There is indeed a great deal of change going on in college football. One of the biggest is “Name, Image, and Likeness” (NIL), which essentially allows college athletes to be paid, something that was once unthinkable. A 2021 court ruling created a world where athletes can make millions of dollars while in college.

One of the impacts of NIL is the quasi-free agency it created via the transfer portal. Athletes were previously deterred from transferring by a requirement to sit out a year if they changed schools. However, recent changes to transfer rules have created chaos, as a player may enroll at three or four different schools before their college career is over.

Lack of contracts or time requirements has further added to the chaos. A player can start the spring semester at one school but be enrolled at another before the season starts. One example is tight end Tanner Koziol, who transferred to Wisconsin from Ball State after the 2024 season. Koziol re-entered the portal after just 15 practices and ended up at the University of Houston.

Another consequence of the portal is the number of times individual players transfer. In the good old days, transferring was very rare. Most players either never transferred or only did so once. Compare the class of 2011 to the class of 2021. In 2011, less than 1% of players transferred more than once. Ten years later, that number skyrocketed, with 20% of players in the class of 2021 transferring multiple times. This level of volatility is bad for the fans and bad for the players.

Yet despite all this chaos, the NCAA has, as of yet, been unwilling or unable to regulate this brave new world. This inaction prompted Congress to get involved. Sens. Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell introduced a bipartisan bill to limit transfers to one per player, to limit eligibility to five years, and to prevent head coaches from changing jobs before the season is over. This last provision has LSU head coach Lane Kiffin in mind, who left his previous job at Ole Miss before the season was over.

College football fans can agree there is a lot wrong with the sport, but as a wise man once said, “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.” One negative tradeoff of this bill is that it centralizes power in a distant bureaucracy. Like most industries, no one knows more about college football than the people already in it. The athletic directors, head coaches, and university presidents know far more about regulating college sports than any member of Congress. Senators take a high-altitude view of things and are far slower to make adaptations as needed. The NCAA is far better suited to adapt its rules to fit the environment. They don’t have a thousand other issues to worry about; college sports are their sole focus.

Another tradeoff is at the constitutional level: Congress is exceeding the purview of the limited government that the United States is supposed to be about. The federal government already has its hands in a lot of cookie jars; college football doesn’t need to be another one. Moreover, once Congress becomes involved in something, it’s very difficult to get it out. If the NCAA decides Congress overstepped or it needs to modify one of the rules, it may be unable to act independently.

Why does this matter? For one thing, the Senate bill, if it becomes law, will only further increase the size of our government. The Founders envisioned a government that would safeguard our rights, nothing more. Further, this bill represents the NCAA’s failure to police itself. If college football solves its issues on its own, it won’t have to worry about congressional oversight. If the NCAA continues to neglect regulation on NIL and the transfer portal, Congressional action is inevitable.

There are a couple of positives to this bill. For one thing, it would put an end to the constant movement of players every semester. Gone would be the days when an athlete could attend half a dozen schools in their college career. While this does restrict player movement, it provides stability in their lives and allows them to develop character by learning the importance of commitment and perseverance.

It would also benefit the fanbases, as fans wouldn’t have to worry about seeing their favorite players leave. This stability creates greater investment among fanbases. Under the current system, fans, especially of smaller schools, have a reason not to invest time in following the team because of the portal. If players are restricted to one transfer, this creates an incentive for fans to invest long-term interest in a team. This benefits college football as a whole, as it keeps fandom healthy across the sport, not just at the big spenders.

Moreover, while no rule change is perfect, this bill does address some of the biggest problems in college sports. By taking action, Congress may prevent college sports from deteriorating further due to the NCAA’s inaction. Something had to be done about the portal, and the NCAA neglected that responsibility.

Further, one could argue that the Cruz bill doesn’t go far enough. Last week, a Lubbock-based court ruled Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby eligible, despite the NCAA’s decision to ban him due to his gambling on his own team. If schools are allowed to venue shop to restore the eligibility of previously banned players, the NCAA is unable to police the integrity of its sport. Congress needs to step in and ensure the NCAA can enforce its rules without fear of bogus injunctions.

You may agree with the content of this bill; however, these are issues that the NCAA is far better suited to handle. If Congress is forced into action by the NCAA’s inaction, it will mean trouble for the sport many love. Let’s hope decision-makers in college football won’t let things come to that.