Meanwhile, in Tally, neither Florida school issued a statement.

The Fab Four schools are playing this in tandem.

We saw, in the Senate, two elected officials from Florida take most of the political heat. Result: a new PCSA conference floor of 20 rather than 19.

Discussion moved to the House. Four schools proposed a cap of 22. Lobbyist Randy Levine went to the press and attempted to make lightning rods of its two Florida universities.

The schools from SC and NC responded.

Message from those university leaders: ‘You’re dealing with all four of us.’

Things have been quiet for a couple of days now. It could be that everyone has returned to business, just as the schools want.

But if Cody Campbell’s lobbyists continue to try to bully schools in the press? The schools can continue to counter this same way—with reasoned content, for as long as need be.

The grandstanding can only go on so long. A clock is running.

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

People said similar things about the Senate vote and a cap of 19. Then votes happened. The Senate adopted the Moody-Blumenthal amendment, and now we are all talking about 20 as the new normal.

Until House votes are counted, we don’t know where all the Yeas and Nays are.
We do, however, know this much:

1. Universities have influence.
2. Bills can and do get amended.
3. A number of House reps want no conference membership cap at all.
4. Four universities request a cap of 22.
5. The Cody Campbell lobbying group is firing distress flares in public.
6. The Speaker has left all House options open.
7. There is always a new Congress.

Add to this list one more detail seen in some recent reports:
8. The P2 have a backup plan if the PCSA doesn’t materialize.

That summarizes the current state of play, I’d say.
Many variables, a number of possible outcomes.
__

(10-11-2026 06:12 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Things have been quiet for a couple of days now. It could be that everyone has returned to business, just as the schools want.

Things are quiet because there's nothing to be said until the House is back in session. Its also entirely possible that the RSC blocks the entire thing from coming to the floor.

(10-11-2026 06:56 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:12 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Things have been quiet for a couple of days now. It could be that everyone has returned to business, just as the schools want.

Things are quiet because there's nothing to be said until the House is back in session. Its also entirely possible that the RSC blocks the entire thing from coming to the floor.

Yes. Both points well taken.

All the House discussion we’ve seen is really preamble to a discussion.

One that may or may not take place.

(10-11-2026 06:12 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  The Fab Four schools are playing this in tandem.

Perhaps, but I am not sure they have the same asks. Why would FSU and Miami want a cap increase? I can see why Carolina and Clemson would because they could be more vulnerable if the B1G and/or SEC are hesitant to maximize a cap, especially if Carolina has designs of B1G membership—which I find increasingly likely.

I keep coming back to the idea they are over-asking in order to get the three-year purgatory totally removed.

But as I said on the ACC board, a Blue Wave is a-comin', or so I have read. That doesn't bode well for "conference destruction" amendments, whether true or Campbell spin.

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 02:38 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:09 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  This quartet of presidents displays some savvy. Notice the calibrated response.

Randy Levine, lobbyist, was the first to attack schools by name, aiming his froth at “Florida State and Miami” while ignoring the Carolinas.

Institutional heads stayed cool. The public response came from Clemson and UNC.

(10-09-2026 01:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  North Carolina:


Clemson:

It’s still hard to grasp the strategy of UNC and Clemson leaders. If they want PCSA to pass, then they need to be negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. Not sure how publicity helps find a compromise.

The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

(10-12-2026 08:24 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:12 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  The Fab Four schools are playing this in tandem.

Perhaps, but I am not sure they have the same asks. Why would FSU and Miami want a cap increase? I can see why Carolina and Clemson would because they could be more vulnerable if the B1G and/or SEC are hesitant to maximize a cap, especially if Carolina has designs of B1G membership—which I find increasingly likely.

I keep coming back to the idea they are over-asking in order to get the three-year purgatory totally removed.

But as I said on the ACC board, a Blue Wave is a-comin', or so I have read. That doesn't bode well for "conference destruction" amendments, whether true or Campbell spin.

