely 4 to make sure they are at or above that contract 15 threshold --unless ESPN agrees to pay them not to expand beyond 14 similar to how the Big 12 was incentivized not to expand when they were 10--. This could add an extra $50-60M per school that remains. That will settle it down.

Is the SEC really feeling any pressure to expand? The ACC at this point won't challenge the SEC on the FB field.

There becomes a question of money B1G wanted Stanford/Cal but the money wasn't there. I'm not sure if the money is going to be there for the SEC to expand with FSU/Clemson either. Oregon/Washington had to take half shares to get into the B1G.

We are already witnessing stretched to the last dollar power conferences. The B1G's deals are up first and they might feel pressure to strike first. Let's say both them and the SEC are looking at Miami the B1G might want to scoop them up to be safe I can see that and it could push the SEC to go to 18.

But this idea the second the PCSA is signed 6 schools in the ACC will find home in the P2 assuming it will automatically go down like that I don't understand. This of course is what those ACC schools might hope for and do everything to make reduce barriers for but there is no guarantee at all here.

It seems like money is starting to dry up. ESPN doesn't even want to pay more to replace CCGs with playoff games. To increase media revenue by 5 million dollars for all schools Miami would have to bring in 95 million to B1G TV deals. Could they do that maybe but its going to be a real problem for some of those ACC schools to justify a P2 spot with partners.

(10-09-2026 09:28 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:18 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:50 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:51 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

Gang of four vs Money & Power

What a bunch of sanctimonious poppycock. Everyone else has been able to move for the past 36 years (and, indeed, for the past 138 years,) but when these four schools want to make an extra 40 million dollars a year its somehow selfish? Ted Cruz wants to permanently cripple them by placing them in a bad conference that earns significantly less than their own programs would if placed among equals. They want the freedom to be with peer institutions. The "compromise" is to only cripple some of them? Given that they have the power, possibly, to delay enough to kill PCSA maybe the "compromise" should be that you give them what they want and they let the rest of your bill through. Especially since 205 is just a rider to protect Texas schools that you got to insert since you were writing the bill.

FWIW Cruz is no dummy, dummies don't clerk for Supreme Court justices.

I don’t agree with the 3-year wait, but the cap, the PE, that’s over the top.

How are they permanently crippled? Second time I’ve straight up asked you this.

Also, why after 136 years are they are where they are?

Because they're in a conference with only 3 top 20 football brands while the Big Ten has 7 and the SEC has 9. And thus they will permanently make less money than their competitors, will see their power and influence wane, will have less money to spend and be unable to keep up.

As to why are they where they are? There was no need to switch conferences prior to the Oklahoma ruling, the first twenty-five years post-Oklahoma were still ones where conferences picked up neighboring schools and a select few foolish decisions were made regarding whether to apply for SEC nembership back in the 90s.

You never addressed the “permanence.”

A 20 cap doesn’t leave them permanently “crippled”, as if they somehow deserve to be invited into the B1G or SEC. Half the membership of those conferences didn’t deserve anything in the first place.

(10-09-2026 10:17 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:28 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:18 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:50 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 05:51 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

Gang of four vs Money & Power

What a bunch of sanctimonious poppycock. Everyone else has been able to move for the past 36 years (and, indeed, for the past 138 years,) but when these four schools want to make an extra 40 million dollars a year its somehow selfish? Ted Cruz wants to permanently cripple them by placing them in a bad conference that earns significantly less than their own programs would if placed among equals. They want the freedom to be with peer institutions. The "compromise" is to only cripple some of them? Given that they have the power, possibly, to delay enough to kill PCSA maybe the "compromise" should be that you give them what they want and they let the rest of your bill through. Especially since 205 is just a rider to protect Texas schools that you got to insert since you were writing the bill.

FWIW Cruz is no dummy, dummies don't clerk for Supreme Court justices.

I don’t agree with the 3-year wait, but the cap, the PE, that’s over the top.

How are they permanently crippled? Second time I’ve straight up asked you this.

Also, why after 136 years are they are where they are?

Because they're in a conference with only 3 top 20 football brands while the Big Ten has 7 and the SEC has 9. And thus they will permanently make less money than their competitors, will see their power and influence wane, will have less money to spend and be unable to keep up.

As to why are they where they are? There was no need to switch conferences prior to the Oklahoma ruling, the first twenty-five years post-Oklahoma were still ones where conferences picked up neighboring schools and a select few foolish decisions were made regarding whether to apply for SEC nembership back in the 90s.

You never addressed the “permanence.”

A 20 cap doesn’t leave them permanently “crippled”, as if they somehow deserve to be invited into the B1G or SEC. Half the membership of those conferences didn’t deserve anything in the first place.

It leaves some of them stranded in the ACC. The ACC will never earn what the Big Ten or especially SEC do, due to having far fewer brands that people want to watch. Because of this schools in it will be unable to spend on coaching and facilities like P2 schools do, because of that top athletes would rather play elsewhere. Yes, even with NIL. With an NIL cap in place all teams will have to prioritize what to spend on, say, a quarterback or wide reciever, on every position, really. And thus the absolute best will still go to the best resourced programs.

