Seems pretty dumb, considering that the B1G has won 3 national titles in a row. At some point, it would be nice for somebody in the conference to win again.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-players

Michigan and Indiana are hardly outspending the SEC, they just built better teams eith great coaching staffs those two years.

Per the article: For instance, a school could be taxed 1% for $1 million it spends over the cap and 3% for $3 million.

1% of a million is 10K.
3% of a 3 million is 90K

Not much of a deterrent.

Seems like a pretty big anti-trust violation unless they collectively bargain it with the players or get an anti-trust exemption through PCSA or some other bill.

Love the rule, SEC always making the best moves for fans.

Good luck enforcing that without a binding legal contract covering all parties involved (yes players too).

(11-06-2026 04:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Seems pretty dumb, considering that the B1G has won 3 national titles in a row. At some point, it would be nice for somebody in the conference to win again.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-players

Unless the SEC plans on playing completely insular competition, I don't see the value in rules like this.

The cat is out of the bag when it comes to player compensation. We're not going back to the old world.

As the Joker said to Batman in The Dark Knight:

Quote:Those mob fools want you dead so they can get back to the way things were. But I know the truth: there's no going back. You've changed things. Forever.

This is the type of stuff I think of when I see college leaders trying to work with Congress. What they built their world on is gone forever. I was in favor of petitioning Congress for laws on the matter. I still think it's the best strategy as the Federal government is the only authority that could actually create a system that would supersede the varying state laws and bring any real standards to national competition.

But of course, politicians had other ideas beyond simply fixing problems and college leaders weren't particularly creative in their ask. They wanted something as close to the old system as possible and they were never going to get it.

Anyway, any conference level rules pertaining to player compensation should work to encourage stability more than anything. That's the biggest problem now. It's really not even the money they're spending, it's the fact that every day is free agent day one way or the other.

Now, we could talk about the problems of relying on the donor class for annual cash flow and how that is absurdly, laughably unsustainable, but the bottom line is that college football is better when kids aren't moving around all the time. My favorite and simple suggestion to address that is to add a transfer tax if there are any acquisitions within your conference. Regardless of whatever an individual's contract says, the rule should be "new school" pays a flat fee(or perhaps a percentage of the salary) to the "old school" where the player came from. This increases the cost of players transferring within your league. It doesn't necessarily do that if you're trying to acquire players from another conference which should also have the added benefit of discouraging schools from raiding conference mates.

Anything more meaningful than that will have to be collectively bargained or instituted by the Feds. Point being, SEC leaders are thinking about rules that might work for one national organization rather than the reality of each league being in it for themselves.