I don't even know if a merger between the SEC and B1G is necessary - ESPN can pitch them as an "AFC/NFC" of college football whether they expand to 18, 20, 24, whatever . . .

Even a P3 scenario might be on the table. Let the 3 conferences have their own 4-team playoff, then allow one wildcard into the national playoff (which would justify the presence of a selection committee to pick that one wildcard spot).

(01-23-2022 01:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 11:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 10:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 10:04 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  ESPN just fired a shot across the bow. They’re ticked-off that Phillips isn’t going along with their playoff expansion. So they’ll rile up the fan bases of FSU and Clemson. This will be a difficult time for Phillips…wouldn’t be surprised with media criticism of any slightly controversial decision.

Not exactly! They just asked for a roll call of support from ACC schools. Who is for them and who is not? What becomes of you depends on your answer. All they need do is release you from your contract and reward those who want to stay. And the legal basis will be those who accept pay for play and those who don't. It's going to impact most if not all conferences. This is why the alliance's only power was in their own minds. There is no holding onto the NCAA and there will be no binding contracts when decisions are rendered as the equity in all of those ends with pay for play.

The SEC's strength is that we know where 13 of the 14 current stand and the 2 joining knew what was coming and made their decision.

I’m confused…I just don’t see P5 schools panicking about player professionalization or pay-for-play. Similarly, not sure why eliminating benefit caps on player scholarships will cancel media contracts.

When Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC they represented 56.3% of the conference's commercial value. In the B1G (2nd greatest disparity) Ohio State and Michigan represent 36.7% of the commercial value. Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa are within of 1.1% of each other and represent together another 35.5% of it. In the ACC Clemson and FSU represent 24.2%, Va Tech another 11.7% and if N.D. was included just for their 5 ACC games they would he worth 11.3%. So if those 4 alone left the ACC would suffer a 47.2% diminishment in value. The PAC has the most uniform valuation where Washington in a 12 team conference is only worth 14.7% of the total value.

Right about now you are asking what does this have to do with the post? ESPN is decapitating the value programs to assemble a super value conference.

Complicated? No. GOR's by precedent can be voided when adherence to a court ruling creates an inequity in existing contracts. We aren't talking about NIL's, stipends, or scholarships. We are talking salaries for players. And while many in the P5 are ready to make such a move it creates a much larger overhead for athletic departments which creates said inequity which did not exist when contracts were signed prior to the court ruling (which is expected). So schools will be spending much more in order to fulfill contracts while the networks aren't experiencing an overhead expense as a result of legal mandate. Under those circumstances (as has been the practice regarding entertainment contracts) a new contract must be signed. Now schools opting not to participate have to be let out at no additional penalty. This aspect will essentially void not only GOR's but also exit fees.

ESPN is (under these conditions) free to build the super conference insinuated above. The SEC has 11 of the top 24 valued programs. 13 are on record saying they are prepared to pay players. Vanderbilt, last I heard, hasn't made up its mind.

Right now the focus is on football value only, but full monetization will open up basketball product if freed of the NCAA which is what the SEC is about to do.

ESPN could easily place 8 ACC programs in the super conference should they be willing. The SEC is set to earn 76.5 million per school when OU and UT are on board. This is a move to not only separation but an upper tier of 24-48 schools. The money goes up. The TV exposure explodes, and those left out scramble.

And the targets are listed above. The more top heavy a conference is the easier it is to take the highest value for the fewest shares. This is how a corporation builds a product. Pain is coming. It always does when a raid happens, the best is gleaned, and the rest is sold off.

So, ESPN isn't making an idle threat. They are preparing to complete a 3-decade long plan. Now, do you want in or not? Virginia Tech is more accretive, but UNC would likely prefer your company, and they were allegedly in talks to the SEC, with Clemson, a week after OU and UT were outed early.

If this moves forward conferences as we know them will be gone and ESPN's first iteration of the SEC will be more like the old Southern Conference plus OU and UT, Missouri, and maybe Notre Dame.

Thanks for clarifying the view on contracts, GoR and exit fees. Sankey and the Ohio AD are co-chairs of the NCAA D1 governance subcommittee, that group’s work over the next six months should be creating a roadmap for player compensation. Although I believe that the highest level programs will remain non-profits (somehow tied to university educational missions), players will be paid much better than they are today. Also, every P5 school will initially want to continue competing at the highest level.

