(10-10-2026 08:21 AM)schmolik 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.

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.

Dude, I hate the PCSA and the biggest reason is that it is anti-workers' rights. Since when did we ever pass laws to prevent private sector pay increases? Its ridiculous.

(10-10-2026 08:56 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:21 AM)schmolik 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.

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.

Dude, I hate the PCSA and the biggest reason is that it is anti-workers' rights. Since when did we ever pass laws to prevent private sector pay increases? Its ridiculous.

For argument's sake: the majority of these schools (at least 117 out of 138) are public schools.

Question: should it matter if the schools are private or public? What role does taxpayer funding play (all of them get Federal monies at the very least)?

(10-10-2026 08:51 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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:  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?

The Big Ten is likely reserving a spot for Notre Dame and thus won't go beyond 19. And also might not want to be at 19 since it makes for a messy schedule so might stay at 18. And then the SEC might prefer Virginia to Clemson, Miami or both, leaving some stranded. They're the 4 schools publicly fighting this but I don't think they're the four most desired schools in the ACC, at least not from a Big Ten perspective.

(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.

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.

I think the 3 year independence rule is stupid, punitive and possibly illegal.

I actually like the 20 team limit. The idea is to keep a limited group of schools from getting too much dominance, whether it be a P1 or a P2. The bottom half of the P2 is mostly interchangeable with the ACC and Big 12. College football is better with a healthy ACC and Big 12. The sport is spread among more schools and more states. The SEC and Big Ten at 22 or 24 creates a huge gap vs. the Big 12/ACC, one of whom might not survive.

I don't really want to see schools relegated. I don't have much sympathy for the G schools who were Division II or FCS not that long ago and think they somehow should have equality with state flagships who have been playing since the 1890s. But the schools who have been part of building the sport, yes I have sympathy for. And a 24 team Big Ten or SEC is likely to split apart in time unless the law stops it.

With 20, the schools who make sense, other than to simply demolish the ACC, will get moved into the P2. But there still will be enough of a base for both the Big 12 and ACC to be competitive. They won't earn nearly as much, but they will still earn plenty.

This law is about providing anti-trust immunity, so it makes sense to limit the growth of the entities getting the benefit of that immunity and their ability to damage programs who aren't in that entity.

(10-10-2026 09:04 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:56 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

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

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

Dude, I hate the PCSA and the biggest reason is that it is anti-workers' rights. Since when did we ever pass laws to prevent private sector pay increases? Its ridiculous.

For argument's sake: the majority of these schools (at least 117 out of 138) are public schools.

Question: should it matter if the schools are private or public? What role does taxpayer funding play (all of them get Federal monies at the very least)?

In Pennsylvania, at least, public college employees are not considered government employees.

As to why it matters, the federal government does have an interest in what its own workers make and thus must "act the boss" in regards to salary levels. But outside of, like, the service academies, these are not federal employees we are talking about. In that sense its hugely important whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what it spends on athlete salaries or whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what other entities, state or private, are spending on athlete salaries.

I've heard a lot of people here talking about "tax-payer funding" but federal taxes do not go to non-service academy athletics programs at all or only indirectly (security upgrades, etc.) Maybe state taxes do, but thats not the federal government's choice, what states spend their money on. So if you want to have that discussion you should take it to your state legislature instead, the federal government is not the place for it.

(10-10-2026 09:04 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:56 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

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

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

Dude, I hate the PCSA and the biggest reason is that it is anti-workers' rights. Since when did we ever pass laws to prevent private sector pay increases? Its ridiculous.

For argument's sake: the majority of these schools (at least 117 out of 138) are public schools.

Question: should it matter if the schools are private or public? What role does taxpayer funding play (all of them get Federal monies at the very least)?

And this is simply not a market. It is subsidized by government. So the government is regulating how much it spends on a frill.

Without this, sooner or later, a bunch of schools get out of football and athletics. And a bunch of athletes who will never play in the NFL or NBA will lose opportunities, a disproportionate number of them poor and/or minority.

So real student-athletes, real students and taxpayers get harmed for the benefit of a few athletic superstars, most of whom have almost no value to the NFL at 18 or 19 and few who have value to the NBA at that point.

The fact that some of these players are getting pay cuts to join the NFL tells you all you need to know about how skewed this system is now.

