Details of the negotiations on the College Sports Act...

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 3, 2026

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-fo...sports-bill-after-mad-scramble-001809916.html

our boy Ross Dellenger with the details. Worth a read, especially since I'm too lazy, I mean, too BUSY, to cut and paste.

I did not realize the new $48 MM revenue sharing cap includes NIL deals the players have with associated entities. So, the only money players get is under the revenue sharing cap, or legit third party deals with unaffiliated companies.

In theory, the collectives are out of business.

I do not understand the difference between the $21.5 MM revenue sharing cap and the $25 MM player retention cap. I guess new roster additions can only count against the revenue sharing cap?

I do not like the limits on conference expansion, or the new "Lane Kiffin Rule" that prohibits coaches from leaving mid season. I dont think Congress should legislate these things.

Sounds like bill could actually pass this week. I wouldnt hold my breath, though.

Seinfeld · Aug 3, 2026

Two new interesting additions

1. Title III, called the "Ignite HBCUs Sports and Media Act," is a competitive federal grant program to assist historically Black colleges and universities, though details of the act are unclear.

2. The legislation caps power conference membership at 19 schools and requires those programs moving from one power league to another to operate as an independent for five years.

Willow Grove Dawg · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
I do not understand the difference between the $21.5 MM revenue sharing cap and the $25 MM player retention cap. I guess new roster additions can only count against the revenue sharing cap?

I think your assumption about the Retention Cap is correct based on the explanation in Charlie & Bart's podcast on Saturday. It is strictly for retaining your current roster unless those guys are incorrect.

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 3, 2026

Seinfeld said:
Two new interesting additions

1. Title III, called the "Ignite HBCUs Sports and Media Act," is a competitive federal grant program to assist historically Black colleges and universities, though details of the act are unclear.

2. The legislation caps power conference membership at 19 schools and requires those programs moving from one power league to another to operate as an independent for five years.

Some ACC schools need to act fast. There are only 4 potential spots available, and at least 5 teams that have discussed leaving, plus Notre Dame.

I doubt the SEC or B1G expand, but I really do not like congress making these rules. Sounds like they are trying to push ND into the B1G.

00Dawg · Aug 3, 2026

Okay, so from the NIL side, this only works if the attestation process is actually run objectively. For instance, assuming Warby Parker isn't a sponsor of Texas athletics, Arch Manning could keep that money coming in outside of the NIL cap. It would also allow, say, a hometown car dealership to sign up a player for a series of commercials for a small payout. If it continues to allow a player to sign a handful of balls and put in a birthday party appearance then receive hundreds of thousands from a single booster, this didn't do us any good.

Put that aside for a moment and assume it works, what this also did is create a bigger gap where the big schools can pump Nike, Adidas, and any big company that sponsors their athletics for money to go directly to returning players while most G5's have no real equivalent.

00Dawg · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
Some ACC schools need to act fast. There are only 4 potential spots available, and at least 5 teams that have discussed leaving, plus Notre Dame.

I doubt the SEC or B1G expand, but I really do not like congress making these rules. Sounds like they are trying to push ND into the B1G.

Yeah....are there panicked decision makers in Tallahassee, etc, right now?

jethreauxdawg · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
I dont think Congress should legislate these things.

100%

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 3, 2026

00Dawg said:
Okay, so from the NIL side, this only works if the attestation process is actually run objectively. For instance, assuming Warby Parker isn't a sponsor of Texas athletics, Arch Manning could keep that money coming in outside of the NIL cap. It would also allow, say, a hometown car dealership to sign up a player for a series of commercials for a small payout. If it continues to allow a player to sign a handful of balls and put in a birthday party appearance then receive hundreds of thousands from a single booster, this didn't do us any good.

Put that aside for a moment and assume it works, what this also did is create a bigger gap where the big schools can pump Nike, Adidas, and any big company that sponsors their athletics for money to go directly to returning players while most G5's have no real equivalent.

NIL is always going to favor the bigger schools no matter what rules get passed. More fans means more exposure, and that means more NIL value and more opportunities. The best we can hope for is to keep those deals above board.

I think any outside NIL deals given to Freshmen or new transfers should be given heightened scrutiny to make sure there was no coordination with the school.

OG Goat Holder · Aug 3, 2026

This bill looks like it makes everything worse. The only good part of it is limiting transfers. Everything else is pretty much shlt.

