While conference expansion serves as a shiny object, a more important issue looms with Senate bill still in limbo
· Yahoo Sports
TAMPA, Fla. — Within a private room here on the opening day of SEC media days, Eli Drinkwitz took a few seconds to imagine a different world: one in which college sports operates under a harder athlete compensation cap with a separate pool of money dedicated to retaining current players on his roster.
“It could be a solution,” the Missouri coach said.
Visit bettingx.bond for more information.
Perhaps that day isn’t as far away as many think.
In fact, as Drinkwitz and other coaches paraded through the media circuit at this downtown Tampa Marriott hotel, lawmakers in Washington, D.C. continued negotiations over revisions to the Protect College Sports Act — the groundbreaking legislation that, if passed, stands to regulate the college athletics industry. The latest and most notable possible changes — much of it an effort to gain support from the SEC and Big Ten — would alter the all-important athlete compensation framework by providing schools with more flexible spending, according to those briefed on the talks.
That includes a proposed idea to establish a separate pool of money for schools to use to retain current athletes on their rosters. This “retention pool,” as some refer to it, would be in addition to the $21.3 million revenue-share cap for the 2026-27 academic year. Other ideas under discussion include a general increase in the cap itself and the addition of a sort-of luxury tax on over-spenders.
But as negotiations persist, the idea of a separate retention pool is gaining momentum from some.
“I don’t know enough details around [the retention pool], but it gives you the ability to recruit and retain your current roster, which is better than just going out into the portal and having the most money in the marketplace,” Drinkwitz said during an interview with Yahoo Sports on Monday.
According to the latest conversations, schools would have available to them $20-30 million for retaining players — a figure that when combined with the traditional cap provides schools with a total cap of $40-50 million for all of their athletes. This aligns more with the current spending in the market.
It is an important revision if, in the end, the move gains the necessary support from all parties.
Those involved caution that negotiations remain active and fluid. There is no agreement yet on the litany of revisions under discussion among the two parties: the three co-authors of the bill, Sens. Ted Cruz, Maria Cantwell and Eric Schmitt; and officials from the SEC and Big Ten.
Cap flexibility is seen by some as a necessary revision considering the bill implements stricter circumvention rules that, while eliminating a workaround to the cap, may limit hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to athletes. The legislation, as currently written, curtails circumvention by prohibiting schools from using multi-media rights partners and corporate sponsors — deemed as “associated entities” — to funnel millions to athletes in an effort to exceed the $21.3 million cap.
However, not everyone believes that such cap changes can be made without a formal approval process as outlined in the NCAA’s House settlement agreement. That process starts with a formal request from the conferences and NCAA to the plaintiff attorneys, who must, along with Judge Claudia Wilken, approve any changes.
That process can span several months.
“It depends on what they would do. If it changes terms within the settlement, they cannot do that,” said co-lead plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Kessler. “They are not going to use the legislation to do that. I can guarantee you that.”
That said, lawmakers are toiling away on ideas of creating some sort of cap flexibility as they work with leaders of President Donald Trump’s White House effort around college sports, most notably Yankees president Randy Levine and Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell.
The cap isn’t the only revision under discussion.
In fact, lawmakers and staff are working toward refining a section of the bill that prohibited the four power leagues from further expanding, a provision detrimental to the aspirations of the Group of Six programs hoping to one day elevate. As reported Friday, Cantwell told Yahoo Sports that an “adjustment” will be made to permit those schools to move up.
A change is also under discussion allowing power league programs to move to other power conferences — such as an ACC team moving to the SEC — but within certain parameters. Those schools making such a move must operate as an independent for at least five years before shifting to their new league. Independents such as Notre Dame and Connecticut would be free to join conferences as well.
Lawmakers are also discussing capping all conferences at 19 members — a move that would allow the Big 12 and SEC to gain three more members each, the ACC to gain two more and then the Big Ten to gain one more.
This is a crucial juncture in the history of the college sports industry — one left rudderless, with few rules and enforcement, in the wake of mounting legal losses and decades of inaction from its own executives.
Conference leaders are gearing up to review any revised Senate bill, but they haven’t yet seen a final product, according to a statement released on Monday from the SEC presidents and chancellors. A delay in the revisions — the leagues expected a revised bill last week — means that the legislation will not reach the floor this week as Cruz had hoped. The Big Ten and SEC’s support is paramount for the chances of passage through Congress, as the leagues have 26 senators within their footprint and dozens of House members.
If congressional action is non-existent or inadequate, leaders of the SEC are seriously considering an alternative route. “Plan B,” some have referred to it, is a self-governance model in which the conference would establish its own rules, enforce those rules and even compete against only itself. League officials believe the strategy, as it applies to a smaller subset of programs, may avoid many legal challenges that crippled the NCAA’s amateurism rules.
In fact, when asked about those discussions, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey emphasized Monday that they are “real” and are born out of frustration from his administrators to “look at something significantly different.”
Aside from the cap situation and the expansion provision, the SEC and Big Ten have suggested changes to the primary portion of the legislation that permits the NCAA and conferences to re-implement the one-time transfer limit and five-year eligibility standard. The conferences want the legal protection strengthened by broadening a concept within the bill that preempts NIL state laws and narrowing the ability for athletes to take legal action in state courts — all changes that may put at risk Democrat votes.
Time is ticking away for legislation to move through Congress.
A short window — over the next three weeks — exists for the legislation to move to the U.S. Senate floor before lawmakers break for a month-long recess on Aug. 7. The recess gives way to a stretch of time proceeding the November midterm elections, at which point most congressional action slows to a crawl. If the bill passes the Senate, it must then pass the House, where that chambers’ leadership has expressed opposition over the legislation.
Cantwell last week called it a “tight timeframe,” and Schmitt emphasized that the bill needs to reach the Senate floor, at the very least, before the August break. The House breaks for recess a week earlier than the Senate, meaning representatives in that chamber won’t get working on the legislation until September.