(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

I love the comments in that twitter thread. People demanding that 18 year old kids get the opportunity to get $15m instead of $5-10m for running fast and jumping high, or even just potentially being able to run fast and jumping high. Not because they actually bring that much value, mind you, bc College Athletics is a black hole that just Hoovers up more and more money, but rather bc billionaires with limited imagination would rather promote Indiana over Purdue or my Aggies over the guys 90 miles down the road.

There is no right or wrong answer to this, just various versions of messiness. The best bill for the SEC is anything that keeps us atop the pile without bankrupting all of us and our boosters.

(10-10-2026 09:15 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:04 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:56 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

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

Dude, I hate the PCSA and the biggest reason is that it is anti-workers' rights. Since when did we ever pass laws to prevent private sector pay increases? Its ridiculous.

For argument's sake: the majority of these schools (at least 117 out of 138) are public schools.

Question: should it matter if the schools are private or public? What role does taxpayer funding play (all of them get Federal monies at the very least)?

In Pennsylvania, at least, public college employees are not considered government employees.

As to why it matters, the federal government does have an interest in what its own workers make and thus must "act the boss" in regards to salary levels. But outside of, like, the service academies, these are not federal employees we are talking about. In that sense its hugely important whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what it spends on athlete salaries or whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what other entities, state or private, are spending on athlete salaries.

I've heard a lot of people here talking about "tax-payer funding" but federal taxes do not go to non-service academy athletics programs at all or only indirectly (security upgrades, etc.) Maybe state taxes do, but thats not the federal government's choice, what states spend their money on. So if you want to have that discussion you should take it to your state legislature instead, the federal government is not the place for it.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate:

Am I to understand that PSU employees do not receive any benefits (or pay) from the state either during employement or after? Is any of their pay directly tied to the taxpayers in the state?

Certainly some of their pay comes from Federal research dollars.

The professors teach the athletes. The school maintenance staff maintains the atheltic grounds and the dorms the players live in.

My point is that surely some taxpayer money -at the state and Federal levels- is being used to benefit college athletes in one way or another.

(10-10-2026 09:35 AM)bryanw1995 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

I love the comments in that twitter thread. People demanding that 18 year old kids get the opportunity to get $15m instead of $5-10m for running fast and jumping high, or even just potentially being able to run fast and jumping high. Not because they actually bring that much value, mind you, bc College Athletics is a black hole that just Hoovers up more and more money, but rather bc billionaires with limited imagination would rather promote Indiana over Purdue or my Aggies over the guys 90 miles down the road.

There is no right or wrong answer to this, just various versions of messiness. The best bill for the SEC is anything that keeps us atop the pile without bankrupting all of us and our boosters.

And the idea that 18 year old kids making $15 million and their agents are going to create a union that will limit their earnings is just wishful thinking. Its no more realistic a solution than the ones the NCAA has been following the last 30 years.

(10-10-2026 09:42 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:15 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:04 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:56 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  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.

Dude, I hate the PCSA and the biggest reason is that it is anti-workers' rights. Since when did we ever pass laws to prevent private sector pay increases? Its ridiculous.

For argument's sake: the majority of these schools (at least 117 out of 138) are public schools.

Question: should it matter if the schools are private or public? What role does taxpayer funding play (all of them get Federal monies at the very least)?

In Pennsylvania, at least, public college employees are not considered government employees.

As to why it matters, the federal government does have an interest in what its own workers make and thus must "act the boss" in regards to salary levels. But outside of, like, the service academies, these are not federal employees we are talking about. In that sense its hugely important whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what it spends on athlete salaries or whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what other entities, state or private, are spending on athlete salaries.

I've heard a lot of people here talking about "tax-payer funding" but federal taxes do not go to non-service academy athletics programs at all or only indirectly (security upgrades, etc.) Maybe state taxes do, but thats not the federal government's choice, what states spend their money on. So if you want to have that discussion you should take it to your state legislature instead, the federal government is not the place for it.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate:

Am I to understand that PSU employees do not receive any benefits (or pay) from the state either during employement or after? Is any of their pay directly tied to the taxpayers in the state?

Certainly some of their pay comes from Federal research dollars.

The professors teach the athletes. The school maintenance staff maintains the atheltic grounds and the dorms the players live in.

