Central Ark.

Lmao, he said "Def Leppard sucks"

"Whatever the f--- they want, you pay 'em."

Seems legit

Jaxbuck said:

I want to see pics of the USC chick but she's not too far off except in the naive belief that a "Federal" anything is a good idea.

Click to expand...

I like mine steamed on homemade sauerkraut with a bit of beer.

ScriptOhio said:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/who-does-the-protect-college-sports-act-protect-2df02a24

Who Does the Protect College Sports Act Protect?​

Students debate the merits of a bill to regulate student athlete eligibility, transfers and compensation.​

Editor’s note: In this Future View, students discuss collegiate athletics and the Protect College Sports Act.

End Revenue Sharing

Name, image and likeness deals in collegiate athletics have transformed athlete compensation into a Wild West of unevenly regulated sponsorships and transfer portals. Congress must decide whether to treat collegiate athletes as students who participate in an education-based amateur athletic system or as employees of the institutions they represent on the field. As a Division I athlete, I believe Congress is right to codify name, image and likeness compensation but must eliminate revenue sharing between athletes and universities.

Direct compensation removes the focus of an undergraduate education as the core principle of collegiate athletics. While the Protect College Sports Act attempts to distinguish collegiate athletics from professional sports legally, any system that allows universities to pay players for athletic performance creates another level of professional competition. Striking the revenue-sharing provision in the pending legislation would help re-establish an emphasis on the student aspect of student athlete. It would also help prevent nonrevenue sports from being cut to remain below the revenue-sharing cap, further protecting amateur athletic competition.

NCAA athletes have competed for more than a century under athletic scholarships, enabling them to obtain a degree while competing at a high level. But when universities directly pay athletes to play, those students have an incentive to dedicate time and energy to their sports and neglect their studies. Amateur athletic competition has been a staple of American society since the late 19th century, and Congress has the opportunity now to preserve the place of college athletics in that tradition.

—Danny Auffant, U.S. Naval Academy, political science

Balancing Exit and Voice

College sports have become a national market governed by an increasingly fragmented set of rules. A national framework therefore has a strong rationale. But uniformity alone doesn’t make a system fair.

American economist Albert Hirschman argued that people facing an unsatisfactory institution possess two basic forms of power: exit and voice. The Protect College Sports Act succeeds because it balances the two.

The bill would limit athletes’ ability to exit by establishing national rules for transfers and eligibility. Athletes would receive one transfer without losing eligibility, while a second transfer would generally require sitting out a year. The legislation would strengthen their voice through representation. Current or recent athletes would make up at least one-third of athletic-association bodies with rule-making authority, and an athlete ombudsman would help resolve disputes.

The current rules giving athletes the right to earn money from their name, image and likeness aren’t the same as giving them power over the institutions governing their careers. College sports are a national industry and can’t be governed by fifty competing rule books. A federal framework makes sense. Its legitimacy, however, rests on a simple principle: When Congress limits athletes’ ability to exit, it must ensure that their voice inside the system is real.

—Wesley Tzeng, National Chengchi University (Taiwan), money and banking

Beware the Antitrust Exemption

Congress shouldn’t pass the Protect College Sports Act, because the legislation would heighten the ability of the NCAA and university athletic programs to exploit college athletes.

Several players groups have publicly opposed the bill—and for good reason. The National College Players Association called it “an unprecedented federal assault on college athletes” that subverts their rights and gives special immunity to the NCAA. The bill would grant the NCAA an antitrust exemption, giving it power to regulate transfers and eligibility and cap how much money athletes can earn through revenue sharing. Meantime it would take away student athletes’ ability to use the free market to maximize their earnings by denying them the ability to bargain collectively, negotiate their own opportunities or sue for damages.

College sports generate billions of dollars off students who put their bodies on the line. Any legislation that purports to protect them should do more than protect universities’ pockets.

