Abstract

Paper Eight established that the simple breakaway is a bad trade the structure obstructs, and that the present condition of the enterprise is not a resting state but a holding pattern — a perpetual deferral of a refusal that cannot be completed and will not be abandoned. This paper asks where, if anywhere, the enterprise can come to rest. It treats the question as one of stable equilibria: an arrangement is stable not when it is fair or efficient but when no party with the power to disrupt it has both the incentive and the means to do so. By that test the current holding pattern is unstable, because the underlying strain persists and the deferral serves the conferences only as an unconsummated threat. The paper examines four candidate end-states. The first, a full breakaway paired with collective bargaining, is the only configuration that resolves the strain completely, because bargaining supplies at once the legitimacy and the antitrust immunity the conferences cannot otherwise rebuild — but it is obstructed by the public-private divide in labor law and the refusal to recognize the athletes. The second, a reformed association with tiered governance, stabilizes by reducing the premium without dissolving the breadth that supplies the buffer, and is the configuration most consistent with the volume’s keystone, though it requires the haves to accept that they cannot have autonomy and insulation both. The third, a postseason-centered separation, fractures one function while pooling the rest, and is the path the present partial refusals already trace. The fourth, a legislative settlement, supplies by statute the insulation the conferences cannot manufacture, and would stabilize most decisively if it could pass. The paper assesses each against its required precondition and its failure mode, identifies tiered reform and postseason separation as the equilibria the structure most favors, and closes the volume by returning the analysis to the buffer at its center.

1. From holding pattern to resting state

The volume’s synthesis left the enterprise in motion. Paper Eight showed that the breakaway is persistently sought and never completed, that the conferences pursue selective default and maintained threat rather than exit, and that this pattern is not a stable settlement but a holding pattern — a continual renegotiation driven by a strain that the renegotiation relieves but does not resolve. A holding pattern is, by definition, not a place the enterprise can remain indefinitely, because the forces that produce it are still operating; the deferral postpones the reckoning without ending it. This final paper asks what reckoning the deferral postpones — which arrangements could actually resolve the strain rather than manage it, and which of those the structure is most likely to produce.

The question is one of equilibrium, and the volume’s method dictates how to ask it. An arrangement is a stable equilibrium not when it is just, or efficient, or satisfactory to its participants, but when no party able to disrupt it has both the incentive and the means to do so. Stability in this sense is a structural property, not a normative one: a deeply inequitable arrangement can be perfectly stable if those it disadvantages lack the means to upset it, and a widely praised arrangement can be unstable if a powerful party has reason and capacity to defect. The volume has been an extended study of incentives and means — who wants what, and who can accomplish what — and the equilibrium analysis is the natural culmination of that study, turning its findings toward the question of where the strain can finally settle.

By this test the current holding pattern is unstable on its face. The conferences have the incentive to refuse the premium, as Paper Three established, and they retain the means to disrupt the present arrangement, as the enforcement commission and the playoff-format concession demonstrate. What they lack is the ability to complete the refusal, because completing it would collapse the buffer and is obstructed at every layer. They are thus in the position of a party that can disrupt but cannot resolve — able to strain the arrangement continually without being able to replace it — and an arrangement under continual strain from a party that cannot be satisfied within it is not at rest. The enterprise must move toward some configuration in which the strain is either resolved or contained, and the candidates for that configuration are the subject of this paper.

2. The argument in brief

The paper advances four claims, one for each candidate end-state, and a fifth that ranks them. First, the full breakaway paired with collective bargaining is the only configuration that resolves the strain completely, because a bargained agreement supplies simultaneously the legitimacy of Paper Five and the antitrust immunity of Paper Six; its precondition is the recognition of the athletes as employees and the assembly of a bargaining unit, and its failure mode is the public-private divide that places most of the relevant schools beyond the reach of the labor law the immunity requires. Second, the reformed association with tiered governance stabilizes by reducing the premium without dissolving the breadth that supplies the buffer; it is the configuration most consistent with the volume’s keystone, its precondition is the haves’ acceptance that autonomy and insulation cannot both be had, and its failure mode is the temptation to push tiering so far that the breadth — and with it the buffer — dissolves anyway. Third, the postseason-centered separation fractures the single most valuable function while pooling the rest, tracing the path the present partial refusals already follow; its precondition is the networks’ willingness to fund a separated postseason, and its failure mode is the de facto breakaway that creeps toward the de jure one the structure forbids. Fourth, the legislative settlement supplies by statute the insulation the conferences cannot rebuild, stabilizing most decisively of all; its precondition is a congressional majority that has so far failed to form, and its failure mode is the internal contradiction of a bill that bars the employee status its own failure would make necessary. Fifth, the structure most favors the two middle configurations — tiered reform and postseason separation — because they resolve or contain the strain without requiring either the recognition the conferences refuse or the legislation they cannot pass.

