(11-04-2026 01:37 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 08:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 08:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 06:58 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Any changes to the PCSA need to be done quickly and agreed upon by both chambers before January. That's when everything has to start all over again.

I wonder if there would be a push to raise the conference cap to 22.

At some point, ESPN and FOX will start to balk at the amount of increased overhead (to add 4 schools to the B1G and 6 to the SEC).

You would think so, but no. ESPN and FOX would each likely be quite happy if the cap was 24. They would then have the upper tier as nothing that was left would be that valuable and only 3 schools between the Big Ten and SEC would not be top 48 in earnings already: Vanderbilt #50, Northwestern #56, and Maryland #58.

That would be 8 schools for the SEC and 6 schools for the Big Ten. The SEC would have enough slots to take Clemson, Florida State, Duke, Kansas, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia and Virginia Tech.

The Big Ten would have room for California, Colorado, Pittsburgh, Stanford, Southern Methodist or Texas Christian, and have one slot left for Notre Dame.

And you realize that if they had those 48 in the hands of FOX and ESPN that would be all they would really want or need. They would pay more out for the Big Ten and SEC and for the 16 schools added, but they would pay less out overall and be able to command more revenue from them.

If they trimmed it to 20 each they leave too much value in the remaining two conferences that the board calls the M2.

The Cap suggested by the Senate actually is intended to keep value in the M2 and protect the 4-conference model. It worked better at 18. It is stilted at 20. 22 is another number the public won't like but is likely more efficient for the Networks but the Bill isn't about the networks. If they go to 22 they may as well go to 24 because the M2 are decimated either way.

If anyone is a fan of the P4 then 18 should be the Cap. If you want dominance for the Big Ten and SEC 20 gets it done. If you are a Network wanting to concentrate your valued programs and cut the rest loose then you go larger than 20.

NC State not even in your top 14. Interesting.

The guideline I used was simply the top 40 revenue earners. To date in realignment with the exception of the realignment that included Rutgers and Maryland it has been almost exclusively done by taking those which matched the conference in question's stated objectives and attempting each time to take the best revenue earners. The Big Ten last time around took 4 of the top 5 earners in the PAC 12 and the SEC took Texas and Oklahoma which were not only top earners in the Big 12 but represented between 54% - 56% of their total value as a conference.

These are decapitations of revenue and value. When you look at a cap of 20 which permits the SEC and Big Ten to take six and you consider they will be taking them from the ACC, those most talked about making the moves represent 5 of your top six earners. Virginia excepted and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Duke travels with UNC as both are top 6 but behind Miami, Stanford, FSU and Clemson.

Everyone, including me has their way of looking at this phenomenon but the accurate predictor to date is Gross Total Revenue standing. If they make money, they make your conference money.

And the one who would be 7th on that list is Kansas #30 in revenue production. I haven't taken a close look below that but California may be 8th.

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

(11-04-2026 02:01 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:58 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 06:19 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(11-03-2026 11:23 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  So, given that both Houses have flipped, do you think that they will push PCSA through or will the other side get the chance to craft a new version in 2027?

I actually think it is the opposite. The schools know this is the best and final offer. I think there will be a bandwagon effort to pass something before the Democrats force rev share and employment on them.

True, but that would not preclude a new bill in the new Congress, seeking to amend this bill if it passes, adding employment status and revenue share later.

No, but the Senate sponsors have indicated fatigue with this. And a similar bill failed in the House. There's a good liklihood no bill comes up in the next couple of years if this one fails.

I disagree, there's billions of dollars at stake at very public-facing institutions here. They'll have to do something, the question is what.

Ha!!! That hasn't been the pattern for Congress for the last 40 years. They usually do nothing about problems.

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Or rewite it to be more athlete friendly.

(11-04-2026 02:40 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Or rewite it to be more athlete friendly.

Doing nothing would produce the same outcome and it has a lot less political risk. If Congress does nothing then the FBS schools will have to allow player's unions, collectively bargain in order to set caps and avoid anti-trust suits and doing nothing may also lead to a splintering into tiers based upon revenue generation. The more specific the bargaining is the clearer the lines will be between the P4 / G6 and others.

(11-04-2026 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:40 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Or rewite it to be more athlete friendly.

Doing nothing would produce the same outcome and it has a lot less political risk. If Congress does nothing then the FBS schools will have to allow player's unions, collectively bargain in order to set caps and avoid anti-trust suits and doing nothing may also lead to a splintering into tiers based upon revenue generation. The more specific the bargaining is the clearer the lines will be between the P4 / G6 and others.

