SEC, B1G Release Statement on Protect College Sports Act

[CJ Vogel]

The Big Ten and SEC have released a joint statement ahead of today's markup on the Protect College Sports Act:

 

[UTexas]

Does anyone think this bill or something similar will ever see that light of day and be passed?

I don't.

[Glass Joe]

(paraphrasing)

“…we are getting rolled in the legislative process by the politicians purchased by the lesser (but more numerous) college athletic programs…” - sincerely, SEC/B1G

You don’t put out a press release like this unless you’re firing a warning shot to your constituents (which in this case, is all fans of SEC / B1G athletic programs).

[Glass Joe]

4 minutes ago, UTexas said:

Does anyone think this bill or something similar will ever see that light of day and be passed?

I don't.

I don’t think this press release would be issued if there wasn’t a chance of it passing 

[UTexas]

 

[UTexas]

 

[Austalgia]

I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t the pooling of rights somehow against free trade (superior product rising to the top) ? Against maybe the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act? 

Edited 1 hour ago by Austalgia

[harveycmd]

7 minutes ago, Austalgia said:

I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t the pooling of rights somehow against free trade (superior product rising to the top) ? Against maybe the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act? 

The Sherman Act and Clayton Act are federal legislation, just as the PCSA would be. If the PCSA passes, it will supersede them by virtue of being passed later. It's time to simply kick Campbell and his bought politicians in the nuts and separate. 

[Rocky P]

2 minutes ago, harveycmd said:

The Sherman Act and Clayton Act are federal legislation, just as the PCSA would be. If the PCSA passes, it will supersede them by virtue of being passed later. It's time to simply kick Campbell and his bought politicians in the nuts and separate. 

If this happens, it will eventually get to the supreme court.  

[harveycmd]

4 minutes ago, Rocky P said:

If this happens, it will eventually get to the supreme court.  

The key is separate before it passes. Plus, they need some money to combat Campbell's evil influence. This guy is like Caligula. 

[PaulieD]

I wonder how much the negative press that Cody Campbell drew to himself and tech will play on this.  Politicians sure worry about public opinion.

[Jc Dobbs]

8 minutes ago, UTexas said:

 

I'm just a bit out over my skis here by saying this, but...as a UT grad I've always thought Ted Cruz was a lot closer to A&M (Administration, alumni, fan base, etc.) than he has been to UT.

I have never considered Ted's relationship with Tech, but now I would say that he's clearly put himself in the Cody Campbell camp and is trying to use the power of the federal law to (potentially) favor Tech over A&M and UT.

In so doing, it makes me wonder how much he's damaging his "friendship" with A&M... and it surprises me that he's willing to favor one university in Texas over the two other more prominent universities in the State of Texas.

Many of my OTF friends know that before I retired in 2008 I worked for decades in Business -Government relations in several state capitols and in Washington DC. I'm admittedly not up to date, having been retired for several years. However, some basic things don't change much in the process of politics.

My opinion is that (particularly in DC on federal legislation) the "Base Case" in the US Congress is to want to appear to be protecting the Sacramento States and U Conns from the tyranny of the BiG and SEC Conference schools. They want to preserve the Appalachian State's ability to upset Michigan, etc., however rare those upset victories are. The Congress also likely wants to be responsive to the many small colleges and universities engaging in intercollegiate sports. Also it's my opinion that they would likely be of the view that the large universities will be able to do "just fine" in any new legal and regulatory structure created to be sure the small schools and conferences can thrive if they are protected from the big schools' financial and other inherent advantages.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with any of my OTF friends here... I can be pursuaded I am wrong. I just couldn't hold my keyboard this morning.

Hook 'Em!

[ClubWhatever]

4 minutes ago, PaulieD said:

Politicians sure worry about public opinion.

Unfortunately they worry more about money because money can be used to nullify or change public opinion.

[harveycmd]

4 minutes ago, PaulieD said:

I wonder how much the negative press that Cody Campbell drew to himself and tech will play on this.  Politicians sure worry about public opinion.

Apparently not much. Campbell just tried to get a guy who bet on his own team eligible to play college football, and yet these crooked politicians just passed his bill despite that. They obviously think people are too stupid to know the difference. 

[CJ Vogel]

 

[harveycmd]

We need Abbott to give Elon Musk some tax breaks and put Campbell out of business. Guy made more money Monday than Warren Buffet made in his whole life.

[Austalgia]

18 minutes ago, Jc Dobbs said:

I'm just a bit out over my skis here by saying this, but...as a UT grad I've always thought Ted Cruz was a lot closer to A&M (Administration, alumni, fan base, etc.) than he has been to UT.

I have never considered Ted's relationship with Tech, but now I would say that he's clearly put himself in the Cody Campbell camp and is trying to use the power of the federal law to (potentially) favor Tech over A&M and UT.

In so doing, it makes me wonder how much he's damaging his "friendship" with A&M... and it surprises me that he's willing to favor one university in Texas over the two other more prominent universities in the State of Texas.

Many of my OTF friends know that before I retired in 2008 I worked for decades in Business -Government relations in several state capitols and in Washington DC. I'm admittedly not up to date, having been retired for several years. However, some basic things don't change much in the process of politics.

