(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.

Good for me, though I still don't think it would be good for College Sports writ large.

(10-12-2026 01:51 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(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:  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?

Joe, I don't know why Notre Dame would be counted against the ACC's full membership. I think the provision, though I haven't read it all, counted football toward full membership. I don't think N.D. should be counted against the ACC for full membership. The ACC granted them full rights to the ACCN revenue and the full membership grant for that should be a conference matter and not a issue and shouldn't affect their status as counted by any governing body or the Congress unless congress wants to count partials as full members, which they don't seem to be implying. Maybe Terry D. could answer this more clearly from N.D.'s perspective.

(10-12-2026 01:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Agree with this. Increasing the cap is a way to give additional leverage to a few powerful entities. Universities are now taking advantage of Congressional largesse (it’s kids in a candy store). Someone is always going to be disappointed by the timing of legislation, and the lack of anti-trust exemption hurts collegiate athletics.

(10-12-2026 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 12:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

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

Agree with this. Increasing the cap is a way to give additional leverage to a few powerful entities. Universities are now taking advantage Congressional largesse (it’s kids in a candy store). Someone is always going to be disappointed by the timing of legislation, and the lack of anti-trust exemption hurts collegiate athletics.

I still think it's a classic "over-ask" in order to get the purgatory period dropped. Why do FSU and Miami care about conference caps?

At 20, FSU is easily in the SEC and Miami is easily in both the SEC and B1G.

Carolina and Clemson may want the caps raised and are banding with the FLA schools to strengthen everyone's individual causes. Purgatory being dropped serves any A4 school that thinks it has a chance at moving.

(10-12-2026 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 12:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

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

I came around to the 18 cap later than you, but it was because my first inclination was that a free market approach complete with the players' right to organize and collective bargaining seemed to me the fairest way forward.

Pretty soon I realized that all we would get one way or the other was some unholy hybrid of free market and what the NCAA had in the past.

I can't see the need that either Petitti or Sankey has that is worth the risk of pushing expansion too far and trying to keep an exemption which the SCOTUS has absolutely insinuated is unjust. Yet here we are. Capping it at 18, protecting the NIL victories and setting caps on what the schools can raise or spend on NIL, and paying the players for their hours of work seems rationale.

Push beyond that and the desperation of some will drive this forward to P.E. and the love of the sport will die. Gambling's hand in it is already specious. A P4 can grant as much potential access as we need for upward mobility, and the cost of play will cull a few, but then a relatively static field is quite possible.

I agree if you push the cap to 20 it tilts the any semblance of balance, encourages a panic to get into a P2 conference, and doesn't serve the sport, though there are aspects of it the networks would profit from.

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.

Agree with this. Increasing the cap is a way to give additional leverage to a few powerful entities. Universities are now taking advantage of Congressional largesse (it’s kids in a candy store). Someone is always going to be disappointed by the timing of legislation, and the lack of anti-trust exemption hurts collegiate athletics.

(10-12-2026 01:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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:  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.

A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

(10-12-2026 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:51 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 12:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

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

Joe, I don't know why Notre Dame would be counted against the ACC's full membership. I think the provision, though I haven't read it all, counted football toward full membership. I don't think N.D. should be counted against the ACC for full membership. The ACC granted them full rights to the ACCN revenue and the full membership grant for that should be a conference matter and not a issue and shouldn't affect their status as counted by any governing body or the Congress unless congress wants to count partials as full members, which they don't seem to be implying. Maybe Terry D. could answer this more clearly from N.D.'s perspective.

Me and Frank had an argument about this a few months ago. To me it seems blatantly obvious that the law as written includes full conference members, which Notre Dame is. But everyone else, including the press and the legislators, say otherwise so sententia legis it doesn't.

Maybe that will be for a court to decide twenty yers from now.

(10-12-2026 03:29 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:51 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 12:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  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?

Joe, I don't know why Notre Dame would be counted against the ACC's full membership. I think the provision, though I haven't read it all, counted football toward full membership. I don't think N.D. should be counted against the ACC for full membership. The ACC granted them full rights to the ACCN revenue and the full membership grant for that should be a conference matter and not a issue and shouldn't affect their status as counted by any governing body or the Congress unless congress wants to count partials as full members, which they don't seem to be implying. Maybe Terry D. could answer this more clearly from N.D.'s perspective.

