JaredW

Here is the reality. We do not live in perfect utopian world where the “fairness” that the B12 and ACC want will be realized. The P2 will be getting no less than 9 teams every year and if ND is not ranked high enough then at least 10. If the SEC stays at 8 games then they will probably get 6 teams in most years. The B12 and ACC are literally trading perception and their feelings for literal access to the playoff. In a 5+11 model the top 8 will almost always be P2 teams and ND eliminating home playoff games for B12 and ACC schools in most years. The P2 and ND will always combine for 9-13 spots on the playoff which will limit the access for everyone else. The 5+11 model carries greater risk of the B12 and ACC losing access or staying the same than actually gaining more access. In the AQ model a guaranteed 5 spots are for the B12-ACC-G5. That means a max of 11 spots can go to the P2 and ND. If ND is ranked high enough then a MAX of 10 spots can go to the P2. The SEC is literally praying everyone falls behind the 5+11 because that allows them to stay at 8 games and game the poll so they can get 6 teams in every year, heck they has 6 finish in the top 16 this year alone. Last year in 2023 the P2 had 12 teams finish in the top 16. If ND finished high enough they would have taken 13 spots leaving 1 spot each for everyone else. The SEC wants less of a committee because the BCS favored the SEC so much that they were finishing with 6 teams in the top 16 in most years since 2003 when the BCS started ranking the top 16. They want to get rid of the committee because they got more teams in with the computer model. The BCS literally made an SEC title game in 2011 and it angered everyone so much that they got rid of it for the committee to try to make sure that never happened again. The SEC is trying to fool everyone with the 5+11 and straight seeding. That is why it is a bad deal for the BIG 12 and ACC. # of SEC teams in top 16 03-13 BCS model 2003: 6 2004: 6 2005: 5 2006: 5 2007: 6 2008: 5 2009: 4 2010: 6 2011: 6 2012: 7 2013: 5 6 of 11 years they finished with 6 or more teams in the top 16 # OF SEC teams in top 16 14-24 CFP model 2014: 4 2015: 3 2016: 3 2017: 4 2018: 7 2019: 6 2020: 5 2021: 3 2022: 3 2023: 7 2024: 6 6 of 11 years they finished with 3-4 teams in the top 16 The SEC literally wants to get rid of the committee because the committee actually ranks less SEC teams in the top 16. The AQ model gets rid of the committee while still keeping the amount of SEC teams lower in playoff. The AQ is a literal safeguard against the playoff having 6-7 SEC teams every year. The SEC is attempting to “earn the SEC spots” and roll up the red carpet at the expense of everyone else. How is that not crystal clear? @Genetics56

Exactly right. Board of Regents in 1984 returned broadcast rights to individual schools and conferences, and the moment Congress should have amended the SBA to extend its pooling framework to college sports was in the immediate aftermath—before the SEC and Big Ten built four decades of dominance on top of that ruling. Now Congress is trying to legislate the equality that a 1985 SBA amendment could have preserved structurally, and the two conferences with everything to lose are, predictably, the ones blocking it.

Convenient how the pooled entity allows for this

Fixed my math

Ah, that’s where you’re wrong. The bill doesn’t say they are not allowed to expand. It says that IF the rights are pooled into an entity then the B10 and SEC cannot expand if the expansion results in the entity being below the 75% threshold needed to maintain the ability to pool. Meaning as long as the pooled entity stays at or above 75% then they can expand. Think of it this way. Right now there are 138 FBS schools 104 are needed to pool as that equals 75.3% If the entity formed and the B10 and SEC added, after the formation of the entity, FSU and Notre Dame and no FCS schools were added to the entity Then FSU and ND would not be allowed to join the B10 and SEC as the number of schools in the pooled entity drop to 102 from 104. 102 out of 138 is 73.9% meaning the pool can no longer happen. If they added FSU and ND to the B10 and SEC and 6 FCS schools were added to the FBS pooled entity, the number of schools would jump to 108 schools in the pooled entity and 144 total in FBS. 108 out of 144 is 75% meaning that FSU and ND are now free to join the B10 and SEC as the pooled entity is still at or above the 75% threshold. They haven’t banned them from expanding but rather limited them to the most narrow path possible for expansion to slow the growth. I hope this helps

