(11-06-2026 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  NFL quarterbacks are worth more than college quarterbacks.

If that college quarterback is a top-notch summa cüm laude engineering student who can make 4 times as much working at Anderson Consulting after graduation than he would being a second string practice team NFL quarterback, then no, that NFL quarterback is not worth more than the same college quarterback. That's not only basic economics, that's like the first week of Economics 101.

Saying that an NFL player is somehow instrically worth more than a college football player is just how you might feel about things at the moment. If that made-for-college-football-last-round-NFL-draft-pick-one-day-head-coach is the archetype of a college quarterback that is ready to lead your school to its third consecutive national CFP title, you'd pay him WAY more than the few thousands he'd make benching his way out of the NFL too.

(11-06-2026 01:04 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  NFL quarterbacks are worth more than college quarterbacks.

If that college quarterback is a top-notch summa cüm laude engineering student who can make 4 times as much working at Anderson Consulting after graduation than he would being a second string practice team NFL quarterback, then no, that NFL quarterback is not worth more than the same college quarterback. That's not only basic economics, that's like the first week of Economics 101.

Saying that an NFL player is somehow instrically worth more than a college football player is just how you might feel about things at the moment. If that made-for-college-football-last-round-NFL-draft-pick-one-day-head-coach is the archetype of a college quarterback that is ready to lead your school to its third consecutive national CFP title, you'd pay him WAY more than the few thousands he'd make benching his way out of the NFL too.

Wow! Really coming off the wall with that. Working at Andersen Consulting has less than zero to do with his value playing for Alabama or Miami.

You just ignore basic economics. The lowest valued NFL team is the Cincinnati Bengals at over $5 billion. The Cowboys are worth $17 billion. No college football team generates nearly the revenue and is worth anything near as much as the Bengals. You are just "feeling" and not reasoning.

Basic economics is that perhaps every school but Texas is losing money on athletics. The current level of expenses is unsustainable for everyone if it were an actual market. They would all go out of business.

(11-06-2026 01:04 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  NFL quarterbacks are worth more than college quarterbacks.

If that college quarterback is a top-notch summa cüm laude engineering student who can make 4 times as much working at Anderson Consulting after graduation than he would being a second string practice team NFL quarterback, then no, that NFL quarterback is not worth more than the same college quarterback. That's not only basic economics, that's like the first week of Economics 101.

Saying that an NFL player is somehow instrically worth more than a college football player is just how you might feel about things at the moment. If that made-for-college-football-last-round-NFL-draft-pick-one-day-head-coach is the archetype of a college quarterback that is ready to lead your school to its third consecutive national CFP title, you'd pay him WAY more than the few thousands he'd make benching his way out of the NFL too.

Your principal of wanting no salary cap for players ignores that even the biggest brands in the sport want it to prevent bankrupting their athletic departments.

Money at the top progams is hardly reliable and stable. Contributions go up and down on a yearly basis. Revenues are very sensitive to staying highly ranked. You think a 50 million dollar cap rev share is punative but that is about all the financial risk these colleges can take on.

Then within the P4 conferences some of them are already buckling at 25 million in revenue sharing. In an absolute free market sure maybe and Ohio State or Texas could do 70 million but very few can afford that.

(11-06-2026 01:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 01:04 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  NFL quarterbacks are worth more than college quarterbacks.

If that college quarterback is a top-notch summa cüm laude engineering student who can make 4 times as much working at Anderson Consulting after graduation than he would being a second string practice team NFL quarterback, then no, that NFL quarterback is not worth more than the same college quarterback. That's not only basic economics, that's like the first week of Economics 101.

Saying that an NFL player is somehow instrically worth more than a college football player is just how you might feel about things at the moment. If that made-for-college-football-last-round-NFL-draft-pick-one-day-head-coach is the archetype of a college quarterback that is ready to lead your school to its third consecutive national CFP title, you'd pay him WAY more than the few thousands he'd make benching his way out of the NFL too.

Wow! Really coming off the wall with that. Working at Andersen Consulting has less than zero to do with his value playing for Alabama or Miami.

You just ignore basic economics. The lowest valued NFL team is the Cincinnati Bengals at over $5 billion. The Cowboys are worth $17 billion. No college football team generates nearly the revenue and is worth anything near as much as the Bengals. You are just "feeling" and not reasoning.

