Andy & Ari On3 - People who matter are trying to create a college football super league | Dear Andy

Episode Date: April 4, 2024

Want to watch the Final Four without cable? Prime Video has you covered. Watch every game live, on your phone, on your laptop, or relax and watch at home on Prime Video, with a subscription. Prime Video gives you choices to add on channels like Paramount Plus and Max, both featuring March Madness tournament games, all in one place. It’s March, it’s Madness, stream it all on Prime Video.Learn more now…https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/storefront/ref=atv_hm_spo_c_rEmqNT_6_2?contentType=tournament&contentId=amzn1.dv.icid.64a44c0e-3ac7-4b14-ad4d-c2a438001f2c&jic=8%7CEgNhbGw%3D(0:00-13:59) Intro - Super League Discussion(14:00-29:59) Andrew Marchand from the Athletic joins to discuss the Super League(30:00-33:51) Dear Andy Intro(33:52-43:56) TV Ratings and Caitlin Clark(43:57-53:09) Zach Edey(53:10-58:14) Marvin Harrison Jr and Malik Nabers... Next AJ Green and Julio Jones?(58:15-1:02:44) Kalen DeBoer's first year schedule(1:02:45-1:08:27) Weddings in the Fall(1:08:28-1:12:47) Delegation Question from Producer River(1:12:48-1:13:43) ConclusionIt’s a Dear Andy show, but first we’ve got to talk about a very interesting development. The Athletic reported on Wednesday that a group of movers and shakers — including multiple university presidents, a key search firm executive and a high-ranking NFL executive — are trying to create a college football super league that would provide a workable path forward (read: less lawsuits) while also not cutting out more than half the current FBS teams.The idea, brought forward by a group that includes NFL No. 2 Brian Rolapp and search firm executive Len Perna, would include all the current FBS programs but would be split into multiple divisions. There would be promotion and relegation between divisions. The league would serve as the employer for the players and would collectively bargain with the players.Andrew Marchand, who wrote The Athletic story along with Stewart Mandel, joins to discuss why they’re going public now and if there is any real chance this might happen. Spoiler alert: The Big Ten, the SEC and the TV networks do not seem supportive.Next, Andy answers your questions:How many college football games in 2024 will have more viewers than the LSU-Iowa women’s Elite Eight game played Monday?Is there a college football equivalent to the way referees call games involving Purdue basketball star Zach Edey?How many games does Kalen DeBoer have to win in year one at Alabama to keep the fanbase happy?And much, much more…Want to watch the show instead? Head on over to YouTube, https://youtube.com/live/2AhHqfil2v4

Welcome to Andy Staples on three. It's another day in another Super League. Well, this one's not as fictional as the one that I created a few weeks ago. This one doesn't hurt nearly as bad to do because it actually includes everybody. You're probably wondering what the hell I'm talking about. Well, there's a group of people who actually have something to do with things in the sports world. They're not just me or someone like me saying, hey, here's how it might work. You've got university presidents like West Virginia's Gordon Gee, Syracuse's president. You've got the NFL's number two Brian Rolap, you've got the owner of the Philadelphia 76ers, you've got some major stakeholders. You've got the guy who runs the search firm that places all the commissioners in the ADs. They would like to create something to replace the current governance of college football. And they talked to the athletic on Wednesday and explained what they're trying to do. And it's interesting because this is the

first time that people who actually have some stake in this, who actually might be able to affect some change, have talked about this publicly. All of these discussions have been going on behind the scenes, but they're talking about it publicly now. Zach in the chat, people who don't matter are trying to ruin college football. I don't know how to break this to you guys. There is going to be another league, another governing body, something. It's going to happen. So complaining about that is not going to work because they have to do something. If they would like to have rules, and it sounds like they would like to have rules, they have to do something different than they do now because the rules they make now are illegal. They violate federal law because they impose them unilaterally on people who didn't bargain for them. And it's

essentially a horizontal price fixing scheme. So they can't keep doing what they're doing. They have to do something different. And it's funny because I think a lot of you just like to complain because this one you actually probably shouldn't be complaining about this one would actually include everybody it would include the whole fbs and it would have two divisions top division and a lower division which would be essentially the power five and the group of five. And then we have promotion and relegation where teams from the bottom division could play their way into the top division, which is a fun concept and really matches all of the 5,000 word emails you guys have sent me about what realignment should look like. And I've said, no, that'll never happen.

American sports never have promotion or relegation. Well, they're trying. They're trying. Do I think this is going to happen? No, I don't. Not like this. Because one, the networks don't want it. They've already bought the product they want.