Thank God we're in the SEC. It's literally one of the only good decisions we've made in our history, and it is literally saving our athletic program. Of course, we didn't plan it that way, just sort of happened with some incredibly good luck.

ckDOG · Aug 3, 2026

Question about the 48M.

If an athletic department doesn't have the cash flow itself to fund that as rev share (and I assume ours doesn't), can the contributions to the old collective/NIL/slushfunds simply be solicited by the University somehow or does it have to go through a legit sale like tickets or merchandise?

Also interested in how many collectives won't be able to honor contracts with players bc they earmarked future donations for high dollar players.

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 3, 2026

ckDOG said:
Question about the 48M.

If an athletic department doesn't have the cash flow itself to fund that as rev share (and I assume ours doesn't), can the contributions to the old collective/NIL/slushfunds simply be solicited by the University somehow or does it have to go through a legit sale like tickets or merchandise?

Im pretty sure booster donations can and will be used to cover the revenue sharing.

The current collective deals will just be a part of that $48 MM. The cap applies to university funds AND NIL deals with associated entities.

I guess the Collectives could just continue to operate as they are, but their money comes with the obligation on the athlete to actually do some promotional work. I think the collectives will be reduced to just being a licensing agent, helping the University reach its cap by finding boosters who want to utilize athletes in their promotions.

GloryDawg · Aug 3, 2026

["But a question still lingers: Will schools skirt the certification process and still exceed the cap with disguised third-party deals"]

Schools skirted NCAA rules. I think this will be Federal Law, and skirting would be illegal not just breaking a rule. Will schools take a chance? Like having congress involved or not it is given teeth to the rules by making it law.

ckDOG · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
Im pretty sure booster donations can and will be used to cover the revenue sharing.

The current collective deals will just be a part of that $48 MM. The cap applies to university funds AND NIL deals with associated entities.

I guess the Collectives could just continue to operate as they are, but their money comes with the obligation on the athlete to actually do some promotional work. I think the collectives will be reduced to just being a licensing agent, helping the University reach its cap by finding boosters who want to utilize athletes in their promotions.

Ah I read that wrong. Not getting rid of them just formally applying their payouts against the cap.

I'm fine with that if enforced and that horseshit rationalizations that these are legit 3rd party marketing deals (they aren't even close) aren't rubber stamped to keep them outside of the cap.

I suppose all of this has a better chance of being enforced given these will be actual federal law assuming it passes all constitutional challenges.

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 3, 2026

GloryDawg said:
["But a question still lingers: Will schools skirt the certification process and still exceed the cap with disguised third-party deals"]

Schools skirted NCAA rules. I think this will be Federal Law, and skirting would be illegal not just breaking a rule. Will schools take a chance? Like having congress involved or not it is given teeth to the rules by making it law.

I'm not sure there are any enforcement provisions, though. Its a civil statute, not criminal, although there might be some type of money laundering/tax evasion angle.

The schools will have to be very diligent, though. There is an annual reporting provision to a federal database. They have to disclose every single NIL deal.

Irondawg · Aug 3, 2026

I still need someone to explain to me why Congress has to get involved in all of this. Why can't something like the NCAA make it's own rules as the schools that participate do so voluntarily and thus agree to the rules they set in place?

There's nothing forcing schools to play under the NCAA is there?

All this legal stuff just makes my head spin.

8dog · Aug 3, 2026

Irondawg said:
I still need someone to explain to me why Congress has to get involved in all of this. Why can't something like the NCAA make it's own rules as the schools that participate do so voluntarily and thus agree to the rules they set in place?

There's nothing forcing schools to play under the NCAA is there?

All this legal stuff just makes my head spin.

Anti trust laws are the answer.

GloryDawg · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
I'm not sure there are any enforcement provisions, though. Its a civil statute, not criminal, although there might be some type of money laundering/tax evasion angle.

The schools will have to be very diligent, though. There is an annual reporting provision to a federal database. They have to disclose every single NIL deal.

If it has to be passed by the Senate, the House and signed by the President then it law of the land. It's not a rule. It's a law. How they enforce it I don't, but I would figure like any other law.

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 3, 2026

GloryDawg said:
If it has to be passed by the Senate, the House and signed by the President then it law of the land. It's not a rule. It's a law. How they enforce it I don't, but I would figure like any other laws.

Thats one of the problems with this bill that I thought the SEC and B1G were complaining about. There is no enforcement provision. Its pretty much just left up to the CSC to figure out. And the schools and conferences control the CSC.