Basic economics is that perhaps every school but Texas is losing money on athletics. The current level of expenses is unsustainable for everyone if it were an actual market. They would all go out of business.

The actual market is education. Think of athletics as the sign out front. Why should the government step in to prevent schools from building gaudy signs if they want to? Stuff like 5 in 5 and forcing players to be students makes sense to me, politically, but the expense limitations some people are proposing don't. That includes the non-school funding NIL cap along with alot of the other "gotcha" amendments that were proposed in the senate version.

(11-06-2026 12:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  NFL quarterbacks are worth more than college quarterbacks. Its a signal that the college system is just a mess and has little to do with economics. Its an irrational exercise in egos on the backs of students and taxpayers.

Its like my Freshman economics teacher said, "Don't ask me about the stock market. If you want to understand the stock market, take a Psychology class."
Right now its kind of like the tulip craze in Holland in the 1630s.

It could depend. There isn’t necessarily a linear relationship between market value and actual skill level. This is quite prevalent in sports: college basketball is more valuable in the marketplace than the G-League, college football is more valuable in the marketplace than the CFL or all of the attempted spring pro football leagues, the Little League World Series is a more valuable TV product than anything baseball event outside of MLB itself, etc.

So, it could very well be the case that an individual’s market value is higher in college than it would be in the pros. A QB that can start for a CFP qualifier is more valuable in the marketplace for a season than that same QB being on the bench or practice squad of an NFL team. We have seen a ton of players that were great in college for football or basketball that didn’t go far in or make it at all to the pros. The fact that their value in the NFL or NBA might be low doesn’t negate that their value to a college team could be quite high and would get paid accordingly.

Let's look at supply and demand.

There are 32 NFL teams. At three each they need 96 quarterbacks.

There are 138 FBS teams. At just two a piece they need 276 quarterbacks. AND - those quarterbacks have at most five years to play. There is much higher demand for FBS quarterbacks. Eligibility requirements don't restrict the NFL to the same degree.

There are legitimate market reasons a top FBS quarterback could draw more money than an NFL quarterback. The demand is higher due to the number of teams. The supply is limited to only those eligible. Those factors are in play regardless of how much money an NFL team has to spend. They are market forces.

(11-06-2026 02:50 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 12:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  NFL quarterbacks are worth more than college quarterbacks. Its a signal that the college system is just a mess and has little to do with economics. Its an irrational exercise in egos on the backs of students and taxpayers.

Its like my Freshman economics teacher said, "Don't ask me about the stock market. If you want to understand the stock market, take a Psychology class."
Right now its kind of like the tulip craze in Holland in the 1630s.

It could depend. There isn’t necessarily a linear relationship between market value and actual skill level. This is quite prevalent in sports: college basketball is more valuable in the marketplace than the G-League, college football is more valuable in the marketplace than the CFL or all of the attempted spring pro football leagues, the Little League World Series is a more valuable TV product than anything baseball event outside of MLB itself, etc.

So, it could very well be the case that an individual’s market value is higher in college than it would be in the pros. A QB that can start for a CFP qualifier is more valuable in the marketplace for a season than that same QB being on the bench or practice squad of an NFL team. We have seen a ton of players that were great in college for football or basketball that didn’t go far in or make it at all to the pros. The fact that their value in the NFL or NBA might be low doesn’t negate that their value to a college team could be quite high and would get paid accordingly.

Let's look at supply and demand.

There are 32 NFL teams. At three each they need 96 quarterbacks.

There are 138 FBS teams. At just two a piece they need 276 quarterbacks. AND - those quarterbacks have at most five years to play. There is much higher demand for FBS quarterbacks. Eligibility requirements don't restrict the NFL to the same degree.

There are legitimate market reasons a top FBS quarterback could draw more money than an NFL quarterback. The demand is higher due to the number of teams. The supply is limited to only those eligible. Those factors are in play regardless of how much money an NFL team has to spend. They are market forces.

But there is virtually an unlimited supply of people who can play QB at the college level. There are a limited number who are talented enough to do it at the pro level. And they generate more revenue and profit.

There may be only a limited number of positions for heart surgeons, but those who do it well enough are a very limited group.

Same with lawyers in patent law or derivatives or mergers & acquisitions. They all earn a premium.

