(10-17-2026 02:59 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  Yeah, they could leave... but the ACC retained their media rights in full for a decade. Thats like saying you don't have to stay on the train, you could always jump off of it.

Florida State and Clemson had to sue to get the clarity on exit terms—on behalf of all ACC schools—that they really should always have had.

It was just a weirdly run conference, with an abnormally long media contract and vague exit terms. Sometimes you have to get the help of a court in establishing standard parameters.

(10-17-2026 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:50 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:21 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Adjust them for the media difference and they are 8th in the SEC, but that is 8th out of 17.

Well that's what you implied, that they'd be 12th out of 17 in a 17 team SEC. The media contract is the biggest part of an FBS team's revenue, you have to factor it in.

The point is that they don't add without our having to equalize their pay and then they are in the middle. Nothing compelling about it. And since all of the other candidates are from the ACC it doesn't change that equation an iota's worth leaving UNC and UVa to add better markets, with better academics and with more value added in the Winter. It leaves Miami adding more in revenue potential, and Duke remains an interesting component for Winter, Academics, and making the broader deal happen. I replied to Bullet who said it was the money. Well, if the money is just at our average, it's not about money, is it? If it is about other considerations, then it isn't about money. And in other considerations there are others who deliver more. It's like I've told the board before, if a candidate doesn't add to your strength, then you select candidates that strengthen your weaknesses.

Well Virginia at least would be even lower than FSU on that valuation chart. UNC too, potentially. It really depends on if basketball monetization or football performance change. If neither do then they're another Missouri or South Carolina (or Kentucky.)

No! It depends upon what the SEC presidents want. It depends upon what ESPN wants to do. And it doesn't depend upon anything else at all, except for the complicity of the applicants. Outside of the Big Ten there is only one compelling addition to be made, and they aren't joining either of us. If ESPN believes that they can make more money from UNC and UVa in the SEC and use those slots to make the ACC more money with a couple of more football additions, then that's what happens. The SECN picks up revenue for the new states and ESPN pays the additions pro rata. The same thing happens if the move is to 20 with Duke or Kansas and Miami.

FSU would probably be a slam dunk for the Big 10, AAU be damned. Its an in to Florida (which the SEC already has) and although some people like to anoint their fanbase as "fair weather" its clearly a lot bigger than the average Big Ten teams (and thats when they're losing, when they're winning whoa hold on!) I haven't been a big FSU to the Big 10 backer but only because I think they have a choice of conferences and prefer the SEC. If the SEC says no, we'll say yes.

(10-16-2026 12:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:06 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 09:09 AM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  https://www.tomahawknation.com/florida-s...sports-act

Really interesting article with FSU's chairman about the PCSA.

Accuses ACC of not giving schools the full picture and there were other ACC schools on the call that lead to FSU, Miami, Clemson, and UNC signing the 9/29 letter.

IIRC, anti-PE & super-league prohibition, conference caps, and “independence” requirements were all initially reported in late July. Specifically, after the B1G and SEC decided to support the legislation. Later in the article, it confirms that NCAA first communicated those provisions on July 31.

The FSU Board Chairman states that the ACC didn’t message those controversial provisions in late May when the FSU President confirmed initial support for PCSA. What’s unsaid is whether those provisions even existed at the time, or why no one identified/reported those provisions.

They were probably buried in the ACC vault next to the ironclad GoR.

Yeah. The emerging picture shows ACC schools mainly relying on the league office for information about PCSA progress. (Notre Dame, per previous FOIA reports, enjoyed a direct line.)

We’re seeing a bit of diplomacy in FSU trustees chair Pete Collins’s answers. He is declining to take bait that pits him in an adversarial role against the ACC commissioner. Understandable—there’s been enough of that.

It remains clear that several schools in the ACC—up to half of them, perhaps—had serious concerns about Section 205, and feel they didn’t get wind of its contents soon enough.

Equally obvious: ACC schools have no intention of letting the same situation develop in the House. They’re out in front, as we see, making their desires known and suggesting alternatives.

___

(10-17-2026 07:00 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 02:59 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  Yeah, they could leave... but the ACC retained their media rights in full for a decade. Thats like saying you don't have to stay on the train, you could always jump off of it.

Florida State and Clemson had to sue to get the clarity on exit terms—on behalf of all ACC schools—that they really should always have had.