I don't think the Big Ten will wait for Notre Dame for another decade to see if they change their mind, but maybe they will. In that case, Miami needs 22, so the Big Ten moves soon to 20 with Miami + 1.

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 02:38 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:09 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  This quartet of presidents displays some savvy. Notice the calibrated response.

Randy Levine, lobbyist, was the first to attack schools by name, aiming his froth at “Florida State and Miami” while ignoring the Carolinas.

Institutional heads stayed cool. The public response came from Clemson and UNC.

It’s still hard to grasp the strategy of UNC and Clemson leaders. If they want PCSA to pass, then they need to be negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. Not sure how publicity helps find a compromise.

The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

If it was actually a free market instead of a subsidized one, most of the programs would be bankrupt and going out of business.

(10-12-2026 09:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 02:38 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  It’s still hard to grasp the strategy of UNC and Clemson leaders. If they want PCSA to pass, then they need to be negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. Not sure how publicity helps find a compromise.

The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

If it was actually a free market instead of a subsidized one, most of the programs would be bankrupt and going out of business.

ANd? They would learn to control their spending maybe.

(10-12-2026 09:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 08:24 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:12 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  The Fab Four schools are playing this in tandem.

Perhaps, but I am not sure they have the same asks. Why would FSU and Miami want a cap increase? I can see why Carolina and Clemson would because they could be more vulnerable if the B1G and/or SEC are hesitant to maximize a cap, especially if Carolina has designs of B1G membership—which I find increasingly likely.

I keep coming back to the idea they are over-asking in order to get the three-year purgatory totally removed.

But as I said on the ACC board, a Blue Wave is a-comin', or so I have read. That doesn't bode well for "conference destruction" amendments, whether true or Campbell spin.

I don't think the Big Ten will wait for Notre Dame for another decade to see if they change their mind, but maybe they will. In that case, Miami needs 22, so the Big Ten moves soon to 20 with Miami + 1.

The B1G moving to 22 with Carolina, UVa, Dook, and Miami would not be the end of the world.

(10-12-2026 09:51 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

If it was actually a free market instead of a subsidized one, most of the programs would be bankrupt and going out of business.

ANd? They would learn to control their spending maybe.

Banks and S&Ls didn't in the 80s. They just kept getting deposits in to fund their bad loans. Universities keep getting student fees and subsidies from the academic side in addition to donor money.

(10-12-2026 09:51 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

If it was actually a free market instead of a subsidized one, most of the programs would be bankrupt and going out of business.

ANd? They would learn to control their spending maybe.

LOL.

Over 94% of D1 schools lose money on NCAA athletics. On average, D1 schools subsidized athletics by over $16M in FY2023-24. Only 20 programs were able to break even financially, and that was before it was legal to pay athletes. Even #2 overall revenue generating Ohio State admits that it needed some subsidies last year. The highest subsidies by a public institution (private institutions don’t have comparable transparency requirements) are received by Rutgers University athletics…ironically, recipient of the highest conference distributions via B1G membership.

D1 athletics has never operated as a free market. These are non-profits that are dependent on subsidies and/or tax-exempt donations, including at Notre Dame (today, a decade ago, and a century ago).

(09-02-2026 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 02:59 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Having been in public accounting and done some FMV valuations, I have confidence in Deloitte's professionalism.

(09-02-2026 02:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I worked with some of their people on business valuations during expropriation litigation when LSU and the VA took a big chunk of New Orleans in order to build the LSU Medical Center and the VA Hospital about a decade ago.

I trust them as well. Very thorough and professional.

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its not an exact science, but they do have thorough procedures. And they are only rejecting things that are clearly outside the norm.