With the scenarios assessed, the volume closes. The final section returns the whole analysis to the buffer at its center, and the conclusion reflects on what the study of this enterprise reveals about the structural function of insulation in institutions more broadly — the theme that connects this volume to the wider inquiry the introduction promised.

3. The first equilibrium: breakaway with collective bargaining

The full breakaway paired with collective bargaining is the configuration that resolves the strain most completely, and understanding why illuminates the whole problem. A breakaway that narrowed the group and then bargained with a recognized representative of the athletes would close, at a single stroke, both the legitimacy deficit and the antitrust exposure that the narrowing would otherwise worsen. The bargained agreement supplies legitimacy because it rests on the consent of the governed — the athletes, through their representatives, agreeing to be bound — which is the third and only available well of authority once tradition and statute are foreclosed. And it supplies antitrust immunity because a restraint on the labor market that grows out of bona fide collective bargaining is governed by labor law rather than antitrust, shielded from the challenge that an imposed restraint would invite. The two crises the volume traced as separate, legitimacy and legality, have the same solution in the bargained agreement, because both reduce to the consent of those bound, and bargaining supplies that consent in its genuine form.

This is the configuration toward which the conferences’ own instincts gesture, even as they resist it. Their intuition that a tighter bloc could bargain with the athletes more efficiently, noted in Paper Six, identifies the right destination by the wrong reasoning: smallness brings not evasion of exposure but the feasibility of the bargaining that alone immunizes. A breakaway bloc, having narrowed itself, would be better positioned than the sprawling association to assemble a bargaining relationship, and the bargaining would supply what the narrowing alone destroys. The full breakaway with collective bargaining is thus the breakaway done correctly — the refusal of the old buffer paired with the construction of a new one built from consent rather than from breadth.

But the configuration is obstructed, and the obstruction is the deepest of those the volume has identified. Its first precondition is the recognition of the athletes as employees, which the conferences refuse and the prevailing administrative stance opposes, as Paper Six established. Its second and more intractable precondition is a bargaining structure that can span the enterprise, and here the public-private divide in labor law intervenes decisively. The national labor law reaches private employers; the great majority of the power-conference programs are public universities, beyond the national labor board’s jurisdiction and subject instead to a patchwork of state regimes that vary widely and often do not provide for athlete bargaining at all. A single bargaining unit covering both the private and the public schools cannot be assembled on the professional-league template, which assumed uniformly private employers. The configuration that would resolve the strain most completely is therefore the one the structure of labor law most obstructs, and its failure mode is not a failure of will but a failure of legal architecture: even conferences willing to recognize and bargain could not assemble the unit the immunity requires across a membership most of whose institutions are state instrumentalities. The first equilibrium is the best resolution and the least reachable, and its unreachability is why the others must be considered.

4. The second equilibrium: tiered reform

The reformed association with tiered governance is the configuration most consistent with the volume’s keystone, and it deserves the closest attention for that reason. Its logic follows directly from the identity of premium and buffer established in Paper Eight: if the breadth of membership is at once the premium the haves resent and the buffer they rely upon, then the path to stability is not to dissolve the breadth — which would collapse the buffer with the premium — but to reduce the premium while preserving the breadth. Tiered governance is the instrument for doing exactly that. By restructuring the association so that the high-revenue members govern themselves on the matters that concern them while remaining within the broad membership for the purposes that supply the buffer, tiering reduces the cross-subsidy and the governance dilution the haves resent without dissolving the wide membership that diffuses their exposure, distances their reputation, and grounds their legitimacy.

