WASHINGTON, D.C. — In many ways, college athletics is emblematic of American society, and in American society, no individual can escape the mouth-watering desire of promotion.

The salesperson dreams of being the CEO.

The store clerk works to become the manager.

The shift supervisor hopes to one day own the company.

In college athletics, universities exist in a state of perpetual ambition to leave their own neighborhood for the more luxurious, gated community down the street, where a pool of bigger brands increases their property value.

You know it as "conference realignment," but, really, it is the art of increasing one's value by closely associating with more premium properties. For instance, Texas moved into the same neighborhood as Alabama and Georgia; and USC is now sharing a street with Ohio State and Michigan.

Conference realignment is as consistent of a concept within college athletics as football coaching changes — so prevalent over the last decade or more a sort-of motto has emerged.

"Conference realignment never sleeps," those in the industry often say.

However, according to a congressional bill that's on the doorstep of a vote here in the U.S. Senate, conference realignment will get some deep rest.

In fact, the Protect College Sports Act kills realignment at the major conference level if it becomes law.

In Section 205 of the latest revised copy of the 116-page legislation, conferences earning at least $700 million in revenue are prohibited from merging with one another or acquiring new members. This means the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Big 12 would no longer be able to add membership.

Not only does the concept freeze in place the current membership of the power leagues — most notably locking in restless ACC schools like Clemson, FSU, Miami and North Carolina — but it prevents schools in the Group of 6 conferences, such as the Sun Belt, Mountain West or American, from joining the big leagues.

"They've locked us in," says one G6 conference athletic director.

While some interpret Section 205 differently, those who helped develop the language on Capitol Hill confirmed with Yahoo Sports that the provision prevents the four conferences from acquiring any new member — even those in the G6.

In crystallizing current league membership, the bill has caught the attention of college administrators who have in turn conveyed their feelings to their own state lawmakers.

After all, conference realignment is a "natural" economic reality playing out broadly in American society, says Andy Schwarz, a California-based economist specializing in sport economics. The small local chains are "dying," he says, only to be replaced with big brands whose goal it is to consolidate their own value.

"In America, there are these two strains: You want to be an economic powerhouse but also want to be fair to the little guy," Schwarz said in a previous interview. "There's a point when the Amazons of the world say, 'I don't need to be fair to the little guy any longer.'"

Is the bill accelerating realignment discussions?

Realignment discussions never stop completely.

Intermediaries and third parties — perhaps even school executives themselves — remain embroiled in dialogue with conferences that they most wish to join.

And now, given the bill's anti-expansion provision, those discussions have accelerated, according to several officials with knowledge of the talks. Are they accelerating to a place of imminent action? No.

But the bill would apply immediately on the date in which President Donald Trump signs, freezing conference membership for an indeterminate amount of time (no sunset provision). It creates a quasi-deadline now on realignment.

"It has put a shot clock on it," said one power league athletic director.

If you don't move before it becomes law, "You're screwed," says another high-ranking administrator in a power conference.

The language, though, is not set in stone.

In fact, the expansion situation directly impacts both of the bill's authors, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who each have in their representative footprint multiple non-power league programs who aspire to gain power conference membership or, better yet, hope to regain such (ie: Washington State, the poster child for realignment).

Reached for comment about the provision's impact on schools like Washington State, a spokesperson for Cantwell sent to Yahoo Sports a statement suggesting possible changes: "There will be conversations with more members in both chambers as this bill progresses forward and there may be some modifications."

Over the last month, Cantwell herself has bemoaned the Pac-12's fate at the hands of the Big Ten. In a hearing earlier this month, Cantwell suggested that the SEC and Big Ten may soon "eat the best parts" of the ACC and Big 12 in a similar way in which the Big Ten raided the Pac-12.

Last week, she told reporters here that the expansion provision is intended to ensure that no other schools "break away" and she said she wants to "go back to regionalism."

"Look what happened with our Pac-12," Cantwell later added. "[Big Ten] got USC and UCLA to jump and then what was UW's choice? They had to jump."

It's no secret: Plenty of ACC programs are interested in a promotion to the SEC or Big Ten. After all, two ACC members (Clemson and FSU) filed lawsuits against the conference and only settled those cases upon the league agreeing to create an uneven revenue distribution structure as well as establish more formal exit fees.

The latter is a signal of their ultimate desire: They want to leave and they'd like to know how much it will cost.

If an ACC school intends to leave the conference, it must officially notify the league in writing on or before June 1 of the preceding year to be granted an exit on June 30 of the following year.

The exit fee for leaving next year is $129 million.

In an interesting wrinkle, seven ACC universities did not independently send a letter to lawmakers supportive of the legislation (Boston College, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Cal, Miami and Virginia), according to documents released by the Senate Commerce Committee.

