(10-29-2026 12:14 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:18 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:05 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:19 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 08:58 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  If chances are “zero,” the SEC and B1G seem not to have told Miami.

Odd, that—when it wouldn’t be difficult for the league offices to shoot off that email, and save everyone a lot of hassle.

We’ll see how things go.

Thamel is good, but I believe he is wrong. Miami has hope with the Big 10. The SEC? No, very, very unlikely.

I've not read Thamel's reasoning but find it hard to believe that Miami would not be desired by the SEC or the B10, given their viewership and market.

Essentially it boils down to economics.

The next B1G deal will first and foremost calculate Oregon and Washington as fully vested members. As I've said, this is "expansion 1." Anything beyond that will have to bring enough monetary value to increase 18 other schools' paychecks.

The SEC, on the other hand, could expand with a pro-rata right now if they wanted. At least everyone assumes they have at least two left in the chamber. However, what is the impetus to expand unless 1) there is a real threat by the B1G to meaningfully encroach on their product 2) a recalculation of the entire deal is on the table and 3) the negotiation window is open (not until the 30's) and expansion models are put on the table.

Actually, Thamel's reasoning is "b/c school Presidents told me so", then he tried to explain their reasoning to himself the way that we are now.

Spot on with the reasons or lack thereof to expand. If the B1G isn't making a move, there's no reason for the SEC to do anything until 2034 or thereabouts, UNLESS we get a huge windfall to move earlier than that. ND probably provides that windfall, but nobody else would.

As for Thamel and McMurphy, I'll just reiterate my old points that the B1G Presidents (per Frank) all just assumed that they'd want Cal and Stanford until they looked at the Economics of it, then suddenly they had zero interest. UVA won't be that bad, but it will be pretty bad, certainly far below "replacement value", and even further below 11+1=13 as Frank said so long ago. Much more than for UNC, the current ACC is the perfect Conference for UVA.

Note that UVA isn't one of the ones pushing the change in the law.

UVA isn't getting into the SEC or Big Ten without Notre Dame, Miami, FSU or Clemson paired with them. They don't pay for themselves. In the old conference network model, maybe they do, but that is a continuously declining revenue source, and less and less relative to the Tier I TV and CFP values.

I suspect they are asking for 22 to ensure they are taken if the conferences expand, but really using it as a negotiating point to get rid of the 3 year waiting period.

The 3 year waiting period makes no sense, especially since it goes away in 6 years. If it is supposedly there to stop a "Premier" league, why does it sunset?

(10-29-2026 09:19 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 08:58 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 08:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 05:05 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Feels like there's too much smoke coming out of certain ACC schools to have ZERO P2 moves on the horizon, but I do think that they'll be limited to 2-4, regardless of whether the PCSA passes or not.
....

I have been saying that man.

I was listening to Colleg Gameday pod cast and Pete Thamel said Miami has zero chance with the SEC and a pretty long shot chance with the B10.

If chances are “zero,” the SEC and B1G seem not to have told Miami.

Odd, that—when it wouldn’t be difficult for the league offices to shoot off that email, and save everyone a lot of hassle.

We’ll see how things go.

Thamel is good, but I believe he is wrong. Miami has hope with the Big 10. The SEC? No, very, very unlikely.

I don’t think he is necessarily wrong.

As you said, the SEC is very, very unlikely.

The B10 would consider Miami and FSU, but if the PCSA passes, that will change the calculation.

(10-29-2026 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  The 3 year waiting period makes no sense, especially since it goes away in 6 years. If it is supposedly there to stop a "Premier" league, why does it sunset?

Because that was changed via an unfriendly amendment (or am I misremembering?,) you're absolutely right that that part of the amendment is no longer truly fit for purpose but that is how the sausage is made.

(10-29-2026 12:35 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:19 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 08:58 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 08:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 05:05 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Feels like there's too much smoke coming out of certain ACC schools to have ZERO P2 moves on the horizon, but I do think that they'll be limited to 2-4, regardless of whether the PCSA passes or not.
....

I have been saying that man.

I was listening to Colleg Gameday pod cast and Pete Thamel said Miami has zero chance with the SEC and a pretty long shot chance with the B10.

If chances are “zero,” the SEC and B1G seem not to have told Miami.