—Max Watert, Quinnipiac University, undecided

Leveling the Playing Field

As a former student athlete who went through Division I recruitment, I believe the Protect College Sports Act represents a step forward for collegiate athletics. The proposed legislation would pre-empt the current patchwork of conflicting state laws and establish a national standard for name, image and likeness rights. In doing so, it would provide clear expectations for institutions and student athletes across the country and promote fair competition.

By standardizing NIL regulations, the legislation would allow student athletes to monetize their NIL rights while providing necessary oversight through a mandatory reporting system. The framework includes important safeguards, including agent registration, limits on agent fees and the creation of a database to assist athletes in understanding the fair market value of their endorsement opportunities.

The bill’s protections extend beyond financial matters. It would require medical coverage for sports-related injuries, guarantee scholarships for up to 10 years to encourage degree completion, and establish clear transfer eligibility rules to reduce disputes and roster instability within athletic programs.

By creating a level playing field at the federal level, the Protect College Sports Act will benefit student athletes and preserve the spirit of competition that defines collegiate sports.

—Jane Martin, University of Southern California, business administration

Click to expand...

Good lord are kids gullible.

Max from Quinnipiac gets it.

Danny from the Naval Academy is going to be an Admiral someday because that is a special kind of dumbass right there.

Wesley Tzeng used AI to throw together an incoherent string of concepts he thinks make him sound smart. No one will call him on it because they are afraid of being called racist.

I want to see pics of the USC chick but she's not too far off except in the naive belief that a "Federal" anything is a good idea.

BuckeyeNation27 said:

Did this get mis-translated? Did he actually say they have a great quarterback AND Katin Houser? Who's the great QB?

Click to expand...

He's like the official time-keeper.
He's a secret.

gracelhink said:

Bucks take 3 round 1 singles matches with early starts!
Winning and advancing to next round are Filin, Nakashima and Kim.

Click to expand...

Also: Henry Jefferson (Florida) def. Denis Patek (Ohio State) 6-4, 6-4

Login to view embedded media

Who Does the Protect College Sports Act Protect?​

Students debate the merits of a bill to regulate student athlete eligibility, transfers and compensation.​

Editor’s note: In this Future View, students discuss collegiate athletics and the Protect College Sports Act.

End Revenue Sharing

Name, image and likeness deals in collegiate athletics have transformed athlete compensation into a Wild West of unevenly regulated sponsorships and transfer portals. Congress must decide whether to treat collegiate athletes as students who participate in an education-based amateur athletic system or as employees of the institutions they represent on the field. As a Division I athlete, I believe Congress is right to codify name, image and likeness compensation but must eliminate revenue sharing between athletes and universities.

Direct compensation removes the focus of an undergraduate education as the core principle of collegiate athletics. While the Protect College Sports Act attempts to distinguish collegiate athletics from professional sports legally, any system that allows universities to pay players for athletic performance creates another level of professional competition. Striking the revenue-sharing provision in the pending legislation would help re-establish an emphasis on the student aspect of student athlete. It would also help prevent nonrevenue sports from being cut to remain below the revenue-sharing cap, further protecting amateur athletic competition.

NCAA athletes have competed for more than a century under athletic scholarships, enabling them to obtain a degree while competing at a high level. But when universities directly pay athletes to play, those students have an incentive to dedicate time and energy to their sports and neglect their studies. Amateur athletic competition has been a staple of American society since the late 19th century, and Congress has the opportunity now to preserve the place of college athletics in that tradition.

—Danny Auffant, U.S. Naval Academy, political science

Balancing Exit and Voice

College sports have become a national market governed by an increasingly fragmented set of rules. A national framework therefore has a strong rationale. But uniformity alone doesn’t make a system fair.

American economist Albert Hirschman argued that people facing an unsatisfactory institution possess two basic forms of power: exit and voice. The Protect College Sports Act succeeds because it balances the two.

