It was/is non-negotiable for the ACC, B12 and the rest of FBS to leave the anti-expansion provisions out when the primary parties that benefit from them are ESPN and Fox.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
No, the primary beneficiaries of expansion have been the universities that have seen their revenues skyrocket due to TV money.
So the thing everyone told you would happen the whole time, that this process would fail because the P2 is fundamentally against it, failed because the P2 is fundamentally against it.
color me shocked
That’s all that was ever needed. Limit the transfers to 1 unless a coach leaves and the system basically solves itself.
The transfer portal is the one thing all the P4 can agree is out of wack so just get that handled with zero pushback. NIL is never being put back in the tube, media pooling was always a non starter but there is just the lowest hanging fruit that’s right there that would universally make the sport better
The process hasn't failed yet and the B10/SEC aren't fundamentally against it. They are trying to add BS items not applicable to the Feds and remove items that only serve the networks that own them. They need (like everyone else) House codification and an anti-trust exemption that would enable enforcement of transfer rules and House.
They already tried that with SCORE and it never had a chance of passing. Cantwell's bipartisan co-sponsorship of PCSA with Cruz provided a path towards possible passage in both the House and Senate.
Wrong, ESPN and Fox can put practically all of their money in the SEC and B10 without the anti-expansion provisions and financially/competitively relegate the rest of FBS. And do so without competition from Paramount and Amazon. It would mirror what Fox and the B10 did to destroy the PAC and relegate Wazzu/Oregon St. This time around it would be up to 30 existing ACC and B12 schools including ISU.
You won't be able to legally do this (that is, survive the lawsuits) unless there are anti-trust exemptions in place first. And that won't happen without the type of compromises present in the Cantrell-Cruz Act. People forget the 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that essentially said exploiting student labor for vast profits was no longer going to be allowed.
The old days are never returning.
Any reason why the PCSA can't be brought up again after the mid-term elections? Cruz and Cantwell Senate terms end in 2031. I would rather have it done right versus caving to the SEC/Big 10 per Ross Dellenger's article of "Let's make a deal" by the senators to get it to a vote before the elections.
Could they just do the antitrust portion for now and do a separate legislation later? That would at least give the NCAA and conferences the ability to enforce rules.
It won't get 60 Senate votes. I am going to walk a line with a general explanation. It is neither endorsing or condemning a position.
In general, Democratic Senators are going to be sensitive to the rights of the athletes (employees, if you will.) They will generally oppose rules that give the Athletic Departments control over things that were unleashed by the Supreme Court Ruling. They would generally support Collective Bargaining with whatever Central Entity/Employer that can be agreed upon.
In general, Republican Senators would be more sensitive to the rights of the Schools/Athletic Departments (Management, if you will). They will be in favor of not having the athetes ever considered employees and will be leaning to management decisions and individual Conferences or even Schools autonomy. They are fundamentally wary, if not outright opposed, to Collective Bargaining.
And, like it or not, the fact that a high percentage relative to the general population of FB and MBB players (the 2 revenue generating sports) are Black, creates, at best, tension and in some cases outright hostility most often on party lines.
Add in women's sports and Title IX issues, and it becomes apparent this is not a simple, easy fix. It started when the Supreme Court ruling upended what we had known. It magnified with the blatant absolute greed of the $EC and B1G grabbing money, money, money.
The answer is to fashion a compromise, which is what Cruz-Cantwell is. The problem is selfish intersts are working against compromise. We may actually see the demise of College Athletics because compromise has become a dirty word - in a nation literally founded on compromise.
I don't really see how the 1-transfer rule alone fixes much of anything. Instead of a good player getting multiple smaller incremental NIL increases over multiple transfers, some donor will gladly speculate and give a huge single NIL increase for the 1-time transfer. Donors will still be buying teams; it just probably won't cost them quite as much to do so.
Donors will always be buying teams but the 1 transfer rule would help college basketball quite a bit. There would be way less turnover on teams and that alone could really help the fans. Plus it keeps players from just taking the highest bid every year.
IMO, the transfer rule probably the thing most people agree on is a problem. From casual fans the thing I hear most complained about is that every offseason is unrestricted free agency and second the lack of eligibility restrictions.
If the 1 time free transfer rule would have some really interesting market distortions. Players would likely require multi-year contracts to transfer because after you transfer once the player’s “value” drops and essentially the new school would have a major upper hand in any negotiation.
Cruz-Cantwell is neutral on employment so any party lines relative to that issue should be irrelevant to its passage. But totally agree with your last paragraph.
Senate passage should be easier than House passage where special interests unrelated to the bill (e.g. redistricting) or irrelevant issues (e.g. employment) to this bill could screw up passage.
I agree. Cruz-Cantwell addresses some key issues, but does so in a compromise. My analysi is the compromise addresses some of the underlying impediments. It could be wrong - or right. The key observation i have it is opposed by the 2 behemoths (and, likely, their chief media partners) in part because they are unwilling to comromise their positions.