The configuration stabilizes because it gives each party enough of what it needs to remove its incentive to disrupt. The haves gain relief from the premium: greater control over their own rules, a reduced obligation to cross-subsidize, a governance voice scaled closer to their contribution. The have-nots retain the breadth that constitutes them as national participants, the matter of Paper Four — they remain within the association, eligible for its championships, part of the structure that confers their standing, even as the haves govern themselves on the revenue questions. And the enterprise as a whole retains the buffer, because the breadth that supplies it is preserved; the association remains wide enough that its restraints can still be defended as the governance of a varied joint venture rather than the dictates of a few. Tiering is the arrangement that lets the haves reduce the premium without refusing the insulation, which is precisely the trade the simple breakaway cannot make.

The configuration’s precondition is a recognition the haves have resisted: that autonomy and insulation cannot both be had in full, and that tiering is the compromise between them. The haves would prefer complete autonomy with full insulation — to govern themselves entirely while still enjoying the buffer’s protection — but the volume has shown this combination to be impossible, because the autonomy is bought by dissolving the breadth that supplies the insulation. Tiering asks the haves to accept partial autonomy in exchange for retained insulation, and its stability depends on their accepting that the partial is the most they can have. Its failure mode is the temptation to push the tiering too far — to keep extracting autonomy increment by increment until the breadth thins to the point where it no longer supplies the buffer, at which point the tiered association has become a de facto breakaway and the buffer has collapsed after all. Tiering is stable only if it stops short of dissolving the breadth, and the discipline to stop short is the precondition the haves must supply. The configuration is reachable, consistent with the keystone, and favorable to the structure — provided the haves can be brought to see that the breadth they would thin is the protection they would lose.

5. The third equilibrium: postseason-centered separation

The postseason-centered separation is the configuration the present partial refusals already trace, and it may be the path of least resistance precisely for that reason. Its logic is to fracture the single most valuable function — the football postseason — while pooling everything else, allowing the wealthiest conferences to capture the value of the crown jewel directly without bearing the full cost of a complete breakaway. The conferences would carry the postseason, or its most valuable portion, into an arrangement of their own, while remaining within the association for the broad membership functions and within the existing structure for the regular season and the non-revenue sports. It is a breakaway confined to one function rather than extended across all of them.

The configuration’s appeal is that it captures the largest share of the available value at the lowest structural cost. The postseason is, as Paper Seven established, the most valuable single property in the enterprise, and its media deal is the engine driving the wealthiest conferences apart from the rest; to control it directly is to capture the prize that matters most. And confining the separation to the postseason avoids many of the obstacles that block the full breakaway: the regular-season inventory remains pooled under its existing grants of rights, the broad membership remains intact to supply much of the buffer, and the non-revenue sports remain within the structure that carries them. The conferences get the crown jewel without dissolving the breadth entirely, which is a better trade than the simple breakaway offers. The volume’s introduction noted that the playoff-format concession — control handed to the two largest conferences to keep them from forming a separate playoff — is already a negotiation conducted in the shadow of this configuration, and the present arrangement is in effect a postseason-centered separation held at the threshold, with the conferences controlling the postseason’s format from inside the shared structure rather than from a venture of their own.

The configuration’s precondition is the networks’ willingness to fund a separated postseason, and here the analysis of Paper Seven’s networks-as-sovereign bears directly. A separated postseason is worth pursuing only if a network will pay more for it than the conferences receive from the pooled playoff, and the network that holds both a major conference’s deal and the existing playoff has reason to prefer the playoff pooled, because a fracture might devalue the asset it has just paid a record sum to acquire. The networks’ veto thus operates on this configuration as on the full breakaway, though less forcefully, because a postseason separation disrupts less than a complete one. The configuration’s failure mode is the creep from de facto to de jure: a postseason-centered separation that succeeds invites extension to other functions, each increment tempting the conferences toward the complete breakaway the structure forbids, until the separation that began with one function has thinned the breadth to collapse. The postseason separation is stable only if it, too, stops short — if the fracture of the one function does not become the template for fracturing the rest. It is the equilibrium the present trajectory most resembles, and its stability depends on the same discipline that tiering requires, applied to functions rather than to governance.

