Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[MountainManHawk]

Exactly. You can't really limit compensation without collective bargaining which athletes in the power leagues would be CRAZY to sign up for at this point.

This a good point that doesn’t get talked about enough - the players aren’t going to agree to anything that makes pay go down. It made me curious why NFL players ever agreed to a cap. According to AI, NFL salaries actually went way up when they first agreed to a salary cap:


Because the salary cap was the price players paid to get real free agency.

Before the early-1990s deal, NFL players had much less freedom to leave teams. The league used restrictive systems that limited player movement, so even without a cap, many players couldn’t create a true bidding war for their services. After years of litigation and labor fights, the 1993 CBA created modern free agency; in exchange, owners got a salary cap beginning in 1994. The NFL’s own history describes that 1993 settlement/CBA as bringing in a new form of free agency, and the NFLPA says the deal put the modern free-agency system in place.

The players’ side also got something very important: a guaranteed share of league revenue. So it wasn’t simply “we agree to a limit.” It was more like: “Fine, teams can have a cap, but the cap has to rise with revenues, and teams have to spend within a system that sends a negotiated percentage of money to players.” The NFLPA notes that the cap/free-agency system includes protections so minimum salaries and tenders rise with league revenues.

And at the time, it looked like a good trade. The NFLPA says the 1993 deal had an immediate effect on player salaries, with wages rising 38% for the 1993 season, while also creating much more player movement.

So the basic answer is:

Players accepted a cap because the old “no cap” world still wasn’t a free market. Owners could restrict movement, teams didn’t have to spend aggressively, and many players had little leverage. The cap/free-agency bargain gave players more mobility, higher immediate pay, a share of growing NFL revenues, better minimums/benefits, and labor peace.

The downside is what you’re probably thinking: a hard cap limits how much the richest teams can bid, especially for stars. That’s why MLB players have historically fought so hard against a cap. But NFL players were starting from a different place: they valued breaking open free agency enough to accept a capped revenue-sharing model.

 

[Kinch]

Cruz articulates it well here. (Super) Pooling isn’t inherently exclusionary. Super league pooling is

So the Big 10 lied. Imagine that.

 

[Kinch]

Cruz says he has 100 votes to keep the Big 10 from forming the super league.

 

[MountainManHawk]

So the Big 10 lied. Imagine that.

There are about 100 different definitions of what a Super League would be so who knows what was actually discussed. It was an interesting interview with Cruz, if you watch it, he claims he could get close to all 100 senators to vote to stop a Super League.

To me it just reaffirms that we probably won’t wake up one day to an announcement that the top 25 schools from the SEC and Big10 are joining up to do their own thing.

But there are lots of other scenarios that I could easily imagine, starting with the SEC announcing sometime this year that they are going to police themselves on rev share, NIL, transfers, etc.

Since it will likely result in the players making more, not less, I’m not sure where Congress would get involved. As has been shown, there are a lot of politicians that don’t want to vote for something that results in poor kids getting less money.

 

[Kinch]

There are about 100 different definitions of what a Super League would be so who knows what was actually discussed. It was an interesting interview with Cruz, if you watch it, he claims he could get close to all 100 senators to vote to stop a Super League.

To me it just reaffirms that we probably won’t wake up one day to an announcement that the top 25 schools from the SEC and Big10 are joining up to do their own thing.

But there are lots of other scenarios that I could easily imagine, starting with the SEC announcing sometime this year that they are going to police themselves on rev share, NIL, transfers, etc.

Since it will likely result in the players making more, not less, I’m not sure where Congress would get involved. As has been shown, there are a lot of politicians that don’t want to vote for something that results in poor kids getting less money.

But this shows Petitti is a born liar. He lied to Congress, he lied to the media, he lied to the American People. Basically Petitti is a CEO of a criminal enterprise. It’s laid out for you in black and white.

 

[MugNight]

Collective bargaining is one of the few ways in which they could get around anti-trust laws. Athlete pay is already spiraling out of control and will eventually threaten every non-revenue college sport, so what are they afraid of at this point?

I fear the people who hold the purse strings and perpetuate the out of control spending (ie, ego driven boosters who want to be little GMs) don’t care about anything other than football and MBB, aside from some pet sports (TTech softball, etc).

Collective bargaining probably protects the Non Rev sports. The starting QB might get more money in the CB, but it’s hard to cut the ladies dive team if they’re on equal footing. What happens to free movement of the portal when players get severance or owe reimbursement to academic expenses built into contracts?

College sports had its cake and it could eat it too all under the guise of “Amateurism” for decades. The toothless NCAA means we are in an unregulated environment where the biggest fish stand to gain the most. I don’t see them giving it up easily.

