nortex97 said:

---

Nick effing Saban was happy to out-spend (and out-man) every other program on earth to his own advantage for years.

pic.twitter.com/StFupP9VK8

— Brennon Chapman (@BrennonChapman) June 4, 2026

And that was just the above-the-table spending. Under the table was even more disproportionate imho. That's how he was able to stock 5-stars to sit on the bench for 2-3 years.

---

Darrell Royal says, "Remember me?"

Everyone keeps saying the current model is unsustainable. Why?

It appears college sports is more popular than ever. I would change nothing until fan attendance, TV viewership dwindles or money stops flowing in at record amounts.

What's the indication that the current system is failing and needs reform? Is it because Alabama is now getting out spent by Indiana and Texas Tech?

These student athletes really haven't been students for at least 30+ years. Academics have not been the priority for a very long time. If popularity begins to decline or money starts drying up then we can start having a conversation on how to "fix" college sports.

Horrendous overreach in this bill. Tuberville's simple one is all that is needed, and even with that I don't like the govt intervening. Small govt Cruz should be embarrassed to have his name on it. He's a sellout. Would be quite a thing to have his lasting legacy be some massively overreaching federal pile of dog**** legislation.

Little Rock Ag said:

---

The federal government should stay out of this.

---

Then you'll have constant chaos. You'll have judges running college sports

Anything bought and paid for by Cody Campbell to benefit Cody Campbell is probably NOT GOOD.

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

Horrendous overreach in this bill. Tuberville's simple one is all that is needed, and even with that I don't like the govt intervening. Small govt Cruz should be embarrassed to have his name on it. He's a sellout. Would be quite a thing to have his lasting legacy be some massively overreaching federal pile of dog**** legislation.

---

For the one millionth time, every time you see a court case, that is a case of the government intervening. Those lawsuits are brought based on anti-trust laws written by Congress (and the states). So, the government is already involved, you are just not consciously aware of it. It's a problem of the government's own creation, and the only solution is for the government to change the law. The Cruz-Cantwell bill may not be great (hopefully, it is amended in some big ways), but the Tuberville bill doesn't even try to address the problem beyond eligibility questions. That's not small c conservatism, that is being an ostrich and pretending the problem doesn't exist.

Ted Cruz today after the vote: “I love Texas and A&M, but they are going to thrive and win national championships. If we don’t act, I’m not sure any other Texas program survives. I look around Texas and imagine a world without TCU, SMU or Baylor or Texas Tech or Houston or Rice.” https://t.co/7VZGH87oFe

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) June 19, 2026

lol I love that Cruz didn't include Tech in the category with A&M and Texas and lumped them in with the other castaways.

The meddling in conference alignment and revenue is absolutely ridiculous. Completely foolish. Eligibility questions are what keep ending up in court. Start there. The rest of it is excrement

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

The meddling in conference alignment and revenue is absolutely ridiculous. Completely foolish. Eligibility questions are what keep ending up in court. Start there. The rest of it is excrement

---

It's OK to start with eligibility, but they've got to finish. The House case wasn't about eligibility, and the settlement in that suit will be meaningless if it is not backed by legislation. Of course, that is precisely what Cody Campbell wants. I have a feeling that he's egging on both Cruz and Tuberville because his most realistic optimal outcome is for NOTHING to pass.

twk said:

---

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

Horrendous overreach in this bill. Tuberville's simple one is all that is needed, and even with that I don't like the govt intervening. Small govt Cruz should be embarrassed to have his name on it. He's a sellout. Would be quite a thing to have his lasting legacy be some massively overreaching federal pile of dog**** legislation.

---

For the one millionth time, every time you see a court case, that is a case of the government intervening. Those lawsuits are brought based on anti-trust laws written by Congress (and the states). So, the government is already involved, you are just not consciously aware of it. It's a problem of the government's own creation, and the only solution is for the government to change the law. The Cruz-Cantwell bill may not be great (hopefully, it is amended in some big ways), but the Tuberville bill doesn't even try to address the problem beyond eligibility questions. That's not small c conservatism, that is being an ostrich and pretending the problem doesn't exist.

---

What is the "problem"? It seems it is just some ambiguous complaints that mean different things to different people based on what school you attended, meanwhile college sports are more popular than ever.

There already is some element of self-regulation by conferences. See the Sorsby and Bama basketball player. I don't see how anything Congress is proposing fixes anything. It just picks winner and losers, which is really all the government ever does I suppose.

Quote:

---

See the Sorsby and Bama basketball player. I don't see how anything Congress is proposing fixes anything.

---

The Legislation would allow the NCAA to tell Tech and Bama those players could not play and the players would not be allowed to run to state court to flip that.

I understand that. What I'm saying is the conference/public outcry, etc ultimately handled it. We didn't need this bill to get that done.

Backcountry Birds said:

---

I understand that. What I'm saying is the conference/public outcry, etc ultimately handled it. We didn't need this bill to get that done.

---

For the Tech QB, yes. But what about others?

I think the point is that there shouldn't be a lawsuit battle everytime a player doesn't like an eligibility ruling.

Then you are back to some government or ambiguous power broker picking winners and losers.

I would much rather the current model of free market/unconstrained spending/talent acquisition with the occasional court battle required, versus going back to the old NCAA corrupt system or sharing revenue with the Baylor's and TCUs of the world.

Leave it to lawyers to come up with the most dumbass ideas where they just compound the problem, and other lawyers to think it's a good step

And I fully acknowledge where this ultimately leads. Which is the big schools likely breaking off to maximize revenue. Huge investments from private equity, investment from foreign entities (oil barons, oligarchs, etc), likely no limit on age restrictions, years to play, etc, elimination of non-revenue generating sports.

From my perspective the toothpaste is out of the tube and no matter what Congress does you aren't putting it back in.