Me and Frank had an argument about this a few months ago. To me it seems blatantly obvious that the law as written includes full conference members, which Notre Dame is. But everyone else, including the press and the legislators, say otherwise so sententia legis it doesn't.

Maybe that will be for a court to decide twenty yers from now.

To me, if a majority of a school’s sponsored sports is in one conference, that school should be treated as a ful member. That is not the same, for example, Notre Dame having only their ice hockey team affiliated with the Big Ten.

In certain governance forums, when Notre Dame claims they’re not fully an ACC member, in order to receive special accommodation, doesn’t bode well for everyone.

(10-12-2026 03:29 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:51 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 12:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  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?

Joe, I don't know why Notre Dame would be counted against the ACC's full membership. I think the provision, though I haven't read it all, counted football toward full membership. I don't think N.D. should be counted against the ACC for full membership. The ACC granted them full rights to the ACCN revenue and the full membership grant for that should be a conference matter and not a issue and shouldn't affect their status as counted by any governing body or the Congress unless congress wants to count partials as full members, which they don't seem to be implying. Maybe Terry D. could answer this more clearly from N.D.'s perspective.

Me and Frank had an argument about this a few months ago. To me it seems blatantly obvious that the law as written includes full conference members, which Notre Dame is. But everyone else, including the press and the legislators, say otherwise so sententia legis it doesn't.

Maybe that will be for a court to decide twenty yers from now.

I have seen the same statements that ND is not counted as a full member against the ACC cap, that it is football membership that "counts" in the bill.

No idea how that will shake out.

That is a conference issue. I am completely uninterested in it either way.

I wanted the 18 cap to end all of this conference realignment drama and to buttress ND's football independence forever going forward (I am a single issue voter regarding college sports and view everything through this same prism).

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

The first requirement of Tony Petitti (B1G) and Greg Sankey (SEC) when negotiating PCSA legislation was to immediately protect the majority of their members’ interests. They immediately inserted a provision to prohibit the creation of a super league…aka P1. So currently, PCSA does not allow Ohio State and Alabama and Georgia and Michigan from forming a true money machine. For some reason, you don’t mind protecting Illinois’ status (or Vandy or Maryland or Missouri, etc.). Why aren’t you complaining about the actual duplicitous activities of Illinois?

Yet you dishonestly claim that this debate is really about protecting Jim Phillips or Louisville. You’re moralizing about a theoretical issue while omitting the blatant discrimination that you state you oppose (i.e., favoring the barnacles currently in the P2).

FWIW - a cap helps stabilize all conferences…most of all, the cap compromise helps the B1G and SEC.

(10-12-2026 02:29 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 12:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  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.

Agree with this. Increasing the cap is a way to give additional leverage to a few powerful entities. Universities are now taking advantage Congressional largesse (it’s kids in a candy store). Someone is always going to be disappointed by the timing of legislation, and the lack of anti-trust exemption hurts collegiate athletics.

I still think it's a classic "over-ask" in order to get the purgatory period dropped. Why do FSU and Miami care about conference caps?

At 20, FSU is easily in the SEC and Miami is easily in both the SEC and B1G.

Carolina and Clemson may want the caps raised and are banding with the FLA schools to strengthen everyone's individual causes. Purgatory being dropped serves any A4 school that thinks it has a chance at moving.

A higher cap makes it more likely that there's movement, and sooner rather than later. A 20 cap with a 3 independence requirement practically guarantees that the B1G sits at 18, thus there's little pressure on the SEC to do anything before 2034. And even then, the SEC could just as easily add 2 as 4. A 22 cap with no waiting period puts more pressure on both the P2 to make moves into the ACC ASAP, significantly increasing the odds for FSU, Miami and USF to all move up.

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

"If they had a chance", or if they say no other viable long term option? There are currently 2 perfectly viable long term options for the biggest/richest football factories, as long as that continues then it's going to take more than a few million buck$ one way or the other to get somebody to move. We've recently seen OUT take less money in the short run to join the SEC, and it's entirely possible that we will see one or more current non-P2 schools end up taking less money to be in the B1G or SEC down the road. Some, like ND, even clearly prefer to make less money and forge their own path.