Odd, that—when it wouldn’t be difficult for the league offices to shoot off that email, and save everyone a lot of hassle.

We’ll see how things go.

Thamel is good, but I believe he is wrong. Miami has hope with the Big 10. The SEC? No, very, very unlikely.

I don’t think he is necessarily wrong.

As you said, the SEC is very, very unlikely.

The B10 would consider Miami and FSU, but if the PCSA passes, that will change the calculation.

I think the cap number in the PCSA matters quite a bit.

A lot of people here assume that the Big Ten and/or SEC will simply expand up to whatever that cap number is ASAP.

I don’t think that will be the case short of Notre Dame being willing to a join a conference.

At a minimum, each of the Big Ten and SEC will be in a phase where there will be a LOT higher standards for expansion even for now assuming that there’s a 20-team cap. This is no longer a decision about what might make more money in the near-term, but choices that can preclude any further expansion or options by law effectively forever. The Sports Broadcasting Act that the PCSA partially amends has been totally outdated for probably 5 decades at this point (as it was passed during an era where there were 5 channels on your antenna television), but it has never been amended until now (assuming the PCSA passes) 65 years later.

So, the Big Ten and SEC aren’t just going to expand up to 20 or whatever the agreed upon cap might be. As a result, they’re likely going to stay 2 teams below whatever cap might be at any given time - their threat of expanding is honestly most powerful to keep the rest of college football in line than expanding itself at that point and removing that threat entirely. (Think of how pro franchises use moving to other cities as threats to get a new stadium in their current city. Certain markets are more valuable as a relocation threat than they are actually being filled with an expansion team.)

That is where the squeeze *can* be put on a school like Miami that is otherwise valuable in a vacuum. If the SEC doesn’t want to use an expansion slot on them and the Big Ten still feels reticent to expand even with a 20-team cap, then they could be stuck. It’s like how much the NBA is charging for a new franchise in Las Vegas and that is, in turn, impacting how much they want to charge for a new franchise in Seattle. The entry price keeps going up and up when there is scarcity of expansion options and the league that can choose to expand or not is in control. That’s what’s happening here with the Big Ten and SEC: when you permanently can no longer expand as much as you want, the expansion spots that you do have now require even more ROI than the prior standards.

(10-29-2026 01:23 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  The 3 year waiting period makes no sense, especially since it goes away in 6 years. If it is supposedly there to stop a "Premier" league, why does it sunset?

Because that was changed via an unfriendly amendment (or am I misremembering?,) you're absolutely right that that part of the amendment is no longer truly fit for purpose but that is how the sausage is made.

IIRC, the original five year independence requirement was meant as the financial “teeth” to dissuade further conference consolidation. Once the politicians amended the legislation with the six year sunset provision, it effectively limits its impact. The next B1G and B12 media renegotiations will occur prior to the provision’s sunset…so the new restriction still promotes some short term stability during those media negotiations. Whether the new independence provisions remain an essential element of promoting P4 stability is now hard to gauge.

(10-29-2026 12:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:18 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:05 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:19 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 08:58 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  If chances are “zero,” the SEC and B1G seem not to have told Miami.

Odd, that—when it wouldn’t be difficult for the league offices to shoot off that email, and save everyone a lot of hassle.

We’ll see how things go.

Thamel is good, but I believe he is wrong. Miami has hope with the Big 10. The SEC? No, very, very unlikely.

I've not read Thamel's reasoning but find it hard to believe that Miami would not be desired by the SEC or the B10, given their viewership and market.

Essentially it boils down to economics.

The next B1G deal will first and foremost calculate Oregon and Washington as fully vested members. As I've said, this is "expansion 1." Anything beyond that will have to bring enough monetary value to increase 18 other schools' paychecks.

The SEC, on the other hand, could expand with a pro-rata right now if they wanted. At least everyone assumes they have at least two left in the chamber. However, what is the impetus to expand unless 1) there is a real threat by the B1G to meaningfully encroach on their product 2) a recalculation of the entire deal is on the table and 3) the negotiation window is open (not until the 30's) and expansion models are put on the table.

Your first paragraph doesn't make economic sense. The B$G added them knowing they paid for themselves. But the B$G wanted to milk them like they did Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. USC and UCLA were too valuable, so they couldn't offer them peanuts. So yes, they need a raise of 1/17th to keep the same payout since they each get a half share, but they have already factored the value of those schools in and it was more than 1/18th.

