@itsAntWright@BoilerBandsman Wagner was absolutely not a 5. Shit put Hammons or Haas if we're calling Swanigan a 4 but Wagner shouldn't be on this list
For years, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti told Congress that federal legislation was essential for college sports.
They lobbied on Capitol Hill alongside other Power conference leaders for federal NIL guidelines and national standards.
They aren't refusing to support the Protect College Sports Act because they care about athletes. They're doing it because they care about the bill’s media rights pooling provisions. They're looking out for their best interests. Who can blame them?
But it further proves that earlier calls for Congress were less about "saving college sports" or curing "chaos," and more about preserving power.
To be clear, I'm happy to read that the SEC and Big Ten do not support the Protect College Sports Act. But it has nothing to do with "lasting stability for college athletics."
As the owner of media company or whatever you do you should have seen this coming
I Ain’t reading all that. I’m happy for u tho. Or sorry that happened.
There are more than 1,000 active NCAA schools and over 550,000 NCAA athletes. Yet more than 90% of the industry's revenue comes from college football and men's basketball. There are approximately 8,000 Power Four football and basketball athletes—roughly 1.5% of all NCAA athletes—driving about 90% of the revenue, or approximately $12 billion annually.
The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 is a solid start, and those involved should be applauded for getting the legislation to this point. We can debate all day about what it does and does not do to protect athletes, schools, conferences, or the broader institution of college athletics.
My fundamental issue is that I don't believe Congress is the ultimate solution to the long-term health of college sports.
The NCAA is systemically broken. More importantly, it is no longer built for what college athletics has become over the past several decades. We can all reminisce about what college football and college basketball once were. But whether you like it or not, college athletics has become a major business, and that reality is not going to change.
I could spend time listing all the ways the NCAA has mismanaged and failed as a steward of college sports over the years, but that's not really the point. In its current form, the NCAA cannot effectively govern or enforce. It is largely powerless.
No system built around those economics is sustainable in its current form.
The only model that won't continually break under this financial reality is a new association or governing structure that properly categorizes and serves the different levels of college athletics. High-level college football and basketball are neither amateur athletics nor fully professional sports. They exist somewhere in between. But if we're being honest, they are much closer to professional sports than they are to softball, tennis, swimming, or many of the other sports operating under the same NCAA umbrella.
That's why any effort focused primarily on protecting or preserving the NCAA is, in my view, a short-sighted approach to a much larger issue. It's treating the symptoms rather than addressing the disease.
So while many will look at the Protect College Sports Act of 2026 and see meaningful progress—and there is certainly a lot of good in it—I believe it ultimately misses the larger issue. Even if it passes, it does not solve the fundamental structural problem facing college athletics. In many ways, it simply prolongs the inevitable.
What college sports truly needs is a governing body designed for the realities of modern high-level athletics, not one built for a world that no longer exists. A system that recognizes the economic realities of Power Four football and basketball while still supporting and protecting the broader collegiate athletic ecosystem.
Until that conversation happens, we will continue applying temporary fixes to a structural problem.
Just my opinion.
A news reporter asked Michael Jordan if he thought the ’90s Bulls could beat LeBron’s Lakers.
MJ: Yes.
Reporter: By how much?
MJ: Two or three points.
Reporter: Why so close?
MJ: Most of us are almost 60 now.