My point is that surely some taxpayer money -at the state and Federal levels- is being used to benefit college athletes in one way or another.

With NIL, even Ohio St. athletics is being subsidized by the academic side of the university. It used to be the other way around.

(10-10-2026 09:35 AM)bryanw1995 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

I love the comments in that twitter thread. People demanding that 18 year old kids get the opportunity to get $15m instead of $5-10m for running fast and jumping high, or even just potentially being able to run fast and jumping high. Not because they actually bring that much value, mind you, bc College Athletics is a black hole that just Hoovers up more and more money, but rather bc billionaires with limited imagination would rather promote Indiana over Purdue or my Aggies over the guys 90 miles down the road.

There is no right or wrong answer to this, just various versions of messiness. The best bill for the SEC is anything that keeps us atop the pile without bankrupting all of us and our boosters.

That's the reason I've argued for an athletic department spending cap. Take the players out of the equation and just cap how much athletic departments (and universities/colleges) can spend on athletics in a given year or over a span of years.

Here's the thing: we (most of D1) need the top 20 or so programs to do well each year. We don't need to have them in financial trouble because they drive the bus for the rest of us...yet they are spending themselves into oblivion and are doing so in the era of the enrollment cliff, which poses even more risks.

(10-10-2026 09:42 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:15 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:04 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:56 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  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.

Dude, I hate the PCSA and the biggest reason is that it is anti-workers' rights. Since when did we ever pass laws to prevent private sector pay increases? Its ridiculous.

For argument's sake: the majority of these schools (at least 117 out of 138) are public schools.

Question: should it matter if the schools are private or public? What role does taxpayer funding play (all of them get Federal monies at the very least)?

In Pennsylvania, at least, public college employees are not considered government employees.

As to why it matters, the federal government does have an interest in what its own workers make and thus must "act the boss" in regards to salary levels. But outside of, like, the service academies, these are not federal employees we are talking about. In that sense its hugely important whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what it spends on athlete salaries or whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what other entities, state or private, are spending on athlete salaries.

I've heard a lot of people here talking about "tax-payer funding" but federal taxes do not go to non-service academy athletics programs at all or only indirectly (security upgrades, etc.) Maybe state taxes do, but thats not the federal government's choice, what states spend their money on. So if you want to have that discussion you should take it to your state legislature instead, the federal government is not the place for it.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate:

Am I to understand that PSU employees do not receive any benefits (or pay) from the state either during employement or after? Is any of their pay directly tied to the taxpayers in the state?

Certainly some of their pay comes from Federal research dollars.

The professors teach the athletes. The school maintenance staff maintains the atheltic grounds and the dorms the players live in.

My point is that surely some taxpayer money -at the state and Federal levels- is being used to benefit college athletes in one way or another.

Sorry, devil, the state supreme court ruled on this decades ago. In Pennsylvania, "public" college employees are not state employees. This is why, for instance, PSU, Pitt and Temple don't have to publicly publish coach (or professor, or president, etc.) salaries. https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvani...468-0.html

And if you want to be a devil's advocate then I will send my own devil to advocate against you. If any business who benefits from government spending is part of the government then practically every employee is a government worker. Ice cream man? Thats a government road you're driving on. Farmer? USDA is certifying your crops. My job in a factory (its a good one, honest,) relies on more than a dozen different government agencies to keep it running, my brother's e-bay business wouldn't be possible without government regulated utilities, all of whom sell power/water/etc. to the government. My dad's sports card selling, my mom's volunteer work, all in one way or another depend on the government. The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, all government employees.

FWIW, to get back to the point about PA's "state-related" system, I'm not a big fan of it. I feel like its cheating, it lets Penn State (and the other three) be arms of the government when they want to be and private entities when they don't. Roy was, in my opinion, clearly decided incorrectly and PSU has coasted on it for years to avoid public records laws. It seems like the current court is of a similar mind to me and PSU has lost cases Trustee records and retirement data in recent decades, but as of right now Roy still stands.

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

I believe someone proposed a cap on coaches' salaries. I'm sure that will be fought harder than players' "salaries". Everyone gets paid except the athletes themselves. If it was really about competitive balance then Ohio State and Ohio U. would be on a level playing field. There's little chance any legislation will get that outcome. All PCSA is trying to do is prevent certain people from getting "paid" whether it's athletes or North Carolina/Clemson. The idea of "fairness" will never happen.

(10-10-2026 09:35 AM)bryanw1995 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

I love the comments in that twitter thread. People demanding that 18 year old kids get the opportunity to get $15m instead of $5-10m for running fast and jumping high, or even just potentially being able to run fast and jumping high. Not because they actually bring that much value, mind you, bc College Athletics is a black hole that just Hoovers up more and more money, but rather bc billionaires with limited imagination would rather promote Indiana over Purdue or my Aggies over the guys 90 miles down the road.

There is no right or wrong answer to this, just various versions of messiness. The best bill for the SEC is anything that keeps us atop the pile without bankrupting all of us and our boosters.

Well I would much rather have a "fast jumpy kid" get fifteen million than a booster keep it to himself. If the kid is a wastrel and spends it then thats great for the economy. If he spends it on a car, a house, tatoos, a Playstation, lavish meals, whatever. Someone built that car, someone towed it to the dealership, someone walked him through the lot. Better than sitting locked up in Cody Campbell's bank account indefinitely.

(10-10-2026 09:07 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:51 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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:  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?

The Big Ten is likely reserving a spot for Notre Dame and thus won't go beyond 19. And also might not want to be at 19 since it makes for a messy schedule so might stay at 18. And then the SEC might prefer Virginia to Clemson, Miami or both, leaving some stranded. They're the 4 schools publicly fighting this but I don't think they're the four most desired schools in the ACC, at least not from a Big Ten perspective.

Doubtful.
The Big Ten most likely would settle for a scheduling arrangement with Notre Dame similar to what they currently have with the ACC.


The Big Ten has a terrible numbers problem because of the west coast unless they can break down a 20 team league into 5 groupings of 4.

At 24 they would have room for both Stanford and Cal and have a reasonable break of 6 X4.
The other 4; Carolina, Duke, UVa and Georgia Tech.

(10-10-2026 10:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:07 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:51 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

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

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

The Big Ten is likely reserving a spot for Notre Dame and thus won't go beyond 19. And also might not want to be at 19 since it makes for a messy schedule so might stay at 18. And then the SEC might prefer Virginia to Clemson, Miami or both, leaving some stranded. They're the 4 schools publicly fighting this but I don't think they're the four most desired schools in the ACC, at least not from a Big Ten perspective.

Doubtful.
The Big Ten most likely would settle for a scheduling arrangement with Notre Dame similar to what they currently have with the ACC.
I would think three to perhaps 4 games per year.

The Big Ten already plays 3 Notre Dame games a year without giving up anything (or will once the USC series resumes.) What do we get in that deal? Maybe an extra half football game a year. What do we give up? A full basketball share to a team which isn't particularly good at basketball, plus a share of BTN revenue to their equally mediocre non-revs plus letting them have a vote in conference meetings when 18 is already unwieldy and makes UC difficult. The math only mathed there for the ACC because they were playing so few ND games prior to the deal.

(10-10-2026 10:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

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

I believe someone proposed a cap on coaches' salaries. I'm sure that will be fought harder than players' "salaries". Everyone gets paid except the athletes themselves. If it was really about competitive balance then Ohio State and Ohio U. would be on a level playing field. There's little chance any legislation will get that outcome. All PCSA is trying to do is prevent certain people from getting "paid" whether it's athletes or North Carolina/Clemson. The idea of "fairness" will never happen.

Well coaches actually have a professional "market." These college football players are mostly worthless in the professional market at 18 and 19, until they have physically matured.

I still don't think the colleges should choose to compete with the NFL for coaches. They used to choose not to.

(10-10-2026 10:02 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:42 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:15 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:04 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:56 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  Dude, I hate the PCSA and the biggest reason is that it is anti-workers' rights. Since when did we ever pass laws to prevent private sector pay increases? Its ridiculous.

For argument's sake: the majority of these schools (at least 117 out of 138) are public schools.

Question: should it matter if the schools are private or public? What role does taxpayer funding play (all of them get Federal monies at the very least)?

In Pennsylvania, at least, public college employees are not considered government employees.