Right now generic geologists are having a hard time finding a job, but specialized geologists are in demand and make very good money even though there aren't that many of them.

People who are the best at what they do in the world earn a premium over less talented people.

(11-05-2026 08:32 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

Under the House settlement, 3rd Party NIL from associated entities is subject to additional scrutiny to ensure it is for a legitimate business purpose. 3rd Party NIL from non-associated entities must be reported, but is not scrutinized for business purposes. 3rd Party NIL is not capped, regardless whether the source is an associated entity or not.

Under the PCSA, and apparently the new Big Ten rules, 3rd Party NIL from associated entities is not scrutinized for a legitimate business purpose, but it subject to the expanded cap.

The plaintiff attorneys in the House settlement are able to monitor implementation, including to audit the books of the schools (The "revenue-sharing" cap is based on revenues reported by the schools). They also get a 1% royalty on school payments to players. If State or Tech are paying $21 million to players, the lawyers, including Jeffrey Kessler are getting $210,000 from the school (i.e. school pays out $21.210M).

Conceivably, schools could direct NIL spending to associated entities and avoid payments to Kessler, et al.

So Kessler is not making an antitrust argument, but rather that the Big Ten is trying to evade the settlement that they agreed to (The House Settlement is between the players (as represented by Kessler, et al), the NCAA, and the Big Ten, and the other P5 conferences).

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal...ld-be-dead

The Protect College Sports Act could be dead

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the original bill, seems to realize that if it doesn’t happen now it never will.

“There is no realistic path to secure the same broad bipartisan support for a new bill in 2027 and beyond,” a spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Commerce, led by Cruz, told The Athletic. “Passing the Senate-approved bipartisan bill through the House and sending it to the President’s desk during the lame duck Congress gives House Republicans an opportunity to close out the 119th Congress with a significant win for President Trump, HBCUs, women’s sports, and student athletes. An attempt to amend it would be a surefire defeat“

(11-06-2026 01:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 01:04 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  NFL quarterbacks are worth more than college quarterbacks.

If that college quarterback is a top-notch summa cüm laude engineering student who can make 4 times as much working at Anderson Consulting after graduation than he would being a second string practice team NFL quarterback, then no, that NFL quarterback is not worth more than the same college quarterback. That's not only basic economics, that's like the first week of Economics 101.

Saying that an NFL player is somehow instrically worth more than a college football player is just how you might feel about things at the moment. If that made-for-college-football-last-round-NFL-draft-pick-one-day-head-coach is the archetype of a college quarterback that is ready to lead your school to its third consecutive national CFP title, you'd pay him WAY more than the few thousands he'd make benching his way out of the NFL too.

Wow! Really coming off the wall with that. Working at Andersen Consulting has less than zero to do with his value playing for Alabama or Miami.

You just ignore basic economics. The lowest valued NFL team is the Cincinnati Bengals at over $5 billion. The Cowboys are worth $17 billion. No college football team generates nearly the revenue and is worth anything near as much as the Bengals. You are just "feeling" and not reasoning.

Basic economics is that perhaps every school but Texas is losing money on athletics. The current level of expenses is unsustainable for everyone if it were an actual market. They would all go out of business.

Not quite accurate.


According to its EADA filing, Notre Dame made a profit of $44.9 million in athletics in 2024-25.

Financial Overview (2024–25 EADA Disclosures)

• Total Athletic Revenue: $289.6 million ($289,616,198)
• Total Athletic Expenses: $244.7 million ($244,698,449)
• Net Surplus (Revenue minus Expenses): $44.9 million

(11-07-2026 09:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 01:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 01:04 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(11-06-2026 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  NFL quarterbacks are worth more than college quarterbacks.

If that college quarterback is a top-notch summa cüm laude engineering student who can make 4 times as much working at Anderson Consulting after graduation than he would being a second string practice team NFL quarterback, then no, that NFL quarterback is not worth more than the same college quarterback. That's not only basic economics, that's like the first week of Economics 101.

Saying that an NFL player is somehow instrically worth more than a college football player is just how you might feel about things at the moment. If that made-for-college-football-last-round-NFL-draft-pick-one-day-head-coach is the archetype of a college quarterback that is ready to lead your school to its third consecutive national CFP title, you'd pay him WAY more than the few thousands he'd make benching his way out of the NFL too.