There's still things like 5 in 5, gambling restrictions, no washed up NFLers and other governance provisions that basically everyone wants but existing labor law doesn't allow.

(11-04-2026 02:52 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:40 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Or rewite it to be more athlete friendly.

Doing nothing would produce the same outcome and it has a lot less political risk. If Congress does nothing then the FBS schools will have to allow player's unions, collectively bargain in order to set caps and avoid anti-trust suits and doing nothing may also lead to a splintering into tiers based upon revenue generation. The more specific the bargaining is the clearer the lines will be between the P4 / G6 and others.

There's still things like 5 in 5, gambling restrictions, no washed up NFLers and other governance provisions that basically everyone wants but existing labor law doesn't allow.

It isn't clear that existing labor law doesn't allow it. But its not clear that it does, so the players always seem to get injunctions and graduate by the time it would get to trial. I would say those things are "not enforceable" because a sympathetic court will say the harm to the NCAA is far less than the potential harm to the player, so they issue an injunction against enforcement.

(11-04-2026 02:01 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:58 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 06:19 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(11-03-2026 11:23 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  So, given that both Houses have flipped, do you think that they will push PCSA through or will the other side get the chance to craft a new version in 2027?

I actually think it is the opposite. The schools know this is the best and final offer. I think there will be a bandwagon effort to pass something before the Democrats force rev share and employment on them.

True, but that would not preclude a new bill in the new Congress, seeking to amend this bill if it passes, adding employment status and revenue share later.

No, but the Senate sponsors have indicated fatigue with this. And a similar bill failed in the House. There's a good liklihood no bill comes up in the next couple of years if this one fails.

I disagree, there's billions of dollars at stake at very public-facing institutions here. They'll have to do something, the question is what.

The choice to do nothing is very much an answer to "what." College sports can live on being dysfunctional indefinitely. These issues are headaches and embarrassments but aren't causing public universities to shut down. If the PCSA follows its spiritual predecessor the SCORE Act and dies a fiery death the entire thing will be branded as a two time loser and nobody's touching it for a long time.

(11-04-2026 02:40 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Or rewite it to be more athlete friendly.

Right. But at that point it's a fundamentally different proposal rather than a re-write. As you know, mandatory revenue sharing vs. a cap are two very different things.

(11-04-2026 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 01:37 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 08:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 08:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 06:58 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Any changes to the PCSA need to be done quickly and agreed upon by both chambers before January. That's when everything has to start all over again.

I wonder if there would be a push to raise the conference cap to 22.

At some point, ESPN and FOX will start to balk at the amount of increased overhead (to add 4 schools to the B1G and 6 to the SEC).

You would think so, but no. ESPN and FOX would each likely be quite happy if the cap was 24. They would then have the upper tier as nothing that was left would be that valuable and only 3 schools between the Big Ten and SEC would not be top 48 in earnings already: Vanderbilt #50, Northwestern #56, and Maryland #58.

That would be 8 schools for the SEC and 6 schools for the Big Ten. The SEC would have enough slots to take Clemson, Florida State, Duke, Kansas, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia and Virginia Tech.

The Big Ten would have room for California, Colorado, Pittsburgh, Stanford, Southern Methodist or Texas Christian, and have one slot left for Notre Dame.

And you realize that if they had those 48 in the hands of FOX and ESPN that would be all they would really want or need. They would pay more out for the Big Ten and SEC and for the 16 schools added, but they would pay less out overall and be able to command more revenue from them.

If they trimmed it to 20 each they leave too much value in the remaining two conferences that the board calls the M2.

The Cap suggested by the Senate actually is intended to keep value in the M2 and protect the 4-conference model. It worked better at 18. It is stilted at 20. 22 is another number the public won't like but is likely more efficient for the Networks but the Bill isn't about the networks. If they go to 22 they may as well go to 24 because the M2 are decimated either way.

If anyone is a fan of the P4 then 18 should be the Cap. If you want dominance for the Big Ten and SEC 20 gets it done. If you are a Network wanting to concentrate your valued programs and cut the rest loose then you go larger than 20.

NC State not even in your top 14. Interesting.

