I read this letter from the NABC and had a visceral reaction . . . In 2025, schools owed $228 million in buyouts to fired coaches (a record by nearly $100 million). Since 2004, schools have paid more than $1.1 billion to coaches not to coach. Thirteen head coaches are making at least $9 million this season. The NABC's very high-minded letter says the sport is on "a trajectory that cannot be sustained." Seems that way. But why ignore the elephant in the room -- obscene amounts of money are going to coaches to sit on their couches? The PCSA has a great deal to say about what athletes may earn. On coaches it contains exactly one provision, and §110 doesn't touch a dollar. In response, it seems quite reasonable for athletes to ask for an amendment to PCSA which provides: (1) A permanent cap on coaching compensation, set as a percentage of athletic revenue. (2) A clearinghouse reviewing every coaching agreement over $600 for valid business purpose and fair market value before funds are disbursed. (3) One penalty-free coaching move; a second costs a season. (4) A five-week window, opening seven days after the final game, during which a coach may be contacted by another school. Outside it, tampering. (5) Coaches' agents capped at five percent, with a public registry and decertification. (6) A limited antitrust exemption, so none of it can be challenged in court. Every one of those is lifted from the bill. Only the subject changes. The NABC closes by saying that "our athletes, coaches, universities and fans simply deserve better." I agree with that sentence more than the letter does. If the problem is unsustainable cost, reform should start with the largest cost. And if the answer is that Congress has no business setting private employment terms -- that's a fair answer. It's also an argument against the rest of the bill.