I agree with you. The rules of the Pooled entity attempt to remove the ability to independently schedule within a conference and OOC as much as they can to force schools to play essentially pre-selected opponents with limited flexibility to play anyone else based on what would give the pooled media deal the most value. Whoever wrote this provision unintentionally outsmarted themselves to the point that it structurally weakens every FBS school. It limits A4 non-conference games to almost entirely A4 vs A4 because it would make the most money. Just IMO

I agree with you but it heavily incentivizes them to play 10 games Oregon would be required to play non conference games against ORST, WSU, Stanford, or Cal every year Home and home against either Arizona, ASU, or Utah every 4 years. It goes by the top 10 most played. Oregon OOC schedule would look something like below: Year 1 Oregon St ASU Year 2 Oregon St Arizona Year 3 Oregon St Utah Year 4 Oregon St G6 Year 5 Oregon St ASU Year 6 Oregon St Arizona Year 7 Oregon St Utah Year 8 Oregon St G6

Increasing from 12 games is almost certainly going to be difficult due to the calendar. All A4 conferences have signaled in the past 2 weeks that they are interested in 10 conference games The pooled model conveniently allows for conferences to go to 10 conference games and requires some schools like Ohio St to play 10 conference games. The rivalry section rules take away independent non-conference scheduling from schools to prioritize A4 vs A4 matchups to generate more money for a pooled deal. Most schools would be required to select non-conference opponents from a pre selected group. Texas St for example would be required to play 1.) 1 of Arkansas St, Louisiana, UL-Monroe, South Alabama, or Troy every year 2.) A home and home against Georgia St, UTSA, Appalachian St, Georgia Southern, or New Mexico St every 4 years. There would be no G6 vs A4 games because Texas St is not in any of the A4 top 10 most played opponents for example. These rivalry rules prioritize A4 vs A4 and G6 vs G6. With the exception of Navy-Notre Dame or Oregon-Oregon St, there would be little to none of the G6 vs A4 games. Essentially this model gives the G6 stable finances but sacrifices the exposure and visibility as they won’t be playing a lot of games against A4 schools any more.

You do realize that in the pooled entity the A4 would be moving to 10 conference games and the G6 would be almost entirely locked off from playing any A4 schools in the regular season right?

Now after looking more at the structure of the pooled entity, I have some more thoughts. First, 10 conference games is coming. The model was built in order to allow conferences to play 10 conference games. Ohio St, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois would literally be forced to play 10 B10 games Under the rivalries section the exact wording is “For schools with 6 or more rivals in there conference, they are REQUIRED to maintain ALL of these matchups” Ohio St would be required to maintain annual matchups with: Michigan Illinois Indiana Wisconsin Northwestern Iowa Purdue Minnesota Michigan St Penn St Ohio St would literally lose their ability to schedule and play B10 schools outside of these 10 in the regular season. Second this proposal SIGNIFICANTLY hurts ND’s ability to remain independent. In a 10 game conference system with these requirements all of the following schools have 1-2 non-conference opponents that they would either be required to play or heavily incentivized to play that don’t include ND, as it goes off of everyone’s top 10 most played opponents: Every B10 school except USC, Purdue, MSU, NW, Michigan Every SEC and B12 school every ACC school except Pittsburgh, Stanford, and Georgia Tech Essentially if all the rights are pooled, there are no scheduling protections for ND as all of the non-conference games are built around conferences. ND WILL NOT have annual games with Clemson in this pooled model with 10 conference games but rather a matchup once every 3 years at the minimum if not longer. This model essentially forces ND to a conference as it would be almost impossible to remain independent if the A4 play 10 conference games with the rivalry requirements which this model is built around as they are also suggesting interest in doing it. Now if ND joins a conference let’s look at the required matchups in this pooled model. B10 1. 1 game every year against either Navy or Pittsburgh 2. Home and Home against Army, Stanford, or Georgia Tech every 4 years SEC or B12 1. A game against Navy, USC, Purdue, Pittsburgh or Michigan St every year 2. Home and home against either Army, Northwestern, Stanford, Georgia Tech, or Michigan every 4 years. ACC 1. A game against Navy, USC, Purdue, or Michigan St every year 2. Home and home against either Army, Northwestern, or Michigan every 4 years. This model was designed to end ND independence, which either could have been the point of whoever wrote these sections or Jack Swarbrick is involved in designing a model where ND gets the perfect excuse for joining a conference so there aren’t massive issues with fans and donors. Just IMO @Genetics56 @ImmaculateView @HorsemenPod @Bomb3r_CFBMafia

Doesn’t work that way. Ted Cruz literally said it himself, in order to get the projected value where everyone gets more they need the B10, ND and SEC to opt in. Heck if this passes Notre Dame has veto power over the entire pooling structure, and there AD has already said he is against it.