The bill would limit athletes’ ability to exit by establishing national rules for transfers and eligibility. Athletes would receive one transfer without losing eligibility, while a second transfer would generally require sitting out a year. The legislation would strengthen their voice through representation. Current or recent athletes would make up at least one-third of athletic-association bodies with rule-making authority, and an athlete ombudsman would help resolve disputes.

The current rules giving athletes the right to earn money from their name, image and likeness aren’t the same as giving them power over the institutions governing their careers. College sports are a national industry and can’t be governed by fifty competing rule books. A federal framework makes sense. Its legitimacy, however, rests on a simple principle: When Congress limits athletes’ ability to exit, it must ensure that their voice inside the system is real.

—Wesley Tzeng, National Chengchi University (Taiwan), money and banking

Beware the Antitrust Exemption

Congress shouldn’t pass the Protect College Sports Act, because the legislation would heighten the ability of the NCAA and university athletic programs to exploit college athletes.

Several players groups have publicly opposed the bill—and for good reason. The National College Players Association called it “an unprecedented federal assault on college athletes” that subverts their rights and gives special immunity to the NCAA. The bill would grant the NCAA an antitrust exemption, giving it power to regulate transfers and eligibility and cap how much money athletes can earn through revenue sharing. Meantime it would take away student athletes’ ability to use the free market to maximize their earnings by denying them the ability to bargain collectively, negotiate their own opportunities or sue for damages.

College sports generate billions of dollars off students who put their bodies on the line. Any legislation that purports to protect them should do more than protect universities’ pockets.

—Max Watert, Quinnipiac University, undecided

Leveling the Playing Field

As a former student athlete who went through Division I recruitment, I believe the Protect College Sports Act represents a step forward for collegiate athletics. The proposed legislation would pre-empt the current patchwork of conflicting state laws and establish a national standard for name, image and likeness rights. In doing so, it would provide clear expectations for institutions and student athletes across the country and promote fair competition.

By standardizing NIL regulations, the legislation would allow student athletes to monetize their NIL rights while providing necessary oversight through a mandatory reporting system. The framework includes important safeguards, including agent registration, limits on agent fees and the creation of a database to assist athletes in understanding the fair market value of their endorsement opportunities.

The bill’s protections extend beyond financial matters. It would require medical coverage for sports-related injuries, guarantee scholarships for up to 10 years to encourage degree completion, and establish clear transfer eligibility rules to reduce disputes and roster instability within athletic programs.

By creating a level playing field at the federal level, the Protect College Sports Act will benefit student athletes and preserve the spirit of competition that defines collegiate sports.

—Jane Martin, University of Southern California, business administration

Where Congress is at right now on the Protect College Sports Act: The Senate voted 74–24 on September 15, 2026, to advance the bill past a procedural hurdle, and formal consideration and final debate are underway this week. Next Step: If the Senate passes the legislation, it will move to the U.S. House of Representatives.

What is the Protect College Sports Act? What would the bill do?​

Senator Ted Cruz stumped for the bill he co-sponsored at a recent news conference on Capitol Hill alongside NCAA athletes and coaches.

The U.S. Senate is planning to vote in the coming days on a bill that would significantly shape the future of college sports.

The Protect College Sports Act addresses myriad topics that are contributing to an unstable and often messy period for the college sports industry as it transitions to a more professional model for its biggest schools and most popular sports. The bill is the result of more than a half-decade of steady lobbying from the NCAA, conferences, their schools and other advocacy groups. It will be the first bill on this topic to make it to a full Senate vote, and if approved would move on to debate in the House of Representatives, where it could change.

In the past two weeks, lawmakers and others have made a major push to try to draw attention to the bill. Supporters have made bold claims that the treasured American institution of college sports will be irreparably harmed if Congress doesn't act. Opponents say the bill is an attempt to restore authority to a set of power brokers who have a long history of exploiting athletes. Both sides have dabbled in bad sports analogies, hyperbolic warnings and misleading statements.