8dog · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
Thats one of the problems with this bill that I thought the SEC and B1G were complaining about. There is no enforcement provision. Its pretty much just left up to the CSC to figure out. And the schools and conferences control the CSC.

I think the key is it will override (preempt) any state laws that prevent the NCAA from using enforcement.

maroonmania · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
https://sports.yahoo.com/college-fo...sports-bill-after-mad-scramble-001809916.html

In theory, the collectives are out of business.

I certainly hope so. They should have never been allowed. NIL was never supposed to be about what amounts to a booster slush fund that fans get bilked for on TOP of ticket prices and all school donations and expenses required. NIL was originally sold as a player working with their representation getting a deal directly with a 3rd party to pay for use of their name, image or likeness somehow and should have had nothing to do with schools begging their fans and alumni for additional dollars. Of course if it was true NIL, most of the college athletes wouldn't haven't gotten anything because their name isn't worth anything to 3rd party companies. But, of course, we know its all just been code for pay for play. Now, with revenue sharing, all players are getting something and NIL should be reserved only for players whose NIL value is really above and beyond that. Would be nice if the other slush money went back under the table where it belongs.

peewee.sixpack · Aug 3, 2026

Irondawg said:
I still need someone to explain to me why Congress has to get involved in all of this. Why can't something like the NCAA make it's own rules as the schools that participate do so voluntarily and thus agree to the rules they set in place?

There's nothing forcing schools to play under the NCAA is there?

All this legal stuff just makes my head spin.

B/c activist state judges keep ruling against the NCAA rules which has made them ineffective. Hell one schools jusdge even cried after he made his ruling.

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 3, 2026

maroonmania said:
I certainly hope so. They should have never been allowed. NIL was never supposed to be about what amounts to a booster slush fund that fans get bilked for on TOP of ticket prices and all school donations and expenses required. NIL was originally sold as a player working with their representation getting a deal directly with a 3rd party to pay for use of their name, image or likeness somehow and should have had nothing to do with schools begging their fans and alumni for additional dollars. Of course if it was true NIL, most of the college athletes wouldn't haven't gotten anything because their name isn't worth anything to 3rd party companies. But, of course, we know its all just been code for pay for play. Now, with revenue sharing, all players are getting something and NIL should be reserved only for players whose NIL value is really above and beyond that. Would be nice if the other slush money went back under the table where it belongs.

The House settlement was supposed to put the collectives out of business, too. But as soon as the CSC said the Collectives were not a legitimate business interest, the attorneys for the athletes got upset and the schools caved in and told the CSC to back down.

I really wish Dellenger or somebody would investigate why the schools backed down so quickly. I imagine it was wealthy boosters saying "Wait a minute, we WANT to give our millions to these guys." But I would love to know the details. I think now they are scared of what NIL has become.

OG Goat Holder · Aug 3, 2026

maroonmania said:
I certainly hope so. They should have never been allowed. NIL was never supposed to be about what amounts to a booster slush fund that fans get bilked for on TOP of ticket prices and all school donations and expenses required. NIL was originally sold as a player working with their representation getting a deal directly with a 3rd party to pay for use of their name, image or likeness somehow and should have had nothing to do with schools begging their fans and alumni for additional dollars. Of course if it was true NIL, most of the college athletes wouldn't haven't gotten anything because their name isn't worth anything to 3rd party companies. But, of course, we know its all just been code for pay for play. Now, with revenue sharing, all players are getting something and NIL should be reserved only for players whose NIL value is really above and beyond that. Would be nice if the other slush money went back under the table where it belongs.

Dawgzilla2 said:
The House settlement was supposed to put the collectives out of business, too. But as soon as the CSC said the Collectives were not a legitimate business interest, the attorneys for the athletes got upset and the schools caved in and told the CSC to back down.

I really wish Dellenger or somebody would investigate why the schools backed down so quickly. I imagine it was wealthy boosters saying "Wait a minute, we WANT to give our millions to these guys." But I would love to know the details. I think now they are scared of what NIL has become.

That's EXACTLY what it is. That's why you saw the cap jump to 48M or whatever, which most teams can't afford anyway. I mean that's over 100% of what it was before, holy hell.

I have a feeling a lot of this BS originated in the state of Texas. They've always been at the center of anything that 17s up college football.

maroonmania · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
The House settlement was supposed to put the collectives out of business, too. But as soon as the CSC said the Collectives were not a legitimate business interest, the attorneys for the athletes got upset and the schools caved in and told the CSC to back down.