It was just a weirdly run conference, with an abnormally long media contract and vague exit terms. Sometimes you have to get the help of a court in establishing standard parameters.

Right! It was strange only FSU and Clemson didn’t understand all the documents they signed a decade prior, and at the time they suddenly didn’t understand them.

FS “aw shucks” U just keeps getting duped by league offices. B1G and SEC welcoming them with open arms.

(10-17-2026 07:07 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:50 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:21 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  Well that's what you implied, that they'd be 12th out of 17 in a 17 team SEC. The media contract is the biggest part of an FBS team's revenue, you have to factor it in.

The point is that they don't add without our having to equalize their pay and then they are in the middle. Nothing compelling about it. And since all of the other candidates are from the ACC it doesn't change that equation an iota's worth leaving UNC and UVa to add better markets, with better academics and with more value added in the Winter. It leaves Miami adding more in revenue potential, and Duke remains an interesting component for Winter, Academics, and making the broader deal happen. I replied to Bullet who said it was the money. Well, if the money is just at our average, it's not about money, is it? If it is about other considerations, then it isn't about money. And in other considerations there are others who deliver more. It's like I've told the board before, if a candidate doesn't add to your strength, then you select candidates that strengthen your weaknesses.

Well Virginia at least would be even lower than FSU on that valuation chart. UNC too, potentially. It really depends on if basketball monetization or football performance change. If neither do then they're another Missouri or South Carolina (or Kentucky.)

No! It depends upon what the SEC presidents want. It depends upon what ESPN wants to do. And it doesn't depend upon anything else at all, except for the complicity of the applicants. Outside of the Big Ten there is only one compelling addition to be made, and they aren't joining either of us. If ESPN believes that they can make more money from UNC and UVa in the SEC and use those slots to make the ACC more money with a couple of more football additions, then that's what happens. The SECN picks up revenue for the new states and ESPN pays the additions pro rata. The same thing happens if the move is to 20 with Duke or Kansas and Miami.

FSU would probably be a slam dunk for the Big 10, AAU be damned. Its an in to Florida (which the SEC already has) and although some people like to anoint their fanbase as "fair weather" its clearly a lot bigger than the average Big Ten teams (and thats when they're losing, when they're winning whoa hold on!) I haven't been a big FSU to the Big 10 backer but only because I think they have a choice of conferences and prefer the SEC. If the SEC says no, we'll say yes.

With a cap of 20? Maybe. With a cap of 18? No.

The SEC plan was real simple in 1991. Arkansas to get into Texas then Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma. Did that. Clemson to get into North Carolina. Clemson backed out of seeking membership when FSU chose the ACC. Their trustee who had a buddy at South Carolina called them and told them the SEC was looking. USC applied and got in. The plan was still to reach North Carolina and with Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina to reach into Virginia.

In all of the great scheme of 3 realignments Missouri took FSU's place. South Carolina took Clemson's place, and now the targets are North Carolina and Virginia. If the cap is 20 then the SEC will have interest in Miami for to increase the reach of U of Florida in the Sunshine State. If Duke is required to get North Carolina and Virginia on board then #4 will be Duke. If not look for it to be Kansas. Kansas if taken will be justified as Missouri's primary rival. If Duke isn't part of the North Carolina and Virginia pairing it is possible the SEC could still take Clemson and FSU. It's just that they are not a priority. The original argument here was that their law suit against the ACC hurt them. It did. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten were thrilled in the least by that action. It raised more eyebrows than most realize. Clemson has not burned bridges and has not ever backtracked a position. They merely made a decision in 1991 and were up front about it. There is no animus for Clemson. They pulled out prior to an official vote and offer.

(10-17-2026 07:25 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 07:15 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:06 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 09:09 AM)FSBlueApocalypse Wrote:  https://www.tomahawknation.com/florida-s...sports-act

Really interesting article with FSU's chairman about the PCSA.

Accuses ACC of not giving schools the full picture and there were other ACC schools on the call that lead to FSU, Miami, Clemson, and UNC signing the 9/29 letter.

IIRC, anti-PE & super-league prohibition, conference caps, and “independence” requirements were all initially reported in late July. Specifically, after the B1G and SEC decided to support the legislation. Later in the article, it confirms that NCAA first communicated those provisions on July 31.

