​In today’s Washington, you couldn’t get a 77-22 Senate vote in favor of puppies and ice cream. The pro-cat and anti-lactose lobbies have lawyers too, you know.Relatively speaking, this was low-hanging fruit for members of the upper chamber, and it even came with one of those titles that often prove Orwellian: The Protect College Sports Act.Too often, such things result in the exact opposite effect. No Child Left Behind (2001).Affordable Care (2010).Inflation Reduction (2022).So this “protection” act, if it sails through the House into an Oval Office signing, will likely end up sprouting unintended consequences, or at least undisclosed consequences. Reading through some of the finer print (couldn’t drill down on the finest of the fine without going blurry), you see concerns, including the spending of our money on sweeteners presumably needed to secure the lopsided vote.That includes a combined $200-plus million for HBCUs and a “medical trust fund” to help non-marquee programs pay for the medical guarantees included in the bill. These sound good and look good on paper — and relatively speaking, $200 million is tip money in D.C. — but you know what they say about letting the camel get his nose under the tent. Will those costs spiral? Have you not been paying attention? Others, including 20 of 27 Democrats, oppose the bill for a few reasons, and depending on your view, here are a couple.Either it fails to protect the legal rights of student-athletes while granting the equivalent of an anti-trust exemption to an undeserving NCAA …. . . Or the trial lawyers don’t want to see a potential gusher capped by law. Both can be true, you could argue. Closer to home, Florida Senator Rick Scott was one of two Republicans to oppose the bill (along with Kentucky’s Rand Paul, but you probably guessed that). One of Sen. Scott’s stated concerns was a provision that limits Power 4 schools from moving to a new Power 4 conference without serving a three-year stint as an independent. The Protect College Sports Act just passed the U.S. Senate 77-22.If you’re a college football fan, here’s what you NEED to know:- Players are guaranteed ONE free transfer. Transfer again and you sit out a year- Schools could have access to as much as $27.5M in additional…— Adam Breneman (@AdamBreneman81) September 29, 2026This, of course, is a nod to Miami and Florida State, two programs that would someday benefit from a move out of the ACC to either the Big Ten or SEC. But here’s where everyone wants to focus, and rightfully so: The bill would limit college athletes to a five-year eligibility window.It would limit athletes to one transfer without having to sit out a year.And it would prevent coaches from signing with a new team and leaving in December before a potential bowl game or playoff appearance (some call it the Lane Kiffin Rule, but he hardly invented that move).There’s also many paragraphs on spending caps, which will somehow be skirted, bu