(10-09-2026 10:45 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 10:17 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:28 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:18 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:50 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  What a bunch of sanctimonious poppycock. Everyone else has been able to move for the past 36 years (and, indeed, for the past 138 years,) but when these four schools want to make an extra 40 million dollars a year its somehow selfish? Ted Cruz wants to permanently cripple them by placing them in a bad conference that earns significantly less than their own programs would if placed among equals. They want the freedom to be with peer institutions. The "compromise" is to only cripple some of them? Given that they have the power, possibly, to delay enough to kill PCSA maybe the "compromise" should be that you give them what they want and they let the rest of your bill through. Especially since 205 is just a rider to protect Texas schools that you got to insert since you were writing the bill.

FWIW Cruz is no dummy, dummies don't clerk for Supreme Court justices.

I don’t agree with the 3-year wait, but the cap, the PE, that’s over the top.

How are they permanently crippled? Second time I’ve straight up asked you this.

Also, why after 136 years are they are where they are?

Because they're in a conference with only 3 top 20 football brands while the Big Ten has 7 and the SEC has 9. And thus they will permanently make less money than their competitors, will see their power and influence wane, will have less money to spend and be unable to keep up.

As to why are they where they are? There was no need to switch conferences prior to the Oklahoma ruling, the first twenty-five years post-Oklahoma were still ones where conferences picked up neighboring schools and a select few foolish decisions were made regarding whether to apply for SEC nembership back in the 90s.

You never addressed the “permanence.”

A 20 cap doesn’t leave them permanently “crippled”, as if they somehow deserve to be invited into the B1G or SEC. Half the membership of those conferences didn’t deserve anything in the first place.

It leaves some of them stranded in the ACC. The ACC will never earn what the Big Ten or especially SEC do, due to having far fewer brands that people want to watch. Because of this schools in it will be unable to spend on coaching and facilities like P2 schools do, because of that top athletes would rather play elsewhere. Yes, even with NIL. With an NIL cap in place all teams will have to prioritize what to spend on, say, a quarterback or wide reciever, on every position, really. And thus the absolute best will still go to the best resourced programs.

Revenue sharing cap is not an NIL cap though.

Regardless, if you equality across the board then I suppose we need to go back to when the NCAA controlled the TV rights and one had watch the Rutgers-Columbia game as the feature game.

(10-09-2026 10:45 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 10:17 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:28 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:18 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 07:50 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  What a bunch of sanctimonious poppycock. Everyone else has been able to move for the past 36 years (and, indeed, for the past 138 years,) but when these four schools want to make an extra 40 million dollars a year its somehow selfish? Ted Cruz wants to permanently cripple them by placing them in a bad conference that earns significantly less than their own programs would if placed among equals. They want the freedom to be with peer institutions. The "compromise" is to only cripple some of them? Given that they have the power, possibly, to delay enough to kill PCSA maybe the "compromise" should be that you give them what they want and they let the rest of your bill through. Especially since 205 is just a rider to protect Texas schools that you got to insert since you were writing the bill.

FWIW Cruz is no dummy, dummies don't clerk for Supreme Court justices.

I don’t agree with the 3-year wait, but the cap, the PE, that’s over the top.

How are they permanently crippled? Second time I’ve straight up asked you this.

Also, why after 136 years are they are where they are?

Because they're in a conference with only 3 top 20 football brands while the Big Ten has 7 and the SEC has 9. And thus they will permanently make less money than their competitors, will see their power and influence wane, will have less money to spend and be unable to keep up.

As to why are they where they are? There was no need to switch conferences prior to the Oklahoma ruling, the first twenty-five years post-Oklahoma were still ones where conferences picked up neighboring schools and a select few foolish decisions were made regarding whether to apply for SEC nembership back in the 90s.

You never addressed the “permanence.”

A 20 cap doesn’t leave them permanently “crippled”, as if they somehow deserve to be invited into the B1G or SEC. Half the membership of those conferences didn’t deserve anything in the first place.

It leaves some of them stranded in the ACC. The ACC will never earn what the Big Ten or especially SEC do, due to having far fewer brands that people want to watch. Because of this schools in it will be unable to spend on coaching and facilities like P2 schools do, because of that top athletes would rather play elsewhere. Yes, even with NIL. With an NIL cap in place all teams will have to prioritize what to spend on, say, a quarterback or wide reciever, on every position, really. And thus the absolute best will still go to the best resourced programs.

Most of the rules in PCSA are "selfish" in terms of favoring some people over others. I mean a lot of the rules are pro schools and anti players, why aren't they "selfish"? Ted Cruz isn't fair singling out schools for being selfish when they're not on "his" side.

The Big Ten and SEC never publicly questioned the realignment/expansion rules but did previously express disapproval towards PCSA. It can be implied that the realignment/expansion rules were part of the reason that they were initially against it. North Carolina and Clemson were the first to flat out say it. Other conferences might have campaigned for realignment/expansion rules but it was far from universal from colleges and conferences the same way transfer rules and player movement was among the same groups. What should be in the Protect College Sports Act depends on who you ask and who wound up lobbying Congress. We know the higher ups (schools/conferences) did have their say. We don't know players did.