Excellent! So assuming they are indeed worthy of your trust and are behaving accordingly, then in order to decide someone's fair market NIL value they must take into account such things as:

• Race
• Ethnicity
• Gender
• Natural attractiveness
• Demonstrated charisma
• Nationality
• Regionality
• Age
• Team accomplishments
• Individual accomplishments
• Fanbase (niche hardcore sports boosters?)
• Popularity outside of sports
• The university they are attending (and its popularity)
• Etc, etc,....
  

So assume two student athletes get identical offers from a NIL collective. Deloitte using their absolutely objective professional analysis determines that, everything else being equal, race is the one factor that means that they deny pay for one of the athletes, but allow the same pay for the other athlete. Nothing racist or any of that crap, just pure by-the-numbers professional conduct and subsequent results.

Is this right? Do we want this kind of thing to be a part of our culture? Did we not vanquish this kind of activity a long time ago in our nation's history?

Now you might say, "but no ouflak, Deloitte would leave traits like race, gender, ethnicicy and so on, out of their analysis". Fine. But that means they aren't doing their jobs like some here have come to expect and even experienced. Because ofcourse a professional objective firm doing this kind of work must take those kinds of things into account to do the job properly. Whether we are comfortable with the hard impersonal facts or not, all of those traits have an impact, in some cases a huge impact, on the fair market value of a student athlete.

Suffice it to say that each athlete will be valued upon all of the components of their uniqueness and leave it at that. Race is no more and no less a distinction than any of the many other components of each person. And if that is the case, and it is, then there is no point in emphasizing something which once introduced can be taken to extremes in an effort to dissemble a topic or exploit the situation for objectives not part of the purview of this forum. Any further prioritization of a component that is a part of each of us and which none of us can control will be considered to be out of order and the Moderation of such will be final.

(10-12-2026 09:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 02:38 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  It’s still hard to grasp the strategy of UNC and Clemson leaders. If they want PCSA to pass, then they need to be negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. Not sure how publicity helps find a compromise.

The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

If it was actually a free market instead of a subsidized one, most of the programs would be bankrupt and going out of business.

EXACTLY. In fact, 9/10 of these athletic departments would have gone bankrupt decades ago. This alone ought to quite clearly signal that the free market is alive and well and does need any artificial interference for the sole purpose of allowing some institutions to side step the laws of this land.

(10-12-2026 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:51 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

If it was actually a free market instead of a subsidized one, most of the programs would be bankrupt and going out of business.

ANd? They would learn to control their spending maybe.

Banks and S&Ls didn't in the 80s. They just kept getting deposits in to fund their bad loans. Universities keep getting student fees and subsidies from the academic side in addition to donor money.

They get that money because they see athletics as a way to increase the amount and the quality of enrollees. Even big schools, thats not just a "lower levels of FCS and DIII" situation. Its the old canard about the newspaper not having an Education section. Its not like the gym teacher is holding a gun to the principal's head or anything. And given that these schools aren't arms of the federal government, they're almost always arms of state governments, its easy as pie for states to control their own spending on athletics via state law, as New York does. They choose, themselves, not to.

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 02:38 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-10-2026 08:09 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  This quartet of presidents displays some savvy. Notice the calibrated response.

Randy Levine, lobbyist, was the first to attack schools by name, aiming his froth at “Florida State and Miami” while ignoring the Carolinas.

Institutional heads stayed cool. The public response came from Clemson and UNC.

It’s still hard to grasp the strategy of UNC and Clemson leaders. If they want PCSA to pass, then they need to be negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. Not sure how publicity helps find a compromise.

The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

Without the 19/5 provisions, I don't care if the bill passes or not.

Let everyone compete for players, let the bidding wars continue without limitation.

No anti-trust protections for the P4, so be it.

(10-12-2026 11:56 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:51 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

If it was actually a free market instead of a subsidized one, most of the programs would be bankrupt and going out of business.

ANd? They would learn to control their spending maybe.

Banks and S&Ls didn't in the 80s. They just kept getting deposits in to fund their bad loans. Universities keep getting student fees and subsidies from the academic side in addition to donor money.