I really wish Dellenger or somebody would investigate why the schools backed down so quickly. I imagine it was wealthy boosters saying "Wait a minute, we WANT to give our millions to these guys." But I would love to know the details. I think now they are scared of what NIL has become.

Yea, lots of rich boosters love the fact that they can now buy players for their school with no risk of NCAA sanctions like in the old days. OM has a bunch of those types.

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 3, 2026

OG Goat Holder said:
That's EXACTLY what it is. That's why you saw the cap jump to 48M or whatever, which most teams can't afford anyway. I mean that's over 100% of what it was before, holy hell.

I have a feeling a lot of this BS originated in the state of Texas. They've always been at the center of anything that 17s up college football.

Its slightly less alarming when you realize that $48 MM includes the money that currently comes from the collectives. Also, I think $5 MM is earmarked for women's sports.

For the upcoming year, Florida's estimated roster value for football and basketball combined exceeds $60MM. They will have to find some legit 3rd Party deals to make up the difference.

OG Goat Holder · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
Its slightly less alarming when you realize that $48 MM includes the money that currently comes from the collectives. Also, I think $5 MM is earmarked for women's sports.

For the upcoming year, Florida's estimated roster value for football and basketball combined exceeds $60MM. They will have to find some legit 3rd Party deals to make up the difference.

Where are you getting the 60M? In my experience these NIL numbers are wildly inflated.

Strangely enough, I do know a little bit here and there. From what I've seen at MSU alone, NIL numbers are generally inflated by at least a x2 margin.

Seems like at some point this stuff should become public.

patdog · Aug 3, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
The House settlement was supposed to put the collectives out of business, too. But as soon as the CSC said the Collectives were not a legitimate business interest, the attorneys for the athletes got upset and the schools caved in and told the CSC to back down.

I really wish Dellenger or somebody would investigate why the schools backed down so quickly. I imagine it was wealthy boosters saying "Wait a minute, we WANT to give our millions to these guys." But I would love to know the details. I think now they are scared of what NIL has become.

I predict this new “attestation process” will be just as effective as the CSC was. It’ll go the same way:

we’re going to put limits on what you can pay athletes.

ha ha, like hell you are.

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 3, 2026

OG Goat Holder said:
Where are you getting the 60M? In my experience these NIL numbers are wildly inflated.

Strangely enough, I do know a little bit here and there. From what I've seen at MSU alone, NIL numbers are generally inflated by at least a x2 margin.

Seems like at some point this stuff should become public.

I picked Florida somewhat at random, and I realize the numbers are estimates. A competitive SEC football roster is allegedly well over $30 MM. In a recent NY Times article, an anonymous SEC coach said at least 3 SEC basketball rosters would exceed $30MM next year. You know UK is one, and Florida easily has the second highest paid roster. Not sure on the third, although Auburn is a contender.

I agree some of this should be public. These are crazy amounts of money spent by public institutions. Maybe we dont need to know every player's salary (which isnt a salary), but some budget disclosure would be nice.

Villagedawg · Aug 3, 2026

Irondawg said:
I still need someone to explain to me why Congress has to get involved in all of this. Why can't something like the NCAA make it's own rules as the schools that participate do so voluntarily and thus agree to the rules they set in place?

There's nothing forcing schools to play under the NCAA is there?

All this legal stuff just makes my head spin.

I've been asking this since this all started, and I still haven't heard an answer that makes sense. I'm beginning to think it's me.

Dawgzilla2 · Aug 4, 2026

OG Goat Holder said:
Where are you getting the 60M? In my experience these NIL numbers are wildly inflated.

Strangely enough, I do know a little bit here and there. From what I've seen at MSU alone, NIL numbers are generally inflated by at least a x2 margin.

Seems like at some point this stuff should become public.

i guess its double hearsay, but Dellenger says that "most within the industry" say 15 to 30 schools are already above the $48.8 MM maximum cap. Maybe some high paid Seniors will leave, but sounds like there may be some serious paycuts coming in 2027.

patdog · Aug 4, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
i guess its double hearsay, but Dellenger says that "most within the industry" say 15 to 30 schools are already above the $48.8 MM maximum cap. Maybe some high paid Seniors will leave, but sounds like there may be some serious paycuts coming in 2027.

I’ll believe those schools will pay less when I see it. They’ll find the loopholes. One being that iron clad tight “certification process.”