Did the B1G actually add UW/UO knowing they paid for themselves? That's debatable. I believe they actually added them to take them off the board. They were content with letting them sit until talks ramped up about them joining another conference—almost a year later.

Remember, FOX did not open the deal back up and pay full price for UW/UO by doling out a portion of pro-rata share to the rest of the conference like the ACC did. There really was no economic benefit to the B1G by adding them when they did outside the BTN bumps. Bumps smaller than other bumps still on the table, I might add.

Once UW/UO were brought in, then came the articles/interviews concerning a future of performance based revenue distributions.

(10-29-2026 01:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 12:35 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:19 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 08:58 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 08:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I have been saying that man.

I was listening to Colleg Gameday pod cast and Pete Thamel said Miami has zero chance with the SEC and a pretty long shot chance with the B10.

If chances are “zero,” the SEC and B1G seem not to have told Miami.

Odd, that—when it wouldn’t be difficult for the league offices to shoot off that email, and save everyone a lot of hassle.

We’ll see how things go.

Thamel is good, but I believe he is wrong. Miami has hope with the Big 10. The SEC? No, very, very unlikely.

I don’t think he is necessarily wrong.

As you said, the SEC is very, very unlikely.

The B10 would consider Miami and FSU, but if the PCSA passes, that will change the calculation.

I think the cap number in the PCSA matters quite a bit.

A lot of people here assume that the Big Ten and/or SEC will simply expand up to whatever that cap number is ASAP.

I don’t think that will be the case short of Notre Dame being willing to a join a conference.

At a minimum, each of the Big Ten and SEC will be in a phase where there will be a LOT higher standards for expansion even for now assuming that there’s a 20-team cap. This is no longer a decision about what might make more money in the near-term, but choices that can preclude any further expansion or options by law effectively forever. The Sports Broadcasting Act that the PCSA partially amends has been totally outdated for probably 5 decades at this point (as it was passed during an era where there were 5 channels on your antenna television), but it has never been amended until now (assuming the PCSA passes) 65 years later.

So, the Big Ten and SEC aren’t just going to expand up to 20 or whatever the agreed upon cap might be. As a result, they’re likely going to stay 2 teams below whatever cap might be at any given time - their threat of expanding is honestly most powerful to keep the rest of college football in line than expanding itself at that point and removing that threat entirely. (Think of how pro franchises use moving to other cities as threats to get a new stadium in their current city. Certain markets are more valuable as a relocation threat than they are actually being filled with an expansion team.)

That is where the squeeze *can* be put on a school like Miami that is otherwise valuable in a vacuum. If the SEC doesn’t want to use an expansion slot on them and the Big Ten still feels reticent to expand even with a 20-team cap, then they could be stuck. It’s like how much the NBA is charging for a new franchise in Las Vegas and that is, in turn, impacting how much they want to charge for a new franchise in Seattle. The entry price keeps going up and up when there is scarcity of expansion options and the league that can choose to expand or not is in control. That’s what’s happening here with the Big Ten and SEC: when you permanently can no longer expand as much as you want, the expansion spots that you do have now require even more ROI than the prior standards.

Frank, the SEC will likely add 2 at the first available time. There are considerations other than simply realignment that would make that prudent.

While it isn't necessary for the upcoming scheduling agreement between the Big Ten and SEC it would be equitable, if not profitable, to have all 36 teams involved. Then depending upon what structure that we one day occupy it may be necessary to have an equal number of voting members as well. As to when after that they would move to 20 each would be wholly dependent upon who it is that desires to be added and of course whether they NET us more revenue.

And one other point: If the SEC could land the right 4 they won't wait beyond first open window to do so. They want to be a regional conference. They aren't going to be waiting on interest from former PAC teams. They have all they could possibly want from the Big 12 with the possible exception of Kansas. They will not be raiding the Big Ten. So, if the right 4 from the ACC wanted to move there is no logical reason to wait. We would have the four we wanted and what the Big Ten did or didn't do would be of no particular concern to the SEC.

(10-29-2026 01:23 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  The 3 year waiting period makes no sense, especially since it goes away in 6 years. If it is supposedly there to stop a "Premier" league, why does it sunset?

