Protect College Sports Act

Dawgzilla2 · Sep 15, 2026

Ross Dellenger says the latest language on 5 for 5 protects any litigation over that rule that has already been filed, but does NOT protect lawsuits of players seeking a 6th year.

So, hypothetically, if a star player has a preliminary injunction granting him a 6th year of eligibility, this statute would end that litigation and cause the injunction to terminate.

I had decided I was opposed to the bill. Now I want Trump to sign it on College Gameday in Oxford.

Amendments are being added rapidly, and I haven't read any of them. Cruz is working furiously to get it passed. He says he has 60 Senate votes, but he wants a greater majority to put pressure on the House to pass it.

Its never going to pass, but a boy can dream.

OG Goat Holder · Sep 15, 2026

English please? So 5 x 5 ain't gonna hold up, is that what I hear?

Dawgzilla2 · Sep 15, 2026

OG Goat Holder said:
English please? So 5 x 5 ain't gonna hold up, is that what I hear?

Im just going by Dellenger's tweet. 5 for 5 is in, but instead of deciding whether it applies to the class of '22, they just say the litigation can continue.

But no cases seeking a sixth year. And no cases seeking to restore eligibility to gamblers.

8dog · Sep 15, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
Ross Dellenger says the latest language on 5 for 5 protects any litigation over that rule that has already been filed, but does NOT protect lawsuits of players seeking a 6th year.

So, hypothetically, if a star player has a preliminary injunction granting him a 6th year of eligibility, this statute would end that litigation and cause the injunction to terminate.

I had decided I was opposed to the bill. Now I want Trump to sign it on College Gameday in Oxford.

Amendments are being added rapidly, and I haven't read any of them. Cruz is working furiously to get it passed. He says he has 60 Senate votes, but he wants a greater majority to put pressure on the House to pass it.

Its never going to pass, but a boy can dream.

Dellenger says it won’t impact Chambliss. It was a little confusing

Dawgzilla2 · Sep 15, 2026

8dog said:
Dellenger says it won’t impact Chambliss. It was a little confusing

Then im back to being opposed. Instead of changing the anti trust laws, just change the labor laws and let the students collectively bargain.

But they would be bargaining over a share of actual revenue, not a share of booster donations.

And I don't understand his clarification. He says "its not intended to effect Chambliss". Yeah, and the 14th Amendment was not intended to allow birthright tourism. No politics, I just wonder what it actually says now.

Seinfeld · Sep 15, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
Then im back to being opposed. Instead of changing the anti trust laws, just change the labor laws and let the students collectively bargain.

But they would be bargaining over a share of actual revenue, not a share of booster donations.

But how would that work without any form of unified group of student athletes? I mean, I get that they're all NCAA athletes, but would they necessarily have to bargain as one entity? Then if not, how many entities are we going to end up with? Each conference having its own? Each school?

I don't know... I'm not saying that everything is perfect with this, but when I look through everything that is being proposed as the core of this deal, I'm having a hard time finding a ton of bad in it.

STATEgrad04 · Sep 15, 2026

Why are they so willing to protect the Chambliss' of the world, but so unwilling to protect any of the others?

I just can't see past the fact that all were declared ineligible, and all got an injunction to play. Maybe I'm over simplifying it.

Msdeltareb · Sep 15, 2026

If you want to go back to Alabama and Ohio state playing for the title every year this bill is a great idea.

Dawgzilla2 · Sep 15, 2026

Seinfeld said:
But how would that work without any form of unified group of student athletes? I mean, I get that they're all NCAA athletes, but would they necessarily have to bargain as one entity? Then if not, how many entities are we going to end up with? Each conference having its own? Each school?

I don't know... I'm not saying that everything is perfect with this, but when I look through everything that is being proposed as the core of this deal, I'm having a hard time finding a ton of bad in it.

View attachment 1439203

What's wrong with it is the athletes have had no say in it, and it only affects them. If you're going to cap earnings potential, then let them collectively bargain. I don't see a cap on coaches and administrators salaries, and those are ridiculously high as well.

Im not worried about the details of how its organized, as long as the players have a fair voice at the table. Show them the full value of their free education, and other benefits along with the actual revenue and expenses for their sports. Then negotiate a fair cap with them.

John Deaux VII · Sep 15, 2026

STATEgrad04 said:
Why are they so willing to protect the Chambliss' of the world, but so unwilling to protect any of the others?

Because a sore throat is a very serious and dehabilitating condition, thats why...

Willow Grove Dawg · Sep 15, 2026

John Deaux VII said:
Because a alleged ex post facto sore throat is a very serious and dehabilitating condition, thats why...

Fixed it

TheDawg-Pound · Sep 15, 2026

Rebchuck is cracking me up with the emojis

leeinator · Sep 15, 2026

Six to play five and one transfer for the entire 5 years. And players can get trade school certificates instead of full fledge degrees.

Dawgzilla2 · Sep 16, 2026

Update...Senate will likely get the bill passed next week at the latest, but Johnson says the House will not take it up until after midterms.

House needs to adjourn to avoid dealing with Massie's attempt to impeach Hegseth. (I'm not being political..that's what's happening)

OG Goat Holder · Sep 16, 2026

Msdeltareb said:
If you want to go back to Alabama and Ohio state playing for the title every year this bill is a great idea.

I don’t know, with that huge cap you can still out spend people.

I think it benefits the B1G, as they have the most money.

MSUDAWGFAN · Sep 16, 2026

Msdeltareb said:
If you want to go back to Alabama and Ohio state playing for the title every year this bill is a great idea.

Why is that? I mean before NIL, thats what was happening, but since NIL, we have had Arizona State, Miami,Cincinnati, Indiana, etc in the playoffs.

Seems to me that NIL pretty much fixed college football.

I get the theory, but thats not the way it has played out.

MSUDAWGFAN · Sep 16, 2026

Dawgzilla2 said:
What's wrong with it is the athletes have had no say in it, and it only affects them. If you're going to cap earnings potential, then let them collectively bargain. I don't see a cap on coaches and administrators salaries, and those are ridiculously high as well.

Im not worried about the details of how its organized, as long as the players have a fair voice at the table. Show them the full value of their free education, and other benefits along with the actual revenue and expenses for their sports. Then negotiate a fair cap with them.

Nobody goes to a game to see the coaches coach or the refs ref. If anyone should get paid a lot of money, it should be the players.

8dog · Sep 16, 2026

MSUDAWGFAN said:
Nobody goes to a game to see the coaches coach or the refs ref. If anyone should get paid a lot of money, it should be the players.

Couldn’t disagree more. No one is going to see the players. They are going to see their school play. You could switch out all the players tomorrow and everyone would still show up on Saturday.

Msdeltareb · Sep 16, 2026

MSUDAWGFAN said:
Why is that? I mean before NIL, thats what was happening, but since NIL, we have had Arizona State, Miami,Cincinnati, Indiana, etc in the playoffs.

Seems to me that NIL pretty much fixed college football.

I get the theory, but thats not the way it has played out.

That’s my point - it doesn’t need “fixing”.

MSUDAWGFAN · Thursday at 7:12 AM

8dog said:
Couldn’t disagree more. No one is going to see the players. They are going to see their school play. You could switch out all the players tomorrow and everyone would still show up on Saturday.

That's true about the school part but they are there to watch tbe players of their team play.

MSUDAWGFAN · Thursday at 7:14 AM

Msdeltareb said:
That’s my point - it doesn’t need “fixing”.

My bad. I read what you wrote incorrectly.

8dog · Thursday at 7:21 AM

MSUDAWGFAN said:
That's true about the school part but they are there to watch tbe players of their team play.

That’s a little like saying people watch Jeopardy to see the contestants.

The reason all this money flows into the system is bc of the fans. We created this demand and now they are looking to us to pay millions to support paychecks that are being fraudulently classified. Long past time for some structure.

8dog · Thursday at 7:22 AM

MSUDAWGFAN said:
Why is that? I mean before NIL, thats what was happening, but since NIL, we have had Arizona State, Miami,Cincinnati, Indiana, etc in the playoffs.

Seems to me that NIL pretty much fixed college football.

I get the theory, but thats not the way it has played out.

More like the portal is what creates parity. Not NIL. Go look at the recruiting rankings. They look about like they did before NIL. And I can assure you Arizona State didnt get to the playoffs with a large NIL cost. Cincy certainly didn’t bc they had just permitted NIL the summer before that FB season. Miami is a traditional power in a grossly talent rich state.