Wow! Really coming off the wall with that. Working at Andersen Consulting has less than zero to do with his value playing for Alabama or Miami.

You just ignore basic economics. The lowest valued NFL team is the Cincinnati Bengals at over $5 billion. The Cowboys are worth $17 billion. No college football team generates nearly the revenue and is worth anything near as much as the Bengals. You are just "feeling" and not reasoning.

Basic economics is that perhaps every school but Texas is losing money on athletics. The current level of expenses is unsustainable for everyone if it were an actual market. They would all go out of business.

Not quite accurate.


According to its EADA filing, Notre Dame made a profit of $44.9 million in athletics in 2024-25.

Financial Overview (2024–25 EADA Disclosures)

• Total Athletic Revenue: $289.6 million ($289,616,198)
• Total Athletic Expenses: $244.7 million ($244,698,449)
• Net Surplus (Revenue minus Expenses): $44.9 million

Well there's that, and the fact that most state schools like to spend everything they earn so they can ask for raises in apportionments. It's hard to justify a larger apportionment if you are making money. At least private Universities are not constrained by such bureaucratic B.S.

(11-07-2026 09:39 AM)No Bull Wrote:  https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal...ld-be-dead

The Protect College Sports Act could be dead

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the original bill, seems to realize that if it doesn’t happen now it never will.

“There is no realistic path to secure the same broad bipartisan support for a new bill in 2027 and beyond,” a spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Commerce, led by Cruz, told The Athletic. “Passing the Senate-approved bipartisan bill through the House and sending it to the President’s desk during the lame duck Congress gives House Republicans an opportunity to close out the 119th Congress with a significant win for President Trump, HBCUs, women’s sports, and student athletes. An attempt to amend it would be a surefire defeat“

Passing it exactly as written in the Senate was and still is the only realistic way to get it done in the lame duck. Even if there had been a more balanced election, there wouldn't have been time for the House to settle on and pass amendments. Best chance is to attach the bill to the appropriations bill.

There is something called Bowen's Law:

Revenue Theory of Cost (Bowen's Law)

Howard R. Bowen was an economist who was also president of Grinnell College, the University of Iowa, and Claremont Graduate School.

Bowen wondered why the price of college education varied so much, and was not tied to the cost of production. For conventional goods and services, the price is tied to the cost of production.

If the price is less than the cost of production, you either:

(1) Go out of business;
(2) Reduce the cost of production, perhaps by reducing quality.
(3) Improve the value while holding the cost of production.

Bowen believed that the the currency that universities deal with is not $$$, but prestige, and that results in them spending more, and then trying to increase revenue to match.

(11-07-2026 09:39 AM)No Bull Wrote:  https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal...ld-be-dead

The Protect College Sports Act could be dead

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the original bill, seems to realize that if it doesn’t happen now it never will.

“There is no realistic path to secure the same broad bipartisan support for a new bill in 2027 and beyond,” a spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Commerce, led by Cruz, told The Athletic. “Passing the Senate-approved bipartisan bill through the House and sending it to the President’s desk during the lame duck Congress gives House Republicans an opportunity to close out the 119th Congress with a significant win for President Trump, HBCUs, women’s sports, and student athletes. An attempt to amend it would be a surefire defeat“

He's politicking. "You have to pass my version of the bill RIGHT NOW or we'll never get one done." Sure thing, Ted, we believe you... I don't buy his hard sales pitch. Maybe it passes this session, if not then something else will be worked on next year.

(11-07-2026 03:00 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-07-2026 09:39 AM)No Bull Wrote:  https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal...ld-be-dead

The Protect College Sports Act could be dead

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the original bill, seems to realize that if it doesn’t happen now it never will.

“There is no realistic path to secure the same broad bipartisan support for a new bill in 2027 and beyond,” a spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Commerce, led by Cruz, told The Athletic. “Passing the Senate-approved bipartisan bill through the House and sending it to the President’s desk during the lame duck Congress gives House Republicans an opportunity to close out the 119th Congress with a significant win for President Trump, HBCUs, women’s sports, and student athletes. An attempt to amend it would be a surefire defeat“

He's politicking. "You have to pass my version of the bill RIGHT NOW or we'll never get one done." Sure thing, Ted, we believe you... I don't buy his hard sales pitch. Maybe it passes this session, if not then something else will be worked on next year.