As a crucial vote approaches, let's sort the truths from the myths in some of the public statements on the issue and add context to how the college sports system currently works and what the Protect College Sports Act would actually do to change it.

"This is about reining in the bad practices that are happening in college sports today, the runaway costs... [and] the runaway arms race in sports spending." -- Sen. Maria Cantwell (D), co-author of the PCSA

The PCSA increases the amount of money schools can spend on direct payments to their players by $27.5 million, more than doubling the current $21.5-million spending cap. The bill does not include any provision that would require or encourage athletic departments to spend less money.

The bill does try to crack down on the common practice among wealthy teams of funneling "above-the-cap" money to their players by arranging endorsement deals that serve as de facto added payroll. Cantwell argues that a law that creates a hard cap on player payments will help stop the spending race.

The college sports industry tried to install a hard cap last June through the House Settlement, a deal that ended a series of antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and its power conferences and established new rules about how athletes are paid. The leagues built a new enforcement group called the College Sports Commission to make sure the name, image and likeness deals athletes sign with groups other than their schools are legitimate endorsements.

So far the CSC has been unsuccessful because rich teams and boosters have not committed to following the rules they helped to negotiate in the House Settlement. Despite a cap of $21.5 million this year, roughly 30 football teams have a payroll of $30 million or more, according to industry sources that help facilitate player payments. About half of those teams have payrolls that exceed $40 million.

"There would have been a lot of criticism if that number would have been just at the House Settlement number," Sen. Eric Schmitt, one of the bill's co-sponsors, told ESPN when asked about the large increase in the spending cap. "Are you going to see a lot of Group of 6 schools hit that number? Maybe not right away. But you've got a chance now with a structured deal so this doesn't continue to spiral.

If the PCSA becomes law, the CSC would have more legal backing to be able to enforce those rules. Schools that circumvent the cap would risk violating federal law. However, it's not clear if that increased power will be enough to stop the current methods for circumventing the cap, nor does it stop teams and their funders from potentially finding new loopholes to exploit.

Even if a new law does successfully cap direct payments to players, college sports programs have a long history of devising creative ways to spend money on things like facility upgrades or increased support staff to get an advantage over their rivals in recruiting. In a report published last week, Cantwell shared that from 2005 to 2023 (before schools began paying players directly) the college sports arms race caused increases of 322% in recruiting costs, 300% in sports equipment and "a whopping 370%" in coaching salaries.

The PCSA makes no effort to tamp down those costs or dissuade schools from continuing to spend beyond their means in any of those expense categories. The bill does create a commission that is tasked with studying "whether any intercollegiate sport should be subject to spending or cost limitations." Cantwell did not respond directly to questions about why the bill made no effort to cap any athletics spending other than money directly flowing to players.

"If we don't act, we will see 30 to 50 competitive football programs in this country and the remainder of the programs go under." -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R), co-author of the PCSA

The authors of the PCSA have said they set out to maintain the current "big tent" format of FBS-level football by slowing conference realignment and providing an opportunity for multiple conferences to negotiate future TV rights deals as a group, a change that would likely increase the money flowing to those schools.

The bill prevents Power 4 conferences from growing beyond a total of 19 teams. The Big Ten currently has 18 teams. The SEC has 16. It would also force any school wanting to jump from one Power 4 conference to another to spend three years as an independent before joining the new league -- although that waiting period would no longer apply after 2031.

These provisions were designed to keep the Big Ten and SEC -- both of which have a sizable financial advantage over other conferences -- from merging and creating a new "super league" that would create a permanent divide between them and the roughly 100 other FBS teams. After a June hearing on the bill, Cantwell said "we're not going to let the most powerful and richest conferences dictate to the rest of America what's going to happen to 500,000 athletes."

However, during the next two months, the Big Ten and SEC withheld their support until lawmakers doubled the salary cap, giving their schools a path to maintaining their significant financial advantage.

