(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.

Senator Booker wanted a cap on coaching salaries. If the House doesn't pass a mostly untouched PCSA this year, anything that comes from Congress next year will not have the support of the BIG or SEC.

(11-04-2026 10:16 PM)celldweller7 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.

Senator Booker wanted a cap on coaching salaries. If the House doesn't pass a mostly untouched PCSA this year, anything that comes from Congress next year will not have the support of the BIG or SEC.

One way to do a cap might be to limit assistant salaries to a certain ratio of the HC.

For example cap them at 25% of what the HC to prevent staffs loading up with 10 million dollar coordinators.

(11-04-2026 06:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

Fortunately for proponents, the house has a procedure for exactly this scenario. OhioBoilermaker's final prediction: the house passes the PCSA during the lame duck session via a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

(11-04-2026 10:16 PM)celldweller7 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.

Senator Booker wanted a cap on coaching salaries. If the House doesn't pass a mostly untouched PCSA this year, anything that comes from Congress next year will not have the support of the BIG or SEC.

I don't think he really did, his proposed amendments were all poison pills meant to make a statement about what he thought was wrong with it.

(11-04-2026 04:51 PM)bryanw1995 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.

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?

The P2 reportedly have a Plan B lined up. Either way things go, as you say, they are nearing the end of their ability to wait.

The ACC schools have made it plain they’re fine with seeing the PCSA sink if they can’t get their requests honored. Whatever Plan B is, they don’t seem all that bothered by it.

(11-05-2026 03:05 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 04:51 PM)bryanw1995 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.

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?

The P2 reportedly have a Plan B lined up. Either way things go, as you say, they are nearing the end of their ability to wait.

The ACC schools have made it plain they’re fine with seeing the PCSA sink if they can’t get their requests honored. Whatever Plan B is, they don’t seem all that bothered by it.

Plan B sounds a whole lot like "do whatever we think we can get away with without being sued." Here's the rub, though, to any ADs out there who might be reading this: You can't get away with anything. Too much money, too much publicity, too much politics, too much precedent. SCORE, PCSA or a bill with another name, you're gonna need something from Uncle Sam if you want to have hiring practices any different from your local bank.

(11-04-2026 10:16 PM)celldweller7 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.

Senator Booker wanted a cap on coaching salaries. If the House doesn't pass a mostly untouched PCSA this year, anything that comes from Congress next year will not have the support of the BIG or SEC.

I don’t know how much intrinsic interest in this exists among lawmakers. That is what makes the odds about even.

Cory Booker’s stated aim was balance. Coaches’ salaries get capped if athlete pay does.

Another proposal he and some others entertained was to limit universities’ liability for buyouts. Fired coaches would get one or two years of salary and that’s it. Make it a law and it becomes agent-proof.

If the argument for limits on athletes is to get budgets under control, then the argument works everywhere budgets go out of control.

We don’t know what the B1G or SEC would support next year. Their support was reluctant this year. We do know they want to read a draft text of a bill before supporting anything.

There is no Plan B or it is full professional without an exemption.

Oh, unless they have another bill up their sleeve lol

Those that were planning to influence modification of the bill in the house are now up against political reality.
More than likely it will have to proceed as written, or die.
This opportunity may not present itself again....a dilemma.

(11-05-2026 03:14 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 03:05 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 04:51 PM)bryanw1995 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.

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?

The P2 reportedly have a Plan B lined up. Either way things go, as you say, they are nearing the end of their ability to wait.

The ACC schools have made it plain they’re fine with seeing the PCSA sink if they can’t get their requests honored. Whatever Plan B is, they don’t seem all that bothered by it.

Plan B sounds a whole lot like "do whatever we think we can get away with without being sued." Here's the rub, though, to any ADs out there who might be reading this: You can't get away with anything. Too much money, too much publicity, too much politics, too much precedent. SCORE, PCSA or a bill with another name, you're gonna need something from Uncle Sam if you want to have hiring practices any different from your local bank.

I agree with this here.

There’s a high chance that the exact same antitrust issues that apply to the NCAA writ large will apply to any rules that the Big Ten, SEC, and other conferences try to impose on their own members. A conference isn’t a single entity, but rather multiple schools (AKA competitors) collectively agreeing together on rules. The conferences may try Plan B because they have no other option, but they’ll get dragged into court immediately and they know it. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the House case already sent a letter to the Big Ten that their new NIL rules would violate their settlement if the PCSA doesn’t pass. Even if the conferences ultimately win in court, that could take years to play out when these schools simply don’t have years to deal with this anymore.