The media deal value goes down. If the B10 and SEC did not pool, then for every 2 schools they take from the pooled entity, 6 FCS schools must be added to the pooled entity to maintain 75%. The more the B10 and SEC take, the more the media deal value of the pooled entity decreases. 6 FCS schools are not making up the value difference of ND and FSU. The G6 have no incentive to add because if they add the B10 and SEC will be able to take from the top end of the pool which decreases the media value of the pooled entity which then lowers the media shares for the G6. By not adding the G6 can essentially force the ACC and B12 schools to stay with them.

@JaredW67913667 Won’t the G6 just add schools from FCS until the B1G/SEC have less than 25% of the votes? Yes it slices the pie more ways, but it would still be a win for the G6 if it results in pooling.

Right from Ross Dellenger’s articles: “As the two biggest revenue generators, the SEC and Big Ten — and Notre Dame, for that matter — would need to participate for projected media values to “work,” Cruz acknowledges.” “According to the Senate bill, 75% of the 138 schools in FBS — or 34.5 programs — would need to opt in to trigger the pooling mechanism (the other 25% are not forced to join). That means the SEC, Big Ten and Notre Dame — a total of 35 schools — hold the keys to the consolidation. Notre Dame is, sort of, the “swing vote,” one might say. Irish athletic director Pete Bevacqua, in past comments, has signaled that he is against the consolidation of rights.” Cody is correct that it’s optional but in order to get the value Cody wants from this deal he needs the B10 and SEC to join who have simply said “no” Also to even pool the rights they would need unanimous agreement among all non-B10-SEC schools including Notre Dame and as there AD has mentioned, Notre Dame has all the leverage in the world over the B12 and ACC. So is pooling the rights DOA? No, but in order to pool without the B10 and SEC they need Notre Dame. So the question then becomes what does Notre Dame want? What is Cody Campbell willing to give up to Notre Dame in order for there “yes” vote to pool the rights? Is it more special protections for football getting a CFP spot? Is it giving ND a MASSIVE unequal revenue share over everyone else in this pooled entity including Texas Tech? What is Cody willing to give up to get Notre Dame as ND has veto power over the entire structure? Also what Cody either doesn’t realize or is neglecting to share is that the way this bill is structured there is no actual ban on B10 or SEC expansion. In order to expand, the pooled entity, should it exist, has to remain at or above 75% meaning that as long as schools are added to the bottom (Pooled Entity) to keep the 75% threshold the B10 and SEC can add from the top of the Pooled Entity. In reality the B10 and SEC won’t add anyone to risk litigation and the G6 have veto power over any additions because every member has voting rights in the entity and in order to add schools to the B10 and SEC, FCS schools would have to be added which decreases the media deal value. Also the restarted rivalries only apply to the schools in the pooled entity meaning Texas Tech-Texas or Texas Tech-Texas A&M aren’t covered if the SEC says “no” to pooling. In the pooled entity TT top 10 most played opponents are: 1. Baylor 2. TCU 3. Oklahoma St 4. SMU 5. Rice 6. New Mexico 7. Houston 8. Arizona 9. Kansas 10. Kansas St Effectively this means every year Texas Tech has to play 1. Baylor 2. TCU 3. Oklahoma St 4. Houston 5. Arizona 6. Kansas 7. Kansas St 8. SMU or Rice 9. A home and home with New Mexico every 4 years. There is no Texas or A&M game covered under the provisions of the entity This bill effectively 1. Locks Texas Tech into a mid tier 2. Gives ND veto power over pooling 3. Gives the G6 veto power over Texas Tech ever moving up to the B10 or SEC 4. Forces Tech to subsidize lower schools on a lower deal because the B10 and SEC won’t opt in 5. Takes away Tech’s ability to schedule So again Cody is right that he doesn’t need the SEC, however he is going to weaken Tech in the process. Oh and one last thing, a formal model in writing that creates a revenue model favoring certain public entities over others gives the G6 schools grounds to Sue the entire entity under the equal protection clause to force equal revenue sharing. So unless Texas Tech wants an equal revenue share to Texas St, I would highly suggest everyone carefully read the language of the bill before giving blind support like Yormark and Phillips. Just IMO

G6 filing a lawsuit under the equal protection clause challenging the revenue distribution will force them to split evenly

The way the provision is written it doesn’t allow the B10 or SEC to add schools if the merged entity happens and adding schools results in the merged entity falling below the 75% membership threshold. Essentially for the B10 and SEC to add in this scenario the merged entity would have to add schools to stay above the 75% membership threshold.