But when it comes to realignment and expansion, are there conferences and schools that want to limit realignment and expansion? Absolutely. Is it unanimous? Absolutely not. So rules should not be implemented without universal support or without at least a large majority of support.

Well since it goes away in 6 years, it really only freezes them in place a couple years longer than they likely intended. I didn't expect the Big Ten to expand until the 2030 season.

And at 20, I think FSU, Miami, Clemson and UNC will all have a place in the P2. Don't know about Stanford. Depends on whether the Big Ten goes for and gets the two Florida schools and, if not, whether they want UVa or Stanford more.

(10-10-2026 07:59 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 10:45 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 10:17 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:28 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:18 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  I don’t agree with the 3-year wait, but the cap, the PE, that’s over the top.

How are they permanently crippled? Second time I’ve straight up asked you this.

Also, why after 136 years are they are where they are?

Because they're in a conference with only 3 top 20 football brands while the Big Ten has 7 and the SEC has 9. And thus they will permanently make less money than their competitors, will see their power and influence wane, will have less money to spend and be unable to keep up.

As to why are they where they are? There was no need to switch conferences prior to the Oklahoma ruling, the first twenty-five years post-Oklahoma were still ones where conferences picked up neighboring schools and a select few foolish decisions were made regarding whether to apply for SEC nembership back in the 90s.

You never addressed the “permanence.”

A 20 cap doesn’t leave them permanently “crippled”, as if they somehow deserve to be invited into the B1G or SEC. Half the membership of those conferences didn’t deserve anything in the first place.

It leaves some of them stranded in the ACC. The ACC will never earn what the Big Ten or especially SEC do, due to having far fewer brands that people want to watch. Because of this schools in it will be unable to spend on coaching and facilities like P2 schools do, because of that top athletes would rather play elsewhere. Yes, even with NIL. With an NIL cap in place all teams will have to prioritize what to spend on, say, a quarterback or wide reciever, on every position, really. And thus the absolute best will still go to the best resourced programs.

Revenue sharing cap is not an NIL cap though.

Regardless, if you equality across the board then I suppose we need to go back to when the NCAA controlled the TV rights and one had watch the Rutgers-Columbia game as the feature game.

I'm not arguing for equity across the board. I'm arguing that teams be allowed to move between conferences, should the conferences have them. The four teams trying to kill this obviously have a long-term future in either the SEC or Big Ten but the PCSA wants them to be permanently anchored to a bunch of non-performers in the ACC for the specific purpose of giving their hard earned money to a group of poorer programs with smaller fan bases.

I also didn't mention "revenue sharing cap" at all, I don't care about it, its a pittance. The NIL cap is more important since it should, in theory, allow teams to pay for top athletes no matter what conference they are in. In practice that won't be true though, if the cap truly caps spending on athletes then the very best athletes truly are going to be capped and will, once again, have to start making choices on who will get you to the NFL, who has the best facilities, who has the best coaching, the best game day atmosphere, the best athlete dorms, the best campus life. And none of that is going to be capped.

(10-10-2026 08:48 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 07:59 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 10:45 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 10:17 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-09-2026 09:28 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  Because they're in a conference with only 3 top 20 football brands while the Big Ten has 7 and the SEC has 9. And thus they will permanently make less money than their competitors, will see their power and influence wane, will have less money to spend and be unable to keep up.

As to why are they where they are? There was no need to switch conferences prior to the Oklahoma ruling, the first twenty-five years post-Oklahoma were still ones where conferences picked up neighboring schools and a select few foolish decisions were made regarding whether to apply for SEC nembership back in the 90s.

You never addressed the “permanence.”

A 20 cap doesn’t leave them permanently “crippled”, as if they somehow deserve to be invited into the B1G or SEC. Half the membership of those conferences didn’t deserve anything in the first place.

It leaves some of them stranded in the ACC. The ACC will never earn what the Big Ten or especially SEC do, due to having far fewer brands that people want to watch. Because of this schools in it will be unable to spend on coaching and facilities like P2 schools do, because of that top athletes would rather play elsewhere. Yes, even with NIL. With an NIL cap in place all teams will have to prioritize what to spend on, say, a quarterback or wide reciever, on every position, really. And thus the absolute best will still go to the best resourced programs.

Revenue sharing cap is not an NIL cap though.

Regardless, if you equality across the board then I suppose we need to go back to when the NCAA controlled the TV rights and one had watch the Rutgers-Columbia game as the feature game.

I'm not arguing for equity across the board. I'm arguing that teams be allowed to move between conferences, should the conferences have them. The four teams trying to kill this obviously have a long-term future in either the SEC or Big Ten but the PCSA wants them to be permanently anchored to a bunch of non-performers in the ACC for the specific purpose of giving their hard earned money to a group of poorer programs with smaller fan bases.

We’re talking in circles here.

20 team cap = 6 spots total in B1G / SEC

6 > 4

Hence, where is the permanence?