The guideline I used was simply the top 40 revenue earners. To date in realignment with the exception of the realignment that included Rutgers and Maryland it has been almost exclusively done by taking those which matched the conference in question's stated objectives and attempting each time to take the best revenue earners. The Big Ten last time around took 4 of the top 5 earners in the PAC 12 and the SEC took Texas and Oklahoma which were not only top earners in the Big 12 but represented between 54% - 56% of their total value as a conference.

These are decapitations of revenue and value. When you look at a cap of 20 which permits the SEC and Big Ten to take six and you consider they will be taking them from the ACC, those most talked about making the moves represent 5 of your top six earners. Virginia excepted and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Duke travels with UNC as both are top 6 but behind Miami, Stanford, FSU and Clemson.

Everyone, including me has their way of looking at this phenomenon but the accurate predictor to date is Gross Total Revenue standing. If they make money, they make your conference money.

And the one who would be 7th on that list is Kansas #30 in revenue production. I haven't taken a close look below that but California may be 8th.

It's the money, I get it. I just question the football potential or ceiling of some of those programs. But money will fix that too, assuming there will still be enough viewer$.

(11-04-2026 04:01 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 01:37 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 08:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 08:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  At some point, ESPN and FOX will start to balk at the amount of increased overhead (to add 4 schools to the B1G and 6 to the SEC).

You would think so, but no. ESPN and FOX would each likely be quite happy if the cap was 24. They would then have the upper tier as nothing that was left would be that valuable and only 3 schools between the Big Ten and SEC would not be top 48 in earnings already: Vanderbilt #50, Northwestern #56, and Maryland #58.

That would be 8 schools for the SEC and 6 schools for the Big Ten. The SEC would have enough slots to take Clemson, Florida State, Duke, Kansas, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia and Virginia Tech.

The Big Ten would have room for California, Colorado, Pittsburgh, Stanford, Southern Methodist or Texas Christian, and have one slot left for Notre Dame.

And you realize that if they had those 48 in the hands of FOX and ESPN that would be all they would really want or need. They would pay more out for the Big Ten and SEC and for the 16 schools added, but they would pay less out overall and be able to command more revenue from them.

If they trimmed it to 20 each they leave too much value in the remaining two conferences that the board calls the M2.

The Cap suggested by the Senate actually is intended to keep value in the M2 and protect the 4-conference model. It worked better at 18. It is stilted at 20. 22 is another number the public won't like but is likely more efficient for the Networks but the Bill isn't about the networks. If they go to 22 they may as well go to 24 because the M2 are decimated either way.

If anyone is a fan of the P4 then 18 should be the Cap. If you want dominance for the Big Ten and SEC 20 gets it done. If you are a Network wanting to concentrate your valued programs and cut the rest loose then you go larger than 20.

NC State not even in your top 14. Interesting.

The guideline I used was simply the top 40 revenue earners. To date in realignment with the exception of the realignment that included Rutgers and Maryland it has been almost exclusively done by taking those which matched the conference in question's stated objectives and attempting each time to take the best revenue earners. The Big Ten last time around took 4 of the top 5 earners in the PAC 12 and the SEC took Texas and Oklahoma which were not only top earners in the Big 12 but represented between 54% - 56% of their total value as a conference.

These are decapitations of revenue and value. When you look at a cap of 20 which permits the SEC and Big Ten to take six and you consider they will be taking them from the ACC, those most talked about making the moves represent 5 of your top six earners. Virginia excepted and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Duke travels with UNC as both are top 6 but behind Miami, Stanford, FSU and Clemson.

Everyone, including me has their way of looking at this phenomenon but the accurate predictor to date is Gross Total Revenue standing. If they make money, they make your conference money.

And the one who would be 7th on that list is Kansas #30 in revenue production. I haven't taken a close look below that but California may be 8th.

It's the money, I get it. I just question the football potential or ceiling of some of those programs. But money will fix that too, assuming there will still be enough viewer$.

Funny you should mention viewers. They are down across the board, with the SEC remaining the strongest and only down slightly. The ACC is second best in being down which suggests ESPN is the better marketer of rights. The Big Ten and Big 12 have taken a knock.

They need to end this realignment crap, stick a sock in trying to preserve a 19th century ethic of amateurism, negotiate with the players, set caps through collective bargaining and get on with the sport.

Boomers are the largest group of viewers and we are starting the die off. Gen X is invested, but the rest not so much. Disney and FOX have some work to do if they are to continue to milk college sports. It isn't dire, ....yet, but the more upheaval they have now the more turned off Boomers are getting and they need for us to taper our departure, and not to lose prior to that.