The portal creates parity bc it takes guys like Zion ragins and Anthony Evans away from traditional powers bc they don’t want to get buried on the depth chart. And this law still allows one transfer. And still allows for a lot of money to flow to the athletes.

Seinfeld · Thursday at 7:55 AM

MSUDAWGFAN said:
Nobody goes to a game to see the coaches coach or the refs ref. If anyone should get paid a lot of money, it should be the players.

Ok, so honest question. If Ohio St decides to up their payroll to $80M next season, and they give Kamario an offer he can’t refuse, do you still feel this way?

Msdeltareb · Thursday at 9:03 AM

OG Goat Holder said:
I don’t know, with that huge cap you can still out spend people.

I think it benefits the B1G, as they have the most money.

Absolutely benefits the B1G but at least CFB isn’t being dominated by Alabama car dealerships anymore and I'm happy to no longer hear about "clean" programs...there have never been ANY successful "clean" programs.

Seinfeld · Thursday at 9:48 AM

Msdeltareb said:
Absolutely benefits the B1G but at least CFB isn’t being dominated by Alabama car dealerships anymore and I'm happy to no longer hear about "clean" programs...there have never been ANY successful "clean" programs.

No, it’s now just dominated by the schools with the means to recklessly spend. If you’re one of these(and Ole Miss obviously is), this new era is fantastic

Seinfeld · Thursday at 9:56 AM

Dawgzilla2 said:
Im not worried about the details of how its organized, as long as the players have a fair voice at the table. Show them the full value of their free education, and other benefits along with the actual revenue and expenses for their sports. Then negotiate a fair cap with them.

Ok, but not worrying about the details sounds a lot like how we arrived at this cluster17 in the first place. Opening up NIL and unlimited transfers without any structure or guardrails whatsoever.

The current proposal does a lot to protect genuine student athletes and their sports, for example, and I just don’t see a world where the money making athletes are going to give a flying 17 about them. Give them the leeway to bargain as they see fit, and we’re gonna get the same thing we always get. How can I make the most money for the least amount of work, an to hell with everyone else

Dawgzilla2 · Thursday at 10:21 AM

Seinfeld said:
Ok, but not worrying about the details sounds a lot like how we arrived at this cluster17 in the first place. Opening up NIL and unlimited transfers without any structure or guardrails whatsoever.

The current proposal does a lot to protect genuine student athletes and their sports, for example, and I just don’t see a world where the money making athletes are going to give a flying 17 about them. Give them the leeway to bargain as they see fit, and we’re gonna get the same thing we always get. How can I make the most money for the least amount of work, an to hell with everyone else

I said I'm not worried about the details; the details are obviously important to the students and administrators. I don't know if it makes more sense to have all of the athletes negotiate together or to separate football and basketball from the other sports because its not my job. I just want to see the students fairly represented.

If the students in the non-revenue sports are happy with this system, perhaps they could be carved out and mot part of the negotiations.

The athletes are supposed to be greed motivated. That's how negotiations work. But you can't have any negotiations at all if you exempt the NCAA from antitrust laws.

Msdeltareb · Thursday at 10:25 AM

Seinfeld said:
No, it’s now just dominated by the schools with the means to recklessly spend. If you’re one of these(and Ole Miss obviously is), this new era is fantastic

View attachment 1441330

I get that you'd rather see Bama and OSU pay for a title every year rather than Ole Miss get into the mix but I think most people would agree that seeing new blood in the conversation is much more interesting than the same cast of characters over and over again.

Dawgzilla2 · Thursday at 10:34 AM

Msdeltareb said:
I get that you'd rather see Bama and OSU pay for a title every year rather than Ole Miss get into the mix but I think most people would agree that seeing new blood in the conversation is much more interesting than the same cast of characters over and over again.

But we WILL see the same cast of characters, just a slightly different group than before. Look at the chart above. Only Indiana, Ole Miss and TTech are relatively new faces. Until some new Tech billionaire wants to make his school relevant, that chart isn't going to change much.

MSUDAWGFAN · Thursday at 2:52 PM

Seinfeld said:
Ok, so honest question. If Ohio St decides to up their payroll to $80M next season, and they give Kamario an offer he can’t refuse, do you still feel this way?

