forums

Protect College Sports Act [formerly “SCORE Act” thread]

From Yahoo Spoorts tonight:

The legislation caps power conference membership at 19 schools and requires those programs moving from one power league to another to operate as an independent for five years.

The expansion provision may impact decisions from schools that are in position to move from the ACC to the SEC or Big Ten. Officials at Clemson, Miami, Florida State, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and others have expressed, some privately and other publicly in meetings, their opposition to the concept.

It’s about to go down.

Some combination of Miami, FSU and Clemson is going to hit the eject button soon and the ACC is gonna unravel in a hurry
 
cookies said:
agree more so on the former than the latter; because it’s going to take someone to test the latter for the latter to get struck down. But I’m not sure on what grounds it’d get struck down anyways

The former may end up struck down just on the basis that this was done without any collective bargaining of sorts by the athletes

I don’t quite know how strict this attestation framing by the CSC will be. And I also think it matters if a ton of schools hit that cap and how soon they hit that cap because obviously media rights are going to go up so that’ll be a point of contention if the cap ceiling doesn’t go up too
Click to expand...

Regarding conference movement if this becomes law this could be an arbitrary restraint on competition that exceeds its stated purpose or whether the distinction between conference members and independents is so irrational that it lacks any legitimate governmental purpose.
 
However, conference executives wanted more language prohibiting cap circumvention.

Senators themselves pushed back against the notion that the cap circumvention provision isn't strong enough. In fact, Cruz claimed that commissioners want to bar third-party companies associated with schools from striking any and all NIL deals with athletes, even kosher endorsement contracts. He contends language in the latest bill creates the hardest cap possible beyond violating a person's NIL rights.

"The cap is a hard cap. Full stop. That loophole is closed," Cruz wrote in a post on X.
Click to expand...

Good on Canadian Cruz. Without a doubt they wanted to eliminate NIL entirely. Honestly, such a stupid provision would’ve been struck down expeditiously.

We’ll see what comes from this new cap and what is or isn’t circumventing the cap and what is or isn’t affiliated university partnerships regarding NIL.
 
TboneJones said:
Regarding conference movement if this becomes law this could be an arbitrary restraint on competition that exceeds its stated purpose or whether the distinction between conference members and independents is so irrational that it lacks any legitimate governmental purpose.
Click to expand...
Will be interesting to see how Prez Joe responds to it publicly
 
Talk me off the ledge that this doesn't absolutely suck for us.

- No moving to B10/SEC
- No pooling of media rights which keeps the B10/SEC way out in front for media rights money
- Hard cap on money paid to players (we are top 5 and above this cap)
 
ssvir said:
Talk me off the ledge that this doesn't absolutely suck for us.

- No moving to B10/SEC
- No pooling of media rights which keeps the B10/SEC way out in front for media rights money
- Hard cap on money paid to players (we are top 5 and above this cap)
Click to expand...

Both will be challenged in the courts.
 
Setting the cap at 19 and forcing departing ACC or Big XIi schools to go independent for 5 years has Cody Campbell’s fingerprints all over it.

Makes sense he and his associates would want to herd those schools towards private equity and into the hands of Smash Capital forming its so-called Super League alongside Texas Tech.

Forget the dynamics of the SEC-B1G on-field rivalry. Sankey and Petitti both would be far more concerned with Super League and PE getting a foothold by trying to lure the cream of the ACC and Big XII (and most certainly Notre Dame, too) before setting their sights on poaching SEC and Big Ten headliners.

There’s a reason both the SEC and B1G commissioners were pushing changes to the PCSA that would’ve eliminated third-party poaching opportunities.
 
ssvir said:
Talk me off the ledge that this doesn't absolutely suck for us.

- No moving to B10/SEC
- No pooling of media rights which keeps the B10/SEC way out in front for media rights money
- Hard cap on money paid to players (we are top 5 and above this cap)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't see how the B1G & $EC would negotiate this deal with the senators and then pull last minute expansion efforts which would put them over the 19 team threshold before the bill would become law.

The carveouts provided for avoiding media rights pooling were probably the key for $EC & B1G support. Basically making it only to be done on a voluntary basis and carving out that playoff access would always be available to those conferences who don't decide to pool their rights (aka B1G & $EC). Get ready for the ACC/Big XII media package deal coming soon.
 
ssvir said:
Talk me off the ledge that this doesn't absolutely suck for us.

- No moving to B10/SEC
- No pooling of media rights which keeps the B10/SEC way out in front for media rights money
- Hard cap on money paid to players (we are top 5 and above this cap)
Click to expand...

It’s chess mi amigo.

The SEC and B1G are putting the onus on the schools they’d accept to go on and announce they’re leaving their second-tier conferences. All about keeping your hands clean.

If those papers are signed for their new conference homes before the PCSA is passed into law, then there’s nothing those “19 CAP and 5-years of Independence” stipulations can change.

Go back and read Ross Dellenger’s articles that are excerpted in this thread. He’s dropping hints for what’s about to go down.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top