The news passed with little or no mention here, but as of June 1 the ACC and B12 both came out in support of the PCSA (Protect College Sports Act).

Steve Samra, On3, June 1:
....
In a letter to the senators, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips praised the legislation and emphasized the need for congressional action.
....
Meanwhile, Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark echoed a similar message in his own letter.
....
“I really think that the concern is the health of college athletics, not just football,” (Nick) Saban said... “If we’re creating a situation where there’s not enough balance between the revenue sports and the non-revenue sports, then people are going to start dropping these sports.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/acc-bi...56741.html
________

Full Text of the Bill
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1...68/text/is

Downloadable PDF

I believe UNC (!) is also in support of the bill.

(06-18-2026 06:51 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I believe UNC (!) is also in support of the bill.

Yes. Last week all FBS programs in North Carolina expressly supported it.

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/north-...38473.html

From what I’m reading it doesn’t stop realignment, it just stops conferences from merging to create a “Super Conference”. It depends on which article you read so it’s not very clear. It could undo realignment by making it pointless if 75% of FBS agrees to pool their media rights. Here are some points from some articles:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5930...ports-act/

The panel moved the Protect College Sports Act forward in a 19-9 vote. Twelve Republicans and seven Democrats backed it, while seven Democrats and two Republicans — Sens. Roger Wicker (Miss.) and Todd Young (Ind.) — voted against it.

The bill proposes granting the NCAA limited antitrust protection and issues standards on the transfer portal, student athlete compensation and medical coverage. It also proposes requiring broadcasters to provide at least one free option for football and basketball games involving local teams.

It also grants student athletes five years of eligibility starting with the academic year after their 19th birthday or when they graduate high school, and allows students athletes to transfer once without losing any eligibility. NCAA bylaws allow student athletes to transfer at the end of each season without losing eligibility.

^

Cantwell said the bill will crack down on agents and universities engaging in “predatory contracting” with student athletes.

The PCSA requires agents to register with a state before they can represent college athletes, similar to the requirement agents face at the professional level.

“Making agents register, making them liable for deceitful information, making them accountable to a federal law of fines is a first-time federal law that will help us in cracking down on these bad actors,” Cantwell added

President Trump backed the legislation earlier this month, saying it would “stop the chaos” in college athletics.

Former University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban told the Commerce panel earlier this month that while the measure “isn’t perfect,” it is a “serious effort to bring order to a system that badly needs fixing.”

But while the NCAA has also backed the legislation, the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference (SEC), the two most powerful conferences in college sports, said Thursday that “revisions are needed” to the bill before they can support it.

*

The initial draft of the PCSA released last month included a provision that would bar conferences reporting more than $1 billion in revenue during fiscal 2025 from merging with another conference — a measure that solely applied to the Big Ten and SEC.

But the latest iteration of the bill tweaks that provision to apply to conferences reporting more than $700 million in revenue. The Atlantic Coast Conference and Big 12 reported roughly $826.5 billion and $610.9 million, respectively, in revenue during the 2024-25 sports season.


https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/18/...ns-senate/

But Cruz and Cantwell’s approach does protect students’ ability to earn NIL compensation and creates more transparency around the NIL process, including protections from deceptive agent conduct and the creation of an NIL disclosure database that would list the value of agreements.

Cruz sees a narrow window to regulate college sports before the NCAA is forever altered by the potential of a “super-league” — a prospective merger between the Big Ten and the SEC that could bring untold riches to the two powerful conferences but devastate dozens of schools in other conferences and eliminate scores of non-revenue programs, completely changing the face of college athletics.

And the Texas senator sees the issue as existential for programs outside of the state’s biggest rivalry.

“If the system continues on the path it’s on, there are only two schools that I am certain would survive — University of Texas and Texas A&M,” Cruz said in an episode of his podcast “Verdict.”

“They have a big enough donor base that no matter what happens, those two survive,” he said. “But if we’re sitting here three, five years from now, and the other schools — University of Houston, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Texas Tech, Rice — if the other college programs in Texas go under, that’s terrible for Texas. It’s terrible for athletes. It’s terrible for the sport.”

The Protect College Sports Act effectively eliminates the ability for the Big Ten and SEC to merge by banning large-revenue conferences from consolidating or growing by acquisition. Based on feedback, the senators tweaked the bill late Wednesday to set a $700 million revenue floor to trigger the anti-expansion provision, which would also impact the ACC and likely Big 12.

It allows teams a path to pool television rights — the largest revenue driver — if 75 percent of the schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision agree, triggering an antitrust exemption. For professional leagues like the NFL, the entire league negotiates to sell its media rights, with broadcast revenue shared instead of each team going it alone.