(11-04-2026 06:44 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Odds look about even that something like the PCSA could still pass the new House.

If taken up in that chamber we can expect substantial revisions from this Congress’s text, with new emphasis given to student rights. The new Senate should mostly be cool with those changes, though, and include them in its version.

If something is to be passed with this Congress, you’d likely need to keep changes to a minimum. I am not sure how important it is to the outgoing Speaker and returning incumbents to spend time on it in a lame-duck session. If enough people in college sports still push for passage and say it helps them, this House likely does it. Again, odds are probably about even.

Best chance is passing the text exactly as it passed the Senate in the continuing resolution during the lame duck. Unfortunately, Trump's name is all over this bill, and a whole lot of Republicans are going to be lukewarm at best on the idea of helping him with anything right now. I'd say odds are quite high that it dies, and the P4 end up leaving the NCAA soon afterwards, either one at a time or as a group of more loosely affiliated entities.

(11-04-2026 08:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  this is a pretty big part of things as well-

I'd be shocked if Hinojosa makes major changes to the leadership at the schools. The previous A&M System Chancellor, John Sharp, was a democrat appointed by Rick Perry. Sharp was chancellor from 2011 to 2025.

Hinojosa and Abbot both graduated from UT Austin.

Is it impossible that she will buck historical norms and go against the wishes of the schools, appointing her own chosen candidates to lead the various Universities and Systems around the State? Yes. Will she? I highly doubt it.

I talked to Brook Rollins at the Missouri game in Oct 2024, back when there was much doubt about whether Trump would win reelection. She told me that Sharp had talked to her about becoming A&M's Chancellor, but she felt that she had more to give. Clearly, she did, but I could totally see her eventually taking up that role once she's done with politics. She'd be acceptable to the entire A&M community, more than acceptable, and I have no doubt that Hinojosa would appoint her if she's still Governor at that time. Heck, they probably know each other, as they're the same age and Brook got her law degree at Texas (she was President of the tu Law club for Aggies getting their law degree at Texas!).

It's a bit weird to us today to see a group of Democrats calling the shots in Austin, but, historically, it was much more the norm to see control pass back and forth, and our parents and grandparents seemed to deal with that just fine.

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

It really depends on what all the college sports people want to do—presidents, ADs, and now athletes. Elected reps will be listening.

If it is important enough to them to get something passed quickly, they can get it. If they want something passed with substantial changes and rethinks from what is on the table now, they can get that, too.

Lines are open, operators are standing by.

Worth noting again that the bill passed with a 27-20 democratic vote in favor of it in the Senate. This is hardly a party line bill. Could it be taken up again, with some tinkering in favor of democratic issues in 2027? Yes. Will the schools wait to find out if we don't have something passed by January? I doubt it. If this bill is dead, then the next bill will be based upon the status quo at the time. If you're Miami, UNC or FSU, are you willing to risk getting stuck in the ACC again, or do you want the "status quo" to be you already an independent or already in the P2? If you're the SEC, are you willing to wait even longer, or would you prefer for the status quo to be that you're separate from the NCAA?

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Booker was highly involved in the discussion of SCORE before Cody Campbell killed that one. Booker is not opposed at all to College Sports legislation, he just wants more input on it, and Cruz chose Cantwell as his dance partner for PCSA. No reason that a partnership of, say, Moody and Booker couldn't do much the same as Cruz and Cantwell did. Or...what about Talarico and Cruz? No bad blood between those 2 at all, and both would benefit greatly from proving that they can continue to work with the other side in 2027. Talarico helps show that he's not weird, and Cruz furthers his 2028 ambitions. Booker would find it tough to deny the Unicorn of a Texas Democrat in the Senate a significant early policy win like that, though he'd want more input than he had with PCSA ofc.

(11-04-2026 02:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:52 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:40 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Or rewite it to be more athlete friendly.

Doing nothing would produce the same outcome and it has a lot less political risk. If Congress does nothing then the FBS schools will have to allow player's unions, collectively bargain in order to set caps and avoid anti-trust suits and doing nothing may also lead to a splintering into tiers based upon revenue generation. The more specific the bargaining is the clearer the lines will be between the P4 / G6 and others.

There's still things like 5 in 5, gambling restrictions, no washed up NFLers and other governance provisions that basically everyone wants but existing labor law doesn't allow.

It isn't clear that existing labor law doesn't allow it. But its not clear that it does, so the players always seem to get injunctions and graduate by the time it would get to trial. I would say those things are "not enforceable" because a sympathetic court will say the harm to the NCAA is far less than the potential harm to the player, so they issue an injunction against enforcement.