(11-05-2026 03:14 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 10:16 PM)celldweller7 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.

Senator Booker wanted a cap on coaching salaries. If the House doesn't pass a mostly untouched PCSA this year, anything that comes from Congress next year will not have the support of the BIG or SEC.

I don’t know how much intrinsic interest in this exists among lawmakers. That is what makes the odds about even.

Cory Booker’s stated aim was balance. Coaches’ salaries get capped if athlete pay does.

Another proposal he and some others entertained was to limit universities’ liability for buyouts. Fired coaches would get one or two years of salary and that’s it. Make it a law and it becomes agent-proof.

If the argument for limits on athletes is to get budgets under control, then the argument works everywhere budgets go out of control.

We don’t know what the B1G or SEC would support next year. Their support was reluctant this year. We do know they want to read a draft text of a bill before supporting anything.

Right - Booker knew the coaching salary cap amendment wouldn’t pass, but it was to make a point and it’s a very good one: there is no reason why the students should be subject to compensation limits while the coaches aren’t subject to any themselves.

Now, I don’t have any issue with coaching buyouts. They are what the free market states is what is required to retain top talent. Two parties should be able to freely negotiate those terms. If the PCSA doesn’t pass and no one wants to cross the bridge of player unionization, then you can have the same types of terms in player/NIL contracts where there are buyouts if a player wants to transfer before their contract is up or, alternatively, a coach wants to cut a player. That would be a perfectly legal way to have free market limitations on player movements and transfers (albeit not a limit on total compensation itself). It’s extremely hard from a legal perspective to just say someone can’t move from School A to School B just because people don’t like so many transfers. Attaching a financial buyout to someone with a multi-year NIL deal where they (or the subsequent school) needs to pay it in order to transfer is perfectly fair. We’ve already seen this become more customary.

(11-05-2026 08:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right - Booker knew the coaching salary cap amendment wouldn’t pass, but it was to make a point and it’s a very good one: there is no reason why the students should be subject to compensation limits while the coaches aren’t subject to any themselves.

Of course there are reasons, including the obvious one: students are not employees and coaches are. Until that officially changes, students are absolutely subjected to different rules. Revenue sharing ≠ salary.

Also, coaches (buyouts and salary packages) can be funded by donors/boosters through university foundations or athletic funds; it's analogous to student athletes being paid via 3rd party NIL.

A cap on coaches is essentially as worthless as a cap on student athletes when there are uncapped avenues to skirt around. They're weak guardrails to encourage fiscal responsibility associated with an athletic arm's race.

(11-05-2026 09:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 08:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right - Booker knew the coaching salary cap amendment wouldn’t pass, but it was to make a point and it’s a very good one: there is no reason why the students should be subject to compensation limits while the coaches aren’t subject to any themselves.

Of course there are reasons, including the obvious one: students are not employees and coaches are. Until that officially changes, students are absolutely subjected to different rules. Revenue sharing ≠ salary.

Also, coaches (buyouts and salary packages) can be funded by donors/boosters through university foundations or athletic funds; it's analogous to student athletes being paid via 3rd party NIL.

A cap on coaches is essentially as worthless as a cap on student athletes when there are uncapped avenues to skirt around. They're weak guardrails to encourage fiscal responsibility associated with an athletic arm's race.

The employee distinction doesn’t matter. It would be the same if they were considered to be contractors, “students with benefits”, or some other category that people want to make up. Two or more competitors cannot come to an agreement with each other to collectively limit (AKA fix) their pricing for anything in the marketplace, whether it is paying for employees, independent contractors, products, equipment, or anything else.

College sports have gotten away with it for such a long time basically because of tradition. Once the Alston ruling came down and treated college sports like any other normal business where normal antitrust laws apply, the wheels all came off quickly because almost everything that the NCAA does (and frankly also the conferences) would violate antitrust laws in every other industry.

Here is what other normal businesses do if they can’t afford to pay someone a certain salary: don’t hire that person. The free market will then eventually settle to what the market rate for that position through the individual decisions across many different entities (as opposed to a collective decision).