They get that money because they see athletics as a way to increase the amount and the quality of enrollees. Even big schools, thats not just a "lower levels of FCS and DIII" situation. Its the old canard about the newspaper not having an Education section. Its not like the gym teacher is holding a gun to the principal's head or anything. And given that these schools aren't arms of the federal government, they're almost always arms of state governments, its easy as pie for states to control their own spending on athletics via state law, as New York does. They choose, themselves, not to.

Nah. Its just keeping up with the Joneses. They aren't going to get fired for that. Not going along is more risky, but college presidents are inherently risk averse.

If it really worked for the G5/6, you would see studies showing that they have done better than FCS schools. But a lot of the MAC schools are doing worse in enrollment than the MVC schools. Many of the Sun Belt West schools also have enrollment issues.

It might help if you are P4 where you get serious attention, but I doubt it helps G5/6 much.

Frank talks about how HS kids want the big time football social environment. I know my son looked at the SEC schools and went to Auburn. I made him apply to Georgia Southern so he had at least one in state option, but he had no interest. No interest in Georgia State either. He got accepted by Georgia Southern, Tennessee, Alabama and UT-Arlington in addition to Auburn.

(10-12-2026 12:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 02:38 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  It’s still hard to grasp the strategy of UNC and Clemson leaders. If they want PCSA to pass, then they need to be negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. Not sure how publicity helps find a compromise.

The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

Without the 19/5 provisions, I don't care if the bill passes or not.

Let everyone compete for players, let the bidding wars continue without limitation.

No anti-trust protections for the P4, so be it.

The house in which college football resides is in total disarray with the lack of structural integrity. The cap should be set at 18 full members for football. What should be abandoned is any extra wait besides that required by the affected conference's bylaws on exiting members. The cap at 18 ends realignment with minor moves. Letting the moves happen normally returns the game to some stasis sooner and does not prolong the pain and bickering prevalent due to constant change.

Let that dust settle and then apply the structural bolstering by the implementation of rules and the subsequent enforcement of them. It will help keep the structure stable enough to then start to finish out the rest of the interior one issue at a time.

Getting the exemption, if they aren't going to even try a more reasonable approach with collective bargaining and all that goes with it, has to be priority #1.

Constantly asking for more concessions is a brat move by spoiled children to try to undercut any advancement that doesn't benefit them. That's as contrary to fair negotiation as it gets. Get the Bill to its barest agreeable form, pass it, and work on the rest.

At 18 the SEC "can" add 2. The ACC "can" add 1 full member plus makeups for any they may lose. The Big 12 can add 4. The Big Ten is done with full member programs. Settle that. Apply the rules and get on with it while you still have an adoring audience, but one starting to bleed those offput by the constant change.

It seems odd to me that the so called brightest minds (presidents), and the contract lawyers they call commissioners, can't come to grips with the fact that it is Joe Blow customer who will decide their damned fate if they can't reach an accord. You know if your smart, you never ever let the possibility of vox populi make your decisions for you. Hence spoiled brats seeking more of their way can lead to an ultimate failure.

(10-12-2026 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 12:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

Without the 19/5 provisions, I don't care if the bill passes or not.

Let everyone compete for players, let the bidding wars continue without limitation.

No anti-trust protections for the P4, so be it.

The house in which college football resides is in total disarray with the lack of structural integrity. The cap should be set at 18 full members for football. What should be abandoned is any extra wait besides that required by the affected conference's bylaws on exiting members. The cap at 18 ends realignment with minor moves. Letting the moves happen normally returns the game to some stasis sooner and does not prolong the pain and bickering prevalent due to constant change.

Let that dust settle and then apply the structural bolstering by the implementation of rules and the subsequent enforcement of them. It will help keep the structure stable enough to then start to finish out the rest of the interior one issue at a time.

Getting the exemption, if they aren't going to even try a more reasonable approach with collective bargaining and all that goes with it, has to be priority #1.

