A new financial and structural era
At USF, everyone is watching the proposed Protect College Sports Act, which would reshape realignment by putting college athletics under a more regulated federal framework. The bill would create a limited antitrust exemption, establish a stricter revenue-share cap, and tighten rules around NIL, transfers, eligibility, tampering, and associated entities that help funnel money to athletes.
Plus, a proposed 19-team cap-killing conference realignment, combined with five years of playing as an independent before they could become a new Power 4 conference member.
The biggest financial change is the cap on athlete compensation and related payments. Reporting on the revised bill puts that number at roughly $48.8 million when combining the original revenue-share cap with a retention pool and additional money for women’s and non-revenue sports. The legislation also seeks to prevent schools from circumventing the cap by using affiliated sponsors, multimedia rights partners, or booster-linked entities.
Another major change is the 19-school cap for Power conference membership, along with the rule that any school leaving one Power league for another would have to operate as an independent for five years. That combination would slow realignment, discourage impulse moves, and make conference expansion a much more deliberate, long-term decision.
Why the Big 12 still has room to maneuver
The Big 12 currently sits at 16 members, which gives it room to grow under a 19-team cap. Even with spending more tightly controlled, schools would still be judged on market value, brand strength, basketball quality, scheduling flexibility, and how much they help a league create TV inventory.
That makes the Big 12’s expansion math more strategic than financial. If the bill becomes law, conferences will have to think less about who can outspend whom and more about which schools strengthen the league’s long-term media position and competitive identity.
USF’s long-term case
USF CEO of Athletics Rob Higgins’ two decades leading the Tampa Bay Sports Commission almost certainly gave him working familiarity with Yormark and other Big 12 leaders, as well as major Power Four conference figures, that could help Yormark achieve his goals.
Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark has built a conference that prizes brands, rivalries, and market value, and the USF-UCF “War on I-4” fits that mold. The Big 12’s private-capital partnership with Weatherford Capital also ties the league to Will Weatherford, a major USF supporter and the school’s board chairman, which only adds to the strategic intrigue around South Florida’s place in the league’s long-term plans.
Understand USF can help the Big 12 in the next TV media now that ACC teams are off the table.
USF remains a compelling Big 12 target because Tampa-St. Petersburg is a major market, and the Bulls would give the league a stronger footprint in Florida. A new on-campus stadium would also improve the program’s presentation, recruiting pitch, and television value over time.
The five-year independence requirement would slow any move, but it does not reduce the strategic appeal. If the Big 12 wants a broader Florida presence beyond UCF, USF still looks like the most logical long-term addition.
UConn’s basketball value
UConn would bring elite basketball brand power, championship credibility, and national name recognition. If football spending is more tightly capped, basketball becomes even more valuable as a differentiator, and UConn would strengthen what is already the Big 12’s best overall basketball profile. It has the support of Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark.
The Huskies also fit the new framework cleanly because football already operates outside a normal power-conference setup. That makes UConn one of the few schools whose path into a new league could feel structurally manageable even under a slower realignment model.
Tulane, Memphis and others could be added.
A G6 school could be invited and added directly, as long as the conference itself is operating within the bill’s expansion rules, including the 19-team cap. That’s why schools like UConn are being discussed as possible exceptions in reporting: they are already independent, so they would not be subject to the same five-year wait that applies to a current Power Four member trying to move.
Practical takeaway
For a school in the American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, MAC, or CUSA, the proposed restriction is not a built-in five-year penalty before joining a Power Four league. The bigger hurdle is simply whether a Power Four conference wants the school and whether the move fits the new legal and structural framework. So, the ACC and Big 12 can add other schools like Memphis, Tulane, East Carolina. UNLV, San Diego State, Washington State, Boise State and Oregon State.
The ACC factor
If Florida State and Miami remain locked into the ACC, that would stabilize the league and reduce the number of obvious power-conference dominoes in the Southeast. That would leave USF as the clearest major Florida program outside the Power Four structure, which only strengthens its appeal as a future Big 12 option.
In that same environment, UConn remains one of the strongest non-football-centric expansion candidates in the country because of what it adds in basketball and national brand value.
A slower path, but a clearer one
The new rules would not stop realignment, but they would change its shape. A hard spending cap, tighter NIL enforcement, the 19-team ceiling, and the five-year independence requirement would reward patience and punish opportunism.
Under that system, USF and UConn both remain logical Big 12 possibilities — not because the league can move quickly, but because the bill makes them the kind of schools that fit a more measured future.