 

[MountainManHawk]

Here’s an interesting article about the fears of an athlete strike or boycott if the Protect College Sports Act actually passed.

As the article states, salaries only ever go one direction and if you ever try to reverse it, there is going to be a lot of pushback.

 

[CloneJD]

No it hasn't, which his why any attempts to limit player payments have been struck down in any court case that has been brought to any district in the country. Just because the NCAA came to an agreement with an attorney and it was approved by a judge does not make it a binding agreement to people outside of that lawsuit.

You cannot unilaterally impose a revshare cap without the current players getting a say in how large that cap is.

This is wrong on a lot of levels. Because the agreement affects an entire class, it is considered the same as collective bargaining. The agreement applies to the entire class of athletes.

Also, the agreement has nothing to do with the NCAA. It was an agreement the P4 conferences made to settle the class dispute. The CSC is not an NCAA entity. It was an entity created by the P4.

None of the House Agreement has been ‘nullified’ as you say.

 

[FinalFourCy]

So the Big 10 lied. Imagine that.

The P2 wishful thinking is that Cruz just doesn’t understand

They aren’t superleague. Just acting together but separate, they promise.

This is up there with thinking they can have CBA without employment

There is a reason why the P2 (and networks) have not already done this. Because it’s risky and costly. Thus far, just threatening has gotten them a lot of the benefits without the costs/risks

I rarely agree with JP, but his comments were correct. Bring on Armageddon before further capitulation. If P2 are willing to leave now, they would have left in future regardless of how much everyone else agrees to self harm

 

[CyCrazy]

Agree, let em go and see what happens on the other side. I will still root for ISU.

 

[Clark]

This is wrong on a lot of levels. Because the agreement affects an entire class, it is considered the same as collective bargaining. The agreement applies to the entire class of athletes.

Also, the agreement has nothing to do with the NCAA. It was an agreement the P4 conferences made to settle the class dispute. The CSC is not an NCAA entity. It was an entity created by the P4.

None of the House Agreement has been ‘nullified’ as you say.

no, in fact, it isn't. It operates similarly to a CBA but does not have the anti trust exemptions a CBA has.

 

[FinalFourCy]

no, in fact, it isn't. It operates similarly to a CBA but does not have the anti trust exemptions a CBA has.

Agree

A class action is collective litigation, in this case on grounds of antitrust , not collective bargaining. Reaching a settlement on the collective litigation does not necessarily answer the collective bargaining question


It was an attempt to pacify. A payoff to enough people that there isn’t the motivation to answer the CBA question

 

[cykadelic2]

Here’s an interesting article about the fears of an athlete strike or boycott if the Protect College Sports Act actually passed.

As the article states, salaries only ever go one direction and if you ever try to reverse it, there is going to be a lot of pushback.

The athletes and SEC/B10 agreed to House and the prescribed RevShare caps. Cruz-Cantwell doesn't reduce the caps nor the ability to earn uncapped NIL. What it does do is to provide enforcement powers for the agreed upon NIL mechanism and current/future RevShare caps (which will go up) and leaving the option open for athletes to eventually unionize with a CBA.

So this idea that Cruz-Cantwell is "reducing compensation" is BS. What it is doing is finally providing the CSC the power to enforce House as agreed upon by the athletes, SEC, B10 and the rest of FBS.

The athletes could boycott I guess but they would better served attacking the one and only Jeffrey Kessler who represented the athletes during the House proceedings.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

This year's High School Juniors that are now eligible to be recruited were 10 years old when House was filed.

How can they possibly be 'governed' by what came out of that settlement? They were unable to consent.

Can an actual lawyer explain that to me? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[cykadelic2]

This year's High School Juniors that are now eligible to be recruited were 10 years old when House was filed.

How can they possibly be 'governed' by what came out of that settlement? They were unable to consent.

House was formally approved June 2025 and became effective July 1, 2025. Settlement hearings were primarily in 2024.

Those are more relevant dates than when the case was initially filed.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

House was formally approved June 2025 and became effective July 1, 2025. Settlement hearings were primarily in 2024.

Those are more relevant dates than when the case was initially filed.

14 year olds still can't legally consent.

 

[Al_4_State]

14 year olds still can't legally consent.

Where's @ArgentCy when you need him

 

[FinalFourCy]

Here’s an interesting article about the fears of an athlete strike or boycott if the Protect College Sports Act actually passed.

As the article states, salaries only ever go one direction and if you ever try to reverse it, there is going to be a lot of pushback.

A mistake politically for them to combine pooling topic with labor stuff

Both need to be solved, but it’s far less important for M2 if discriminatory subsidies are changed

 

[FinalFourCy]

BIG acolytes: “Delaney doesn’t understand”