I certainly will feel like the Ohio State fans will pay money to see him play, absolutely. They would pay money to watch him play if he was in their uniform, but they arent paying that money to see the refs referee or the coaches coach.

Seinfeld · Friday at 7:47 AM

Msdeltareb said:
I get that you'd rather see Bama and OSU pay for a title every year rather than Ole Miss get into the mix but I think most people would agree that seeing new blood in the conversation is much more interesting than the same cast of characters over and over again.

Oh, I’m all for parity, even if it is somewhat of an illusion(like Tulane and James Madison last year)in the form an expanded playoff. I just don’t think that the way to create parity is by going from a “who’s the best cheater?” model to “who can spend the most?”.

The NFL and NBA figured this out. MLB, on the other hand, has the Dodgers

ReverseCowbell · Friday at 8:01 AM

Dawgzilla2 said:
Then im back to being opposed. Instead of changing the anti trust laws, just change the labor laws and let the students collectively bargain.

But they would be bargaining over a share of actual revenue, not a share of booster donations.

And I don't understand his clarification. He says "its not intended to effect Chambliss". Yeah, and the 14th Amendment was not intended to allow birthright tourism. No politics, I just wonder what it actually says now.

Booster donations will never go away. There will always be grown men willing to give money to kids for playing sports.

Dawgzilla2 · Friday at 8:56 AM

ReverseCowbell said:
Booster donations will never go away. There will always be grown men willing to give money to kids for playing sports.

There is a difference between a booster donation and an illegal cash inducement. Im saying any CBA should focus only on revenue, and not the donations used to balance the AD budget. Of course the cash will find its way to the players.

Bulldog Bruce · Friday at 10:11 AM

8dog said:
That’s a little like saying people watch Jeopardy to see the contestants.

The reason all this money flows into the system is bc of the fans. We created this demand and now they are looking to us to pay millions to support paychecks that are being fraudulently classified. Long past time for some structure.

I agree that there needs to be structure. The problem is how you get that structure. This current solution again dismisses the people who are bleeding and dying to provide the entertainment. It is giving the one side all the power. Congress could just as easily setup the means to have negotiating groups for the players per sport. They don't have to be full blown unions. These negotiating groups through collective bargaining would allow the athletes to have some say in the process and give the same protections the colleges are seeking.

Dawgzilla2 · Friday at 10:31 AM

Bulldog Bruce said:
I agree that there needs to be structure. The problem is how you get that structure. This current solution again dismisses the people who are bleeding and dying to provide the entertainment. It is giving the one side all the power. Congress could just as easily setup the means to have negotiating groups for the players per sport. They don't have to be full blown unions. These negotiating groups through collective bargaining would allow the athletes to have some say in the process and give the same protections the colleges are seeking.

The latest round of amendments sounds like they are trying to go back to the way things used to be, just with a limited amount of money going to the players. The NCAA and schools will have all the power, and the athletes won't even have the right to sue for anything.

Plus, Congress taking over decisions on Conference expansion.

And when this system doesn't work, there won't be any way to change it.

Bulldog Bruce · Friday at 10:53 AM

Dawgzilla2 said:
The latest round of amendments sounds like they are trying to go back to the way things used to be, just with a limited amount of money going to the players. The NCAA and schools will have all the power, and the athletes won't even have the right to sue for anything.

Plus, Congress taking over decisions on Conference expansion.

And when this system doesn't work, there won't be any way to change it.

Dawgzilla2 · Friday at 10:58 AM

They are even adding more exceptions to the 5 for 5 rule. They just added a severe injury/medical condition exception. So an athlete can essentially get a medical redshirt and be granted a 6th year.

Seinfeld · Friday at 11:34 AM

Doesn’t sound like there’s any chance of this thing not making it out of the Senate with a sizable majority vote, and the main point of contention seems to be more about future conference expansion rules than anything to do with the athletes themselves.

There are a few democrats raising hell about the lack of athlete input, but I don’t think this train is slowing down

The Cooterpoot · Friday at 11:37 AM

LSU will break Chambliss leg and Rebel hearts this weekend.

Protect College Sports Act

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

All-American

Senior

Heisman

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-American

Senior

All-Conference

All-Conference

Heisman

Senior

Senior

All-American

Heisman

Senior

Senior

All-American

All-American

All-American

Heisman

All-American

All-American

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

Senior

All-American

Junior

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

All-American

Heisman