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

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

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

(11-04-2026 08:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this is a pretty big part of things as well-

(11-04-2026 12:44 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(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.

I don't know that the Senate will try again if it fails. They put a lot of effort into this one.

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

If taken up in that chamber we can expect substantial revisions, with new emphasis given to student rights.

The new Senate should mostly be cool with those changes, though.

Yep, and not just the most high profile athletes' rights, but athletes across the board. We are talking the best possible outcome for those who support women's sports and non-revenue sports.

The same goes for the "little guy" universities. The PCSA as written still favors the top 1% of athletic departments. Anything revised under the new Congress will surely not be so elite leaning. In other words, no chance for any more Moody amendments. Heck, she almost lost her voice anyway!

Of course, the president still has to sign it.

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

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

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

No question about it.

Frankly, any attempted change made by the House (however miniscule) risks totally tanking the bill completely because that then needs to go through the lame duck Senate again, too. We didn’t just see a typical midterm political correction against the party in the White House last night on the margins, but an absolute total sea change avalanche in how Congress will look in January.

Maybe UNC, FSU, Clemson, and Miami would truly rather just tank this entire bill in their own self-interests. But I don’t think trying to change anything about the expansion cap or independence requirement is going to work at this point. My belief is that this is all or nothing. Having any language change in the House and then having to go through another debate and vote in the Senate truly risks completely running out of time and no one on either side can pretend that they can take this bill up after the new Congress is installed anymore. Everyone could posture before the election because the results were unknown, but now that they are known and quite overwhelmingly in a different direction, you can’t really quibble on the margins anymore if you actually want this bill to pass.

Remember that the Senate already adjusted the expansion provision once. Either the schools want the overall aim of this bill - a truly unprecedented antitrust exemption - or they can try to push for a little bit more and risk losing the bill altogether and they may never get a chance at another antitrust exemption for the next decade (if ever). This is high stakes poker now.

Reminder that the conference membership cap in the current bill is 20. That’s the default.

Amendments have been unofficially proposed out of session. One would raise the cap to 22 and another would eliminate the cap altogether.

No proposal has been made to date for a cap of less than 20. So far, all political pressures run in the other direction. Hardline lobbyists take 20 as the default when arguing that the cap should not move.

(11-04-2026 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

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

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

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

No question about it.

Frankly, any attempted change made by the House (however miniscule) risks totally tanking the bill completely because that then needs to go through the lame duck Senate again, too. We didn’t just see a typical midterm political correction against the party in the White House last night on the margins, but an absolute total sea change avalanche in how Congress will look in January.

Maybe UNC, FSU, Clemson, and Miami would truly rather just tank this entire bill in their own self-interests. But I don’t think trying to change anything about the expansion cap or independence requirement is going to work at this point. My belief is that this is all or nothing. Having any language change in the House and then having to go through another debate and vote in the Senate truly risks completely running out of time and no one on either side can pretend that they can take this bill up after the new Congress is installed anymore. Everyone could posture before the election because the results were unknown, but now that they are known and quite overwhelmingly in a different direction, you can’t really quibble on the margins anymore if you actually want this bill to pass.

Remember that the Senate already adjusted the expansion provision once. Either the schools want the overall aim of this bill - a truly unprecedented antitrust exemption - or they can try to push for a little bit more and risk losing the bill altogether and they may never get a chance at another antitrust exemption for the next decade (if ever). This is high stakes poker now.

It’s remarkable how high stakes—and quick—a voice vote can be.

And how much support a last-minute amendment can garner.

The Senate showed us these aspects of the poker game as well.

(11-04-2026 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

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

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

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

No question about it.

Frankly, any attempted change made by the House (however miniscule) risks totally tanking the bill completely because that then needs to go through the lame duck Senate again, too. We didn’t just see a typical midterm political correction against the party in the White House last night on the margins, but an absolute total sea change avalanche in how Congress will look in January.

Maybe UNC, FSU, Clemson, and Miami would truly rather just tank this entire bill in their own self-interests. But I don’t think trying to change anything about the expansion cap or independence requirement is going to work at this point. My belief is that this is all or nothing. Having any language change in the House and then having to go through another debate and vote in the Senate truly risks completely running out of time and no one on either side can pretend that they can take this bill up after the new Congress is installed anymore. Everyone could posture before the election because the results were unknown, but now that they are known and quite overwhelmingly in a different direction, you can’t really quibble on the margins anymore if you actually want this bill to pass.

Remember that the Senate already adjusted the expansion provision once. Either the schools want the overall aim of this bill - a truly unprecedented antitrust exemption - or they can try to push for a little bit more and risk losing the bill altogether and they may never get a chance at another antitrust exemption for the next decade (if ever). This is high stakes poker now.

And they've got a busy schedule. Budget resolution expires 12/11. Only 3 of the 12 budget bills have passed the House. Nothing has passed the Senate. The other 9 are out of committee, but haven't passed the House. This is for the fiscal year 10/1/26 to 9/30/27. This stuff is higher priority than PCSA.

(11-04-2026 10:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Reminder that the conference membership cap in the current bill is 20. That’s the default.

Amendments have been unofficially proposed out of session. One would raise the cap to 22 and another would eliminate the cap altogether.

No proposal has been made to date for a cap of less than 20. So far, all political pressures run in the other direction. Hardline lobbyists take 20 as the default when arguing that the cap should not move.

There is only one solid path forward and it is not with a Congress granted exemption. It is in paying the players, allowing them to organize, exercising collective bargaining and replacing scholarships with contracts.