The current cap limit ($21.5 million) was designed so that schools like West Virginia and Wake Forest could have a chance to build their roster with roughly the same spending power as Ohio State and Texas. So far, it has not been successful. According to industry sources, the richest programs are spending tens of millions more than other Power 4 schools.

That new cap more realistically meets the market for the couple dozen teams at the rich end of the spectrum who are already spending at least $30 million on just their football payroll. Other teams will likely struggle to find ways to keep pace in recruiting.

Rather than leveling the playing field, which was what most college sports officials have repeatedly asked Congress to do, the new cap could end up cementing the gap between the haves and the have-mores with a federal law. Cruz declined multiple requests for an interview from ESPN for this story.

The PCSA's potential impact on future conference affiliations and TV rights deals has media companies -- including ESPN, Fox Sports and their parent companies -- heavily invested in the outcome.

Disney, along with companies such as Paramount Skydance, parent of CBS, reported in financial documents that they paid for lobbying on college sports legislation.

And both ESPN chairman James Pitaro and Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks were among participants (others included ESPN football commentators Nick Saban and Tim Tebow) in part of a presidential advisory committee that formed after President Donald Trump's "Saving College Sports" roundtable. Neither ESPN nor Fox Sports have staked public positions on the PCSA, though both have multibillion-dollar deals with conferences -- ESPN with the SEC and Fox Sports with the Big Ten -- that support it.

"We are ecstatic that the players are getting paid; that's not the issue. The issue is [some players are] going to a separate school every year and playing against student-athletes who are 27, 28 years old." -- Craig Robinson, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, which supports the bill

The PCSA directly addresses two of the most visible issues roiling coaches and fans in recent years: the increase in players transferring schools and the NCAA's inability to enforce eligibility rules. The bill would allow athletes to transfer once during their career without having to miss a season, restoring an old NCAA rule that was struck down by legal challenges.

The bill also limits athletes to a five-year window to play college sports, which begins the year they turn 19 or the year they finish high school. Those eligibility requirements are identical to a new rule adopted by the NCAA in June. While several outgoing seniors have challenged part of the eligibility rules in lawsuits this summer, so far no one has raised a legal challenge to the new age-based limits. If the PCSA becomes law, the NCAA would have a stronger case to keep athletes in their late 20s out of college sports if any older players were to file lawsuits.

Oluchi Okananwa, a Maryland basketball player and one of the leaders of a group working to unionize college athletes, said in a news conference last week that players are in favor of more structure. However, Okananwa believes those rules should be established through a collective bargaining agreement with players rather than dictated by Congress.

Some senators who oppose the PCSA, such as Alabama's Tommy Tuberville, agree with the transfer and eligibility parts of the bill but believe that the federal government's intervention in college sports should stop there.
.
.
.
continued

ScriptOhio said:

Said Illinois has a great quarterback in Katin Houser,

Click to expand...

Did this get mis-translated? Did he actually say they have a great quarterback AND Katin Houser? Who's the great QB?

AKAK said:

Whats the gallons per.flush laws in Indiana?

Click to expand...

ORD_Buckeye said:

Phil Knight just gave the school one beeeelion dollars. Perhaps they can now claw their way up to the middle of the B1G academically.

Click to expand...

He ain't give that money to play school

Edit - Shockingly, he actually did

Phil Knight just gave the school one beeeelion dollars. Perhaps they can now claw their way up to the middle of the B1G academically.

Mizzou

Thump said:

Interested!

Click to expand...

Whats the gallons per.flush laws in Indiana?

Bucks take 3 round 1 singles matches with early starts!
Winning and advancing to next round are Filin, Nakashima and Kim.

Tanner said:

Sayin always locking on to Jeremiah makes me think of Barkley's joke that Maurice Cheeks could only see out of one eye, the eye that could see where Dr J was

Click to expand...

I still wonder how much of him locking onto Jeremiah is at the order of the coaches. It doesn't seem to be as big of an issue against lesser opponents. But in big games it really comes out.