I agree that if current contractual ties are voided, the current ACC configuration is in a tough spot. Schools in the ACC want to compete at the highest level. Playing against national champions / contenders in football (e.g., Florida State, Clemson, Miami) and basketball (e.g., Duke and UNC) is essential for schools like UVa. That’s why losing Maryland created so much controversy.

The issues with MD were about their lies and their reveal to the Big 10 that we had contact with NW, PSU, and Purdue.

Here is a new Southern Conference Football format for you:

North - Pitt/VT/UVa/UNC/NC State/KY/TN/WF
East - Florida/FSU/Clemson/SC/Georgia/GT/Auburn/Vandy
South - Miami/Bama/Ole Miss/MSU/LSU/Arkansas/Mizzou/TAMU
West - Texas/OU/Kansas/Colorado/Utah/Arizona/ASU/USC

The "SEC" or new Southern Conference would like to put pressure on Penn State, and Ohio State. Those are the two schools that have high population states and could be culturally amenable. Iowa and Nebraska would be interested. Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Don't just believe me or Paul:

https://www.si.com/college/2022/01/20/nc...ball-money

The complexities, mistrust, overwhelmingly different realities, and desires are just too many. And the legislative processes are too convoluted to be effective. Breakaway seems more desired and likely.

(01-23-2022 07:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't just believe me or Paul:

https://www.si.com/college/2022/01/20/nc...ball-money

The complexities, mistrust, overwhelmingly different realities, and desires are just too many. And the legislative processes are too convoluted to be effective. Breakaway seems more desired and likely.

Good article, thanks for posting it

(01-22-2022 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 06:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, Notre Dame is a bridge too far even for the SEC.

Not for ESPN and not for a super conference. With the Irish and FSU the new conference has 7 of the top 10 earners. Add Miami & Clemson and you have 17 of the top 26.

From that position the pressure to participate only builds. And we aren't counting past champions of the last quarter century 22 of 25 with just those schools.

And X, if there is only 1 top tier conference then Irish participation is not like being limited to one conference among many. Instead, they would just be 1 team among contenders which is what independence in the NCAA essentially was.

So what we see is not the expansion of the SEC but the development of a new entity (spearheaded by the SEC).....a super conference.
Once this super conference is built, then it would have to be divided into divisions/pods for scheduling?

If ESPN is indeed behind the new super conference as you have alluded wouldn't that leave them vulnerable to charges of collusion?

(01-24-2022 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 06:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, Notre Dame is a bridge too far even for the SEC.

Not for ESPN and not for a super conference. With the Irish and FSU the new conference has 7 of the top 10 earners. Add Miami & Clemson and you have 17 of the top 26.

From that position the pressure to participate only builds. And we aren't counting past champions of the last quarter century 22 of 25 with just those schools.

And X, if there is only 1 top tier conference then Irish participation is not like being limited to one conference among many. Instead, they would just be 1 team among contenders which is what independence in the NCAA essentially was.

So what we see is not the expansion of the SEC but the development of a new entity (spearheaded by the SEC).....a super conference.
Once this super conference is built, then it would have to be divided into divisions/pods for scheduling?

If ESPN is indeed behind the new super conference as you have alluded wouldn't that leave them vulnerable to charges of collusion?

Not if it is done in compliance with a change in law, especially if it is initiated by a conference, or conferences.

I have heard some talk, not from usual or any official sources, that football and basketball may actually be handled as separate entities and under 2 different organizations in a pay for play world. It's just speculative conversation but for a school like North Carolina it would solve some issues. You wouldn't have to be in a football conference with Duke and Wake to be in a basketball conference with them. I can see something like that approach simplifying fiscal oversight and governance. Do it for baseball as well and including schools like Rice and Dallas Baptist becomes possible. I see positive aspects to this. However, just a rumor while separation is a potential reality.

(01-23-2022 07:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't just believe me or Paul:

https://www.si.com/college/2022/01/20/nc...ball-money

The complexities, mistrust, overwhelmingly different realities, and desires are just too many. And the legislative processes are too convoluted to be effective. Breakaway seems more desired and likely.

There are a lot of people in denial that the P5 are unhappy about being in a 350+ school division I. This article proves they are unhappy. Doesn't mean they will do anything, but they are clearly looking at alternatives.

As I pointed out in the other thread, Division I has grown from 217 in 1973 to 273 in 1982 to 358 now.

