Yahoo’s Ross Delenger wrote another compelling and timely piece about the Protect Sports Act, which puts the state of Florida and particularly Florida State at ground zero.

There were only three Republicans to vote “no” in a procedural vote that received a “whopping” 77 yes votes on Thursday. Two of those three no votes were senators from Florida, Ashley Moody and Rick Scott. Those two voted no on behalf of Florida State, Miami and South Florida, who have publicly opposed provisions of the bill that would make movement to a more competitive conference more difficult if not impossible.

The Protect Sports Act not only caps conferences at 19 (the Big Ten sits at 18, SEC at 16) but added language that requires a school moving to a power conference to play as an independent for five years.

FSU Board of Trustee chairman Peter Collins who, along with others, lobbied Moody and Scott, calls that five-year requirement “purgatory,” a punitive period in which FSU or any other school would have to negotiate schedules and television contracts as an independent. And to do so during a time when conferences are required to play nine-game conference schedules and are renegotiating their own television contracts.

It would be a death sentence for Florida State.

After lobbying from Florida State, Miami and others, Moody and Scott wrote amendments that would eliminate the purgatory provision. But the bill they voted on Thursday still included the clauses they had objected to, however, new language reduced the sentence from five years to three, and provided a clause that sunsets purgatory all together six years after the bill is enacted (likely 2033).

The amended language remains untenable to the schools and apparently to Scott and Moody based at least on their preliminary vote.

Levine wants Moody, Scott to play ball with Trump

Dellenger points out that the Protect College Sports Act has the full attention of the White House, where President Donald Trump has appointed New York Yankees president Randy Levine, an influential developer of the legislation, to lead the executive branch’s congressional efforts.

According to Dellenger, Levine has direct communication with commissioners, university presidents and board chairs in the SEC and Big Ten and is strongly encouraging Moody and Scott to support the legislation as their schools "have nowhere else to go," he said.

"I understand the Florida State and Miami concerns," Levine told Yahoo Sports on Friday. "I've tried hard to resolve them, but the fact is clear: The Big Ten and SEC have told me they have no plans to expand in the near future. In the foreseeable future, they do not see any addition of Florida State or Miami."

Dellenger said Levine's comments signal frustration from Trump, who in a social media post celebrated the bill vote while critical of the nay votes from Scott and Moody. Trump has said that Levine speaks for him on this matter.

"I talk directly to the commissioners and the school presidents," Levine said. "There is nowhere for Florida State and Miami to go right now."

Is Levine right? ‘FSU and Miami have nowhere to go’

Dellenger said his sources, formal and informal, tell him North Carolina and Virginia provide the league with a presence in two new states, high-achieving academic brands and strong basketball programs.

The SEC already has the Gators as the representative in Florida.

Dellenger notes Florida and South Carolina remain as historic threats to exclude other in-state brands, whether FSU, Miami or Clemson, much like Texas A&M privately objected to the SEC's pursuit of Texas.

If you are Moody or Scott, does Levine’s current argument persuade your vote on what could be a long-term lockout for your constituents?

Give props to Moody and Scott for swimming against the current of Republican support for the bill (at least preliminary votes), but where are the Republican senators from South Carolina when their constituent Clemson is blowing in the breeze, or North Carolina, Virginia, Texas or any state with universities who have ambitions to gain membership in the Big 10 or SEC, where programs are being paid $40 million per team per year more than teams in any other conference?

If you are Collins, a well-connected Republican, do you take what Levine is saying seriously?

It has been well reported that the SEC and Big Ten commissioners Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti have said they are satisfied with their current membership and have no immediate plan for expansion. Let’s take them at their word rather than as a negotiating posture for a second. But what about 2030 when the Big Ten conference television contract ends, and the SEC features a contractual look-in? But what about 2030? Just three short years after this bill is enacted and when talk of conference realignment was projected to heat up once again?

