LSK64 🇺🇸✈️⛳️🐶💕☘️✝️

If Nebraska wins the arbitration against the College Sports Commission (CSC), here's a realistic, phased projection of what could unfold for an immediate impact. Decision likely to occur by end of April. What are the short term disruptions for the next 3–6 Months? Arbitration precedent explodes the floodgates. There's no way around this. The neutral arbitrator can side with the players or against the players. If the deals are approved, the players keep the money, and CSC rejections of similar NIL contracts (common via Playfly, Learfield, Adidas, etc.) lose credibility and opens the floodgates for other Power 4 schools and athletes to immediately file copycat arbitrations. In this case, if the CSC tries to still reject these deals from the other schools if Nebraska wins, it will open the floodgates for lawsuits. Remember, the membership agreements are not signed (per state AG requests). That risks the CSC to be put into a position where their governance ability is null and void and would cease to exist. Remember, the system was already rejecting hundreds of deals worth tens of millions. Why do you think VA Tech's president basically begged last week for schools to sign the membership agreements. So they can't sue the CSC. He knows what is bound to happen if the CSC can't enforce NIL. A financial fracturing within the Power 4 Conferences. Costs go up, more NIL money is added into the system, and the richer schools gain a bigger advantage. Leaving schools like Kansas State, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Iowa State unable to compete financially for top talent. Moreover, schools could even decide not to bother submitting MMR NIL deals to the CSC if Nebraska wins. They can't reject these deals, so why submit them? Or submit them for whatever dollar value is listed in the futures contracts. Regardless, this opens opens the floodgates for more dollars to be pushed through that channel. State-level defiance kicks in. Nebraska leans on the state NIL statute to block any CSC/NCAA penalties. Schools in other NIL-friendly states (such as Oregon) can follow suit, creating "safe harbor" programs where third-party NIL becomes uncapped and can operate like a cap doesn't exist. It's free reign. Show me the cash homie. That then creates a massive problem for other schools who don't have the state statue protection and wonder what they should do. States either begin to pass their own NIL protections into state laws or schools decide to operate (through proper approvals) without a revenue share cap and NIL. From the research that I did on this topic, arbitration outcomes often change specific mechanisms (e.g., a particular rule, reimbursement model, or governance practice), not automatically producing “unlimited third-party NIL” nationwide. Meaning, it doesn't go from "cap" to "no cap" over one nights sleep. It does, however, lay the ground work to lead to the process of the change. That change can be a matter of weeks or months. Without a CBA, and athletes and schools don't want to deal with employment, antitrust/contract constraints still have bite. You can't ignore them even if you don't like what is happening. The mistake people make is assuming that a no cap for revenue share and NIL is unconstrained. But that view and argument doesn’t account for agreements among parties. In a no revenue share cap environment, there will still be contracts that exist between two parties. The "soft cap" the House settlement created turns into no cap at all. Of course, in this situation, which the NCAA must be thinking is going to occur, Nebraska wins the case and the floodgates open with MMR funnelled money for NIL and the NCAA wants to counter that by trying to punish schools and coaches who take a transfer outside of the transfer portal window. Because, if Nebraska wins, more money floods into the system to buy recruits. NIL Go is “struggling” with volume and associated deals. Admitting that it wasn't set-up for what is currently happening with NIL Go. Conference commissioners of the Big Ten and SEC have already admitted with public statements that they are already floating conference-only rules concpets/ideas/potential need. Without the membership agreements signed, then the CSC loses a lot of their "backbone" to govern revenue share and NIL. Without the agreements, and a loss to Nebraska, the CSC will become "voluntary and resisted." It in return leads to a complete collapse for governance around NIL. Effective uncapping, meaning going over the cap, to $40M–$60M+ is already the market consensus. Multiple March 2026 reports (ESPN, NYT Athletic, SI) confirm power programs are budgeting $40–50M+ total compensation for 2026 football rosters by layering third-party NIL (via MMR partners like Playfly/Learfield) on top of the revenue-share pool. GMs/ADs are openly discussing this as the new baseline to compete. And that is prior to the result of the Nebraska vs CSC situation. Antitrust exposure on wage suppression CSC’s “fair market value,” “valid business purpose,” and anti-warehousing rules look like cartel collusion to cap athlete pay below true market rates. Policing associated-entity deals invites more lawsuits because they are claiming that normal business contracts, such as futures contracts, are illegal when they are legally binding contracts in the business world every day. Economic denial of reality. The “soft cap” + bureaucratic NIL Go was always doomed once schools realized third-party NIL could be routed through MMR partners. Current CSC strain proves the governance design never matched market incentives. How fast can schools reallocate booster/MMR money? Cash-flow timing, and fraud-risk exposure (IRS/SEC scrutiny on “manufactured” deals) could slow scaling. Not every dollar of third-party NIL is instantly convertible without increasing litigation or IRS having their nose twinkle that isn't a result of pollen. Remember, these schools need to spend their dollars. Authority erosion vs. adaptation. CSC could attempt to tighten “valid business purpose” rules or shift to conference-level enforcement rather than die. Big Ten/SEC “conference-only governance” talk exists or the CSC could work with conferences outside the Big Ten and SEC. Congress or unions are long shots in an election cycle, and with all of the stuff going on in DC, there are more pressing needs for our country than an athlete getting paid some cash. Thus, in the end, if Nebraska deals get rejected we will have more lawsuits. If the CSC is unable to continue to reject the MMR deals, then the floodgates open for states with statue protections for more MMR dollars and schools in states without the same protections start to make noise. It's that moment that schools, IMO, finally admit that this system is broken and the attempt in DC is not working. At the end of the day, as much as I hate wasting time in DC to "fix college athletics," they know that without DC's help that the money in college athletics grows and that the richest schools will need to do their own thing. That's one of the reasons why the Big Ten and SEC have openly admitted to saying there may be a need for a conference-based approach. Of course they will try to make things work in the current envrionment, but once the Nebraska vs CSC stuff is decided this month, you will see real confusion, choas you haven't seen yet, and a lot of questions about how schools can't move forward together in this envrionment since the balance of rules is broken. Hence the financial fracturing and desperate pleases from the VA Tech president last week. People who work in college athletics know exacly what I'm point out will happen, it is why they have been in DC and the VA Tech president words. I'm just saying it before they start saying it. You haven't seen anything yet. It's just getting started, folks.

It’s almost time

Heard the Midwest is heading to Houston 👀 we’ll bring the beer & see ya there 🍻

WHERE WERE YOU ON MARCH 21ST, 2026