For whatever reason, college sports fans don’t think logic applies to them. They think players are getting paid “too much”. I’m sorry, but if the market is paying a player $X, then the market value of that player is $X. If those compensation levels are truly unsustainable, then the normal business reaction is that enough people will stop paying that level of compensation and prices will start coming down. If competitors keep paying higher and higher prices for top talent, though, then that’s the market. Either choose to compete in that market or don’t… but don't tell other schools that they *can’t* pay that market value.

(11-05-2026 03:14 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 10:16 PM)celldweller7 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.

Senator Booker wanted a cap on coaching salaries. If the House doesn't pass a mostly untouched PCSA this year, anything that comes from Congress next year will not have the support of the BIG or SEC.

I don’t know how much intrinsic interest in this exists among lawmakers. That is what makes the odds about even.

Cory Booker’s stated aim was balance. Coaches’ salaries get capped if athlete pay does.

Another proposal he and some others entertained was to limit universities’ liability for buyouts. Fired coaches would get one or two years of salary and that’s it. Make it a law and it becomes agent-proof.

If the argument for limits on athletes is to get budgets under control, then the argument works everywhere budgets go out of control.

We don’t know what the B1G or SEC would support next year. Their support was reluctant this year. We do know they want to read a draft text of a bill before supporting anything.

A lot of that sounds unconstitutional. Maybe an individual state could cap state universities but not private. And they could certainly put a higher tax on excessive buyouts.

(11-05-2026 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 09:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 08:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right - Booker knew the coaching salary cap amendment wouldn’t pass, but it was to make a point and it’s a very good one: there is no reason why the students should be subject to compensation limits while the coaches aren’t subject to any themselves.

Of course there are reasons, including the obvious one: students are not employees and coaches are. Until that officially changes, students are absolutely subjected to different rules. Revenue sharing ≠ salary.

Also, coaches (buyouts and salary packages) can be funded by donors/boosters through university foundations or athletic funds; it's analogous to student athletes being paid via 3rd party NIL.

A cap on coaches is essentially as worthless as a cap on student athletes when there are uncapped avenues to skirt around. They're weak guardrails to encourage fiscal responsibility associated with an athletic arm's race.

The employee distinction doesn’t matter. It would be the same if they were considered to be contractors, “students with benefits”, or some other category that people want to make up. Two or more competitors cannot come to an agreement with each other to collectively limit (AKA fix) their pricing for anything in the marketplace, whether it is paying for employees, independent contractors, products, equipment, or anything else.

College sports have gotten away with it for such a long time basically because of tradition. Once the Alston ruling came down and treated college sports like any other normal business where normal antitrust laws apply, the wheels all came off quickly because almost everything that the NCAA does (and frankly also the conferences) would violate antitrust laws in every other industry.

Here is what other normal businesses do if they can’t afford to pay someone a certain salary: don’t hire that person. The free market will then eventually settle to what the market rate for that position through the individual decisions across many different entities (as opposed to a collective decision).

For whatever reason, college sports fans don’t think logic applies to them. They think players are getting paid “too much”. I’m sorry, but if the market is paying a player $X, then the market value of that player is $X. If those compensation levels are truly unsustainable, then the normal business reaction is that enough people will stop paying that level of compensation and prices will start coming down. If competitors keep paying higher and higher prices for top talent, though, then that’s the market. Either choose to compete in that market or don’t… but don't tell other schools that they *can’t* pay that market value.

That’s ridiculous and you know it. Colleges aren’t constrained by market forces. They get fees from students voted on by students who graduated years ago. They use state funds. They use outside donor money no business has. There is no limit because normal market rules don’t apply. All of them would be bankrupt if they did.

You may not philosophically like outside imposed limits but your ideas are no more realistic than those who think we can go back to pre-Alston rules and just treat the players as volunteers.

I don’t think union imposed caps are realistic either. Nobody has explained why football players and male basketball players and their agents would agree to that. And if they don’t you are left with a system where market forces don’t apply. A few pre-professional football and basketball players will get big money and students, taxpayers and real student-athletes in non-rev sports and programs outside the P4 will suffer. All for a relative handful of athletes

(11-05-2026 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 09:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 08:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right - Booker knew the coaching salary cap amendment wouldn’t pass, but it was to make a point and it’s a very good one: there is no reason why the students should be subject to compensation limits while the coaches aren’t subject to any themselves.