(10-12-2026 05:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 02:29 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

Agree with this. Increasing the cap is a way to give additional leverage to a few powerful entities. Universities are now taking advantage Congressional largesse (it’s kids in a candy store). Someone is always going to be disappointed by the timing of legislation, and the lack of anti-trust exemption hurts collegiate athletics.

I still think it's a classic "over-ask" in order to get the purgatory period dropped. Why do FSU and Miami care about conference caps?

At 20, FSU is easily in the SEC and Miami is easily in both the SEC and B1G.

Carolina and Clemson may want the caps raised and are banding with the FLA schools to strengthen everyone's individual causes. Purgatory being dropped serves any A4 school that thinks it has a chance at moving.

A higher cap makes it more likely that there's movement, and sooner rather than later. A 20 cap with a 3 independence requirement practically guarantees that the B1G sits at 18, thus there's little pressure on the SEC to do anything before 2034. And even then, the SEC could just as easily add 2 as 4. A 22 cap with no waiting period puts more pressure on both the P2 to make moves into the ACC ASAP, significantly increasing the odds for FSU, Miami and USF to all move up.

I still am not really seeing the urgency regardless. The B1G has to wait until their media deal negotiations and that’s a few years off. That’s the next window and I don’t see the cap affecting the timeline.

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

Protecting a program with several non rev sports ranked yearly including right now, top 10 brand in basketball, and holds our own in football on the field, spending on roster/program, and in drawing eyeballs to tvs....

Would like to do that same autopsy into over 1/2 of the Big 10 and bottom third of SEC... TV likes UofL baseball, volleyball, and both basketball teams...I'd like to see those dollars made for tv and conference vs say PSU. Would be a fun exercise.

(10-12-2026 06:29 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

Protecting a program with several non rev sports ranked yearly including right now, top 10 brand in basketball, and holds our own in football on the field, spending on roster/program, and in drawing eyeballs to tvs....

Would like to do that same autopsy into over 1/2 of the Big 10 and bottom third of SEC... TV likes UofL baseball, volleyball, and both basketball teams...I'd like to see those dollars made for tv and conference vs say PSU. Would be a fun exercise.

PSU women's volleyball has eight women's national championships, all in or after 1999 and we've got two men's as well. Go ahead, stack Louisville up next to it with your no volleyball championships in either gender. You win basketball, obviously, but our non-revenue sports literally lap yours. We're strong in ice hockey, WVB, men's wrestling, lacrosse and soccer. And when I say strong I mean the team either has or wants national championships in all of them. We're talking laughing baby vs hydrogen bomb here.

(10-12-2026 01:51 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  How does the current 20 cap treat non-FB but otherwise full conference members like Notre Dame in the ACC?

The PCSA assumes football as the defining feature of conference membership.

The first draft of the Senate bill a couple of months ago did not make this clear. That ambiguity got everyone asking—having pretty much this exact conversation, actually—and a subsequent revision of the bill clarified the language.

Remember, it was reported all along that the Irish, unlike their other playmates, “already meet” the provision’s indie mandate. It was reported straight out that they could join an A4 conference immediately without needing to wait.

The authors of the Senate bill have always tended to assume that if a school is in a conference for football it is in a conference for everything important.

How the bill’s language would apply in those situations where ADs and commissioners themselves don’t really think this way (Hawaii’s historical position, etc) is getting into weeds the bill doesn’t.

It’s all up there in our threads in real time, for anyone who wants to scroll back and do some digging. Also Dellenger.

__

(10-12-2026 05:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 03:17 PM)Blust3 Wrote:  A cap of 22 or 24 no longer protects college football. It allows SEC and B1G becomes monopoly and destroys ACC as they destroyed PAC12.

So? The ACC to me is Jim Phillips. The Big Ten to me is Tony Petitti. The SEC to me is Greg Sankey. The schools are in these conferences, some are charter members. But we saw with UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma that they would leave for a higher payday if they had a chance. The only difference in the case of the Big Ten and SEC is there isn't considered to be a more valuable conference ... yet.