I wouldn't be surprised if it never gets out of committee next year if it fails this time.
Now I do think some minor amendments could pass. But there isn't a lot of time with none of the budget bills passed and government shutdown looming the 2nd week in December.

(11-07-2026 08:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2026 03:00 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-07-2026 09:39 AM)No Bull Wrote:  https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal...ld-be-dead

The Protect College Sports Act could be dead

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the original bill, seems to realize that if it doesn’t happen now it never will.

“There is no realistic path to secure the same broad bipartisan support for a new bill in 2027 and beyond,” a spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Commerce, led by Cruz, told The Athletic. “Passing the Senate-approved bipartisan bill through the House and sending it to the President’s desk during the lame duck Congress gives House Republicans an opportunity to close out the 119th Congress with a significant win for President Trump, HBCUs, women’s sports, and student athletes. An attempt to amend it would be a surefire defeat“

He's politicking. "You have to pass my version of the bill RIGHT NOW or we'll never get one done." Sure thing, Ted, we believe you... I don't buy his hard sales pitch. Maybe it passes this session, if not then something else will be worked on next year.

I wouldn't be surprised if it never gets out of committee next year if it fails this time.
Now I do think some minor amendments could pass. But there isn't a lot of time with none of the budget bills passed and government shutdown looming the 2nd week in December.

The Big Ten and the SEC wanted the exemption because it wouldn't change their operation very much. Neither of them really loved the restrictions on additions nor did they like the 3-year independence rule.

If nothing happens they'll have to do what they were recommended to do. But if that happens they will be free to add any school that profits them whether by ratings, revenue, or markets reached for their networks. They will be free to have a scheduling agreement without having to include everyone, and they won't need the NCAA and will be able to set their on rules outside of those connected with contract law, or those which will need to be collectively agreed upon by the players and the schools.

No PCSA will benefit the SEC and Big Ten and half a dozen or so other schools. It will benefit their hoops monetization. And it ultimately creates yet a still larger gap in revenue between themselves and everyone else.

The passage of the PCSA would have meant less real change and a much greater likelihood that the NCAA would remain a part of it. It was simply the easier option, not necessarily the best option for the P2, or for the players.

If the PCSA doesn't pass before the new Congress is seated all bets are off for any restriction of growth by the conferences and any future association with the NCAA.

(11-07-2026 03:00 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-07-2026 09:39 AM)No Bull Wrote:  https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal...ld-be-dead

The Protect College Sports Act could be dead

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the original bill, seems to realize that if it doesn’t happen now it never will.

“There is no realistic path to secure the same broad bipartisan support for a new bill in 2027 and beyond,” a spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Commerce, led by Cruz, told The Athletic. “Passing the Senate-approved bipartisan bill through the House and sending it to the President’s desk during the lame duck Congress gives House Republicans an opportunity to close out the 119th Congress with a significant win for President Trump, HBCUs, women’s sports, and student athletes. An attempt to amend it would be a surefire defeat“

He's politicking. "You have to pass my version of the bill RIGHT NOW or we'll never get one done." Sure thing, Ted, we believe you... I don't buy his hard sales pitch. Maybe it passes this session, if not then something else will be worked on next year.

You can always amend a bill. He knows the Senate did. The House certainly can.

And he is not the first person who would know whether a “realistic path” exists after the new Congress is sworn in.
___

(Yesterday 09:44 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-07-2026 03:00 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(11-07-2026 09:39 AM)No Bull Wrote:  https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootbal...ld-be-dead

The Protect College Sports Act could be dead

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the original bill, seems to realize that if it doesn’t happen now it never will.

“There is no realistic path to secure the same broad bipartisan support for a new bill in 2027 and beyond,” a spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Commerce, led by Cruz, told The Athletic. “Passing the Senate-approved bipartisan bill through the House and sending it to the President’s desk during the lame duck Congress gives House Republicans an opportunity to close out the 119th Congress with a significant win for President Trump, HBCUs, women’s sports, and student athletes. An attempt to amend it would be a surefire defeat“

He's politicking. "You have to pass my version of the bill RIGHT NOW or we'll never get one done." Sure thing, Ted, we believe you... I don't buy his hard sales pitch. Maybe it passes this session, if not then something else will be worked on next year.