Of course there are reasons, including the obvious one: students are not employees and coaches are. Until that officially changes, students are absolutely subjected to different rules. Revenue sharing ≠ salary.

Also, coaches (buyouts and salary packages) can be funded by donors/boosters through university foundations or athletic funds; it's analogous to student athletes being paid via 3rd party NIL.

A cap on coaches is essentially as worthless as a cap on student athletes when there are uncapped avenues to skirt around. They're weak guardrails to encourage fiscal responsibility associated with an athletic arm's race.

The employee distinction doesn’t matter. It would be the same if they were considered to be contractors, “students with benefits”, or some other category that people want to make up. Two or more competitors cannot come to an agreement with each other to collectively limit (AKA fix) their pricing for anything in the marketplace, whether it is paying for employees, independent contractors, products, equipment, or anything else.

Did I say that? No, I argued that X doesn't imply Y. That's logic. There is clearly an established protocol for coaches and there is not one for student athletes. You are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in unrelated topics and history lessons again.

(11-05-2026 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  College sports have gotten away with it for such a long time basically because of tradition. Once the Alston ruling came down and treated college sports like any other normal business where normal antitrust laws apply, the wheels all came off quickly because almost everything that the NCAA does (and frankly also the conferences) would violate antitrust laws in every other industry.

Here is what other normal businesses do if they can’t afford to pay someone a certain salary: don’t hire that person. The free market will then eventually settle to what the market rate for that position through the individual decisions across many different entities (as opposed to a collective decision).

Unrelated history lecture.

(11-05-2026 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  For whatever reason, college sports fans don’t think logic applies to them. They think players are getting paid “too much”. I’m sorry, but if the market is paying a player $X, then the market value of that player is $X. If those compensation levels are truly unsustainable, then the normal business reaction is that enough people will stop paying that level of compensation and prices will start coming down. If competitors keep paying higher and higher prices for top talent, though, then that’s the market. Either choose to compete in that market or don’t… but don't tell other schools that they *can’t* pay that market value.

The market does take care of those coaches and players via boosters. I literally addressed that.

Also, I don't care if there is a cap or not because as I pointed out, the market does what it does.

And once again, X does not imply Y. Logic.

(11-05-2026 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 09:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 08:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right - Booker knew the coaching salary cap amendment wouldn’t pass, but it was to make a point and it’s a very good one: there is no reason why the students should be subject to compensation limits while the coaches aren’t subject to any themselves.

Of course there are reasons, including the obvious one: students are not employees and coaches are. Until that officially changes, students are absolutely subjected to different rules. Revenue sharing ≠ salary.

Also, coaches (buyouts and salary packages) can be funded by donors/boosters through university foundations or athletic funds; it's analogous to student athletes being paid via 3rd party NIL.

A cap on coaches is essentially as worthless as a cap on student athletes when there are uncapped avenues to skirt around. They're weak guardrails to encourage fiscal responsibility associated with an athletic arm's race.

The employee distinction doesn’t matter. It would be the same if they were considered to be contractors, “students with benefits”, or some other category that people want to make up. Two or more competitors cannot come to an agreement with each other to collectively limit (AKA fix) their pricing for anything in the marketplace, whether it is paying for employees, independent contractors, products, equipment, or anything else.

College sports have gotten away with it for such a long time basically because of tradition. Once the Alston ruling came down and treated college sports like any other normal business where normal antitrust laws apply, the wheels all came off quickly because almost everything that the NCAA does (and frankly also the conferences) would violate antitrust laws in every other industry.

Here is what other normal businesses do if they can’t afford to pay someone a certain salary: don’t hire that person. The free market will then eventually settle to what the market rate for that position through the individual decisions across many different entities (as opposed to a collective decision).

For whatever reason, college sports fans don’t think logic applies to them. They think players are getting paid “too much”. I’m sorry, but if the market is paying a player $X, then the market value of that player is $X. If those compensation levels are truly unsustainable, then the normal business reaction is that enough people will stop paying that level of compensation and prices will start coming down. If competitors keep paying higher and higher prices for top talent, though, then that’s the market. Either choose to compete in that market or don’t… but don't tell other schools that they *can’t* pay that market value.

The NIL payer is not the person recieving the player's services. In a normal market you don't have other people paying your labor for you. There is nothing normal about this.