(01-25-2022 01:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 07:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't just believe me or Paul:

https://www.si.com/college/2022/01/20/nc...ball-money

The complexities, mistrust, overwhelmingly different realities, and desires are just too many. And the legislative processes are too convoluted to be effective. Breakaway seems more desired and likely.

There are a lot of people in denial that the P5 are unhappy about being in a 350+ school division I. This article proves they are unhappy. Doesn't mean they will do anything, but they are clearly looking at alternatives.

As I pointed out in the other thread, Division I has grown from 217 in 1973 to 273 in 1982 to 358 now.

Bullet, breakaway is a given. The NCAA is obsolete for the P5 and likely many in the G5. The holdup is only over which structure to adopt and how it will be managed, not governed. I do wholeheartedly anticipate further consolidation, and that relatively soon.

We have to determine if we want football managed along with basketball and / or baseball or each separately. We have to determine the scope of conferences as well. I'm pretty sure some of this is being worked out now. And the SEC has listened to other interested parties since the news broke on Oklahoma and Texas.

The SEC and ESPN are definitely positioning to build a super conference.

I think the question is will it be one single superconference or will they take a few key pieces and then have the Big 10 absorb the leftover quality programs, setting up an our champ vs your champ playoff.

20 or 24 per Super Conference seems plausible.

(01-26-2022 02:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The SEC and ESPN are definitely positioning to build a super conference.

I think the question is will it be one single superconference or will they take a few key pieces and then have the Big 10 absorb the leftover quality programs, setting up an our champ vs your champ playoff.

20 or 24 per Super Conference seems plausible.

Think 24 x 3. Yes, the B1G will be pitted against the SEC (huge interest in games bringing in the 2 largest viewerships. However, to make that break without legal risk there needs to be a third conference (lesser brands and lesser pay) with access.

If that fails, there is likely to be one self-contained self-governed system using collective bargaining to its advantage.

(01-26-2022 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 02:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The SEC and ESPN are definitely positioning to build a super conference.

I think the question is will it be one single superconference or will they take a few key pieces and then have the Big 10 absorb the leftover quality programs, setting up an our champ vs your champ playoff.

20 or 24 per Super Conference seems plausible.

Think 24 x 3. Yes, the B1G will be pitted against the SEC (huge interest in games bringing in the 2 largest viewerships. However, to make that break without legal risk there needs to be a third conference (lesser brands and lesser pay) with access.

If that fails, there is likely to be one self-contained self-governed system using collective bargaining to its advantage.

That 3rd league is going to be so weak that I don’t see them being anywhere in the same neighborhood as the other 2.

24 * 3 likely means 8 ACC Schools to the SEC and you’re likely looking at 8 PAC 12 schools plus 2 others to the Big Ten.

That leaves the Big 12, bottom half of the ACC, and bottom third of the PAC 12—that’s a sad league with not a single top 25 Forbes programs.

I see the SEC snatching FSU, Clemson, then 6 of these 7: VT, L’ville, Miami, UNC, UVA, NC St, GT

I see the Big 10’s expansion dependent on how they choose to subdivide: 3 divisions of 8, 4 divisions of 6, or 6 pods of 4. How you slice it determines how many PAC 12 schools you bring in. ND is definitely in that mix and maybe Kansas, Iowa St, or Pitt depending on the model they choose.

(01-26-2022 03:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 02:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The SEC and ESPN are definitely positioning to build a super conference.

I think the question is will it be one single superconference or will they take a few key pieces and then have the Big 10 absorb the leftover quality programs, setting up an our champ vs your champ playoff.

20 or 24 per Super Conference seems plausible.

Think 24 x 3. Yes, the B1G will be pitted against the SEC (huge interest in games bringing in the 2 largest viewerships. However, to make that break without legal risk there needs to be a third conference (lesser brands and lesser pay) with access.

If that fails, there is likely to be one self-contained self-governed system using collective bargaining to its advantage.

That 3rd league is going to be so weak that I don’t see them being anywhere in the same neighborhood as the other 2.

24 * 3 likely means 8 ACC Schools to the SEC and you’re likely looking at 8 PAC 12 schools plus 2 others to the Big Ten.

That leaves the Big 12, bottom half of the ACC, and bottom third of the PAC 12—that’s a sad league with not a single top 25 Forbes programs.