The FSU Board Chairman states that the ACC didn’t message those controversial provisions in late May when the FSU President confirmed initial support for PCSA. What’s unsaid is whether those provisions even existed at the time, or why no one identified/reported those provisions.

They were probably buried in the ACC vault next to the ironclad GoR.

Yeah. The emerging picture shows ACC schools mainly relying on the league office for information about PCSA progress. (Notre Dame, per previous FOIA reports, enjoyed a direct line.)

We’re seeing a bit of diplomacy in FSU trustees chair Pete Collins’s answers. He is declining to take bait that pits him in an adversarial role against the ACC commissioner. Understandable—there’s been enough of that.

It remains clear that several schools in the ACC—up to half of them, perhaps—had serious concerns about Section 205, and feel they didn’t get wind of its contents soon enough.

Equally obvious: ACC schools have no intention of letting the same situation develop in the House. They’re out in front, as we see, making their desires known and suggesting alternatives.

FS “aw shucks” U just keeps getting duped by league offices. B1G and SEC welcoming them with open arms.

I’m satisfied with the accuracy of my summary. Troll Heels will cope as they must.

(10-17-2026 07:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 07:07 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:50 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The point is that they don't add without our having to equalize their pay and then they are in the middle. Nothing compelling about it. And since all of the other candidates are from the ACC it doesn't change that equation an iota's worth leaving UNC and UVa to add better markets, with better academics and with more value added in the Winter. It leaves Miami adding more in revenue potential, and Duke remains an interesting component for Winter, Academics, and making the broader deal happen. I replied to Bullet who said it was the money. Well, if the money is just at our average, it's not about money, is it? If it is about other considerations, then it isn't about money. And in other considerations there are others who deliver more. It's like I've told the board before, if a candidate doesn't add to your strength, then you select candidates that strengthen your weaknesses.

Well Virginia at least would be even lower than FSU on that valuation chart. UNC too, potentially. It really depends on if basketball monetization or football performance change. If neither do then they're another Missouri or South Carolina (or Kentucky.)

No! It depends upon what the SEC presidents want. It depends upon what ESPN wants to do. And it doesn't depend upon anything else at all, except for the complicity of the applicants. Outside of the Big Ten there is only one compelling addition to be made, and they aren't joining either of us. If ESPN believes that they can make more money from UNC and UVa in the SEC and use those slots to make the ACC more money with a couple of more football additions, then that's what happens. The SECN picks up revenue for the new states and ESPN pays the additions pro rata. The same thing happens if the move is to 20 with Duke or Kansas and Miami.

FSU would probably be a slam dunk for the Big 10, AAU be damned. Its an in to Florida (which the SEC already has) and although some people like to anoint their fanbase as "fair weather" its clearly a lot bigger than the average Big Ten teams (and thats when they're losing, when they're winning whoa hold on!) I haven't been a big FSU to the Big 10 backer but only because I think they have a choice of conferences and prefer the SEC. If the SEC says no, we'll say yes.

With a cap of 20? Maybe. With a cap of 18? No.

The SEC plan was real simple in 1991. Arkansas to get into Texas then Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma. Did that. Clemson to get into North Carolina. Clemson backed out of seeking membership when FSU chose the ACC. Their trustee who had a buddy at South Carolina called them and told them the SEC was looking. USC applied and got in. The plan was still to reach North Carolina and with Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina to reach into Virginia.

In all of the great scheme of 3 realignments Missouri took FSU's place. South Carolina took Clemson's place, and now the targets are North Carolina and Virginia. If the cap is 20 then the SEC will have interest in Miami for to increase the reach of U of Florida in the Sunshine State. If Duke is required to get North Carolina and Virginia on board then #4 will be Duke. If not look for it to be Kansas. Kansas if taken will be justified as Missouri's primary rival. If Duke isn't part of the North Carolina and Virginia pairing it is possible the SEC could still take Clemson and FSU. It's just that they are not a priority. The original argument here was that their law suit against the ACC hurt them. It did. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten were thrilled in the least by that action. It raised more eyebrows than most realize. Clemson has not burned bridges and has not ever backtracked a position. They merely made a decision in 1991 and were up front about it. There is no animus for Clemson. They pulled out prior to an official vote and offer.