If teams agree to pool media rights, they would have to agree to protect women’s and Olympic sports roster spots, and existing rivalries between schools. But the Big Ten and SEC, which have massive media rights deals, could squash the pool if all teams in those conferences, plus unaffiliated Notre Dame, band together.

Cruz’s bill has drawn support from 23 conferences, including the commissioner of the Big 12 — which includes Baylor, Houston, TCU and Texas Tech — and the presidents of Texas universities including Baylor, Rice, SMU, Texas Southern University, TCU, University of Texas, El Paso and University of Texas, San Antonio. Professional leagues, including the NFL, NBA and MLB, as well as the players’ unions for the NFL and NBA, and the NCAA commissioner, have come onboard as well.

*

Other elements of Cruz and Cantwell’s bill include medical protection for student-athletes, giving athletes a private right of action to sue schools, a provision preventing football coaches from switching teams midseason (a la LSU’s Lane Kiffin), a continuation of the revenue-sharing cap that the NCAA has implemented and a mandate that schools provide men’s and women’s sports teams with comparable facilities and services.


Go Cards!

I’m kind of wondering what it means, procedurally, to say a conference (ACC, B1G, etc) supports something. This is covered in the by-laws, I’m sure, but I’m not familiar with them.

If we say the ACC supports a CFP format or a bill in the US Senate, presumably that is decided by more than just the commissioner and staff at the league office. But does it depend on unanimous support by the schools? A certain percentage?

if you think about it, any sort of poaching by the top conferences usually has a cascading effect that sometimes trickles down to the FCS levels. This highly disruptive process to me is just as big of a problem as the P2 trying to monopolize cfb football under the guise of saving college athletics when we know damn well they will cut non-football athletics when it suits them even if they are making hand over fist.

I know this latest information just came out, but it's telling that 5 schools in North Carolina came out in support (including UNC-CH) of the amended PCSA. Also telling, that of all the Texas schools that support it, UT-Austin and aTm were not among them...at least not publicly.

Also, since this bill seems to have a lot of support, there is a pretty fair chance it get's passed into law by the end of the year and if it does not, I don't think politicians will stop making revisions until it finally does. Why is this significant? It seems to me there is an even tighter window to realign if it happens at all. ACC members who want out asap will have to pay much more than $75m. Ok, so you get 1 ACC member that has the cash to do it, problem is, you will likely need a willing partner that can also afford it. Then you have the negative PR for the institutions and the conferences to deal with. At what point is the headache not worth it?

Here's the thing, everybody knows that the ACC could use (I will avoid the word "needs") an 18th football member. I've talked about it many times why it would be a great idea including ESPN owing the ACC a pro-rata (might as well use it), evens out the future 9 game conference football scheduling, and random intangibles like boosting the ACC's money sports profile, new ACC markets or strengthen existing markets, ease the cost of travel, etc. The script is starting to flip in the ACC's favor, if all the members are staying put and everybody knows it, then that gives the ACC a lot of negotiating power to be selective who they want as the 18th football member.

My advice for the malcontent members is to leverage any position they have and try to get what they can get now in exchange for a unified message of commitment to the PCSA. I think we are about to see the end of realignment at the top level, so get comfortable.

(06-19-2026 09:10 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Also, since this bill seems to have a lot of support, there is a pretty fair chance it get's passed into law by the end of the year and if it does not, I don't think politicians will stop making revisions until it finally does. Why is this significant? It seems to me there is an even tighter window to realign if it happens at all. ACC members who want out asap will have to pay much more than $75m. Ok, so you get 1 ACC member that has the cash to do it, problem is, you will likely need a willing partner that can also afford it. Then you have the negative PR for the institutions and the conferences to deal with. At what point is the headache not worth it?

Here's the thing, everybody knows that the ACC could use (I will avoid the word "needs") an 18th football member. I've talked about it many times why it would be a great idea including ESPN owing the ACC a pro-rata (might as well use it), evens out the future 9 game conference football scheduling, and random intangibles like boosting the ACC's money sports profile, new ACC markets or strengthen existing markets, ease the cost of travel, etc. The script is starting to flip in the ACC's favor, if all the members are staying put and everybody knows it, then that gives the ACC a lot of negotiating power to be selective who they want as the 18th football member.

My advice for the malcontent members is to leverage any position they have and try to get what they can get now in exchange for a unified message of commitment to the PCSA. I think we are about to see the end of realignment at the top level, so get comfortable.

Everybody KOWS who they want for their 18th member!

(06-19-2026 09:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-19-2026 09:10 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Also, since this bill seems to have a lot of support, there is a pretty fair chance it get's passed into law by the end of the year and if it does not, I don't think politicians will stop making revisions until it finally does. Why is this significant? It seems to me there is an even tighter window to realign if it happens at all. ACC members who want out asap will have to pay much more than $75m. Ok, so you get 1 ACC member that has the cash to do it, problem is, you will likely need a willing partner that can also afford it. Then you have the negative PR for the institutions and the conferences to deal with. At what point is the headache not worth it?

Here's the thing, everybody knows that the ACC could use (I will avoid the word "needs") an 18th football member. I've talked about it many times why it would be a great idea including ESPN owing the ACC a pro-rata (might as well use it), evens out the future 9 game conference football scheduling, and random intangibles like boosting the ACC's money sports profile, new ACC markets or strengthen existing markets, ease the cost of travel, etc. The script is starting to flip in the ACC's favor, if all the members are staying put and everybody knows it, then that gives the ACC a lot of negotiating power to be selective who they want as the 18th football member.

My advice for the malcontent members is to leverage any position they have and try to get what they can get now in exchange for a unified message of commitment to the PCSA. I think we are about to see the end of realignment at the top level, so get comfortable.

Everybody KOWS who they want for their 18th member!

The PCSA would seem to strengthen ND’s position to continue the status quo in the ACC and I’m not against that. The ACC also needs P level OOC games which ND provides. This can be a fine partnership if the ACC and ND can stop with the petty attacking of one another, I think there can be an acceptable middle ground.

(06-19-2026 07:29 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  if you think about it, any sort of poaching by the top conferences usually has a cascading effect that sometimes trickles down to the FCS levels. This highly disruptive process to me is just as big of a problem as the P2 trying to monopolize cfb football under the guise of saving college athletics when we know damn well they will cut non-football athletics when it suits them even if they are making hand over fist.

I know this latest information just came out, but it's telling that 5 schools in North Carolina came out in support (including UNC-CH) of the amended PCSA. Also telling, that of all the Texas schools that support it, UT-Austin and aTm were not among them...at least not publicly.

Ted Cruz remarked rather candidly on this. He said those are the only two universities in Texas that can feel pretty sure they are safe no matter what. Their situation is different.

That’s pretty much the case with every school already in a P2 conference. They’ve punched their tickets.

(06-19-2026 09:10 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Also, since this bill seems to have a lot of support, there is a pretty fair chance it get's passed into law by the end of the year and if it does not, I don't think politicians will stop making revisions until it finally does. Why is this significant? It seems to me there is an even tighter window to realign if it happens at all. ACC members who want out asap will have to pay much more than $75m. Ok, so you get 1 ACC member that has the cash to do it, problem is, you will likely need a willing partner that can also afford it. Then you have the negative PR for the institutions and the conferences to deal with. At what point is the headache not worth it?

Here's the thing, everybody knows that the ACC could use (I will avoid the word "needs") an 18th football member. I've talked about it many times why it would be a great idea including ESPN owing the ACC a pro-rata (might as well use it), evens out the future 9 game conference football scheduling, and random intangibles like boosting the ACC's money sports profile, new ACC markets or strengthen existing markets, ease the cost of travel, etc. The script is starting to flip in the ACC's favor, if all the members are staying put and everybody knows it, then that gives the ACC a lot of negotiating power to be selective who they want as the 18th football member.

My advice for the malcontent members is to leverage any position they have and try to get what they can get now in exchange for a unified message of commitment to the PCSA. I think we are about to see the end of realignment at the top level, so get comfortable.

This strikes me as more dramatic than informed.

The ACC has already expressed support for the bill. There is nothing to swap for ‘leverage’ with Congress as if Congress were an athletic conference.

And the bill, if passed, would be unlikely to stop realignment cold in its tracks. The current language doesn’t prevent poaching in the usual sense. Lawmakers’ main concern is to prevent a PAC-style unraveling that leaves a few schools stranded in the shell of a conference that lacks the minimum membership needed to sustain it.

___

(06-19-2026 01:07 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(06-19-2026 09:10 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Also, since this bill seems to have a lot of support, there is a pretty fair chance it get's passed into law by the end of the year and if it does not, I don't think politicians will stop making revisions until it finally does. Why is this significant? It seems to me there is an even tighter window to realign if it happens at all. ACC members who want out asap will have to pay much more than $75m. Ok, so you get 1 ACC member that has the cash to do it, problem is, you will likely need a willing partner that can also afford it. Then you have the negative PR for the institutions and the conferences to deal with. At what point is the headache not worth it?

Here's the thing, everybody knows that the ACC could use (I will avoid the word "needs") an 18th football member. I've talked about it many times why it would be a great idea including ESPN owing the ACC a pro-rata (might as well use it), evens out the future 9 game conference football scheduling, and random intangibles like boosting the ACC's money sports profile, new ACC markets or strengthen existing markets, ease the cost of travel, etc. The script is starting to flip in the ACC's favor, if all the members are staying put and everybody knows it, then that gives the ACC a lot of negotiating power to be selective who they want as the 18th football member.

My advice for the malcontent members is to leverage any position they have and try to get what they can get now in exchange for a unified message of commitment to the PCSA. I think we are about to see the end of realignment at the top level, so get comfortable.

This strikes me as more dramatic than informed.

The ACC has already expressed support for the bill. There is nothing to swap for ‘leverage’ with Congress as if it were an athletic conference.

And the bill, if passed, would be unlikely to stop realignment cold in its tracks. What it is designed to prevent is not poaching in the usual sense, but a PAC-style unraveling that leaves a few schools stranded in the shell of a conference without the minimum membership to sustain it.

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2067601941740290160

source it ...
or it didn't happen ...
impute a motive ...

WRITTEN IN BLACK & WHITE

(06-19-2026 01:31 PM)green Wrote:  

(06-19-2026 01:07 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  ....
The ACC has already expressed support for the bill. There is nothing to swap for ‘leverage’ with Congress as if it were an athletic conference.

And the bill, if passed, would be unlikely to stop realignment cold in its tracks. What it is designed to prevent is not poaching in the usual sense, but a PAC-style unraveling that leaves a few schools stranded in the shell of a conference without the minimum membership to sustain it.

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2067601941740290160

source it ...
or it didn't happen ...
impute a motive ...

WRITTEN IN BLACK & WHITE

You don’t know what “the anti-expansion provision” is.
As a result, there’s a whole lotta assumin’ goin’ on.

I recommend reading articles instead of tweets.
It’s amazing how much more information you can glean.

Start with Mr Dellenger at Yahoo Sports news.

(06-19-2026 01:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(06-19-2026 01:31 PM)green Wrote:  

(06-19-2026 01:07 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(06-19-2026 09:10 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Also, since this bill seems to have a lot of support, there is a pretty fair chance it get's passed into law by the end of the year and if it does not, I don't think politicians will stop making revisions until it finally does. Why is this significant? It seems to me there is an even tighter window to realign if it happens at all. ACC members who want out asap will have to pay much more than $75m. Ok, so you get 1 ACC member that has the cash to do it, problem is, you will likely need a willing partner that can also afford it. Then you have the negative PR for the institutions and the conferences to deal with. At what point is the headache not worth it?

Here's the thing, everybody knows that the ACC could use (I will avoid the word "needs") an 18th football member. I've talked about it many times why it would be a great idea including ESPN owing the ACC a pro-rata (might as well use it), evens out the future 9 game conference football scheduling, and random intangibles like boosting the ACC's money sports profile, new ACC markets or strengthen existing markets, ease the cost of travel, etc. The script is starting to flip in the ACC's favor, if all the members are staying put and everybody knows it, then that gives the ACC a lot of negotiating power to be selective who they want as the 18th football member.

My advice for the malcontent members is to leverage any position they have and try to get what they can get now in exchange for a unified message of commitment to the PCSA. I think we are about to see the end of realignment at the top level, so get comfortable.

This strikes me as more dramatic than informed.

The ACC has already expressed support for the bill. There is nothing to swap for ‘leverage’ with Congress as if it were an athletic conference.

And the bill, if passed, would be unlikely to stop realignment cold in its tracks. What it is designed to prevent is not poaching in the usual sense, but a PAC-style unraveling that leaves a few schools stranded in the shell of a conference without the minimum membership to sustain it.

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2067601941740290160

source it ...
or it didn't happen ...
impute a motive ...

WRITTEN IN BLACK & WHITE

You don’t know what “the anti-expansion provision” is.
There’s a whole lotta assumin’ goin’ on.

I recommend reading articles instead of tweets.
It’s amazing how much more information you can glean.

Start with Mr Dellenger at Yahoo Sports news.

physician heal thyself ...
you're the one making an uncorroborated claim ...
look over here ...

NON-ANSWER

There no need to rush, this bill doesn’t prevent realignment. It prevents conferences from merging or killing another conference. It may make realignment pointless IF 75% of FBS elects to pool media rights into one deal.


Go Cards!

(06-19-2026 01:47 PM)green Wrote:  

(06-19-2026 01:36 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(06-19-2026 01:31 PM)green Wrote:  

(06-19-2026 01:07 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  ....
The ACC has already expressed support for the bill. There is nothing to swap for ‘leverage’ with Congress as if it were an athletic conference.

And the bill, if passed, would be unlikely to stop realignment cold in its tracks. What it is designed to prevent is not poaching in the usual sense, but a PAC-style unraveling that leaves a few schools stranded in the shell of a conference without the minimum membership to sustain it.

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2067601941740290160

source it ...
or it didn't happen ...
impute a motive ...

WRITTEN IN BLACK & WHITE

You don’t know what “the anti-expansion provision” is.
There’s a whole lotta assumin’ goin’ on.

I recommend reading articles instead of tweets.
It’s amazing how much more information you can glean.

Start with Mr Dellenger at Yahoo Sports news.

physician heal thyself ...
you're the one making an uncorroborated claim ...
look over here ...

NON-ANSWER

Need your daddy to walk you to the restroom, too?

The language of the bill prevents a breakaway.

It is not concerned at all with Texas/Oklahoma, USC/UCLA kinds of migration. That kind of thing is not even mentioned, as far as I can see, in any of the reports.

There is a measure, which our legal types in the main forum are trying to parse, that prevents expanding past a certain point. That point is one which leaves an affected conference or body of FBS schools less than viable.

Viability is measured in more than one way, depending on what the section of the bill is concerned with—but one marker is conference membership remaining above the minimum needed to sustain the league as an entity (eight schools IIRC, nine tops).

News reports
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/big-te...18971.html

Main Forum thread
https://csnbbs.com/thread-1028992-post-2...id20664650

(06-19-2026 02:10 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  There no need to rush, this bill doesn’t prevent realignment. It prevents conferences from merging or killing another conference. It may make realignment pointless IF 75% of FBS elects to pool media rights into one deal.

(06-19-2026 02:10 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  There no need to rush, this bill doesn’t prevent realignment. It prevents conferences from merging or killing another conference. It may make realignment pointless IF 75% of FBS elects to pool media rights into one deal.


Go Cards!

https://x.com/RossDellenger/status/2067601943946514701

SPEAKING OUT OF IGNORANCE

Here is the full text of Section 205, the bill’s provision on conference expansion and mergers. (See the OP for links to the full text of the complete bill.)

It shall be unlawful under the antitrust laws, as defined in section 1(a), for any conference that reported more than $1,000,000,000* in revenue on its fiscal year 2025 tax return to merge or consolidate with, or to acquire the assets, media rights (including media rights of an institution), or membership of, another conference, if as a result of the transaction, the number of institutions that are members of the conference would be less than the membership requirements under section 5(b)(1)(A).

(b) Defenses not applicable
A transaction prohibited under subsection (a) may not be justified by efficiencies, procompetitive effects, or any other defense under the antitrust laws, as defined in section 1(a).

-----
* now modified to read $700,000,000
________________________________________________________

The section regarding membership requirements is apparently this one (section 6, not 5):

(6) Conference
The term conference means any organization that is not an intercollegiate athletic association and that—

(A) has 2 or more institutions as members; and
(B) arranges championships for intercollegiate athletic competitions or sets rules for intercollegiate athletic competition.

__

(06-19-2026 03:11 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Here is the full text of Section 205, the bill’s provision on conference expansion and mergers. (See the OP for links to the full text of the complete bill.)

It shall be unlawful under the antitrust laws, as defined in section 1(a), for any conference that reported more than $1,000,000,000* in revenue on its fiscal year 2025 tax return to merge or consolidate with, or to acquire the assets, media rights (including media rights of an institution), or membership of, another conference, if as a result of the transaction, the number of institutions that are members of the conference would be less than the membership requirements under section 5(b)(1)(A).

(b) Defenses not applicable
A transaction prohibited under subsection (a) may not be justified by efficiencies, procompetitive effects, or any other defense under the antitrust laws, as defined in section 1(a).

-----
* now modified to read $700,000,000
________________________________________________________

The section regarding membership requirements is apparently this one (section 6, not 5):

(6) Conference
The term conference means any organization that is not an intercollegiate athletic association and that—

(A) has 2 or more institutions as members; and
(B) arranges championships for intercollegiate athletic competitions or sets rules for intercollegiate athletic competition.

That puts a limit on conference consolidation. As I read it, the A4 conferences that exist now would need to keep existing. G# conferences would have more freedom to merge with and absorb each other, free of concerns that someone from A4 tier above might clean them out.

To call Section 205 an ‘anti-expansion provision’, as Mr Dellenger did in tweeted remarks, is not really accurate. It is an anti-consolidation provision.