As to why it matters, the federal government does have an interest in what its own workers make and thus must "act the boss" in regards to salary levels. But outside of, like, the service academies, these are not federal employees we are talking about. In that sense its hugely important whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what it spends on athlete salaries or whether we're talking about the federal government deciding what other entities, state or private, are spending on athlete salaries.

I've heard a lot of people here talking about "tax-payer funding" but federal taxes do not go to non-service academy athletics programs at all or only indirectly (security upgrades, etc.) Maybe state taxes do, but thats not the federal government's choice, what states spend their money on. So if you want to have that discussion you should take it to your state legislature instead, the federal government is not the place for it.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate:

Am I to understand that PSU employees do not receive any benefits (or pay) from the state either during employement or after? Is any of their pay directly tied to the taxpayers in the state?

Certainly some of their pay comes from Federal research dollars.

The professors teach the athletes. The school maintenance staff maintains the atheltic grounds and the dorms the players live in.

My point is that surely some taxpayer money -at the state and Federal levels- is being used to benefit college athletes in one way or another.

Sorry, devil, the state supreme court ruled on this decades ago. In Pennsylvania, "public" college employees are not state employees. This is why, for instance, PSU, Pitt and Temple don't have to publicly publish coach (or professor, or president, etc.) salaries. https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvani...468-0.html

And if you want to be a devil's advocate then I will send my own devil to advocate against you. If any business who benefits from government spending is part of the government then practically every employee is a government worker. Ice cream man? Thats a government road you're driving on. Farmer? USDA is certifying your crops. My job in a factory (its a good one, honest,) relies on more than a dozen different government agencies to keep it running, my brother's e-bay business wouldn't be possible without government regulated utilities, all of whom sell power/water/etc. to the government. My dad's sports card selling, my mom's volunteer work, all in one way or another depend on the government. The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, all government employees.

FWIW, to get back to the point about PA's "state-related" system, I'm not a big fan of it. I feel like its cheating, it lets Penn State (and the other three) be arms of the government when they want to be and private entities when they don't. Roy was, in my opinion, clearly decided incorrectly and PSU has coasted on it for years to avoid public records laws. It seems like the current court is of a similar mind to me and PSU has lost cases Trustee records and retirement data in recent decades, but as of right now Roy still stands.

Regarding the first and third paragraphs: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's a state employee regardless of what the name tag says. It sounds like we both agree on that.

Regarding the middle paragraph: you're correct. It's an interesting thought excercise but a topic that's better suited for another board.

(10-10-2026 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 10:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

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

I believe someone proposed a cap on coaches' salaries. I'm sure that will be fought harder than players' "salaries". Everyone gets paid except the athletes themselves. If it was really about competitive balance then Ohio State and Ohio U. would be on a level playing field. There's little chance any legislation will get that outcome. All PCSA is trying to do is prevent certain people from getting "paid" whether it's athletes or North Carolina/Clemson. The idea of "fairness" will never happen.

Well coaches actually have a professional "market." These college football players are mostly worthless in the professional market at 18 and 19, until they have physically matured.

I still don't think the colleges should choose to compete with the NFL for coaches. They used to choose not to.

Basketball players can certainly go pro at 18 and 19. Before the NBA started the one and done rule Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant (RIP), and Lebron James went straight to the pros. If the NBA got rid of the one and done rule, I'm sure there would be players the NBA would draft out of high school.

(10-10-2026 10:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 09:07 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:51 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

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

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

The Big Ten is likely reserving a spot for Notre Dame and thus won't go beyond 19. And also might not want to be at 19 since it makes for a messy schedule so might stay at 18. And then the SEC might prefer Virginia to Clemson, Miami or both, leaving some stranded. They're the 4 schools publicly fighting this but I don't think they're the four most desired schools in the ACC, at least not from a Big Ten perspective.

Doubtful.
The Big Ten most likely would settle for a scheduling arrangement with Notre Dame similar to what they currently have with the ACC.


The Big Ten has a terrible numbers problem because of the west coast unless they can break down a 20 team league into 5 groupings of 4.

At 24 they would have room for both Stanford and Cal and have a reasonable break of 6 X4.
The other 4; Carolina, Duke, UVa and Georgia Tech.

I've not looked it up but would like to know more about these "number problems". Is it an issue with travel, with viewership or a combo of both? Something else?