Perhaps this was an intentional move as not to (1) anger the Big Ten and SEC, which are opposed to the bill; and (2) because they themselves are against a bill that may prevent them from promotion.

However, North Carolina's chancellor, Lee Roberts, was one of five presidents or chancellors from the state's FBS universities to sign a letter to lawmakers. While the letter was supportive of the legislation, some may interpret it as only expressing gratitude for the work.

Either way, the legislation's anti-expansion provision has caught the attention of a great many people. The section also seems to prohibit "an independent institution" (i.e. Notre Dame) from joining any league earning at least $700 million in revenue.

One thing is clear: Realignment conversations are accelerating because of provisions in the bill. As suggested by Miami president Joe Echevarria during a recent interview with the city's WQAM radio:

"We as a university are playing for the next contract, are not playing for the one we're in," he said. "So however the realignments occur, whatever may occur, we are going to be invited where the leading one is. They won't leave us out."

What other concepts are in the bill and will it pass?

The main portion of the legislation grants the NCAA and College Sports Commission a limited liability protection around several key areas:

- Transfers: restores the one-time limitation.

- Eligibility: implements a five-year standard and bans pro players.

- Revenue-share cap: more restrictive cap circumvention.

There are issues with the third prong, which Yahoo Sports detailed in a story last week. The restrictions around compensation — prohibiting pay from associated entities — may cost athletes millions of dollars if conference commissioners and the NCAA don't agree to raise the cap.

But there are plenty more concepts in the legislation that could impact the landscape of the industry or have flustered those within it.

The SEC and Big Ten's opposition to the bill mostly centers around the leagues believing that the antitrust provisions around transfers and eligibility are still subject to state laws and legal challenges from athletes through a private-right-of-action section that they believe is too broad.

But another issue for the Big Ten and SEC is the bill's option for FBS conferences to pool their media rights, which they are against. And they are skeptical of how optional it truly is. "I need to really see that it's voluntary," SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said three weeks ago during an interview with Paul Finebaum.

Sankey and Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti have been critical of the bill "singling out" their leagues with the pooling-of-rights concept and anti-expansion clause, so much so that lawmakers agreed to apply the anti-expansion provision to the other power leagues too in a recent change made to the section.

The Senate Commerce Committee released a statement last week to Yahoo Sports saying that more adjustments to the anti-expansion clause will be made, including prohibiting outside entities or firms from poaching the biggest brands to form a super league — a request made by both the Big Ten and SEC.

Why did the Big Ten and SEC make such a request? A window into that answer came during Sankey's interview with Finebaum, where he suggested that a private equity-backed firm, Smash Sports, is "pulling strings to accomplish their agenda." Members of Smash Sports, many of them former ESPN executives, have socialized with administrators for more than three years now a concept to reshape college football by pooling FBS media rights. Many leading figures within the Group of 6, ACC and Big 12 have supported Smash's endeavor, even gathering earlier this spring for a meeting in Dallas.

Despite changes to the anti-expansion provision, the SEC and Big Ten remain in opposition.

Can legislation to regulate an industry pass Congress without support from the two biggest stakeholders in that industry? Asked if he had confidence in the bill passing despite the SEC and Big Ten opposed, Cruz offered a quick reply during an interview on June 10: "I do."

The two behemoths cover a 26-state footprint. That's 52 senators. That's also a whopping 318 members of the 435-seat U.S. House of Representatives. Will their lobbying effort against the legislation lead to its demise?

The 19-9 vote last week in the 28-member Senate Commerce Committee — which put the bill a step closer to a full Senate vote — came not necessarily along party lines.

Five of the seven Democrats voting against the bill were from SEC or Big Ten states. The only two Republicans to vote against were as well: Roger Wicker (Miss.) and Todd Young (Ind.).

According to Cruz, Sen. Majority Leader John Thune "intends" to bring the bill to the floor in July. However, the Senate is bogged down with plenty of other matters, including the ongoing war in Iran and the SAVE America Act, a divisive federal election bill.

The clock is ticking and the days are disappearing.

Senators have a two-week Fourth of July recess starting this Friday before returning for 16 working days (four weeks). That stretch ends Aug. 7, at which point a month-long, annual summer recess begins. Legislative work traditionally slows to a crawl the closer it gets to November's mid-term elections.

The bill needs 60 votes in a Senate chamber with a three-person Republican advantage and then must pass the House of Representatives, whose leaders — both from the SEC footprint of Louisiana (Mike Johnson and Steve Scalise) — have expressed opposition to some of the legislation's concepts, as have the Congressional Black Caucus.

In the meantime, the shot clock on realignment ticks away.