I see the SEC snatching FSU, Clemson, then 6 of these 7: VT, Miami, UNC, UVA, NC St, (GT or Duke). If Vandy and Duke drop down the SEC will look at Kansas.

I see the Big 10’s expansion dependent on how they choose to subdivide: 3 divisions of 8, 4 divisions of 6, or 6 pods of 4. How you slice it determines how many PAC 12 schools you bring in. ND is definitely in that mix and maybe Kansas, Iowa St, or Pitt depending on the model they choose.

FIFY with regard to SEC options and nobody knows for sure what ND will do.

Yes the 3rd conference is weaker. But they have access, which is necessary.

If the Super SEC ends up going to 24 teams and the Big 10 follows, I doubt anyone is going to have room for ND in the OOC as they’ll likely be playing 10 conference games. I think ND lands in the Super Big 10 simply due to lack of potential opponents. ND isn’t going to settle for independence if it means playing the Big 12, ACC, and PAC 12 leftovers. It’s a tough pill to swallow but the Big 10 is going to have the schools they want to play.

Looking around, I think these schools are likely all in hard spot:
ACC: BC, Cuse, WF
Big 12: Cincinnati, WVU, UCF, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston, BYU
PAC 12: Washington St, Oregon St, Utah

Bubble:
ACC: Pitt, Duke, GT, L’ville, NC St, Miami
Big 12: Kansas, Iowa St
PAC 12: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona St

Likely in a Super Conference:
ACC: Florida St, Clemson, VT, UVA, UNC
Big 12: None
Pac 12: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington

Alternatively, I think the SEC could end up as entity unto its own (with the addition of some ACC schools) while the Big Ten, PAC 12, ACC, Big 12, & ND stage their own playoff.

I'm throwing down the gauntlet.

I think the SEC will snag Florida State, Clemson, and Notre Dame. Call me crazy, but the winds of change are coming...

I'm going to make another bold prediction. Vanderbilt will stick with the SEC in a pay-for-play environment. It won't be their ideal reality, but we're not talking about a school that's poor. I think they'll go with it because their investment model can change. They can justify paying the players if the revenue isn't always straight out of the donors' pockets. They don't like that model and they don't have enough of a fan base to generate huge sums of cash from tickets. They need the TV revenue and they need basketball revenue too. Continuing to play on the same stage as their SEC rivals will be important to them if they are forced to make a choice for the first time.

The 4th school?

I think there's 5 more schools actually.

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, and Miami

(01-26-2022 10:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm throwing down the gauntlet.

I think the SEC will snag Florida State, Clemson, and Notre Dame. Call me crazy, but the winds of change are coming...

I'm going to make another bold prediction. Vanderbilt will stick with the SEC in a pay-for-play environment. It won't be their ideal reality, but we're not talking about a school that's poor. I think they'll go with it because their investment model can change. They can justify paying the players if the revenue isn't always straight out of the donors' pockets. They don't like that model and they don't have enough of a fan base to generate huge sums of cash from tickets. They need the TV revenue and they need basketball revenue too. Continuing to play on the same stage as their SEC rivals will be important to them if they are forced to make a choice for the first time.

The 4th school?

I think there's 5 more schools actually.

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, and Miami

Texas, Florida and Georgia exposure have to be appealing to ND, and Florida and Texas and Louisiana have strong Catholic populations so you can't rule them out. And if we go division-less it all gets even easier. It also makes a PAC12/B1G union much easier. You have 9 AAU P12 schools. If ND chooses the B1G we get Kansas. If ND chooses the SEC they get Kansas. The B12 becomes a catch all. Then I think we get a 6 team CFP and each get 2 in. Top 2 seeds get a bye.

We still have conference semis. Finals for the B1G/PAC is the Rose and the Sugar for the SEC and Cotton for the B12.

(01-24-2022 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 06:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, Notre Dame is a bridge too far even for the SEC.

Not for ESPN and not for a super conference. With the Irish and FSU the new conference has 7 of the top 10 earners. Add Miami & Clemson and you have 17 of the top 26.

From that position the pressure to participate only builds. And we aren't counting past champions of the last quarter century 22 of 25 with just those schools.

And X, if there is only 1 top tier conference then Irish participation is not like being limited to one conference among many. Instead, they would just be 1 team among contenders which is what independence in the NCAA essentially was.