Bobby Ricigliano · Aug 4, 2026

Seinfeld said:
Two new interesting additions

1. Title III, called the "Ignite HBCUs Sports and Media Act," is a competitive federal grant program to assist historically Black colleges and universities, though details of the act are unclear.

2. The legislation caps power conference membership at 19 schools and requires those programs moving from one power league to another to operate as an independent for five years.

Referring to the bolded text, I wonder if that includes newly formed leagues. That may eliminate the chance we get left behind.

Maroon13 · Aug 4, 2026

GloryDawg said:
If it has to be passed by the Senate, the House and signed by the President then it law of the land. It's not a rule. It's a law. How they enforce it I don't, but I would figure like any other law.

A new Government agency, the ICRS

Internal College Rules Service*

Bulldog from Birth · Aug 4, 2026

Villagedawg said:
I've been asking this since this all started, and I still haven't heard an answer that makes sense. I'm beginning to think it's me.

All the NCAA rules keep getting ruled against by judges. Courts are viewing the NCAA as a powerful monopoly that is putting athletes at a significant disadvantage. And the rulings are getting crazier by the month (eg Sorsby at Texas Tech). The NCAA needs federal legislation to try and get some semblance of a system that can survive and thrive.

Villagedawg · Aug 5, 2026

Bulldog from Birth said:
All the NCAA rules keep getting ruled against by judges. Courts are viewing the NCAA as a powerful monopoly that is putting athletes at a significant disadvantage. And the rulings are getting crazier by the month (eg Sorsby at Texas Tech). The NCAA needs federal legislation to try and get some semblance of a system that can survive and thrive.

Thanks. That makes the most sense of any explanation. The monopoly/anti-trust explanation I've seen.

DoggieDaddy13 · Aug 5, 2026

We're from the government and we're here to help...

ourselves and those who make significant campaign contributions -

our version of the NIL.

Seinfeld · Aug 5, 2026

Villagedawg said:
Thanks. That makes the most sense of any explanation. The monopoly/anti-trust explanation I've seen.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the courts care little about anything other than what they perceive to be human rights, so they’ll willingly let the product burn to the ground as long as they can make sure that 29-year old Marcus isn’t cheated out of playing his 9th year of college ball.

They aren’t here to ensure that the game we love is enjoyable

maroonmania · Aug 5, 2026

Bulldog from Birth said:
All the NCAA rules keep getting ruled against by judges. Courts are viewing the NCAA as a powerful monopoly that is putting athletes at a significant disadvantage. And the rulings are getting crazier by the month (eg Sorsby at Texas Tech). The NCAA needs federal legislation to try and get some semblance of a system that can survive and thrive.

At this point the courts are way more of a problem than the NCAA IMO. I just don't see how a voluntary organization where the members agree on a certain set of rules aren't allowed to enforce those rules especially in the area of eligibility. The commerce piece where players get to participate in getting revenue generated by their sport makes some semblance of logic but the fact that any voluntary organization can't make judgements on whether someone is eligible to play in that league or not makes zero sense. And most of these guys suing for additional eligibility or fully eligible to be picked up by the NFL. So the colleges don't have a monopoly on opportunities for those guys. Bottom line is, academics or sports, colleges were never intended to be someone's profession. College athletics were supposed to be for both a.) an opportunity for a student athlete to get a fully paid for education and b.) provide a proving ground for a select few that can play sports professionally since apparently only MLB is willing to truly fund a minor league.

8dog · Aug 5, 2026

Villagedawg said:
Thanks. That makes the most sense of any explanation. The monopoly/anti-trust explanation I've seen.

They have also started losing breach of contract cases based on rulings that they are inconsistently applying their own rules

615dawg · Aug 5, 2026

OG Goat Holder said:
This bill looks like it makes everything worse. The only good part of it is limiting transfers. Everything else is pretty much shlt.

Thank God we're in the SEC. It's literally one of the only good decisions we've made in our history, and it is literally saving our athletic program. Of course, we didn't plan it that way, just sort of happened with some incredibly good luck.

There's a guy on YouTube that has great videos on the History of each conference. His video on the old SWC was full of information. The SWC wanted LSU and Ole Miss to leave the SEC and come to them. Ole Miss wanted to, but LSU didn't. In the end, Ole Miss stayed in the SEC.

Details of the negotiations on the College Sports Act...

All-Conference

All-American

All-American

All-Conference

Senior

Senior

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

All-American

All-Conference

Heisman

All-American

All-Conference

Senior

All-American

Heisman

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

Senior

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

All-Conference

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference