• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Should semipro/college players be paid, or allowed to sell their stuff? (NIL and Revenue Sharing)

Different tune if the B10 joins them, however. Might indeed be the national championship.
Absolutely. If it's one conference not wanting to go to the party, that conference looks like a bunch of nerds. But if it's both the Big Ten and SEC choosing to opt out of the playoffs and instead play each other, that becomes the real party. The "official" CFB playoffs will be the NIT.

4 Big Ten teams. 4 SEC teams. The playoffs can be James Madison and the Big 12 and the ACC and whatever other conference they find. Set your own schedule for the games. Don't balk at trying to avoid competing time slots with the playoffs. Would you rather watch Florida State - Baylor or Alabama - Georgia?

In a couple of years, announce that the Big Ten and SEC are looking to expand, and watch the rest of the teams in the country cut each other's throats just to be considered for a spot in the Big Ten or SEC.
 
Upvote 0
Absolutely. If it's one conference not wanting to go to the party, that conference looks like a bunch of nerds. But if it's both the Big Ten and SEC choosing to opt out of the playoffs and instead play each other, that becomes the real party. The "official" CFB playoffs will be the NIT.

4 Big Ten teams. 4 SEC teams. The playoffs can be James Madison and the Big 12 and the ACC and whatever other conference they find. Set your own schedule for the games. Don't balk at trying to avoid competing time slots with the playoffs. Would you rather watch Florida State - Baylor or Alabama - Georgia?

In a couple of years, announce that the Big Ten and SEC are looking to expand, and watch the rest of the teams in the country cut each other's throats just to be considered for a spot in the Big Ten or SEC.

The more they deny a super conference the more you know it's been discussed and is likely half way to being real.

It's the only logical conclusion to this UNLESS the B1G and SEC all of a sudden want to subsidize 100 or so smaller schools with tv money the SEC/B1G could keep for themselves.

Discounting the odds of an outbreak of that particular strain of insanity, I don't really see how the super league doesn't happen at some point (exact size and shape TBD).
 
Upvote 0
From everything being said on Sirius, this thing is politically dead if the B1G and SEC maintain a common front against it.

au6hss.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Trying to run two businesses, one of which is in a rapidly changing environment, under the outdated framework of an old University simply is to going to work.

Big college athletics isn’t the same as the big school. Two different entities, two different goals, two different guidance systems needed.

You can game financials for a while but ultimately they are like spandex and little kids, they always tell the truth.
 
Upvote 0

S.4668 - Protect College Sports Act of 2026​

This bill establishes requirements for name, image, or likeness (NIL) agreements for college student athletes and provides a limited antitrust exemption for schools and conferences to pool and sell certain college sports media rights. The requirements address elements of the court-approved agreement to settle In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (i.e., House settlement).

First, the bill statutorily prohibits institutions, conferences, or interstate intercollegiate athletic associations (e.g., the National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA]) from restricting student athletes from entering NIL agreements (subject to specified limitations). Students must report to their institution NIL compensation greater than $600.

The bill requires agents to register with a state and caps agent endorsement contract fees at 5%.

The bill also provides student athletes with one transfer without losing athletic eligibility and restricts football personnel from becoming the head football coach at a different institution during the same season.

Further, the bill prohibits institutions, conferences, or specified entities acting for the benefit of an institution from providing athletes with compensation that circumvents the limit on sharing revenue with student athletes established under the House settlement. The bill also makes the limit permanent and provides for an annual inflation adjustment.

Additionally, the bill establishes (subject to specified conditions) a limited antitrust exemption for institutions or conferences that form joint agreements to transfer their sports telecasting rights to a third party. Such an agreement requires participation from at least 75% of the institutions in the Football Bowl Subdivision.


Ohio State’s Ravi Bellamkonda, Other Big Ten Presidents Have “Very Productive” Meetings with U.S. Senators About National College Sports Legislation


163026_h.JPG


Ohio State’s Ravi Bellamkonda was among four Big Ten presidents who met with a group of U.S. Senators on Tuesday as the push for national college sports legislation continues.

Bellamkonda, Michigan president Domenico Grasso, Penn State president Neeli Bendapudi and USC president Beong-Soo Kim met Tuesday with a group of seven U.S. Senators – Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell, the authors of the Protect College Sports Act, as well as Ohio’s Jon Husted and Bernie Moreno, Michigan’s Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin and Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman – to “work toward a national legislative solution that serves student-athletes, provides regulatory certainty, and maintains America’s long tradition of exceptional collegiate athletics.”

A joint statement released by Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC described the meetings as “very productive.”

The presidents of Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State and USC had very productive meetings today with legislative partners as we work toward a national legislative solution that serves student-athletes, provides regulatory certainty, and maintains America’s long tradition of exceptional collegiate athletics.
We appreciate the effort behind the Protect College Sports Act and support the bill’s intent. At the same time, key issues should be addressed to ensure the bill protects student-athletes and provides long-term stability for colleges, universities and conferences. We support the priorities previously outlined by the Big Ten Conference, including an NIL and revenue-sharing framework that is workable, enforceable and fair to student-athletes, and liability protection and preemption of state law that is sufficiently clear and brings an end to the nonstop litigation and fragmentation that is eroding the educational mission of college sports and making fair competition impossible.
In addition, colleges and universities are differently situated and have always retained flexibility over conference membership, sponsored sports, scholarships, scheduling, and media rights. Preserving this flexibility will enhance universities’ ability to offer broad-based sports programs, support Olympic sports, and safeguard the student-athlete experience.
We look forward to continuing conversations with the bill sponsors and other legislative partners as we pursue our shared goal of a strong, sustainable national legislative solution for all sports, conferences and divisions.
The Protect College Sports Act, introduced by Cruz and Cantwell in late May, is a bipartisan college sports bill that would grant the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption that would allow it to enforce rules around transfers and eligibility without facing challenges from state and local courts. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill before its recess in early August.

That said, the current framework of the bill has faced opposition from both the Big Ten and SEC. Specifically, the Big Ten and SEC are opposed to provisions in the bill that would allow FBS schools to pool their media rights if 75% or more of FBS institutions vote in favor of a joint agreement, as well as prohibiting the Power 4 conferences from expanding. The conferences have also expressed concerns that the bill “leaves critical issues unresolved.”

“It does not meaningfully preempt the patchwork of state laws or provide the protections needed to make and enforce consistent rules, both essential to long-term stability in college athletics. It also shifts ongoing rulemaking to Congress, limiting the ability to adapt quickly as the landscape evolves,” the Big Ten and SEC said in a joint statement in June. “Rather than reducing litigation, the bill likely expands it without offering clear alternatives for dispute resolution. Finally, the bill alters the House settlement revenue sharing framework in a way that may result in fewer student-athletes receiving direct revenue share payments.
.
.
.
continued
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top