If Congress grants the exemption that's great for now but it will never stop being tinkered with and stasis is what the fans need the most. Right now every conference's ratings are down, it's just that the SEC is only very slightly impacted. The AC C is more impacted than the SEC but the Big Ten and Big 12 have gotten hammered. Fans are fed up with 35 years of constant realignment, rule changes every damn year, and frankly gambling is not a plus for college sports fans. It's a bug and not a feature. If we get an exemption and there is pressure to keep tweaking the requirements involved it will further damage the game.

Follow Kavanaugh's suggestions and change will be slower, realignment will find a natural cap as part of the negotiated financial picture, and the universities will have dramatically slowed change, brought the game into the 21st century, and likely can restimulate its fan base, which is decidedly not the same as the NFL ban base.

(11-04-2026 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 10:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Reminder that the conference membership cap in the current bill is 20. That’s the default.

Amendments have been unofficially proposed out of session. One would raise the cap to 22 and another would eliminate the cap altogether.

No proposal has been made to date for a cap of less than 20. So far, all political pressures run in the other direction. Hardline lobbyists take 20 as the default when arguing that the cap should not move.

There is only one solid path forward and it is not with a Congress granted exemption. It is in paying the players, allowing them to organize, exercising collective bargaining and replacing scholarships with contracts.

If Congress grants the exemption that's great for now but it will never stop being tinkered with and stasis is what the fans need the most. Right now every conference's ratings are down, it's just that the SEC is only very slightly impacted. The AC C is more impacted than the SEC but the Big Ten and Big 12 have gotten hammered. Fans are fed up with 35 years of constant realignment, rule changes every damn year, and frankly gambling is not a plus for college sports fans. It's a bug and not a feature. If we get an exemption and there is pressure to keep tweaking the requirements involved it will further damage the game.

Follow Kavanaugh's suggestions and change will be slower, realignment will find a natural cap as part of the negotiated financial picture, and the universities will have dramatically slowed change, brought the game into the 21st century, and likely can restimulate its fan base, which is decidedly not the same as the NFL ban base.

You didn't include the dramatically increasing ticket prices and donation requirements that have alienated long time fans.

The unlimited transfer portal has hurt since you have a hard time even remembering the lineup!

(11-04-2026 08:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 08:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it's 24, this gets my vote (teams are listed in order of their 5 year average Sagarin rating):

SEC: 15 states with 133 million population (39% of US)

Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, Virginia
Clemson, Miami, Florida State, South Carolina, Duke, UNC
Alabama, Ole Miss, LSU, Auburn, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas

B1G: 17 states with 157 million population (46% of US)

Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan State, Northwestern
Utah, Iowa, Arizona State, Nebraska, Arizona, Colorado
Oregon, Washington, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford

ACC East*
Louisville, NC State, Pitt, West Virginia, UCF, Cincinnati, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Boston College, Syracuse

ACC West*
Kansas State, Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, SMU, BYU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Memphis, Houston

Independent
Notre Dame

*Under ACC banner to retain ACCN representing 15 states with 157 million population (46% of US)

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.

At 24 each:

B1G (18) + Arizona, Arizona St, California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah
SEC (16) + Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Kansas, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ACC (8/9) + XII (11) + Connecticut, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

-----------------------------------------

B1G
Arizona, Arizona St, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Oregon, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Duke, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, LSU, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC
Baylor, Boston College, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Georgia Tech, Houston, Iowa St, Kansas St, Louisville, Memphis, North Carolina St, Notre Dame*, Oklahoma St, Pittsburgh, SMU, South Florida, Syracuse, TCU, Texas Tech, Tulane, Wake Forest, West Virginia

* Non-Football

(11-04-2026 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 10:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Reminder that the conference membership cap in the current bill is 20. That’s the default.

Amendments have been unofficially proposed out of session. One would raise the cap to 22 and another would eliminate the cap altogether.

No proposal has been made to date for a cap of less than 20. So far, all political pressures run in the other direction. Hardline lobbyists take 20 as the default when arguing that the cap should not move.

There is only one solid path forward and it is not with a Congress granted exemption. It is in paying the players, allowing them to organize, exercising collective bargaining and replacing scholarships with contracts.

If Congress grants the exemption that's great for now but it will never stop being tinkered with and stasis is what the fans need the most. Right now every conference's ratings are down, it's just that the SEC is only very slightly impacted. The AC C is more impacted than the SEC but the Big Ten and Big 12 have gotten hammered. Fans are fed up with 35 years of constant realignment, rule changes every damn year, and frankly gambling is not a plus for college sports fans. It's a bug and not a feature. If we get an exemption and there is pressure to keep tweaking the requirements involved it will further damage the game.

Follow Kavanaugh's suggestions and change will be slower, realignment will find a natural cap as part of the negotiated financial picture, and the universities will have dramatically slowed change, brought the game into the 21st century, and likely can restimulate its fan base, which is decidedly not the same as the NFL ban base.

Except the universities don't find that sustainable and that's why we are where we are.

1 - It doesn't protect student athletes; age, and even student protections will go the way of the Great Auk.

2 - They cannot afford the entirety of what comes with full employment and will lead to most programs being cut.

Literally nobody wants minor league football with lifelong professional players lurking around campus.

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

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

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

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

(11-04-2026 08:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 08:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NC State not even in your top 14. Interesting.

(11-04-2026 12:58 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

(11-04-2026 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:58 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

(11-04-2026 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2026 12:58 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

$omehow, Cody Campbell convinced Senator Ted Cruz to shepherd this legislation. It’s been an incredibly effective partnership and journey for the past six months.

It may seem unlikely that Michael Bloomberg repeats the script with Senator Richard Blumenthal…unless, maybe the Big Ten is considering expansion with UConn while the SEC or ACC makes overtures to Johns Hopkins?? Naaawww.