Can lawmakers agree on a bill that would help regulate college athletics after House settlement

PublishedJune 10, 2025 5:32 PM EDT•UpdatedJune 10, 2025 5:32 PM EDT

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Copy Link

Are lawmakers ready to come together for a Bi-Partisan bill that would protect college sports in the aftermath of the House settlement? In the upcoming ‘College Sports Act’ that is set to be presented this week, commissioners from the Power Five conferences have also voiced their support for this new legislation that could wrangle some of the biggest issues that are of concern moving forward. 

On Tuesday, two different bills were introduced by lawmakers that are aiming to address some of the problems that have plagued college sports over the past few years, especially the NCAA. 

Over the past few years, there has been a massive push from athletic directors and commissioners to have Congress intervene and adopt a bill that could give them some type of protection in this growing age of college athletics. 

U.S. Representatives Lisa McClain (R-Mich.)and Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.) introduced the new bill that is now making the rounds. At the same time, Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R., Fla) and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R., K.Y.) presented a discussion draft for an NIL bill that is being called the SCORE act. 

In the first mentioned bipartisan legislation, the following points were laid out for discussion. 

• NIL Rights: Codifies the right of college athletes to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness. Prohibits the NCAA and schools from penalizing student-athletes for NIL activity.
• Extended Academic Access: Allows student-athletes to use their scholarships to complete a degree within 10 years, even if they leave school early.
• Health & Life Skills Education: Requires Division I, II, and III schools participating in a Division I sport to provide training on mental health, sexual violence prevention, nutrition, career preparation, NIL education, and more.
• Medical Protections: Requires schools to cover the medical costs of sports-related injuries for at least two years after the athlete leaves the institution.
• Scholarship Security: Prohibits schools from canceling or reducing scholarships based on athletic performance, injury, or roster management.
• Agent Oversight: Establishes agent registration and disclosure requirements to protect athletes from exploitation.
• Employment Status: Prohibits student-athletes from being classified as employees of their university, preserving the collegiate nonprofessional model.
• Federal Preemption: Creates a single national standard, overriding inconsistent state laws to ensure clarity for athletes, schools, and sponsors.

‘SCORE’ Act Draft Has The Vote Of Power-Five Commissioners

While there is one bill that was introduced, the ‘Autonomy Conferences’ praised a discussion draft that has been making the rounds on Tuesday as well. 

In what is being called the ‘SCORE Act’, leaders from the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC released a statement on Tuesday morning that praised what could potentially be coming down the pipeline over the next few days. 

The House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce is scheduled to broach this topic during a hearing scheduled for Thursday. The key talking points of the draft were highlighted by the statement released by Power-Five commissioners on Tuesday. 

• Replacing the confusing patchwork of state NIL laws with a national standard ensuring all student-athletes are treated fairly, no matter where they play.
• Affirming student-athletes’ right to profit from their name, image and likeness.
• Requiring academic support and ensuring access to mental health and well-being resources for student-athletes.
• Prohibiting student-athletes from being considered employees of an institution, conference, or athletic association.
• Protecting rules that serve the educational mission of college

What does all of this mean? This is simply a way for the conferences and House settlement ‘College Sports Commission’ to set guardrails around college athletics. A push to have some sort of federal legislation has been the main point of emphasis, ramping up again recently as the House settlement was approved. 

“This discussion draft comes at a time of historic transition for college athletics,” the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC said in a joint statement on Tuesday morning. “In the absence of federal standards, student-athletes and schools have been forced to navigate a fractured regulatory framework for too long. 

“Following the historic House settlement, this draft legislation represents a very encouraging step toward delivering the national clarity and accountability that college athletics desperately needs. We urge lawmakers to build on this momentum and deliver the national solution that athletes, coaches, and schools deserve.”

Will we finally see Congress pass some sort of bill that would satisfy all parties involved? That’s still up for debate, and congressional leaders will meet on Thursday to continue discussing the latest bills that have been presented. 

No matter what, it doesn’t sound like college commissioners are going to stop their lobbying for federal legislation on how to fix college athletics. 

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel on Tuesday approved changes they say will help enhance the flow of the game in men’s basketball for the 2025-26 season.

Changes include a coach’s challenge at any point in a game to review out-of-bounds calls, basket interference/goaltending and whether a secondary defender was in the restricted-area arc. The panel also approved modifications to the rule on continuous motion on field goal attempts.

Other enhancements to help with the flow of the game focus on the points of emphasis for officials for 2025-26. These will include directives to address delay-of-game tactics, limit time spent at the monitor, improve game administration efficiency and reduce physicality.

Under the coach’s challenge rule, teams must have a timeout to request an instant replay review challenge.

If the instant replay review challenge is successful, teams will be allowed to have one additional video review challenge for the rest of the game, including overtime.

If the first video review challenge is unsuccessful, the team loses the ability to challenge the rest of the game.

Officials can initiate video reviews on basket interference/goaltending and restricted arc plays in the last two minutes of the game and into overtime. Recent data shows these reviews caused minimal game interruptions. NCAA Men’s Basketball Rules Committee members think the coach’s challenge will have a significant impact on the flow of the game. Officials cannot conduct video review on out-of-bounds calls unless through a coach’s challenge.

The coach’s challenge, however, does not impact the NCAA officials’ voluntary use of instant replay for timing mistakes, scoring errors, shot clock violations, 2-point versus 3-point field goal attempts, flagrant fouls, etc.

In considering the decisions last month, the NCAA Men’s Basketball Committee had conversations about ways to continue this direction in the upcoming years, which includes positive momentum for moving the men’s game from halves to quarters. The committee realizes there are hurdles to implementing the quarter format to the game, including the structuring of media timeouts to accommodate commercial inventory.