The SEC and the Big Ten don't want it. Why would they cede power when they don't need to? But it's a start. It's a conversation. You've got people actually talking about this stuff. And this is something that the university presidents are going to have to face because the clock's ticking. There's a case working its way through the federal court system, House versus the NCAA, and it's former athletes suing for NIL money they should have gotten had the schools and NCAA not been engaged in a horizontal price fixing scheme. The schools and the NCAA are going to lose this case. They know that. They actually, they have to settle it. If they let it go to trial and they risk a damages award, a treble damages in an antitrust case,

three times the amount of money, they can't risk it. They know they're going to lose and they know they're going to have to pay. So part of the settlement is probably going to be, here's what the new system is going to look like. So they got to figure out a new system here pretty soon, like within the next couple of years. So the fact that they're actually talking about this now is very interesting to me and should be very interesting to you. What it will look like, we don't know. But the fact that somebody's trying to have a system that would encompass all of the big schools that we now know and love, and would not be cutting any of them out of the deal, and in fact, would give the ones in the

group of five a chance to kind of play their way up into a more lucrative situation, I think that's a good start. Is that what is going to ultimately happen? I don't think so. I'm very cynical, which is why when Cole Kubrick and I were talking about this a few weeks ago, my assumption was they're going to go to like a 48 team league. And then I tried to figure out what the 48 teams would be. I pissed a bunch of you off because you're like, how come my school's not here? I'm like, somebody's got to be left out. Well, they're trying to do something where nobody gets left out.

Cynical Andy says that's probably not going to happen. But if you like college football the way it is now, you should hope that it does. You should definitely hope that that's what happens. Because that makes sure that your Iowa states and your Virginia Techs and your West Virginias are all in there and they don't get left out. Jerry Moore, hotty toddy from Pascagoula, Mississippi. Always a good day on the Gulf Coast. Friends call me, Sean says, cannot see this happening.

The Big Ten and the SEC have to split their pie with the others. I agree with you. I agree with you, person whose friends call them Sean. I'm with you. There's a lot of money in this. The Big Ten and the SEC have already managed to grab all this power. I can't see them giving it back. Now, the argument on the other side of this, and I've talked to people who kind of on the fringes of this deal, it's called College Sports Tomorrow,

by the way. That's the name they've come up with, is that a rising tide would float all boats, that everybody could make more money. Here's how they think everybody could make more money. If you have one single seller, the NFL is a single seller of the top level of professional football, then it drives the price up. It's more expensive because you can parcel things out. You don't have other people undercutting you. Because that's the deal now is you could buy the Big Ten.

You can buy the ACC. You can buy the SEC. Obviously, those aren't for sale at the moment. But at various points, they come up for sale. And having that competition limits the price. I realize I'm saying this as I'm also saying the other guys are breaking federal antitrust law. So this is the situation they find themselves in.

Would the Big Ten and the SEC ever say, you know what, we can make some more money if we just let everybody be involved? I don't know. We're going to talk to Andrew Marchand from The Athletic, who wrote this story along with Stuart Mandel. It's really interesting because Andrew covers media. He covers these TV deals. He covers the executives in the leagues that make these TV deals, not just college sports.

He covers all sports media. And so he's well-versed in how the NFL does this stuff, how MLS does this stuff, how the Premier League does this stuff. And he can explain how they're trying to take ideas from a bunch of different leagues and meld them into something that looks like what we're used to as college football. But the other piece of this is he's very tight with the people at the TV networks. And they're the ones that I think would be the stumbling block to this. Because they've already bought this stuff. The Big Ten deal goes through 2030. that I think would be the stumbling block to this. Because they've already bought this stuff.

The Big Ten deal goes through 2030. The SEC's deal with ESPN goes through 2034. They're not in a position to want to change anything dramatically right now. And none of this works without them because they're the ones bankrolling. So unless you could find somebody else who's willing to swoop in and pay for all that stuff, it would be very difficult to do anything like this. David, you did the court strike down the single seller in the 80s. Yes, they did, but only because the schools felt like it was being imposed on them unilaterally. And Oklahoma and Georgia said, hey, we don't want this imposed on us. If the schools like it being imposed on them, nobody's going to sue.

So that's where they can get the single seller thing going again. That's why the NFL, the owners aren't suing the league saying, hey, you're costing me money. You get that piece within the group and then you don't worry about anybody suing you. But yes, if we're going back in the archives, that case, Oklahoma versus the NCAA, was the one that kind of set everything in motion down this path. It's fascinating if you don't root for a team that might get left out. If you do, this is gut-wrenching. This is awful because you don't know what these guys are going to do.

