Yahoo's Dan Wolken may not be a fan of the SEC. Some Alabama fans may consider Wolken's opinions to be irrelevant. Even for Crimson Tide fans who are neutral about Wolken, it might be irksome that he accuses the SEC and the Big Ten of "running roughshod over Capitol Hill."
Wolken has a point. The biggest sticks wielded so far about protecting college sports belonged to the SEC and the Big Ten.
For days, the sponsors of the 'Protect College Sports Act' gave the SEC and the Big Ten deadlines. The deadlines were mostly ignored. The Power Two, in effect, gave the Senate sponsors and Majority Leader John Thune a last-minute deadline to get the bill to the floor.
On Friday, both the SEC and the Big Ten submitted additional language "to harden the rev-share cap." The current cap of $21.3 million would move to around $48 million as proposed in the legislation. The two conferences were satisfied that the issue was adequately addressed and subsequently endorsed the legislation.
Did the 11th-hour play work, as in did the SEC and the Big Ten get everything they wanted? The answer is probably no. Apparently, the school presidents and chancellors believe they got enough. The bill may be short of enough hardened cap protection, though Senator Cruz says otherwise. The gain of some protection from antitrust litigation is certainly better than none.
The 19-team conference maximum works for the Big Ten, because it leaves room to add Notre Dame. Other Power Fours will have to spend five seasons as an independent before moving from one power conference to another one. That likely worked for the SEC because adding teams currently appears to be at least years away.
The most serious remaining doubts for the Power Two and others are whether a cap will be hard enough to tamp down out-of-control NIL. And that the important antitrust protection in the bill does not bulletproof all future antitrust lawsuits.
The legislative process is far from over. This week's plan for a floor vote in the Senate could be derailed. Detractors of the proposed legislation include claims that it treats athletes unfairly. How that will affect a House vote is potentially problematic.
Let's say the Protect College Sports Act gets Senate and House approval, without being delayed by a morass of amendments, requiring a conference committee, and two future votes by both bodies. However flawed the legislation might be, it must be a leap forward in hopes of bringing a degree of sanity back to college sports. Does it really matter that the SEC and the Big Ten shaped the bill in their favor? The power wielded by the two conferences is consistent with the time-honored American tradition of 'letting the big dog eat.'
Add us as a preferred source on Google