schools might could pull that off. I doubt all seven could. And if you cannot convince enough schools to make the move, then you do not have a scheduling alliance. Plus, all seven schools would need to have a known landing spot in the P2. PLUS, why would ND participate in an alliance that only lasts 5 years, unless the alliance is football only it doesn't make sense for ND. The 5-year period would be really hard to overcome.

Nobody in these negotiations is operating in good faith. The PCSA proponents are pretending to be open to compromise. The P2 are faking it too. When the PCSA'ers are finally sure that P2 are just stalling, they will move to get a vote and pass the bill no matter what's in it. Once the bill becomes law, the legislators own college fb in all aspects. They can change it and adjust it as often and as politically useful as they want. The P2 cannot allow that, never. If the bill goes to the floor for a vote, P2 will execute the most rapid flurry of expansion ever dreamed of. It's not the way they would prefer to do it, but they will not allow this bill to smother what they have built. The bill can not reverse the realignment. "exposed fat toe" (Latin)

try to exploit to their advantage. For example, the capping of P2 membership may only apply if the P2s utilize the antitrust exemption for the media contracts. If they decide to not utilize the exemption, then a good lawyer should be able to argue that membership cap no longer applies. Basically the bill is giving the schools the option to take the antitrust exemption, but only if they agree to these terms. No exemption, then the terms are no longer enforceable.

money with Cody Campbell and his non-P2 friends. And then the pool of plunder would be redistributed among all FBS schools by some very wise experts who know that the P2 are "bad." These same fine folks will tell the media which games will be seen by the viewers on any given gameday. They have told us that the media will want to pay even more for the content, having been relieved of this burden. Some say that the P2 disapprove of the plan. But how is that possible? Do the P2 not believe in sharing, fairness, sportsmanship, Cody Campbell?

never clear to me what the end game was for Congress. If that is/was truly the end game, then Congress has locked the conferences into how they exist today. Meaning no new conferences could be created in the future unless Congress amends this bill. That is a problem because at some point all the DI conferences for every sport sponsored by the NCAA could reach the cap of 19 members. What happens when a DII or DIII school wants to move up to DI for all sports or a specific sport? If a conference adds that school as a member, then it will have 20 members which violates the bill. Does that mean any new DI schools would have to become an Independent? Hence why I am wondering if maybe that requirement is only contingent upon the schools deciding to accept the antitrust exemption as it relates to the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. At least this bill seems to be an amendment to that law because the exemption will now be extension to college athletics too. I believe the P2s aren't the only ones who disapprove of the plan. I think there are some non-P2s too who disapprove it. Particularly if the conferences are truly locked in as they are now and there is no room for creation of new conferences in the future. If that ends up being the case, then that is a huge deal because the networks will have all the leverage in negotiating any regional contracts because the threat of valuable schools leaving to join other conferences or creating a new conference will be gone. So their disapproval may be for the lack of flexibility and not the revenue sharing.

ultra-competant gov't will have established themselves as the regulators of college sports through their body of "experts." The rules will change continuously, twice a week, if necessary, until they finally come around to that original purpose. Whatever long-range plans the P2 have regarding realignment will be dead. If the passage of this bill becomes imminent, the P2 will be forced to execute those plans immediately or forget about them entirely. ** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 7/23/2026, 12:24:30 PM

hard to predict what will end getting passed and signed into law. It may end up being the original intended purpose or something entirely different. Particularly if there is enough dissent among the non-P2 schools. Congress already dipped their toes in the "regulators of the college sports" though when they passed the various Education Amendments in the 1970s which includes Title IX. It should be no surprise to anyone that Congress would do again because the changing of the landscape now may be similar to what was going on during the 70s. Whether Congress should or shouldn't stick its nose in this is an entirely different debate.

is passed. I will immediately start morphing into Cody's dream. All they need to do is get the machine up-and-running.

parts (i.e. the courts' interpretations) that will shape the path.

because sooner or later a school will challenge something in the bill. It could be as something as simple as a conference's inability to add new members. The reason there have been no challenges of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 is because the 4 pro leagues referenced in it are less fluid than college athletics when you factor in movement between the divisions and within a single division. I do think a school would challenge whether conferences are required to pool their contracts or whether it is optional. If it is optional, then they are also opting not to receive the antitrust exemption just like the NHL, NBA, and MLB don't receive it today. The other reason it may be optional is because whenever the bill is passed then it will have an impact on active contracts. There will likely need to be a grace period to try to sync up all the media contracts for all the conferences impacted by the bill so there is only 1 period of performance (POP) instead of multiple POPs.