Those inevitably must be short term solutions, however. You can't be a washed up NFL guy and play for 10 years in college b/c that pesky lawsuit would eventually be decided, appealed, and you'd very likely lose. Precedent would eventually be set. However, for just one year? Yeah, that probably happens, though the easy fix for that is the NCAA limits eligibility to 4 years instead of 5, then you have to sue if you want a 5th year, and you may or may not find a sympathetic judge.

(11-04-2026 03:50 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:40 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Or rewite it to be more athlete friendly.

Right. But at that point it's a fundamentally different proposal rather than a re-write. As you know, mandatory revenue sharing vs. a cap are two very different things.

You could make it far more athlete-friendly in different ways.

- 5 years full medical after graduation
- all grad school expenses fully covered at any public school in the State and/or perhaps Nation
- all grad school expenses covered at any school in the US, public or private
- all NIL deals must be fully guaranteed and fully funded, with the funds placed with a 3rd party entity like Deloitte, funds can only be recouped if kid quits on team, gets arrested, etc etc
- anybody who receives a scholarship is guaranteed full 5 years of scholarship regardless of whether he/she continues with Athletics beyond year 1 or not

There are a LOT of ways to make this far more athlete friendly without demanding employment status, which would be DOA right now.

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Durbin is ranking member of Judiciary but he’s retiring. Next in line is Whitehouse of Rhode Island and there are three others with more seniority than Booker. I’m guessing Whitehouse would take the Judiciary gavel over any other committees (he’s currently ranking member at Environment) in case any SCOTUS justices croak in the next two years.

(11-04-2026 05:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 03:50 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:40 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Or rewite it to be more athlete friendly.

Right. But at that point it's a fundamentally different proposal rather than a re-write. As you know, mandatory revenue sharing vs. a cap are two very different things.

You could make it far more athlete-friendly in different ways.

- 5 years full medical after graduation
- all grad school expenses fully covered at any public school in the State and/or perhaps Nation
- all grad school expenses covered at any school in the US, public or private
- all NIL deals must be fully guaranteed and fully funded, with the funds placed with a 3rd party entity like Deloitte, funds can only be recouped if kid quits on team, gets arrested, etc etc
- anybody who receives a scholarship is guaranteed full 5 years of scholarship regardless of whether he/she continues with Athletics beyond year 1 or not

There are a LOT of ways to make this far more athlete friendly without demanding employment status, which would be DOA right now.

I think the first is already in there. I don't know that the athletes would be interested in the next two.

(11-04-2026 05:12 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 02:36 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 11:00 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The odds of this legislation being discussed by the current House are probably slightly better than even. The odds of it being taken up by the next Congress are probably about even.

Doubt it. Cory Booker is currently the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the midterm results, he will at the very least be chair of the antitrust subcommittee, if not of the entire committee. In short, he is well positioned to squash it.

Durbin is ranking member of Judiciary but he’s retiring. Next in line is Whitehouse of Rhode Island and there are three others with more seniority than Booker. I’m guessing Whitehouse would take the Judiciary gavel over any other committees (he’s currently ranking member at Environment) in case any SCOTUS justices croak in the next two years.

It’s the old rule in sales: Time kills all deals.

This was a bill that had overwhelming support in the current Senate. It is such a rarity to see anything pass the Senate with 77 votes and solid bipartisan support that, even with the loud squabbling within different factions of the House, I totally believed that this would have passed if it had been voted on in the House before the midterms.

Now, though? As you noted, the overwhelming changes in Congress mean that there will be wholesale changes in committee leadership and they can kill legislation even if they would otherwise have a good chance of passing if they came to a floor vote.

That’s why I think that this bill really has to pass as-is in the House or it’s just not passing at all. There is simply no time.

Look - it’s no skin off my back. I fundamentally disagree with providing colleges with an antitrust exemption in the first place. However, for those that wanted this bill to pass, the conferences and schools simply dithered around too much at the margins at every step of the process even when they got the politicians to concede on the most important item of them all with an antitrust exemption. Now, there’s a good chance that they’ll get nothing and all of these new rules that the NCAA and conferences have passed in anticipation of the PCSA passing are going to get nuked in court again. It’s all on them for allowing time to kill the deal. They waited to the last second in every part of this legislative process that gave them no wiggle room and that’s coming home to roost now.