6. The fourth equilibrium: legislative settlement

The legislative settlement is the configuration that would stabilize most decisively, because it supplies by statute the insulation the conferences cannot rebuild alone, and it resolves the strain not by reducing the premium or fracturing a function but by replacing the lost buffer with a new one of legislative manufacture. A statute granting the enterprise’s bodies immunity from antitrust and related challenge, and settling the employment question, would supply the legal-rational authority that Paper Five identified as one of the two non-traditional sources of legitimacy, and would close the antitrust exposure that Paper Six found the narrowing to worsen. The statute is, in the volume’s terms, the recapitalization of the buffer: where the captive’s reserves of legal theory and accumulated legitimacy are exhausted, a statute would supply fresh reserves drawn from the authority of the state. With statutory immunity in place, the conferences could narrow, govern themselves, and reduce the premium without bearing the exposure the narrowing creates, because the statute would hold the exposure in the buffer’s place.

This is the configuration the conferences most prefer, and the reason is exactly that it gives them what no other configuration can: autonomy with insulation both. The statute would let them refuse the premium and retain the protection, severing the identity of premium and buffer that the volume’s keystone holds to be inseparable — not by any structural means, which is impossible, but by legislative fiat, which can decree what structure forbids. A statute can simply declare the restraints lawful and the athletes non-employees, supplying the insulation that breadth formerly supplied and freeing the conferences to dissolve the breadth without losing the buffer. The legislative settlement is the one path by which the haves could have the combination the volume has shown to be structurally unavailable, because it substitutes the state’s authority for the breadth’s protective function.

The configuration’s precondition is a congressional majority that has so far failed to form, and its failure mode is an internal contradiction the volume has already identified. The legislation has come close and stalled, passing a procedural vote by a single vote before drawing bipartisan resistance, as Paper Six recorded, and the assessment that congressional clarification remains absent has held through more than a dozen hearings and as many drafts. The internal contradiction compounds the difficulty: the bill seeks to bar the athletes’ employee status while granting antitrust immunity, which forecloses the collective-bargaining route that would otherwise supply immunity through consent, so that a failed bill leaves the enterprise worse positioned than before — denied the statutory escape and having legislated against its own fallback. The legislative settlement would stabilize most decisively if it could pass, and it is the configuration whose precondition is least within the enterprise’s own control, depending as it does on a legislature that has shown no capacity to act. Its decisiveness and its unreachability are joined: it would resolve everything, and it cannot be willed by the parties who need it.

7. Ranking the equilibria

The four configurations can now be ranked by the structure’s favor — by which the underlying forces are most likely to produce, given the preconditions each requires and the failure modes each risks. The ranking is not a prediction of what will happen, which the volume’s method does not license, but an assessment of which resting states the structure most readily admits.

The legislative settlement and the full breakaway with collective bargaining sit at the extremes of decisiveness and reachability. The legislative settlement would resolve the strain most completely and is the conferences’ first preference, but its precondition lies outside the enterprise’s control and has repeatedly failed to materialize; it is the most decisive and among the least reachable. The full breakaway with collective bargaining would also resolve the strain completely and is reachable in principle, but the public-private divide in labor law obstructs its central precondition so deeply that it cannot be assembled across the enterprise as presently composed; it is the best resolution and the least reachable. Both extremes, then, are configurations the structure would welcome but cannot easily produce, blocked by preconditions the parties cannot supply — one by a legislature that will not act, the other by a labor-law architecture that cannot accommodate a majority-public membership.

The two middle configurations, tiered reform and postseason separation, are the equilibria the structure most favors, because each resolves or contains the strain without requiring either the recognition the conferences refuse or the legislation they cannot pass. Tiered reform stabilizes by reducing the premium while preserving the breadth, which is the trade the keystone identifies as the only one available to a party that wishes to keep the buffer; its precondition — the haves’ acceptance that autonomy and insulation cannot both be had — is within the enterprise’s own control, requiring not a legislature or a labor board but only the haves’ recognition of their own structural position. Postseason separation contains the strain by letting the conferences capture the most valuable function while leaving the breadth largely intact; its precondition — the networks’ willingness to fund it — is partly within reach, and the present trajectory already traces its outline. These two are reachable because their preconditions can be met by the parties themselves, and they are stable so long as each observes the discipline of stopping short — tiering before the breadth thins to collapse, separation before the fracture of one function becomes the template for all.

