Justin Watkins

Lets go. Day 1 of @MountainWest football Media Days. @cofieldandco joined by #UNLVFB's Jet Thomas and Austin Boyd. @arashmarkazi in NY + @mylesasimmons & @battlebornjw

Watch/listen to Wednesday's @cofieldandco w/@jeffparles Guests: @battlebornJW on busy wk for VGK moves Sorsby & Aiyuk both effectively banned from the NFL? w/@MylesASimmons @Arashmarkazi on Lakers spending $261 mill today Presented by @JacksonsBar & @VegasBattleBorn

@TheElJefe49 Right. Caught that too

@BattleBornJW Also, in the first one, it said "the number of institutions that are members of the conference would be less than the membership requirements under section 5(b)(1)(A)." But there was no 5(b)(1)(A), just... 5(b)(1)

This is how I read the original and amended bill. Restricts movement, but only conditionally. Can’t kill a conference. If I am right, it is still meaningful to Pac and MW because they are just above the 8 team threshold for definition of conference

@TBM_JY @TheMontyShow Yes. It is of interest. But they didn’t take out the condition on restricting movement. This language has to mean something. I think it means g6 can move up as long as it doesn’t kill the g6 conference by resulting in too few members (call it the PAC clause)

@BattleBornJW @TheMontyShow Yep. They added “(d) Definition” as well. That may be also be of interest.

UNLV people don’t feel they are in danger of being relegated in the long term.

@TheElJefe49 @jasonkredline My thoughts exactly! Which means g6s can move up to p4, so long as the movement doesn’t kill the conference. And I also think they meant, that p4 can’t merge or take other p4s, but it doesn’t expressly say that clearly

@BattleBornJW @jasonkredline IMO, they meant to say "leave a conference below the minimum teams for a conference" to prevent what happened to the Pac. As written, all conferences are under 75% of FBS

So the bill actually is harsher than I realized, If passed it would explicitly lock out any g6 from promotion.

@jasonkredline @TheElJefe49 It definitely restricts movement. But the restriction isn’t absolute. What do you make of this conditional language?

I don’t really know how people can argue it doesn’t restrict movement. But I also can’t really see that language staying the same. I still maintain that at least in the short term, 10-15 years, there probably won’t be any more promotion, whether this language is in there or not. There’s too much dead weight already within the p4 structure, and g6 teams wouldn’t really make the p4 any more money It would take one of the p4s destabilizing and losing a bunch of members, but that seems less likely than ever right now at least.

@TBM_JY @TheMontyShow I have been corrected. It is here as passed: commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/upl… The change is from $1B to $700M, other operative language unchanged. According to Dellenger, others on Capitol Hill agree with my interpretation. We will see what is said on floor or in hearings

@BattleBornJW @TheMontyShow Where what? I clipped the definition above from Cruz/Cantwell.

@TheElJefe49 @jasonkredline I stand corrected. Thank you. Operative language on conference movement is unchanged other than moving to $700M threshold

@BattleBornJW @jasonkredline commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/upl… commerce.senate.gov/press/rep/rele…

@TheElJefe49 @jasonkredline Thank you! Amended language here: commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/upl… Permit language is unchanged other than moving from $1B to $700M

@BattleBornJW @jasonkredline

@TheMontyShow I am pretty sure I am the only one in this conversation who has drafted a bill and passed it into law. So I think I am exactly in my depth

You are 100% wrong. You are out of your depth.

@jasonkredline Even by Dellenger’s reporting, it is debatable. As you know, the intent of those “who helped develop the language” or drafters is irrelevant. Legislative intent is developed through testimony and hearings. So we will see what everyone says on the record

The SEC and Big 10 were pissed because when it said conferences generating 1 billion couldn’t expand it targeted them, and not the other power conferences. It was reported that the provision was changed down to 700 million to not unfairly target 2 of the 4 power leagues. Dellenger was not the only one to report on that either. Cantwell and Cruz both publicly commented on the change too, saying the anti super league provision was broadened as a concession to the Big 10. The version that got advanced to the senate reportedly had that provision, We know the bill got changed, and not just because of Dellenger, it’s public info. We know there’s a new version of the bill that uses different language. So we may not have the most up to date text of the bill (which I looked for a min, and couldn’t find the new version either), but we can indeed say that the bill does say that right now. So a reading of the June 4th version of the bill just doesn’t seem super relevant. And yeah, I have my doubts it will get passed too.

@TBM_JY @PhillyVUNLV @TheMontyShow @stevecofield Almost there. “If as a result…”. Doesn’t matter, you are trying to argue with my reading based on amendments and “mark ups” that I expressly said I wasn’t privy to. I am just saying the bill as introduced doesn’t limit g6 ascension. That is it.

The conferences that can’t poach is defined by their earned revenue, but no such delineation is set forth in the members they are looking to add. Thus, the bill applies to all FBS members. To make life easier on you, I included the definition of “covered conference” below. One would think you would have read the mark ups (which are publicly available a week ago) before opining like this on a UNLV show and specifically calling the real reporting “fodder” which means, “often used for a mundane or exploitative purpose.”

@TBM_JY @PhillyVUNLV @TheMontyShow @stevecofield Have you ever drafted a bill or passed legislation? I have. I am confident I understand bill drafting and the process. As I said, I am only reading initial language. It will change. Others in the trenches know more than me where this is going. I am just reading what’s public

@BattleBornJW @PhillyVUNLV @TheMontyShow @stevecofield I literally told you how it is correctly read. You are a true lawyer. Pivot and wiggle around the facts. Any comment on your choice of using the word “fodder”?

@TBM_JY @TheMontyShow Where?

@BattleBornJW @TheMontyShow Those markups are from Cruz/Cantwell. And they define “covered conference”. Kinda important given your stance/opinion. I’d suggest you do a bit more research.

@TBM_JY @PhillyVUNLV @TheMontyShow @stevecofield And what does that section say about poaching or merging? The only sections in the entire bill on that topic are here

@BattleBornJW @PhillyVUNLV @TheMontyShow @stevecofield I did here. ⬇️

@TBM_JY @TheMontyShow This is a silly statement. Whose markups?! In the process of a bill becoming law there are dozens of groups offering hundreds of markups. None of them mean anything until introduced and debated/voted on. That hasn’t happened with a single markup yet.

@BattleBornJW @TheMontyShow The mark ups have been made public and they prove your “opinion” on the reading to be inaccurate.

@TBM_JY @PhillyVUNLV @TheMontyShow @stevecofield I asked you to tell me where I am wrong. The second at issue is right there. Again, I am sure behind the scenes there are versions that say exactly what is being reported. But that is not what the bill currently says

@BattleBornJW @PhillyVUNLV @TheMontyShow @stevecofield Your reading is flawed.

@jasonkredline Like I said, I don’t doubt Dellenger’s sources. All I am saying is the bill doesn’t say that right now. In fact, it doesn’t say $700M (still says $1B)

@BattleBornJW Idk