"The anti-expansion requirement only activates if they pool the rights" I've been wondering about this part. I also read the bill to say that if the B1G and SEC acquire other schools through expansion before any pool is created, it would be allowed. but then I think "they can't have left that loophole in?"

I agree “Section 206 – Prohibition on Certain Conference Mergers or Acquisitions This section amends the Sports Broadcasting Act, establishing that any conference that had revenue in fiscal year 2025 of more than $1 billion is prohibited from merging with, acquiring, or absorbing another conference if doing so would reduce the merged entity’s membership below the minimum required to qualify under this law.” Section 204- “Membership Eligibility The organization must include at least 75 percent of the schools that compete at the highest level of college football (Football Bowl Subdivision, or FBS). Any Division I conference or school must be offered membership on fair terms, but no one is required to join.” “Preservation of Conference Opponents and Traditional Rivalries Requires schools, to the extent practicable, to play their top historic football rivals on a regular schedule, whether those rivals are in or out of conference. Schools with significant out-of-conference rivals must play at least two traditional rivalry games every four years and face one of their top-5 rivals from another conference each year. The covered entity can revisit these rules after eight years, and then only once every four years.” Please pay attention to the words “reduce the merged entity’s membership below the minimum required to qualify under this law.” SECTION 206 “The organization must include at least 75 percent of the schools that compete at the highest level of college football (Football Bowl Subdivision, or FBS).” SECTION 204 “The covered entity can revisit these rules after eight years, and then only once every four years.” SECTION 204 The anti-expansion requirement only activates if they pool the rights The required rivalries only activate if the rights are pooled and it’s only for schools within the pool. commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/upl…

For BYU this would mean the top 10 most played opponents within the pool are 1. Utah 2. Utah St 3. Wyoming 4. Colorado St 5. New Mexico 6. UTEP 7. San Diego St 8. Air Force 9. Arizona St 10. Hawaii That means BYU would be forced to play every year 1. Utah 2. Arizona St 3. 1 of Utah St, Wyoming, Colorado St, or New Mexico 4. A home and home over 4 years against 1 of UTEP, San Diego St, Air Force, Hawaii @Bomb3r_CFBMafia

No it is not. This is a requirement for schools that pool there rights. For Washington St that means 1. Oregon St 2. Arizona 3. Arizona St 4. Utah 5. Colorado 6. San Jose St 7. Kansas 8. Wyoming 9. Boise St 10. Baylor Are the top 10 played opponents within the pool That means WSU has to play every year 1. Oregon St 2. Boise St 3. Arizona, Arizona St, Utah or Colorado 4. Home and home against either San Jose St, Kansas, Wyoming, or Baylor over a 4 year period Apple Cup is only covered if the B10 chooses to pool the rights

Adoption of this Formal structure will IMO give the G6 the ability to sue for equal revenue shares under the equal protection clause. Also as I say again the required rivalries is for schools that choose to pool. Just IMO Take ND, using there top 10 most played opponents within the pool 1. Navy 2. Pittsburgh 3. Army 4. Stanford 5. Georgia Tech 6. Air Force 7. Boston College 8. Miami 9. North Carolina 10. SMU ND would have to play Pitt, Stanford, GT, BC, Miami, UNC, SMU every year. That’s 7 ACC games ND would have to play either Navy or Army every year ND would have to play Air Force twice out of every 4 years. So in some years ND would have to play all of 1. Pittsburgh 2. Stanford 3. Georgia Tech 4. Boston College 5. Miami 6. North Carolina 7. SMU 8. Navy or Army 9. Air Force ND essentially only gets to independently schedule 3 to 4 games a season now with no guarantees it will be a B10 or SEC team There is no way ND is pooling the rights. Just IMO @HorsemenPod