You can always amend a bill. He knows the Senate did. The House certainly can.

And he is not the first person who would know whether a “realistic path” exists after the new Congress is sworn in.
___

Kyle Saunders is quite bearish on the PCSA passing now, and I agree with him.

https://kylesaunders.substack.com/p/yes-...ly-to-pass

Update, Nov. 4: Since this went up, Johnson told staff he won’t run for House Republican leader (NBC). The Speaker who’d have to whip this bill in the lame duck now has no leadership future to whip for. And the R House sponsor, Michael Baumgartner, is in a race too close to call in Washington’s 5th. Both points push the House passage odds a bit lower, toward the 5% end.

After reading the entire post, I'm even more down on PCSA now. It's not quite completely dead, but certainly it's mostly dead. Like Westley in The Princess Bride, all hope is not lost, but it's probably best to start preparing for what comes next when it fails.

(11-07-2026 09:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the PCSA doesn't pass before the new Congress is seated all bets are off for any restriction of growth by the conferences and any future association with the NCAA.

I would not put money on that one.

P2 want those caps so the ACC/XII can't pass them in importance by creating a mega conference. More specifically a fear from the lower 2/3rds of the P2 membership they could somehow be left out of a private equity mega conference.

What could happen is a new iteration of the bill includes coaching salary caps as some democrats like that idea.

(Yesterday 01:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-07-2026 09:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the PCSA doesn't pass before the new Congress is seated all bets are off for any restriction of growth by the conferences and any future association with the NCAA.

I would not put money on that one.

P2 want those caps so the ACC/XII can't pass them in importance by creating a mega conference. More specifically a fear from the lower 2/3rds of the P2 membership they could somehow be left out of a private equity mega conference.

What could happen is a new iteration of the bill includes coaching salary caps as some democrats like that idea.

It really does depend on how useful the people in college sports find it. If university leaders and P2 commissioners find it helpful—quite aside from what Cody Campbell wants—then we could see legislation resembling this again on lawmakers To-Do lists.

With the new Congress the limits on coach compensation are not the main concern. Protecting athlete rights is the main concern. Doing that can take form in many ways—the main one being a bargaining mechanism that gives athletes a say on NIL limits and revshare caps.

(Yesterday 01:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-07-2026 09:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the PCSA doesn't pass before the new Congress is seated all bets are off for any restriction of growth by the conferences and any future association with the NCAA.

I would not put money on that one.

P2 want those caps so the ACC/XII can't pass them in importance by creating a mega conference. More specifically a fear from the lower 2/3rds of the P2 membership they could somehow be left out of a private equity mega conference.

What could happen is a new iteration of the bill includes coaching salary caps as some democrats like that idea.

LOL! The Big Ten and SEC don't care what those currently below P levels do to improve their status. And if two conferences form an upper tier league, which is what has been discussed, I'd look for 48 to be the minimum and 56 to 60 the maximum. There won't be enough left to threaten the status of the new two conference tier, nor will there be enough left to form another P conference. The best of the Big 12 and ACC will be absorbed into those two conferences and included in that league. The SEC and Big Ten are at 34 members now. At 14 you include Arizona, Clemson, Colorado, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kansas, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Stanford, Virginia, and Virginia Tech. That takes you to 48 the bare minimum (and these schools are suggestions only) and you even then you start looking at 56. Arizona State, Brigham Young, California, Louisville, N.C. State, Texas Tech, Utah. Who's left? Baylor, Boston College, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, S.M.U., T.C.U., Wake Forest, and West Virginia would be a pool from which perhaps the best 4 would be selected to round out at 60 or 64 if it grew from 56 total schools. Notre Dame of course would play among the upper tier but wouldn't be assigned a conference.

The new rules would be those of contracts and collective bargaining. Caps would be set by all for all and any other rules handled the same way.

There's no need of the NCAA which means basketball may be fully monetized from day one and if they want an inclusive basketball tournament then a certain number of slots beyond those of the two conferences would be set aside for invitations. Baseball and softball to be handled the same way.

The PCSA is the only instrument that could keep the schools tied to the NCAA and that's a bug, not a feature.