My opinion is that (particularly in DC on federal legislation) the "Base Case" in the US Congress is to want to appear to be protecting the Sacramento States and U Conns from the tyranny of the BiG and SEC Conference schools. They want to preserve the Appalachian State's ability to upset Michigan, etc., however rare those upset victories are. The Congress also likely wants to be responsive to the many small colleges and universities engaging in intercollegiate sports. Also it's my opinion that they would likely be of the view that the large universities will be able to do "just fine" in any new legal and regulatory structure created to be sure the small schools and conferences can thrive if they are protected from the big schools' financial and other inherent advantages.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with any of my OTF friends here... I can be pursuaded I am wrong. I just couldn't hold my keyboard this morning.

Hook 'Em!

I don’t really want to see Big 10 and SEC separate.  I think it actually would hurt college football.  I might be wrong on this, and I’m sure most here disagree.   However, the pooling of rights I can’t get on board with if I’m understanding it correctly.  Viewership drives the networks to purchase the rights to display a superior product at a premium price.  It is not fair that the SEC and big 10 would have to share these proceeds with schools that noone wants to watch.  Sorry if that sounds harsh to lesser watches schools, but it is reality.  And the genesis of the legislation stems from a billionaire that wants to supplement his own money to a single college, because that college doesn’t  receive (rightfully so) as much money from their media deal.  Then said billionaire posits it as an attempt to save college football?  He wants his team to advance, and wants some help, because maybe he’s tired of the extra expense.(I don’t know) But to me, it comes  down to this: it’s not right that a superior product has to share what they make with inferior products in a free market society . 

Edited 53 minutes ago by Austalgia

[Lock n Horns]

Way above my pay grade but if there is any chance we get stuck with this if we stay and we are currently allowed to secede I believe we should move forward with secession ASAP rather than risk the Cody circus

[HonkEm]

I think folks are reading way too much into this. The SEC and Big Ten didn’t put this out because the bill is “definitely passing,” and they didn’t put it out because they’re about to secede tomorrow morning. They put it out because they finally realized the smaller‑school coalition has been running circles around them in the legislative process, and this is their way of saying, “We’re not letting you write the rules without us anymore.”

There’s nothing in the public record showing a new version of the bill or a new statement today - So until something official drops, all we really know is that the two power conferences are trying to flex before anything gets locked in.

The politics, the antitrust talk, the Cruz/Campbell stuff -  that’s all noise here. The only thing that matters is whether Congress wants to protect the small schools or let the market keep splitting. And right now, nobody in DC has shown they can get anything across the finish line.

So yeah, it’s worth paying attention to, but let’s not act like this is the Treaty of Versailles. It’s just the SEC and Big Ten reminding everyone they’re still the adults in the room.

[MBHORNSFAN]

2 hours ago, UTexas said:

Does anyone think this bill or something similar will ever see that light of day and be passed?

I don't.

 

No. The SEC and Big 10 just need to add 15 more schools and tell everyone else bye

[TTown]

Gonna be interesting because they need 60 votes. 53 Rep 45 Dem and 2 Ind in the Senate. There were two Republicans that voted against today and Tuberville has already said he would vote no. They may have a shot at 60, which I never thought they would.

But the House is a whole different matter. And I don't see that happening period. The Majority Leader Scalise from Louisiana has already said no to it in its form . Congressional Black Caucus against . Much harder to pass there .  But who knows . They go on recess in August so would be warp speed. Odds on that 🤣

[Tuco Ramirez]

4 minutes ago, HonkEm said:

I think folks are reading way too much into this. The SEC and Big Ten didn’t put this out because the bill is “definitely passing,” and they didn’t put it out because they’re about to secede tomorrow morning. They put it out because they finally realized the smaller‑school coalition has been running circles around them in the legislative process, and this is their way of saying, “We’re not letting you write the rules without us anymore.”

First the big 10 built momentum behind their 24 team playoff idea. Now Cody has momentum in buying congress. I think it’s fair to ask just what kind of a leader the sec has in Sankey. Has he proposed anything or is he just standing around waiting for the birds to cover him with leaves? 

[David Latiolais]

I can't see any of the senators from Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, South Carolina, Missouri, or Miss. voting for this bill. So there goes your 60 needed. 

[HonkEm]

8 minutes ago, Tuco Ramirez said:

First the big 10 built momentum behind their 24 team playoff idea. Now Cody has momentum in buying congress. I think it’s fair to ask just what kind of a leader the sec has in Sankey. Has he proposed anything or is he just standing around waiting for the birds to cover him with leaves? 

I get the frustration, but blaming Sankey for “not leading” here is missing the point. The SEC and Big Ten aren’t losing because Sankey is asleep - they’re losing because the smaller‑school coalition has been organizing for months while the two power leagues assumed Congress would never take the bill seriously. That’s why this joint statement exists in the first place: it’s the wake‑up call.

And let’s be real: Sankey’s job isn’t to throw out wild proposals just to look busy. His job is to protect the SEC’s leverage, and the fastest way to lose leverage is to negotiate against yourself in public. The Big Ten floated the 24‑team playoff because they need it. The SEC didn’t, so they didn’t.

Cody Campbell buying influence doesn’t mean the bill is suddenly inevitable. It just means the SEC/B1G finally realized they can’t sit back and assume the smaller schools won’t get their way. This statement is them stepping into the fight - not getting buried by it

[Steamboat Willie]

1 hour ago, Austalgia said:

I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t the pooling of rights somehow against free trade (superior product rising to the top) ? Against maybe the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act? 

You're not wrong. Usually, when competitors team up and share control of something valuable, the law may see that as unfair. The difference here is that Congress may give them special permission to do it.