The structure therefore points toward a settlement in the middle: some combination of tiered governance and postseason control that reduces the premium and captures the crown jewel while preserving enough breadth to retain the buffer. This is, in effect, a formalization of the present partial refusals — a conversion of the holding pattern’s selective defaults into a stable tiered arrangement, in which the renegotiation that Paper Eight described as perpetual is finally settled into a structure that grants the haves their reduced premium in exchange for their retained membership. The strain that the holding pattern defers would be resolved not by the breakaway the conferences threaten nor by the legislation they cannot pass, but by an arrangement that gives them most of what they want within the breadth that protects them, on the condition that they accept they cannot have all of it. The structure favors the compromise the keystone prescribes, because it is the only resolution reachable by the parties’ own action.

8. The buffer at the center

The volume closes by returning to the figure that has organized it. The buffer at the center is the insulation the Association supplies — the diffusion of legal exposure, the distance from reputational cost, the legitimacy of accumulated rule — and the whole study has been an effort to make that insulation visible, because its invisibility is the source of the enterprise’s confusion. The participants see the premium and not the buffer, the tax and not the shield, and from that partial view the breakaway looks like a clear gain when it is in fact the refusal of a protection. The volume’s contribution has been to render the buffer visible, to show that the premium and the buffer are one breadth, and thereby to convert a question that looked like a contest over money and autonomy into a question about insulation — about who holds the enterprise’s risk, what it costs to hold it, and what happens when the parties who profit attempt to set it down.

Seen at its fullest, the enterprise’s crisis is an instance of a structural pattern that reaches well beyond college sports, and the recognition of that pattern is the volume’s claim on a wider significance. The pattern is this: institutions accumulate, over time, mechanisms of insulation that protect their powerful members from the consequences their activities generate — mechanisms that disperse liability, distance blame, and lend legitimacy to restraints that would be indefensible if imposed nakedly. These mechanisms are paid for in a currency the powerful members come to resent, because the cost is visible and the protection is not, and the members periodically attempt to refuse the cost while keeping the protection, not understanding that the two are one. The attempt fails, or is deferred, because the protection cannot survive the refusal of its price; and the institution settles, when it settles at all, into an arrangement that reduces the cost without dissolving the protection, on the condition that the powerful accept they cannot have both. College sports is a vivid case of this pattern because its insulation is unusually elaborate and its strain unusually public, but the pattern itself is general, and the volume’s analysis of the one case is offered as a study of the many.

What the powerful in any such institution must learn, if the institution is to settle rather than shatter, is the lesson the haves of college sports have not yet learned: that the armor they wear is also the burden they bear, that the burden cannot be set down without removing the armor, and that the choice before them is not between cost and freedom but between a reduced cost with retained protection and a refused cost with lost protection. The enterprise will come to rest when its powerful members accept this — when they recognize the buffer they cannot see, value the protection they have been resenting, and settle for the reduced premium that lets them keep it. Until then it will remain in the holding pattern the volume has described, threatening a breakaway it cannot complete and deferring a reckoning it cannot escape. The buffer is at the center, and the enterprise will find its rest only when the parties who strain against it understand what it is they are straining against.

9. Conclusion

The enterprise’s present holding pattern is unstable, because the conferences can disrupt the arrangement without being able to complete the refusal that would resolve it, and an arrangement under continual strain from a party that cannot be satisfied within it is not at rest. Of the four configurations that could bring the enterprise to rest, the two that would resolve the strain most completely — the legislative settlement and the full breakaway with collective bargaining — are obstructed by preconditions the parties cannot supply, the one by a legislature that will not act and the other by a labor-law architecture that cannot span a majority-public membership. The two that the structure most favors — tiered reform and postseason separation — are reachable because their preconditions lie within the parties’ own control, and they are stable so long as each stops short of dissolving the breadth that supplies the buffer. The structure points toward a settlement in the middle: a formalization of the present partial refusals into a tiered arrangement that reduces the premium and captures the most valuable function while preserving the breadth, on the condition that the haves accept they cannot have autonomy and insulation both.