Because that was changed via an unfriendly amendment (or am I misremembering?,) you're absolutely right that that part of the amendment is no longer truly fit for purpose but that is how the sausage is made.

The amendment was passed by a voice vote. It had been agreed to.

(10-29-2026 01:50 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 12:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:18 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 10:05 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:19 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Thamel is good, but I believe he is wrong. Miami has hope with the Big 10. The SEC? No, very, very unlikely.

I've not read Thamel's reasoning but find it hard to believe that Miami would not be desired by the SEC or the B10, given their viewership and market.

Essentially it boils down to economics.

The next B1G deal will first and foremost calculate Oregon and Washington as fully vested members. As I've said, this is "expansion 1." Anything beyond that will have to bring enough monetary value to increase 18 other schools' paychecks.

The SEC, on the other hand, could expand with a pro-rata right now if they wanted. At least everyone assumes they have at least two left in the chamber. However, what is the impetus to expand unless 1) there is a real threat by the B1G to meaningfully encroach on their product 2) a recalculation of the entire deal is on the table and 3) the negotiation window is open (not until the 30's) and expansion models are put on the table.

Your first paragraph doesn't make economic sense. The B$G added them knowing they paid for themselves. But the B$G wanted to milk them like they did Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. USC and UCLA were too valuable, so they couldn't offer them peanuts. So yes, they need a raise of 1/17th to keep the same payout since they each get a half share, but they have already factored the value of those schools in and it was more than 1/18th.

Did the B1G actually add UW/UO knowing they paid for themselves? That's debatable. I believe they actually added them to take them off the board. They were content with letting them sit until talks ramped up about them joining another conference—almost a year later.

Remember, FOX did not open the deal back up and pay full price for UW/UO by doling out a portion of pro-rata share to the rest of the conference like the ACC did. There really was no economic benefit to the B1G by adding them when they did outside the BTN bumps. Bumps smaller than other bumps still on the table, I might add.

Once UW/UO were brought in, then came the articles/interviews concerning a future of performance based revenue distributions.

There were a lot of reports that they paid for themselves at the time. But not by a whole lot. Cal and Stanford did not pay for themselves.

So you have to be at least as valuable than Washington or Oregon to justify admission to the P2.

(10-29-2026 01:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 01:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 12:35 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:19 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 08:58 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  If chances are “zero,” the SEC and B1G seem not to have told Miami.

Odd, that—when it wouldn’t be difficult for the league offices to shoot off that email, and save everyone a lot of hassle.

We’ll see how things go.

Thamel is good, but I believe he is wrong. Miami has hope with the Big 10. The SEC? No, very, very unlikely.

I don’t think he is necessarily wrong.

As you said, the SEC is very, very unlikely.

The B10 would consider Miami and FSU, but if the PCSA passes, that will change the calculation.

I think the cap number in the PCSA matters quite a bit.

A lot of people here assume that the Big Ten and/or SEC will simply expand up to whatever that cap number is ASAP.

I don’t think that will be the case short of Notre Dame being willing to a join a conference.

At a minimum, each of the Big Ten and SEC will be in a phase where there will be a LOT higher standards for expansion even for now assuming that there’s a 20-team cap. This is no longer a decision about what might make more money in the near-term, but choices that can preclude any further expansion or options by law effectively forever. The Sports Broadcasting Act that the PCSA partially amends has been totally outdated for probably 5 decades at this point (as it was passed during an era where there were 5 channels on your antenna television), but it has never been amended until now (assuming the PCSA passes) 65 years later.

So, the Big Ten and SEC aren’t just going to expand up to 20 or whatever the agreed upon cap might be. As a result, they’re likely going to stay 2 teams below whatever cap might be at any given time - their threat of expanding is honestly most powerful to keep the rest of college football in line than expanding itself at that point and removing that threat entirely. (Think of how pro franchises use moving to other cities as threats to get a new stadium in their current city. Certain markets are more valuable as a relocation threat than they are actually being filled with an expansion team.)

That is where the squeeze *can* be put on a school like Miami that is otherwise valuable in a vacuum. If the SEC doesn’t want to use an expansion slot on them and the Big Ten still feels reticent to expand even with a 20-team cap, then they could be stuck. It’s like how much the NBA is charging for a new franchise in Las Vegas and that is, in turn, impacting how much they want to charge for a new franchise in Seattle. The entry price keeps going up and up when there is scarcity of expansion options and the league that can choose to expand or not is in control. That’s what’s happening here with the Big Ten and SEC: when you permanently can no longer expand as much as you want, the expansion spots that you do have now require even more ROI than the prior standards.