So what we see is not the expansion of the SEC but the development of a new entity (spearheaded by the SEC).....a super conference.
Once this super conference is built, then it would have to be divided into divisions/pods for scheduling?

If ESPN is indeed behind the new super conference as you have alluded wouldn't that leave them vulnerable to charges of collusion?

Not if it is done in compliance with a change in law, especially if it is initiated by a conference, or conferences.

I have heard some talk, not from usual or any official sources, that football and basketball may actually be handled as separate entities and under 2 different organizations in a pay for play world. It's just speculative conversation but for a school like North Carolina it would solve some issues. You wouldn't have to be in a football conference with Duke and Wake to be in a basketball conference with them. I can see something like that approach simplifying fiscal oversight and governance. Do it for baseball as well and including schools like Rice and Dallas Baptist becomes possible. I see positive aspects to this. However, just a rumor while separation is a potential reality.

When we see this type of legislation being promoted by one of more conferences and to actually have it introduced in Congress, what sort of time frame are we looking at? It probably wouldn't be done this year (election year, wouldn't want to make too many voters mad).
I wonder if this type of legislation would have to incorporate a pay-for-play structure that also required Congressional approval. Would the schools have to cede governance to Congress or could the schools maintain the ability to govern themselves?
I understand that this is all speculative conversation or perhaps just a rumor, but it needs to be addressed if for no other reason to understand just how much time is involved to get to get it where it needs to be.

(01-27-2022 06:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 06:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, Notre Dame is a bridge too far even for the SEC.

Not for ESPN and not for a super conference. With the Irish and FSU the new conference has 7 of the top 10 earners. Add Miami & Clemson and you have 17 of the top 26.

From that position the pressure to participate only builds. And we aren't counting past champions of the last quarter century 22 of 25 with just those schools.

And X, if there is only 1 top tier conference then Irish participation is not like being limited to one conference among many. Instead, they would just be 1 team among contenders which is what independence in the NCAA essentially was.

So what we see is not the expansion of the SEC but the development of a new entity (spearheaded by the SEC).....a super conference.
Once this super conference is built, then it would have to be divided into divisions/pods for scheduling?

If ESPN is indeed behind the new super conference as you have alluded wouldn't that leave them vulnerable to charges of collusion?

Not if it is done in compliance with a change in law, especially if it is initiated by a conference, or conferences.

I have heard some talk, not from usual or any official sources, that football and basketball may actually be handled as separate entities and under 2 different organizations in a pay for play world. It's just speculative conversation but for a school like North Carolina it would solve some issues. You wouldn't have to be in a football conference with Duke and Wake to be in a basketball conference with them. I can see something like that approach simplifying fiscal oversight and governance. Do it for baseball as well and including schools like Rice and Dallas Baptist becomes possible. I see positive aspects to this. However, just a rumor while separation is a potential reality.

When we see this type of legislation being promoted by one of more conferences and to actually have it introduced in Congress, what sort of time frame are we looking at? It probably wouldn't be done this year (election year, wouldn't want to make too many voters mad).
I wonder if this type of legislation would have to incorporate a pay-for-play structure that also required Congressional approval. Would the schools have to cede governance to Congress or could the schools maintain the ability to govern themselves?
I understand that this is all speculative conversation or perhaps just a rumor, but it needs to be addressed if for no other reason to understand just how much time is involved to get to get it where it needs to be.

X, The Supreme Court has made pay for play as a reality fairly clear in remarks delivered to the NCAA over NIL. They were being polite to say get your houses in order. There is another pending case which could be ruled on this Summer.

I'm reasonably sure conversations began between the SEC and some ACC schools a few days after the Texas and Oklahoma news. I'd say as quiet as things have been lately, and with the stall on playoff expansion that all of this is being worked on now behind the scenes.

I see no action by Congress election year or not, though the party in power will be exceedingly in favor of pay for play as has a conservative Supreme Court. Congress will let the SCOTUS be the tip of the spear on this matter.

Now whether we have a new entity that encompasses all revenue sports or they are handled severely is yet to be determined. I see merit in both approaches. There is less confusion to fans to have it under one roof, but likely better governance for each sport to manage each independently of the others. They will after all become businesses.

How soon? You could see football starting to take shape with more advanced announcements this summer. Hoops will lag. And implementation anywhere from 2 to 4 years. We'll see.

I really think this has to be decided before playoff structure is determined.

