With enough of those (or Egyptian gold bars), it will get watered down enough that it does not bother the P2 anymore.

Taxing the power 2 schools ie sec or big 10 if they break away . Got to reign in their greed

The big thing for me is the antitrust section with collective media rights and the anti-expansion section. Two things are key. 1. It requires 75% of all FBS schools in order to happen. There are 138 FBS schools, so it would need 104. The SEC and BIG have 34. So that means that just one school could stand in the way and prevent the collective from happening. The independent schools ND and UConn would have a ton of power to decide this fate. 2. The anti-expansion is actually not very restrictive. It says that the $1b conferences cannot acquire teams only if the result is that the other conference falls below the number needed to be a conference. It only really applies to what happened to the PAC. The ACC could be raided for 7 teams and still be allowed under this.

Title II of the bill, which addresses sports broadcasting, also seeks to make it “unlawful under the antitrust laws, as defined in section 1(a), for any conference that reported more than $1 billion (* change to $700 million) in revenue on its fiscal year 2025 tax return to merge or consolidate with, or to acquire 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) . So what's the membership requirement under section 5(b)(1)(A)? Some people view this as a minimum number schools in a conference, which is 8. I don't think that's what this bill meant. Amended Section 5 is this: SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTITIES SELLING MEDIA RIGHTS. The section 5(b)(1) states: (1) ELIGIBLE MEMBERSHIP.—A joint agreement to form the covered entity shall be comprised of a voluntary association of institutions or conferences that includes, at a minimum, as of the date on which the joint agreement is entered into, not less than 75 percent of the institutions participating in the Football Bowl Subdivision, as defined by Bylaw 20.9.9 of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. So I think "the membership requirement" of the new entity for pooling rights is 75 percent of FBS schools. My view is that the P4 cannot raid other conferences if that results in the decrease of the number of institutions that are members of the raid conference be less than the 75 percent of FBS schools. In other words, NO poaching. Again just my reading and IANAL.

I read them as two completely separate things. 75% is just the total number of FBS teams needed for the consolidated media pooling option. And the poaching would be only conference by conference (the 8 team min that you noted). But I could be wrong, especially since this kind of legal wording can get very complicated. But the question is fair because the actual meaning could have a big impact.

conferences, I could even be persuaded the buy the argument that a conference could temporarily dip below the minimum number as long as it adds enough new members to get back to the minimum number by the start of the fiscal year it will lose any members. The other interesting thing about the bill is that clause would not apply to DI-FCS conferences and/or DI non-football conferences. If Congress wants to place a cap on P2 member or require the P2 conferences trade an equal number of schools away that they plan to add, then it would clearly state that in the bill. Plus, that position could still be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act because the courts (think ultimately SCOTUS) could say the trading out of schools from a P2 conference could be a form of unreasonably restrain interstate trade. Particularly if those schools have no desire to leave the P2 conference and not enough members in the P2 conference don't have the desire to see them leave. If that is the intention of the bill, then the schools will just simply opt to not seek the antitrust exemption like you see happen with the NBA, NHL, and MLB.

back to the Pac-12. Then ditto for USC, UCLA, UO, Mizzou, Maryland, etc. back where they belong. Dreaming, I know. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/19/2026, 5:12:16 PM

I can agree, logically, with a lot of what you say. Where I slightly disagree is I think, if I understand what you're saying. From my viewpoint, the avarice and venality of all the conferences (the P2 to a larger extant) is insatiable and never ending, unless outside forces come to bear. I think once the power/money involved is maximized from the P2 viewpoint, those two will start excising teams. I also believe a lot fewer teams (and probably none) from the ACC/B12 will be invited once the excision is over. The slices of pie are fewer and the slices are therefore bigger, meaning increased revenue for the remaining few will be at its maximum. Therefore, unless an invitee brings enough revenue generation with it to not only offset the addition, but the invitee will have to bring more to increase the size of each slice. This conference would then create a situation where"...there’s a genuine desire to associate with them and play against them on the field...." Again, it's all about the money/power. And, I don't see any members of the ACC/B12 satisfying the their inclusion in the P2 (and, I'm including FSU, Clemson, UVa, VT, UNC and Duke in that analysis. To me, the PCSA is just a nothing burger, and is just a trolling mechanism for politicians. And, if passed, implementation of such a law would be even more difficult that passing lit.

I definetely agree that there are not that many non P2 schools left that the P2 want. That's why I have been predicting the ACC won't lose more than four schools at max. Not so sure about "excising", but I expect the B10 will start the unequal revenue distribution in a near future. By the way, even if the bill passes, that doesn't necessarily mean the realignment is dead. For example, the B10 may decide to "excise" two of its least valuable members (let's say UMCP wnd Rutgere) and add two schools from the ACC. That won't violate the anti expansion clause. If the ACC takes UMCP back, that would be effectively like a trade between the B10 and the ACC.

But, I agree that "unequal revenue distribution" might mitigate both our stances. Based upon past decisions by the B12 and SEC. I just don't think their avarice and venality can be stanched, particularly by something like the PCSA. And, any concern for other conferences, teams and/or college football is negligible if not non-existent.

Never underestimate the other guy's greed.

the people/organizations would overtly lie to me when the truth would have served them better. And, speaking on greed, we have posters on this board that would de-fund every sport here to feed the insatiable beast that is the football program. As we would cynically say in my former life, the two driving forces for greed were money and women. In actuality, there is only one driving force,...greed. And, they would steal the money to obtain the women.