I've said before that for a lot of these if schools "upgrade" it usually allows the school in question better competition and the conference a better school. The Big 12 thought it was better that Texas and Oklahoma stayed but more people watched Texas play Georgia the last two years than they watched Texas play any Big 12 opponent since 2015. You don't think fans would rather Miami play either Ohio State or Alabama than play Boston College (it's not 1984 and Doug Flutie isn't still playing!) If the ACC is "killed" or becomes the new Pac 12, honestly it doesn't bother me. If a "superconference" between the top SEC and Big 10 schools forms and Illinois is left behind, it's Illinois's fault for not being good enough to be included. Is it fair Miami makes less money than Rutgers? No it's not. Give them a chance to get on a level playing field, don't handicap them just to protect Jim Phillips or Louisville.

The first requirement of Tony Petitti (B1G) and Greg Sankey (SEC) when negotiating PCSA legislation was to immediately protect the majority of their members’ interests. They immediately inserted a provision to prohibit the creation of a super league…aka P1. So currently, PCSA does not allow Ohio State and Alabama and Georgia and Michigan from forming a true money machine. For some reason, you don’t mind protecting Illinois’ status (or Vandy or Maryland or Missouri, etc.). Why aren’t you complaining about the actual duplicitous activities of Illinois?

Yet you dishonestly claim that this debate is really about protecting Jim Phillips or Louisville. You’re moralizing about a theoretical issue while omitting the blatant discrimination that you state you oppose (i.e., favoring the barnacles currently in the P2).

FWIW - a cap helps stabilize all conferences…most of all, the cap compromise helps the B1G and SEC.

I'm not in favor of the anti super conference rule. I'd be in favor of a "super conference", I've actually started a thread this summer about it. Yes the super conference hurts Illinois. But college football wins. Most of you would rather see Ohio State play Texas than Illinois. I saw the numbers. Illinois got 3.69M vs. Ohio State, Texas got 13.99M. What do you expect the next two years when Alabama plays Ohio State?

I'm not in favor of ANY conferences. I root for the Big Ten now because my two alma maters Illinois and Penn State are in it. If Illinois and Penn State left for the SEC I'll be doing SEC chants. You think Oregon and USC fans really miss the Pathetic 12? I know one thing, their bank accounts don't. The Big Ten and SEC are the two most stable conferences. The ACC in most of our lifetimes has only lost Maryland. If you're a fan of the Big 12 and Pac 12 you know that the only constant is change and if you are a fan of some schools you're not tied down to a conference. Purdue needs the Big Ten. Mississippi State needs the SEC. Ohio State and Alabama will be fine whatever conference they wind up in. Notre Dame ... heck conference, they don't need no stinking conference!

(10-12-2026 08:30 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-12-2026 01:51 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  How does the current 20 cap treat non-FB but otherwise full conference members like Notre Dame in the ACC?

The PCSA assumes football as the defining feature of membership.

The first draft of the Senate bill a couple of months ago did not make this clear. That ambiguity got everyone asking—having pretty much this exact conversation, actually—and a subsequent revision of the bill clarified the language.

Remember, it was reported all along that the Irish, unlike their other playmates, “already meet” the provision’s indie mandate. It was reported straight out that they could join an A4 conference immediately without needing to wait.

The authors of the Senate bill have always tended to assume that if a school is in a conference for football it is in a conference for everything important.

How the bill’s language would apply in those situations where ADs and commissioners themselves don’t really think this way (Hawaii’s historical position, etc) is getting into weeds the bill doesn’t.

It’s all up there in our threads in real time, for anyone who wants to scroll back and do some digging.

__

Thats a slight mistatement. The transfer tules make it clear that they apply only to football media rights. The membership rules for the cap were not changed and continue to not distinguish football vs non-football. It won't matter today, nor tommorrow, but it will eventually matter to even non-football conferences like the Big East in 60 or 70 years due to inflation.

I think the cap should be set at 19 or even 18. But PCSA should allow schools to buy (or trade) the seat. For example, Miami can buy B1G membership from Rutgers, UNC can buy B1G membership from Maryland and UConn can buy ACC membership from BC(or Syracuse). When schools decide they can no longer afford being competitive, they might choose to sell it for the money and invest money somewhere else. This way, conference games can be effectively competitive and it is better for college football.