The teams are basically mascot/mercenary representations of the university fan bases. To be honest, that's what they have been for the better part of 40 years.

If we start talking actually forcing players to meet school academic requirements for admission, not getting paid, perhaps not even getting athletic scholarships, no NIL or pay to play, play for the school you love, then I'm on board. But that's more of a 1950s model of true student athletes.

People seem to want to lock in the 80-90s model of fake student athletes. I much prefer either true student athletes (1950s and before model) or completely unconstrained mascot/mercenary model, almost like European soccer.

i don't like the Cruz-Cantwell bill, but this doesn't make any sense:

Quote:

---

From my perspective the toothpaste is out of the tube and no matter what Congress does you aren't putting it back in.

---

An antitrust exemption would absolutely "put the toothpaste back in the tube" so to speak.

Congress can fix this. But they choose to meddle instead. But in fairness, a fix without meddling won't have the votes

Quote:

---

Then you are back to some government or ambiguous power broker picking winners and losers.

---

Agree with this as edited.

But what is wrong with the NCAA deciding how to govern itself?

BMX Bandit said:

---

i don't like the Cruz-Cantwell bill, but this doesn't make any sense:

Quote:

---

From my perspective the toothpaste is out of the tube and no matter what Congress does you aren't putting it back in.

---

An antitrust exemption would absolutely "put the toothpaste back in the tube" so to speak.

Congress can fix this. But they choose to meddle instead. But in fairness, a fix without meddling won't have the votes

---

So we pass this bill and NIL, pay to play, transfers, NCAA corruption, academic requirements, all get resolved and we are back to true student athletes?

Hardly, it just gives the corruption (NCAA or new entity) teeth in its corruption.

An unconstrained model is inherently not corrupt as there is no ability to pick winners and losers.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Then you are back to some government or ambiguous power broker picking winners and losers.

---

Agree with this as edited.

But what is wrong with the NCAA deciding how to govern itself?

---

Look at A&M's history as exhibit A. The sips, OU, Bama, Ohio St, LSU, etc got to pay whatever they want under the table. SMU, A&M not so much.

I absolutely do not want to go back to that.

Quote:

---

An unconstrained model is inherently not corrupt as there is no ability to pick winners and losers.

---

There is no such thing as an unconstrained model as long as the anti-trust laws remain as they are. What you are actually advocating for is the courts running college sports.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Then you are back to some government or ambiguous power broker picking winners and losers.

---

Agree with this as edited.

But what is wrong with the NCAA deciding how to govern itself?

---

One name: Charles Alan Wright. That is what was wrong.

Quote:

---

we are back to true student athletes?

---

who defines "True student athletes"? as the commercial says, 98% of college athletes go pro in something besides sports.


if your goal is the nebulous "go back to true student athletes" then I don't see how that every happens or that anyone actually wants that.

but if your goal is to get a set of enforceable rules in place (whatever those rules may be), then federal legislation is the only way to do that

Well, whatever we have now is better than what we had before and it seems much more unconstrained.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

we are back to true student athletes?

---

who defines "True student athletes"? as the commercial says, 98% of college athletes go pro in something besides sports.


if your goal is the nebulous "go back to true student athletes" then I don't see how that every happens or that anyone actually wants that.

but if your goal is to get a set of enforceable rules in place (whatever those rules may be), then federal legislation is the only way to do that

---

But that's the old NCAA corrupt model.

And it would be defined by meeting academic standards not athletic standards.

It's funny that folks want this narrow enforcement of certain rules, not true student athletes, but pseudo student age, some transfers but not all transfers, some NCAA like entity govern this nebulous requirements for this pseudo student athletes league.

It's really just based on what they have known for the last 30 years and the fear of the unknown that supposedly is going to be terrible for everyone. Meanwhile the pseudo student athletes are making more than ever, popularity has never been higher and money rolling in has never been greater.

you are talking in circles.

you think the current system is fine. you are entitled to your opinion, lots share it with you.

but what your dead wrong about is thinking "public outcry" can fix the continued rush to the courthouse anytime someone doesn't like an eligibility decision.

that can be fixed. you may not like the "Fix" but it can be done.

This bill is terrible for A&M.

You act like a government allowed NCAA entity is going to fix it. I would say their failure and corruption is exactly how we got here in the first place.

Now we want more of that?

AxelFoley85 said:

---

This bill is terrible for A&M.

---

Exactly, not even debatable. It would set us back decades, perhaps permanently and get the good ole boy system back together.

This alone would be crushing. We've been crushing it on this front with Playfly and adidas.

In an ambiguous section of the Protect College Sports Act, NIL deals with “associated entities” may count against the rev-share cap.

While closing a loophole, this may limit athlete pay by “hundreds of millions” of dollars, stakeholders tell @YahooSportshttps://t.co/Z5sV06t3Js

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) June 17, 2026

AxelFoley85 said:

---

This bill is terrible for A&M.

---

no doubt about that

Again, start with eligibility and then let this play out more. Trying to solve anything else now is flying blind

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Then you are back to some government or ambiguous power broker picking winners and losers.

---

Agree with this as edited.

But what is wrong with the NCAA deciding how to govern itself?

---

One name: Charles Alan Wright. That is what was wrong.

---

This x1000. Anything that gives the NCAA any authority whatsoever is a non-starter for me and should be for A&M. We cannot go back to what we had where certain schools csn cheat while others get hammered.

The NCAA building should be bulldozed and turned into a parking lot.

Quote:

---

This x1000. Anything that gives the NCAA any authority whatsoever is a non-starter for me and should be for A&M. We cannot go back to what we had where certain schools csn cheat while others get hammered.

---

Yes. Anytime A&M started to go on a run (Jackie Sherrill, anyone?) we would get hammered by the NCAA.