conference may be on the table for schools. At least that is a potential loophole to being an independent for 5 years before joining an existing conference. Plus, Congress isn't going to block schools from creating new (and smaller) conferences because a goal of this proposal is to try to curb the growth of these conferences. Locking the schools into only being members of existing conferences would only undermine that goal. Especially as more DII and/or DIII schools make the jump to DI. What happens when all the existing DI conferences for all sports reach the cap of 19 members and 1 DII school announces it is moving up to DI? It could never join a DI conference without said conference violating the membership cap.

as good as the SEC in media money. We would just have a power 5 at that point, and lets face it, the goal is to get into the power 2. Frankly, I think going independent in football, or a football only conference would be better than a new conference. Then, a coast to coast conference makes sense. Yormark has stated that it is his goal to have two different media deals, one for football, and one for basketball. I hope he is successful, as football or basketball only members would have their value. UConn for instance is independent in football, and they would not have to wait 5 years if there was an offer. What if the schools went independent in football only?

suggesting is it could/would be better than ACC or Big XII money which is where the debate should be. Particularly if joining a P2 conference is not an option for the schools because Congress got involved with the issue. Even if the ACC schools decide to remain in the conference until June 30, 2036, this same issue will pop up again if any schools refuse to sign the new GOR which could run until 2060 (if it is around the same length as the current GOR). So the schools would still have the same 3 options on the table: 1. Remain in the ACC and sign the new GOR. 2. Leave the ACC and join another non-P2 conference. 3. Leave the ACC and form a brand new non-P2 conference. If joining a P2 conference is no longer a realistic goal for the ACC schools because of actions taken by Congress, then what becomes the new goal for those schools? The reason UConn is an Independent in football is because the AAC refused to allow UConn to be a non-football member of the conference. Since the Big East no longer sponsors football, UConn doesn't have the same restrictions it had in the AAC. You can bet the AAC will take the same stance as the AAC did if any current football member wanted to leave the conference in just that sport. Notre Dame is an exception to that policy because it was never a full member of the ACC, so Notre Dame had more leverage over the ACC when it came to negotiate the special arrangement. The same wouldn't be true for Clemson, FSU, or Miami because they are already full members. The ACC will gladly let them walk and become an independent in all sports because the ACC knows the impact being an Independent has on being able to earn an at-large bid in any NCAA tournament. When was the last time an Independent received an at-large bid to the men's March Madness? Why are their currently no schools competing as an Independent in basketball?

The schools went independent in football only, and assuming the B12 has a separate football contract, they joining the B12 or the Big east for basketball. Maybe form a different basketball only conference - and separate football once and for all.

destination because the Big XII will want to make sure it has enough members in a sport to continue sponsoring the other sports and receive an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament. If the Big XII gives the ACC schools the option, then it may open the door enough that the conference would have to give the same option to existing members. As a result, the Big XII could go from being an all sports conference to just a football conference because enough of the current members were able to find homes for basketball and the other sports in another conference or conferences. The Big East will never have to worry about that problem because it is a non-football conference. Which means the members are likely full members in the Big East for all sports sponsored by the conference.

and a home for Olympics while the so called 5 year window closes.

the conference will give the school the option to not be a member of said sport. Hence why the ACC's special arrangement with Notre Dame and the MWC's special arrangement with Hawai'i are unique for specific reasons.

the MWC again?

Some in ACC think basketball first. A somewhat quasi Indy setup for football might fit their fill. In long run they keep ACC power and will be so good in other sports. Still be affiliated with ND. Be no pressure for football. Just compete against most teams you already have. Play ND some. Play your old rivals. Sill have access to playoff. Of the MAG 7 I see VT, FSU and Clemson as schools desiring more than that. I even see Miami liking the INDY for football situation.

will likely remain in the ACC if a home in a P2 conference isn't an option. However, schools like Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, NC State, etc. are more football-first schools. If the ACC isn't as committed to improving its football brand, then those schools may be less willing to remain in the conference because they don't want to risk that decision harming their football brand. At least they may be more open to a conference that either is football-first or a conference where majority of the members are willing to make the necessary investments in both sports to improve the brands of both sports. Perceptually it would be equally committed even if the investment dollar isn't truly equal for both sports. L'ville is an interesting case because they are equally invested in both sports. Do they remain in the ACC or join the other football-first schools?

when he wants to negotiate the football media contract separately. The ACC and B12 could remain a conference, but separate football to a quasi independent group? That scenario would work better for the ACC because of the spread from the top football schools to the bottom, but something like that may be possible moving forward.