Constantly asking for more concessions is a brat move by spoiled children to try to undercut any advancement that doesn't benefit them. That's as contrary to fair negotiation as it gets. Get the Bill to its barest agreeable form, pass it, and work on the rest.

At 18 the SEC "can" add 2. The ACC "can" add 1 full member plus makeups for any they may lose. The Big 12 can add 4. The Big Ten is done with full member programs. Settle that. Apply the rules and get on with it while you still have an adoring audience, but one starting to bleed those offput by the constant change.

It seems odd to me that the so called brightest minds (presidents), and the contract lawyers they call commissioners, can't come to grips with the fact that it is Joe Blow customer who will decide their damned fate if they can't reach an accord. You know if your smart, you never ever let the possibility of vox populi make your decisions for you. Hence spoiled brats seeking more of their way can lead to an ultimate failure.

I have been in favor of a cap at 18 schools and no "independence" 3 or 5 year provision.

What gets me are those who think that Congress should just hand out the anti-trust exemption like Halloween candy, free and clear of any meaningful restrictions or limitation on conference size.

A cap of 22 or 24 might as well be a "cap" of 100.

(10-12-2026 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 12:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 09:24 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 06:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-11-2026 05:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  The four were already negotiating with US House authors on accommodations. They still are.

Their proposal of a cap at 22 is already a compromise. As we saw, some reps were already wanting to cut that whole section from the bill. That idea remains on the table, too.

A public reply becomes necessary when a public accusation has been levelled. Preferably the reply makes the same or the next news cycle.

That is what the presidents did here. Message to Cody Campbell & Company: Get back to business, or we’ll see you and raise.

If the lobbyists are smart they will get back to business. Universities can outlast anybody.

If the PCSA doesn’t pass exactly as written, theres a good chance that nothing is done for now and perhaps not for a very long time. As we have seen, a whole lot of entities have veto power, and it’s been very tough to get them all to agree on something they can live with. And while I’d be happier with a 22 cap and no independence requirement, I could live with what we have now. I think that’s where most of the relevant parties are today.

I hope nothing passes. I like the free market system that we have.

Without the 19/5 provisions, I don't care if the bill passes or not.

Let everyone compete for players, let the bidding wars continue without limitation.

No anti-trust protections for the P4, so be it.

The house in which college football resides is in total disarray with the lack of structural integrity. The cap should be set at 18 full members for football. What should be abandoned is any extra wait besides that required by the affected conference's bylaws on exiting members. The cap at 18 ends realignment with minor moves. Letting the moves happen normally returns the game to some stasis sooner and does not prolong the pain and bickering prevalent due to constant change.

Let that dust settle and then apply the structural bolstering by the implementation of rules and the subsequent enforcement of them. It will help keep the structure stable enough to then start to finish out the rest of the interior one issue at a time.

Getting the exemption, if they aren't going to even try a more reasonable approach with collective bargaining and all that goes with it, has to be priority #1.

Constantly asking for more concessions is a brat move by spoiled children to try to undercut any advancement that doesn't benefit them. That's as contrary to fair negotiation as it gets. Get the Bill to its barest agreeable form, pass it, and work on the rest.

At 18 the SEC "can" add 2. The ACC "can" add 1 full member plus makeups for any they may lose. The Big 12 can add 4. The Big Ten is done with full member programs. Settle that. Apply the rules and get on with it while you still have an adoring audience, but one starting to bleed those offput by the constant change.

It seems odd to me that the so called brightest minds (presidents), and the contract lawyers they call commissioners, can't come to grips with the fact that it is Joe Blow customer who will decide their damned fate if they can't reach an accord. You know if your smart, you never ever let the possibility of vox populi make your decisions for you. Hence spoiled brats seeking more of their way can lead to an ultimate failure.

How does the current 20 cap treat non-FB but otherwise full conference members like Notre Dame in the ACC?