What stops the NIL payer from telling his athlete to throw a game? How do you know as a coach or institution that isn't happening? You go to Alabama, but you don't win anytime they play Tennessee. Got it? What real protection does the institution have?

(11-05-2026 03:14 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 03:05 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 04:51 PM)bryanw1995 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.

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?

The P2 reportedly have a Plan B lined up. Either way things go, as you say, they are nearing the end of their ability to wait.

The ACC schools have made it plain they’re fine with seeing the PCSA sink if they can’t get their requests honored. Whatever Plan B is, they don’t seem all that bothered by it.

Plan B sounds a whole lot like "do whatever we think we can get away with without being sued." Here's the rub, though, to any ADs out there who might be reading this: You can't get away with anything. Too much money, too much publicity, too much politics, too much precedent. SCORE, PCSA or a bill with another name, you're gonna need something from Uncle Sam if you want to have hiring practices any different from your local bank.

I'd say that Plan B is more "we tried really, really hard to get some guidance from Congress and that failed, so now we're going to go by the guidance given to us by the Courts". Lawsuits are gonna fly either way, but if everyone is doing what the courts told them to do, absent any input at all from an ineffectual Congress, those lawsuits are less likely to find much traction.

(11-05-2026 09:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 09:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 09:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-05-2026 08:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right - Booker knew the coaching salary cap amendment wouldn’t pass, but it was to make a point and it’s a very good one: there is no reason why the students should be subject to compensation limits while the coaches aren’t subject to any themselves.

Of course there are reasons, including the obvious one: students are not employees and coaches are. Until that officially changes, students are absolutely subjected to different rules. Revenue sharing ≠ salary.

Also, coaches (buyouts and salary packages) can be funded by donors/boosters through university foundations or athletic funds; it's analogous to student athletes being paid via 3rd party NIL.

A cap on coaches is essentially as worthless as a cap on student athletes when there are uncapped avenues to skirt around. They're weak guardrails to encourage fiscal responsibility associated with an athletic arm's race.

The employee distinction doesn’t matter. It would be the same if they were considered to be contractors, “students with benefits”, or some other category that people want to make up. Two or more competitors cannot come to an agreement with each other to collectively limit (AKA fix) their pricing for anything in the marketplace, whether it is paying for employees, independent contractors, products, equipment, or anything else.

College sports have gotten away with it for such a long time basically because of tradition. Once the Alston ruling came down and treated college sports like any other normal business where normal antitrust laws apply, the wheels all came off quickly because almost everything that the NCAA does (and frankly also the conferences) would violate antitrust laws in every other industry.

Here is what other normal businesses do if they can’t afford to pay someone a certain salary: don’t hire that person. The free market will then eventually settle to what the market rate for that position through the individual decisions across many different entities (as opposed to a collective decision).

For whatever reason, college sports fans don’t think logic applies to them. They think players are getting paid “too much”. I’m sorry, but if the market is paying a player $X, then the market value of that player is $X. If those compensation levels are truly unsustainable, then the normal business reaction is that enough people will stop paying that level of compensation and prices will start coming down. If competitors keep paying higher and higher prices for top talent, though, then that’s the market. Either choose to compete in that market or don’t… but don't tell other schools that they *can’t* pay that market value.

That’s ridiculous and you know it. Colleges aren’t constrained by market forces. They get fees from students voted on by students who graduated years ago. They use state funds. They use outside donor money no business has. There is no limit because normal market rules don’t apply. All of them would be bankrupt if they did.

You may not philosophically like outside imposed limits but your ideas are no more realistic than those who think we can go back to pre-Alston rules and just treat the players as volunteers.

Rutgers and JMU are easy examples of institutions that support your point (i.e., traditional market forces don't apply). Rutgers will likely subsidize collegiate athletics to the tune of $100M per year soon enough. JMU is willing to subsidize 80%+ of collegiate athletics costs. Incredibly, there is no end in sight for the willingness of universities to spend on athletics...even in a dystopian world where star athletes and coaches are earning millions, while average students and struggling taxpayers indirectly fund the costs.

Given financial excesses in collegiate athletics, it's possible that there will be a populist backlash. Politicians are currently not debating whether elite collegiate athletics truly deserves its privileges. Tax exemptions (for all institutions) and state funding (for public institutions) are warping normal market forces. What helps elite collegiate athletics is the broader goodwill, reputation and stewardship of the parent institutions.