Villanova, Georgetown, Butler (I think) ** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 7/23/2026, 12:53:35 PM ** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 7/23/2026, 12:54:29 PM

non-scholarship Pioneer Football League. The Ivy League and PFL are the only DI conferences to not offer an athletic scholarships. While the Patriot League caps football scholarships at (I think) 60 now. I am pretty sure there is 1 other FCS conference (i.e. MAAC or NEC type) that doesn't offer the full 63 equivalent scholarships. ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 7/23/2026, 2:56:13 PM

basketball) gets burdened with having the non-revenue sports included from a content standpoint. Even though the non-revenue sports may not have any "value" with the media, I don't see the Big XII or any conference willingly give up their automatic bids to the NCAA Tournament for their non-revenue sports. Plus, if the conference has its own channel, then the network will still need content to fill the space on the channel. Some of that space will be filled with non-revenue content. Does that mean the Big XII will end up negotiating a third contract for the non-revenue content?

fine with their Olympic sports.

difference if the Big XII tries to pursue this course of action. Also, it assumes the networks will be a willing dance partner.

where the idea works because the Big East currently doesn't sponsor the sport. The networks may not be in favor of separating football into its own contract because the networks would be taking the risk that someone else ends up winning the football contract or basketball contract (whichever one is deemed to be more valuable at the time). The networks may hold onto the all or nothing approach because it makes the most business sense (and cents) from their perspective. Hence why the Big XII will need a willing dance partner before the contracts can be finalized.

the rights to all B12 football games, even if the B12 no longer "sponsors" football. Fox, as just an example, could bid on the basketball and tier 3 rights, and that contract could be the basis of the athletic department budgets, as football is now it's own entity and "independent".

the sport is still sponsored by the NCAA and governed by the NCAA bylaws. Hence why there is chatter on the possibility that the SEC could decide to leave the NCAA. The networks are the only ones who can decide from a content standpoint whether they are willing to separate out football or not. All I am suggesting is that the networks could decide that it isn't good business to treat the football content as a separate contract.

can not be a football only conference. it does not state that a conference has to sponsor football. I'm saying that an ESPN can certainly bid on the rights of a group of independent football schools with a scheduling agreement.

Valley Football Conference, and CAA Football are all DI football-only conferences. Note: CAA Football is technically a separate legal entity from the rest of the Coastal Athletic Association. Article 20 specific covers the requirements in order to become a DI conference. If you are suggesting that rule only applies to the FBS subdivision, then I believe Bylaw 20.02.9 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference addresses it. "20.02.9 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference. A conference classified as a Football Bowl Subdivision conference shall be composed of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdivision requirements. An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men's and eight women's conference-sponsored sports, including men's basketball and football and three women's team sports, including women's basketball. A conference-sponsored sport shall be a sport in which regular season and/or championship opportunities are provided, consistent with the minimum standards identified by the applicable NCAA sport committee for automatic qualification. (Adopted: 10/31/02 effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)" If you still believe "the NCAA rules only state that there can not be a football only conference," then please cite your source because it isn't in the NCAA DI 2025-26 Manual (aka the bylaws). Here is a list of other relevant bylaws that I checked based on the search term (single-sport conference). 20.02.10 Single-Sport Conference -- Sports Other Than Basketball and Football 20.3.3 Election Procedures 31.3.4.3.2 Single-Sport Conference C The Conferences (2 Single-Sport Conferences)

the FBS doesn't have football only conferences. I stand corrected.

The reason one may not exist now has to do with the moratorium that the FBS schools put into place in the late '90s to prevent the FCS schools from switching subdivisions as an Independent. When the moratorium was lifted in the early 2000s, the requirement was added that the only way a FCS could switch is if it either received an invitation from an existing FBS conference (hence why UMass joined the MAC the first time as a football-only member) or receive a hardship waiver from the NCAA (hence why Liberty was able to join as an Independent when it did because it received a hardship waiver for religious reasons). Basically, it is unlikely a public school will ever receive a hardship waiver from the NCAA. Now existing FBS schools could form a football-only FBS conference as long as they satisfy all the requirements. Once that football-only conference exists, then it is free to invite as many FCS, DII, or DIII schools as they want to join the conference. Hence why in one of my other posts I was indirectly suggesting the Big XII Football Conference could end up becoming a different conference from the Big XII Conference if the conference gave schools the option to only join in football, but not require joining for all other sports the conference sponsors.