And, I expect schools to remain non-profit and in charge of non-revenue sports and Athletic Departments bifurcated into a for profit taxable wing acting as a separate entity and actually supporting the schools by a licensing fee which will support Title IX sports and the non-revenue portion under the auspices of the academic entity. The fee which supports Title IX would reduce tax liability for the for-profit sports.

(01-27-2022 06:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 06:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Not for ESPN and not for a super conference. With the Irish and FSU the new conference has 7 of the top 10 earners. Add Miami & Clemson and you have 17 of the top 26.

From that position the pressure to participate only builds. And we aren't counting past champions of the last quarter century 22 of 25 with just those schools.

And X, if there is only 1 top tier conference then Irish participation is not like being limited to one conference among many. Instead, they would just be 1 team among contenders which is what independence in the NCAA essentially was.

So what we see is not the expansion of the SEC but the development of a new entity (spearheaded by the SEC).....a super conference.
Once this super conference is built, then it would have to be divided into divisions/pods for scheduling?

If ESPN is indeed behind the new super conference as you have alluded wouldn't that leave them vulnerable to charges of collusion?

Not if it is done in compliance with a change in law, especially if it is initiated by a conference, or conferences.

I have heard some talk, not from usual or any official sources, that football and basketball may actually be handled as separate entities and under 2 different organizations in a pay for play world. It's just speculative conversation but for a school like North Carolina it would solve some issues. You wouldn't have to be in a football conference with Duke and Wake to be in a basketball conference with them. I can see something like that approach simplifying fiscal oversight and governance. Do it for baseball as well and including schools like Rice and Dallas Baptist becomes possible. I see positive aspects to this. However, just a rumor while separation is a potential reality.

When we see this type of legislation being promoted by one of more conferences and to actually have it introduced in Congress, what sort of time frame are we looking at? It probably wouldn't be done this year (election year, wouldn't want to make too many voters mad).
I wonder if this type of legislation would have to incorporate a pay-for-play structure that also required Congressional approval. Would the schools have to cede governance to Congress or could the schools maintain the ability to govern themselves?
I understand that this is all speculative conversation or perhaps just a rumor, but it needs to be addressed if for no other reason to understand just how much time is involved to get to get it where it needs to be.

X, The Supreme Court has made pay for play as a reality fairly clear in remarks delivered to the NCAA over NIL. They were being polite to say get your houses in order. There is another pending case which could be ruled on this Summer.

I'm reasonably sure conversations began between the SEC and some ACC schools a few days after the Texas and Oklahoma news. I'd say as quiet as things have been lately, and with the stall on playoff expansion that all of this is being worked on now behind the scenes.

I see no action by Congress election year or not, though the party in power will be exceedingly in favor of pay for play as has a conservative Supreme Court. Congress will let the SCOTUS be the tip of the spear on this matter.

Now whether we have a new entity that encompasses all revenue sports or they are handled severely is yet to be determined. I see merit in both approaches. There is less confusion to fans to have it under one roof, but likely better governance for each sport to manage each independently of the others. They will after all become businesses.

How soon? You could see football starting to take shape with more advanced announcements this summer. Hoops will lag. And implementation anywhere from 2 to 4 years. We'll see.

I really think this has to be decided before playoff structure is determined.

And, I expect schools to remain non-profit and in charge of non-revenue sports and Athletic Departments bifurcated into a for profit taxable wing acting as a separate entity and actually supporting the schools by a licensing fee which will support Title IX sports and the non-revenue portion under the auspices of the academic entity. The fee which supports Title IX would reduce tax liability for the for-profit sports.

Darn.

Every time I write a check to the Rams Club, I have to identify the contribution to add to my "home" points or my "away" points.
Contributions to add to my home points (which can help improve my football seating) are NOT tax deductible. But if I were only wanting to gain better seating only for away games those contributions WOULD be tax deductible.
The problem is this.....when I go to UVa or Georgia Tech all of the away seating is located in the same sections. If I really wanted better seats, I could just go to a ticket service and buy the best available. Crazy!
Even worse contribution requirements across all levels of the Rams Club are increasing by an average of 20% this year.
There is no advantage to the fan (any school) other than to have some tiny influence, for athletic departments to continue to operate as non-profit entities.

I wonder if this idea of a forced move to the SEC involves not just the ACC but the B1G and Pac-12 as well.