In preparation for judgement day, FSU and Clemson sued the ACC to establish what the exit fee would be when that day arrived, and in a settlement established concrete numbers leading up to 2030.

Bill protects SEC, Big 10 and conference offices

This bill looks like a windfall for the SEC and Big 10 and for all conference offices.

For the 34 schools in the SEC and Big Ten, it maintains their huge financial advantage over any other. And it protects the other conference offices from losing valuable members. You can be sure the conference offices were lobbying for this bill in their best interest, and in so doing lobbying against the best interest of the schools within their conference.

The Big 10 will have one open slot for one school and we all know that will be reserved for Notre Dame, which is already an independent, so the purgatory clause does not impact them or the Big Ten.

The SEC, which now has 16 schools, would have up to three slots they could fill and enormous leverage when considering admission requirements for the dozens of applicants.

The conference expansion provisions in the Protect Sports Act protects the Big Ten and SEC and the conference office, but does not protect schools like Florida State, Clemson, Miami or any other school with ambition to join one of the two richest conferences in the nation to gain the resources to compete with them.

Nor does it protect a well-resourced Group of 6 program, like the University of South Florida, that has been working to elevate to a money conference that would also be capped at 19.

The membership cap is not affected by the newest revision. The sunset clause only applies to the three-year probationary period and not to the cap, at least in its present edition.

House poses serious opposition

The Senate is expected to take its final vote next week, at which point it will go to the House of Representatives, where it has always faced stiff opposition over the lack of player representation. But now Dellenger writes, the “expansion provision could pose a problem in the House of Representatives, where states like Florida, California and North and South Carolina hold more than 100 delegates.

"The schools are already working their House members against it," said one congressional official.

If you didn’t sleep through civics, this is Democracy in action as a bill has to make its way through the branches of Congress, and being modified along the way in hopes a more-perfect bill will emerge.

There are many aspects of this bill that we all agree are helpful in an effort to protect collegiate sports. Among them are:

·       Reasonable limits on player transfer movement
·       Reasonable limits on coach and staff movement
·       Granting the NCAA enforcement powers to regulate athlete compensation
·       Establishing a five-year eligibility standard.

Even schools like FSU, who would be negatively impacted by the legislation, support many aspects of the bill, while lobbying for amendments to the language they oppose.

Dellenger reported a few of their social posts:

"We are grateful to [the senators] for working to address the bill's provisions related to conference realignment," a statement from Florida State said.

"If the few provisions in the bill regarding conference membership are adjusted to become satisfactory, universities in our state will continue to thrive in the future," USF athletic director Rob Higgins posted.

"(The senators) have stood up to heavy political pressure to do right by Florida universities," tweeted Rudy Fernandez, Miami's executive vice president for operations and senior advisor to the school's president.

Self-interest always threatens our view

Dellenger notes an interview with Sen. Eric Schmitt, one of the authors of the legislation, who said he believes the provision provides more stability within a college sports landscape rocked by conference movement over the last several decades.

"All this stuff will settle down and that's kind of the point," he said.

Without the provision, lawmakers fear that the SEC and Big Ten might eventually "join forces to create a super league," Sen. Ted Cruz said.

Can FSU even worry about a super league from its vantage point? Can it be expected to see the forest from behind the giant sequoia? Can Clemson or Miami or South Florida or gawd knows how many others with ambitions?

In an interview with Yahoo Sports on Tuesday, another co-author, Sen. Maria Cantwell, expressed openness about relaxing the provision — to a point.

"People want to know that conferences are going to be strong and not undermined and that you're not going to have a ton of ways in which people are going to run off and create a super league or move around too much," she said. "But you do want to honor some flexibility."

True. But I think it would also be fair to say, people don’t want there to be a legislative restraint of trade, where the road to being able to compete is blocked by Congress in a rush to get something done, something the rest of us have to live with.

Thanks for reading the Osceola. Subscribe now for 40 percent off to enjoy a full year of coverage of FSU athletics. You’ll also earn a $20 gift card at Alumni Hall.