Well, I was assuming unlimited cap. I agree maybe at 20, no at 18 (which, I will point out, we are already at) or 19.

edit: Having read the rest of your post, no way on God's green earth does Kansas get in over FSU.

(10-17-2026 07:37 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 07:25 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 07:15 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:06 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IIRC, anti-PE & super-league prohibition, conference caps, and “independence” requirements were all initially reported in late July. Specifically, after the B1G and SEC decided to support the legislation. Later in the article, it confirms that NCAA first communicated those provisions on July 31.

The FSU Board Chairman states that the ACC didn’t message those controversial provisions in late May when the FSU President confirmed initial support for PCSA. What’s unsaid is whether those provisions even existed at the time, or why no one identified/reported those provisions.

They were probably buried in the ACC vault next to the ironclad GoR.

Yeah. The emerging picture shows ACC schools mainly relying on the league office for information about PCSA progress. (Notre Dame, per previous FOIA reports, enjoyed a direct line.)

We’re seeing a bit of diplomacy in FSU trustees chair Pete Collins’s answers. He is declining to take bait that pits him in an adversarial role against the ACC commissioner. Understandable—there’s been enough of that.

It remains clear that several schools in the ACC—up to half of them, perhaps—had serious concerns about Section 205, and feel they didn’t get wind of its contents soon enough.

Equally obvious: ACC schools have no intention of letting the same situation develop in the House. They’re out in front, as we see, making their desires known and suggesting alternatives.

FS “aw shucks” U just keeps getting duped by league offices. B1G and SEC welcoming them with open arms.

I’m satisfied with the accuracy of my summary. Troll Heels will cope as they must.

I am satisfied with the comedy of errors. FSU has been the gift that keeps on giving. A jester unknown.

(10-17-2026 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:21 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Adjust them for the media difference and they are 8th in the SEC, but that is 8th out of 17.

Well that's what you implied, that they'd be 12th out of 17 in a 17 team SEC. The media contract is the biggest part of an FBS team's revenue, you have to factor it in.

The point is that they don't add without our having to equalize their pay and then they are in the middle. Nothing compelling about it. And since all of the other candidates are from the ACC it doesn't change that equation an iota's worth leaving UNC and UVa to add better markets, with better academics and with more value added in the Winter. It leaves Miami adding more in revenue potential, and Duke remains an interesting component for Winter, Academics, and making the broader deal happen. I replied to Bullet who said it was the money. Well, if the money is just at our average, it's not about money, is it? If it is about other considerations, then it isn't about money. And in other considerations there are others who deliver more. It's like I've told the board before, if a candidate doesn't add to your strength, then you select candidates that strengthen your weaknesses.

TV ratings add money. FSU is the best in the ACC and above half the SEC. You don't gain by adding schools who deduct from your football value. We aren't in the conference network era anymore. That's a declining revenue source.

When they start crunching the numbers, FSU will definitely among the next two added to the SEC.

While I think I would rate FSU #1 in a vacuum (not counting ND as always), I also think that any 2 out of Miami, FSU, Clemson and UNC would be acceptable, as would all 4 of them. It's entirely possible that the SEC Presidents use Academics as a tiebreaker and go with UNC and Miami, or they could just use recent football tv ratings above all factors and go with FSU and Clemson, or they could go with strongest geography and UNC/FSU, etc etc etc. There's really no way to go wrong with any of those 4, other than leaving 2 out and then watching those 2 go to the B1G. If 2 get left out and they remain in the ACC...well, that would be ok.

(10-17-2026 10:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:21 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-17-2026 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Adjust them for the media difference and they are 8th in the SEC, but that is 8th out of 17.

Well that's what you implied, that they'd be 12th out of 17 in a 17 team SEC. The media contract is the biggest part of an FBS team's revenue, you have to factor it in.

The point is that they don't add without our having to equalize their pay and then they are in the middle. Nothing compelling about it. And since all of the other candidates are from the ACC it doesn't change that equation an iota's worth leaving UNC and UVa to add better markets, with better academics and with more value added in the Winter. It leaves Miami adding more in revenue potential, and Duke remains an interesting component for Winter, Academics, and making the broader deal happen. I replied to Bullet who said it was the money. Well, if the money is just at our average, it's not about money, is it? If it is about other considerations, then it isn't about money. And in other considerations there are others who deliver more. It's like I've told the board before, if a candidate doesn't add to your strength, then you select candidates that strengthen your weaknesses.