Frank, the SEC will likely add 2 at the first available time. There are considerations other than simply realignment that would make that prudent.

While it isn't necessary for the upcoming scheduling agreement between the Big Ten and SEC it would be equitable, if not profitable, to have all 36 teams involved. Then depending upon what structure that we one day occupy it may be necessary to have an equal number of voting members as well. As to when after that they would move to 20 each would be wholly dependent upon who it is that desires to be added and of course whether they NET us more revenue.

And one other point: If the SEC could land the right 4 they won't wait beyond first open window to do so. They want to be a regional conference. They aren't going to be waiting on interest from former PAC teams. They have all they could possibly want from the Big 12 with the possible exception of Kansas. They will not be raiding the Big Ten. So, if the right 4 from the ACC wanted to move there is no logical reason to wait. We would have the four we wanted and what the Big Ten did or didn't do would be of no particular concern to the SEC.

Sure - if the cap is 20, then the SEC moving to 18 makes sense. I’m more pointing out that this doesn’t mean that the SEC (or Big Ten, for that matter) will then also immediately go up to 20 or whatever the cap might be. It really makes that last spot or two that much more valuable to either the SEC or B1G, so they’re not going to be in a rush to fill it in the way that a lot of people have argued here (and may keep 2 spots open indefinitely for leverage purposes as, once again, wielding the threat of expansion may be more meaningful than actually expanding when you get down to spots #19 and 20).

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?

(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?

It's dead as written

(11-03-2026 11:27 PM)Stugray2 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?

It's dead as written

Yes, indeed! We'll be revisiting Kavanaugh's recommendations again, and more sincerely. But I'm hopeful. This may make a breakaway for the upper tier more likely and self-governance attainable. Recognize players' rights to organize, use collective bargaining for caps, and contracts instead of scholarships, and we may be able to fully monetize hoops, escape from the blackhole of Victorian era definitions of college athletics to an organization that can adapt to the circumstances around them and remain relevant hopefully in a way that keeps the interest in the games up. There was an article out today that I read on an Oklahoma site that talks about the numbers of viewers being down as a whole this year for college football. The SEC remained the most viewed but the rest suffered more dramatic declines in viewership.

We need to get this all finished and move into some stasis so that fans aren't agitated by all of the change and can buy back in.

(11-03-2026 11:27 PM)Stugray2 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?

It's dead as written

Thompson knows media. But does he know politics?

(11-04-2026 12:12 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-03-2026 11:27 PM)Stugray2 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?

It's dead as written

Thompson knows media. But does he know politics?

He might be right. We're not done counting votes but it certainly makes things tough. The people who lost tonight or are retiring, and there might be 70 of them from the R caucus (remember, this includes retirements even if another Republican is replacing them,) no longer have a reason to bend down and follow orders. PCSA already has all sorts of ideological issues with them, so why are they going to vote to bring it to a vote? Just to please the president? Because he can't threaten them anymore. On the other hand the party is going to be out of power in two months, so they might be in an devil may care mood and just vote through whatever to beat the clock.

(11-03-2026 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2026 11:27 PM)Stugray2 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?

It's dead as written

Yes, indeed! We'll be revisiting Kavanaugh's recommendations again, and more sincerely. But I'm hopeful. This may make a breakaway for the upper tier more likely and self-governance attainable. Recognize players' rights to organize, use collective bargaining for caps, and contracts instead of scholarships, and we may be able to fully monetize hoops, escape from the blackhole of Victorian era definitions of college athletics to an organization that can adapt to the circumstances around them and remain relevant hopefully in a way that keeps the interest in the games up. There was an article out today that I read on an Oklahoma site that talks about the numbers of viewers being down as a whole this year for college football. The SEC remained the most viewed but the rest suffered more dramatic declines in viewership.

We need to get this all finished and move into some stasis so that fans aren't agitated by all of the change and can buy back in.

Self governance by the most powerful? You think that’s the result? More like governance by the athletes.

(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.

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.

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.