(09-21-2026 08:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2025 12:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2025 01:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  https://tarheelswire.usatoday.com/story/...330380007/

Well how would you feel about North Carolina, Duke, Clemson and FSU?

We'll have to wait to see if any of the other MAG 7 get picked up. Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State. And if we do ever go that far I still like Kansas for #8. Why do it? It preserves with 7 schools ESPN's profit model for the ACC.

That could be the blend to appease the SEC and ESPN. As a hog fan I would love to add Duke. Coach Cal thinks the Thanksgiving night game against the blue devils could break records.


If fsu and or Clemson can’t get the votes, grab uva, vt, Kansas.

Well I can't say I disagree with your sentiments. I suppose it will come down to how many ESPN needs to shelter in the SEC to keep the Big Ten from making a run at them for FOX.

If one school leaves, FSU add Kansas to them.
If two schools leave and UNC is one then FSU balances that pairing.
If it's four schools there are two ways to go:
(a) Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina
(b) Duke, Miami or FSU, North Carolina, Virginia

If (a) it will mean that ESPN is afraid of losing their key holdings and want to rebuild a better football product in the ACC.

If (b) they will be trying to keep the favorite targets away from the Big Ten.

And if the ACC is really threatened, I can see 8: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia & Virginia Tech. Those preserve all of the key states for ESPN's revenue stream.

Now we wait.

Well folks toss all speculation out and get ready. Congress may be stepping in and if the cap of 19 members (odd number intentionally) stands the Big Ten won't be adding anyone and will save #19 for Notre Dame. The SEC will likely be adding North Carolina (no surprise there) and Virginia (surprise!) because that adds two state AAU flagships to the SEC along with 20 million in population between them. ESPN likely would prefer to build around the footballs schools left in the ACC and will be able to add to accentuate their value. The SEC will get an academic infusion, a basketball infusion, and an all sports infusion. What it won't be getting is a football infusion, though Carolina is passable and Virginia has improved some this year. The best laid plans of mice and men have ended unexpectedly many times in history due to a governmental action, and it looks they have again. Now we'll see what timeline develops.

The 19 member cap is interesting for the reasons you've stated, but I do wonder if that holds up in Federal court. Someone is bound to sue over it, everybody does these days...lol.

While most of these schools are public institutions(although the Feds aren't directly funding athletics) and they are obviously engaging in interstate commerce, I still wonder if this sort of cap would be considered an illegal restraint of trade.

We don't have a functional monopoly in college athletics even if some dogs are clearly bigger than others. That and oddly enough, despite the exception that is the SEC, the athletic conferences are not regional anymore. No conference can really be accused of dominating a single region or a collection of regions. They're all spread out across the country to one degree or another. Obviously, they are still competing against each other for TV dollars and TV exposure among other things. Unlike the major pro sports leagues, any anti-trust exemption at this stage does not benefit any single national entity.

You could argue the NCAA benefits from it, but the conferences are private entities unto themselves. The cap isn't imposed on the NCAA, it's imposed on the member conferences assuming a certain income level. As long as the conferences all exist under the umbrella of the NCAA, any realignment is moving chess pieces on the same board...as far as the anti-trust exemption goes.

It clearly caps the ability of other schools to "move up in the world" by joining another conference that has already passed the income threshold. Some definitely won't like that prospect and another type of lawsuit could argue this is a form of discrimination(not racial). After all, the conferences are associations of member institutions. The cap is not a sanction on how a business can acquire other entities. My understanding on monopoly law rests on the notion that outright ownership of the assets and market access is what determines whether or not a single company is considered to have an unfair advantage. I'm obviously not an expert on monopoly law, but that's how it makes sense in my head.

The distinction here is we're not talking about assets or market access belonging to a single entity. Conferences don't actually acquire member institutions. The cap then is an effectively a sanction on how many member institutions are allowed to cooperate. If a school is already in then they're basically set for life. A school that is not in has no effective opportunity to improve their lot. It's not just an arbitrary depressor on the market, it affects individual member institutions far more than it affects conglomerates. The cap is trying to treat the conferences as conglomerates and that's not what they are.

You see some online arguing over freedom of association and I think that's valid, but it's one half of the coin. From Congress' perspective, and I do get their reasoning, if they're going to give any anti-trust exemption then some of the normal rules are thrown out the door. If schools want unusual protections then they have to give up something unusual. I get it and I can understand the thought that says this cap puts a compete stop to further consolidation...at least at the highest levels. Therefore it "saves" college sports in a form we more or less recognize. The problem is it imposes a socialist principle at that point.

It locks in an upper class and everyone else below them into a lower class. Upward mobility is capped in the same of "equality." Growth is stagnated by design, not by market forces. Sure, it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket....but it keeps the upper class in a certain income bracket. The risk has been removed. The upper class no longer has anything to fear as long as they aren't completely stupid with their codified advantages. Everyone else below them is up the creek without a paddle. Hopefully, they're fiscally sound as of today because it's never getting any better from here on out.

So it's a completely different dynamic than suppressing a potential monopoly. We're not talking about one or even two companies growing beyond the ability to need to compete. We're talking about suppressing hundreds of smaller companies so that certain existing cooperatives(not companies) cannot grow their membership with any of the smaller companies. I'm not sure about that.

It's also not a traditional anti-trust exemption. The pro-sports have every ability to grow their access to the market, they just have certain rules. They add franchises periodically, but they do so based on their ability to generate new income. They're not capped based on current income levels, any rules are based on overall market access and the fact these organizations are effective monopolies. The pro sports franchises are individually sellable, true, but inextricably linked to their broader parent organization. The parent organization has the anti-trust exemption, not the franchises.

For example, no one is buying the Dallas Cowboys and taking them out of the NFL. The NFL is the product at the end of the day. The Cowboys are effectively worthless if they can't compete in the NFL. This isn't the same dynamic with college athletics. Their worth and existence is tied to many different aspects of life and no school would be effectively worthless if they were in the SEC or Big Ten or any other league. Their worth is affected by access to any league, but not wholly determined.

I think these are some interesting legal questions. I know a lot of people don't like Ted Cruz, but he's not dumb. He spent much of his career arguing in front of the Supreme Court. If he's backing these provisions hard then you can bet he thinks they're legally sound. Doesn't automatically make him right and again, I think my questions are valid, but this sort of bill isn't your run of the mill ideological regurgitation that Congress likes to impose every now and then. This is more nuanced and there are lots of constituents that maybe think this is better than the alternative.