TV ratings add money. FSU is the best in the ACC and above half the SEC. You don't gain by adding schools who deduct from your football value. We aren't in the conference network era anymore. That's a declining revenue source.

When they start crunching the numbers, FSU will definitely among the next two added to the SEC.

While I think I would rate FSU #1 in a vacuum (not counting ND as always), I also think that any 2 out of Miami, FSU, Clemson and UNC would be acceptable, as would all 4 of them. It's entirely possible that the SEC Presidents use Academics as a tiebreaker and go with UNC and Miami, or they could just use recent football tv ratings above all factors and go with FSU and Clemson, or they could go with strongest geography and UNC/FSU, etc etc etc. There's really no way to go wrong with any of those 4, other than leaving 2 out and then watching those 2 go to the B1G. If 2 get left out and they remain in the ACC...well, that would be ok.

That's not how it will work. ESPN will tell us which schools we may pick from and will agree to at least pro rata for us to take. We'll choose 2 or 4 depending upon the final cap. They will be schools that will earn ESPN more by being in the SEC (think splitting the markets of North Carolina and Virginia between the SECN and ACCN). Then ESPN will replace them with schools that they think will add to the total football value of the ACC and they will likely come from the Big 12. If those schools improve academics, enhance basketball, and do not upset the usual suspects for football in the SEC all will be happy.

What they won't permit is a distribution of schools that cost them money.

Ross Dellenger, Pete Thamel & Steven Godfrey discuss the pushback on conference membership caps. They also consider how a 24-team playoff affects the equation.

They suggest that even if PCSA legislation passes in its current form, with caps and indie waiting requirement intact:

1. Clemson, Florida State, Miami, UNC could declare football independence
2. The four can make a scheduling agreement with each other + Notre Dame
3. Everyone in the group has a good shot at qualifying for the playoffs.

“What is that if not a Super League?”

It could certainly be the beginning of one.

Video
https://sports.yahoo.com/video/could-a-c...28072.html

__

Note that each can each can leave the ACC for a single sport by paying a $75M exit fee if the group brings at least one, maybe two, additional schools (a minimum of 6 activates the fee).

Other sports would remain in the ACC.

(10-22-2026 04:35 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Ross Dellenger, Pete Thamel & Steven Godfrey discuss the pushback on conference membership caps. They also consider how a 24-team playoff affects the equation.

They suggest that even if PCSA legislation passes in its current form, with caps and indie waiting requirement intact:

1. Clemson, Florida State, Miami, UNC could declare football independence
2. The four can make a scheduling agreement with each other + Notre Dame
3. Everyone in the group has a good shot at qualifying for the playoffs.

“What is that if not a Super League?”

It could certainly be the beginning of one.

Video
https://sports.yahoo.com/video/could-a-c...28072.html

(10-22-2026 04:52 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Note that each can each get out by paying a $75M exit fee if the group brings at least one, maybe two, additional schools to form a single-sport consortium.

Each school’s remaining sports would remain in the ACC.

(10-22-2026 04:35 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Ross Dellenger, Pete Thamel & Steven Godfrey discuss the pushback on conference membership caps. They also consider how a 24-team playoff affects the equation.

They suggest that even if PCSA legislation passes in its current form, with caps and indie waiting requirement intact:

1. Clemson, Florida State, Miami, UNC could declare football independence
2. The four can make a scheduling agreement with each other + Notre Dame
3. Everyone in the group has a good shot at qualifying for the playoffs.

“What is that if not a Super League?”

It could certainly be the beginning of one.

Video
https://sports.yahoo.com/video/could-a-c...28072.html

The tag-alongs would need assurances that they would have a landing spot in the future.. and that's the problem.

(10-22-2026 04:58 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-22-2026 04:52 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Note that each can each can leave the ACC for a single sport by paying a $75M exit fee if the group brings at least one, maybe two, additional schools (a minimum of 6 activates the fee).

Other sports would remain in the ACC.

(10-22-2026 04:35 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Ross Dellenger, Pete Thamel & Steven Godfrey discuss the pushback on conference membership caps. They also consider how a 24-team playoff affects the equation.