This is where the volume rests its analysis, and where it returns the inquiry to the buffer at its center. The study has been, throughout, an effort to make insulation visible — to show that the contest over the future of college sports is at bottom a contest over who holds the enterprise’s risk and at what price, and that the breakaway the conferences threaten is the refusal of a protection they cannot see. The pattern the enterprise exhibits is general: institutions accumulate insulation that shields their powerful members from the consequences of their own activities, the members resent the visible cost and attempt to refuse it while keeping the unseen protection, and the institution settles only when the powerful accept that the cost and the protection are one. The buffer is at the center of college sports as it is at the center of many institutions that bind unequal members and disperse the risks the strong generate, and the enterprise will find its rest only when the parties who strain against the buffer come to understand what it is — that the armor is the burden, and the burden the armor, and that they cannot set down the one without losing the other.

Notes

1. This paper, like Paper Eight, is largely synthetic and introduces no new external claims; its factual premises were established and sourced in the earlier papers, and the scenario analysis builds on them by cross-reference. The reference list gathers the cross-cutting sources the analysis most depends upon, together with the foundational works underwriting the equilibrium framework.
2. “Stable equilibrium” is used in its structural sense: an arrangement no party with the power to disrupt it has both the incentive and the means to upset. Stability in this sense is distinct from fairness or efficiency, and the paper assesses the configurations by stability so defined rather than by their desirability.
3. The four configurations are not exhaustive of all conceivable end-states but are the candidates the volume’s analysis identifies as serious — the arrangements that could resolve or contain the strain rather than merely defer it. Hybrid forms are possible, and the favored settlement is itself a hybrid of tiered reform and postseason separation.
4. The ranking in Section 7 assesses which equilibria the structure most readily admits, by the reachability of each configuration’s precondition and the severity of its failure mode. It is not a forecast; the volume’s method assesses structural tendencies rather than predicting outcomes, and the actual path will turn on contingencies — legislative, legal, and commercial — that the analysis does not attempt to foresee.
5. The “discipline of stopping short,” common to tiered reform and postseason separation, is the requirement that each be held short of the point at which it dissolves the breadth and collapses the buffer. The instability of both configurations lies in the temptation to push past that point, and their stability depends on the parties’ recognition of where it lies.
6. The closing generalization — that institutions accumulate insulation shielding their powerful members from the consequences of their activities, and settle only when the powerful accept that the cost and the protection are one — extends the volume’s analysis beyond college sports to the broader pattern the introduction promised. It is offered as a structural observation about institutions that bind unequal members and disperse risk, of which college sports is a vivid instance rather than a unique one.

References

Anderson, E. (2017). Private government: How employers rule our lives (and why we don’t talk about it). Princeton University Press.

Hansmann, H. (1996). The ownership of enterprise. Harvard University Press.

House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025) (final approval of settlement).

If the Big Ten and SEC want to break away from the NCAA, it’s time for the rest of college athletics to call their bluff. (2026, May). Yahoo Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/if-the-big-ten-and-sec-want-to-break-away-from-the-ncaa-its-time-for-the-rest-of-college-athletics-to-call-their-bluff-183506028.html

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021).

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press.

Student-athlete “employee” status after Johnson v. NCAA: Litigation and compliance in a post-legislative landscape. (2026, February 11). American University Business Law Review. https://aublr.org/2026/02/student-athlete-employee-status-after-johnson-v-ncaa-litigation-compliance-in-a-post-legislative-landscape/

With potential split from CSC on the table, college sports leaders struggling to find solutions to money problems. (2026, May). Yahoo Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/with-potential-split-from-csc-on-the-table-college-sports-leaders-struggling-to-find-solutions-to-money-problems–the-big-ten-and-sec-should-break-away-and-do-their-own-deal-144449817.html

---