The committee recommended NCAA Division I conferences create a joint working group to provide feedback on the potential change from halves to quarters.

The Men’s Basketball Rules Committee would like to have feedback from the conferences by the next rules-change year.

Under the changes to the continuous motion rule, an offensive player who ends his dribble going toward the basket and absorbs contact from the defense will be permitted to pivot or complete the step the player is on and finish the field goal attempt.

Currently, players are credited with field goals only when they are fouled while shooting the basketball.

Other rule changes:
– Officials will have the option to call a Flagrant 1 foul when a player is contacted to the groin. A Flagrant 1 foul results in two free throws for the offended team and possession of the ball. Previously, officials could only call a common foul or deem it a Flagrant 2 foul, in which the player receives an ejection, and the offended team receives two free throws and possession of the ball.
– If a player uses the rim to gain an advantage, it will be a basket interference violation.
– If one of the shot clocks becomes inoperable, the shot clock at the other basket will remain on. Previously, both clocks would be shut off until both are operable.

Coach’s Challenge coming to women’s game also

A coach’s video review challenge in women’s basketball was also approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel on Tuesday.

After a thorough discussion last month, the NCAA Women’s Basketball Rules Committee voted to recommend the change for the 2025-26 season.

Under the rule change, the following plays can be challenged at any point during the game:

• Ruled out-of-bounds violations.
• Ruled backcourt violations.
• Whether a change in team possession occurred before the ruling of a foul where free throws would be involved.
• Whether a foul was assessed to the correct player.

Officials cannot initiate reviews on these calls, with the exception of whether a foul was assessed to the correct player.

Teams will not be required to have a timeout to make a video review challenge in NCAA women’s basketball competition. However, a failed challenge will result in a technical foul for an excessive timeout.

The panel also approved an experimental rule in exhibition games for the 2025-26 season to allow coaches to make video review challenges on a foul charged to their team at any time during the game.

Other rules changes:

• Setting the shot clock to 20 seconds when, following a dead ball, the offense is awarded the ball in its frontcourt.
• Eliminating the rule that jerseys need to be tucked in.
• Using excessive timeouts or playing with six players when the ball becomes live will become team technical fouls. These violations will count toward team fouls, and the team will be awarded possession at half-court following the free throws.
• Allowing players to complete a jump stop when their feet land approximately at the same time. This will be a legal move and will not be considered a travel. The NCAA Women’s Basketball Rules Committee thinks this change can increase the accuracy on traveling rulings.
• Allowing defenders multiple one-hand (hot stove) touches on stationary players holding the ball or on a dribbler. These touches would be legal as long as they are not repetitive and do not affect the rhythm, speed, balance and quickness of the dribbler or reroute the offensive player.
• If a player competes in a game that the player should have missed due to a suspension, the player and the head coach will both have to serve a one-game suspension for the next scheduled game.

The Daily Hoosier –“Where Indiana fans assemble when they’re not at Assembly”

Related

The NCAA announced Tuesday it’s bringing the coach’s challenge to men’s basketball.

Under the new rule, each coach will have one challenge to use at their discretion to review out-of-bounds calls, a defender’s position in or near the restricted area, and cases of goaltending or basket interference.

A coach will keep one challenge if their first was successful, and they must have at least one timeout remaining in order to initiate the video review.

Karl Hicks, chairman of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Rules Committee, said in May the group was examining ways to ensure missed calls are corrected without slowing down games too much.

“Coach’s challenges were deemed to be the most efficient way to accomplish this goal,” he said, per the Associated Press’ Eric Olson. “Data from the NCAA tournament and membership conferences showed a substantial number of reviews were on out-of-bounds plays. The committee looked at other basketball leagues around the world to see what the best solution would be for the NCAA, and the committee agreed with the NBA coach’s challenge system and its one plus one process.”

Beyond implementing the challenge system, an important facet of the new rule is that only coaches, not the referees themselves, can trigger a review for out-of-bounds rulings. That should help reduce the length of time a game is ultimately delayed.

The Athletic’s Joe Rexrode argued that men’s basketball was getting too bogged down by video reviews. For example, he cited how the last 77 seconds of Michigan’s 59-53 win over Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game actually took 15 minutes in real time to complete.

To that end, Rexrode lobbied for an NBA-style challenge system. Now, he’s getting his wish.

With this change, the NCAA may have struck a better balance between striving for accuracy without significantly disrupting the flow of a game.

As there is with college sports, there is an ever-changing landscape in all sports. College basketball is looking to expand the NCAA Tournament, a bad idea, but they are making some rule changes that will help with the pace of play in the sport.

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved rule changes to help the flow of college basketball games, and they are giving coaches some power. The biggest eye-opening rule change is a coach’s challenge, which can be used at any point throughout the game so long as the challenging team still has a timeout remaining. In all honesty, this is something that the sport has been needing for a while, and it’s good to see it finally inserted into the game. The rule will be like the rule in the NBA in terms of winning the challenge.

“If the instant replay review challenge is successful, teams will be allowed to have one additional video review challenge for the rest of the game, including overtime.”

“If the first video review challenge is unsuccessful, the team loses the ability to challenge the rest of the game.”

College basketball needed coaches challenges

Coaches can challenge out-of-bounds calls, basket interference, and whether a secondary defender was in the restricted area of the arc, which is always a difficult call in the pace of play. This is something that has been needed in college basketball, and following the NBA script is the way for them to go. It will be interesting to see how teams go about using this challenge, will some use it early, or will they save it for later in the game?

Virginia Tech coach Mike Young will be like other coaches and rely on his assistant coaches to help decide whether or not to challenge a call. This is something that should stick around even after the coaches’ feedback after next season. This is a solid move for the sport.