They suggest that even if PCSA legislation passes in its current form, with caps and indie waiting requirement intact:

1. Clemson, Florida State, Miami, UNC could declare football independence
2. The four can make a scheduling agreement with each other + Notre Dame
3. Everyone in the group has a good shot at qualifying for the playoffs.

“What is that if not a Super League?”

It could certainly be the beginning of one.

Video
https://sports.yahoo.com/video/could-a-c...28072.html

The tag-alongs would need assurances that they would have a landing spot in the future.. and that's the problem.

That may not be as big a problem as advertised.

First, the four schools have already proposed raising the conference membership cap to 22. If that amendment passes, ten available P2 spots exist—more than enough to accommodate those four schools plus friends.

But—more to the point—the new group itself could end up being the destination. It has, after all, just accomplished a lot of consolidating so others don’t have to.

___

The PCSA may actually cause a super league by accident. If the conferences are capped at 20 and UNC, Miami, Florida State, and Clemson go independent and it is successful, what’s is to stop Ohio State and Michigan to do it if they can find an Olympic sports home.

(10-22-2026 05:20 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  The PCSA may actually cause a super league by accident. If the conferences are capped at 20 and UNC, Miami, Florida State, and Clemson go independent and it is successful, what’s is to stop Ohio State and Michigan to do it if they can find an Olympic sports home.

Sure. What is to stop either from deciding they are better off with ND and those four as regulars on their football schedule over some of the teams they play now?

(10-22-2026 05:28 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-22-2026 05:20 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  The PCSA may actually cause a super league by accident. If the conferences are capped at 20 and UNC, Miami, Florida State, and Clemson go independent and it is successful, what’s is to stop Ohio State and Michigan to do it if they can find an Olympic sports home.

Sure. What is to stop either from deciding they are better off with ND and those four as regulars on their football schedule over some of the teams they play now?

NCAA ban on single sport FBS football conferences plus federal anti-trust issues with independent schools pooling media rights. I had a Thought Patrol on northern schools doing this last offseason and that was the ultimate answer. I suppose schools could try to not pool media rights but if they don't the networks will rip them apart. These "lesser blue bloods" like FSU and Clemson will never be able to get ND style deals because they don't have the ND fanbase's size or wealth. At best they get something equivalent to a little more than a maximum ACC share but with a miserable streaming deal that would see them off of America's televisions and out of America's thoughts.

(10-22-2026 06:39 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-22-2026 05:28 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-22-2026 05:20 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  The PCSA may actually cause a super league by accident. If the conferences are capped at 20 and UNC, Miami, Florida State, and Clemson go independent and it is successful, what’s is to stop Ohio State and Michigan to do it if they can find an Olympic sports home.

Sure. What is to stop either from deciding they are better off with ND and those four as regulars on their football schedule over some of the teams they play now?

NCAA ban on single sport FBS football conferences plus federal anti-trust issues with independent schools pooling media rights. I had a Thought Patrol on northern schools doing this last offseason and that was the ultimate answer. I suppose schools could try to not pool media rights but if they don't the networks will rip them apart. These "lesser blue bloods" like FSU and Clemson will never be able to get ND style deals because they don't have the ND fanbase's size or wealth. At best they get something equivalent to a little more than a maximum ACC share but with a miserable streaming deal that would see them off of America's televisions and out of America's thoughts.

You’ve hit on a Thought Patrol I’ve had for years: why are there ridiculous rules on pooling rights? Why can a conference of upwards into the 20’s pool rights, but a league of independents can’t? It’s absurd. Release the rights! Create a super bundle while maintaining conference membership. Use OOC games to schedule the big dawgs in the super bundle.

(10-22-2026 05:20 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  The PCSA may actually cause a super league by accident. If the conferences are capped at 20 and UNC, Miami, Florida State, and Clemson go independent and it is successful, what’s is to stop Ohio State and Michigan to do it if they can find an Olympic sports home.

There will be no super league with either a ton of SEC schools or one built around the current SEC. You could take the top 16 earners/most valuable programs/highest tv ratings schools outside of the SEC, set them up as an SEC-antagonist, and they'd struggle to surpass the SEC's current numbers. Besides which, we've seen Indiana rise from bottom of the B1G to a top 10 in all of CFB ratings darling in less than 24 months...what's to stop others in the B1G from filling the breach of OSU and Michigan both leave? What's to stop ND from jumping in to take their places? THAT would be pretty funny.