And I keep telling you this. They don't know either. Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti, the commissioners of the SEC and the Big Ten, they know more than us for sure, but they still don't know what they're going to do ultimately. And you've got all these other leagues that are trying to figure out, what do we do? How do we get our teams in there? How do we stay relevant? it. This is at least a chance. Blue Magic fans don't want this. They have to do something different because what they're doing now is illegal. I don't know how I can explain that any more clearly. I know nobody likes change. They have to change because what they are doing is illegal.

Now, what they're doing right now isn't illegal because there are essentially no rules regarding player compensation, player movement. That's not illegal. So if they're cool with it staying like this forever, they could do it. Clearly they're not cool with that. We know that. And you guys complain about that too.

So I'm just probably resigned to the fact that some of you guys just like to complain. And you're going to complain about whatever this is. But I also understand that if Michigan and Ohio State come on your TV at noon on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, you're going to watch. Really, no matter how it's organized, you're going to watch that game. And a lot of you are going to watch that game. Don't worry. They're going to figure it out. It's going to be crazy and possibly dumb along the way, but they're going to figure it out. It's going to be crazy and possibly dumb along the way, but they're going to figure it out. But this is a really interesting first step.

So before we get to Andrew Marchand, I want to tell you about Amazon Prime. And I want to tell you that if you want to watch the men's final four this weekend, which I imagine you do, UConn, Alabama, Purdue NC State, a national title game on Monday. You can watch it on Amazon Prime. You subscribe to Amazon Prime. Within your Amazon Prime subscription, you add on Max. So now you've got both those things, self-contained, one app, one password.

You can watch it on your phone, on your tablet, on your TV, wherever you are. It's incredible. Plus, a new roadhouse, got Fallout coming out. It's an easy way to watch where you're not just flipping between apps constantly trying to figure out how to move between because you can add on other subscriptions within prime and have it be your hub for everything so if you want to sign up for amazon prime click the link in the show description if you're watching on youtube if you are listening in podcast form that link is also in

your show description you click that link get yourself signed up you don't need cable to watch the men's final four this weekend you just sign up for amazon prime add on that max subscription you got tbs you are good to go click that link in the show description and they will get you started all right let us talk to andrew marshand who knows all about amazon prime and knows all about espn and all about fox and all about all these networks because that is what he does he is one of the best in the business and he had a huge story about some people who matter actually talking in public about a college football super league here's andrew we're honored to be joined now by and Marchand of The Athletic. He and my guy, Stuart

Mandel had a big, big scoop on Wednesday. And it's something that's been percolating behind the scenes in college sports. We're waiting to see when it finally rose to the surface. But, but Lynn Perna, who's kind of the search firm guru and some college presidents there's some ADs involved in this thing Andrew I'm gonna let you take it away because this this is a Super League plan that sounds like kind of a the dream of every person who's ever emailed me a 5000 word realignment email yeah and I mean one of the people that should be mentioned, in my opinion, is Brian Rolap, who may not be a big name, you know, to people, fans listening, but he's number two behind Roger Goodell at the NFL.

You know, if Goodell ever retires, you know, he's kind of one of the favorites to be the next commissioner and was the mastermind behind the $110 billion deals that the NFL just did. So all those people involved, Len Perna and Rolap, it's kind of been the whispers like you talked about, you know, since I first heard them kind of dating back to, you know, maybe a little before the Super Bowl. You know, those have been around media circles, you know, what's going on with the Perna Rolap group., it's more of a Perna group. It's also the college presidents from Syracuse, from West Virginia, and some really big people in the business. And so, the idea is 80 teams in the top division, all 130 plus FBS teams involved regulation uh relegation and promotion for um the 10 teams in the divisions

would be you'd have seven um divisions where there'd be permanent members of 70 teams then an eighth division where you have teams from the second division could work their way up yeah the promotion and relegation piece of it is great because that's the one I I just assume American Sports would never go there like they have promotion and relegation piece of it is great because that's the one I just assume American sports would never go there. Like they have promotion and relegation in the Premier League because it existed in English soccer when they started the Premier League. But it's and it's a thing that feels tailor made for college football. And I realize a lot of this stuff is kind of pie in the sky. There's a lot of, you know, blue sky thinking going on here.

No bad ideas, but I kind of like that you've got people like Gordon Gee, the president at West Virginia. You mentioned the president Syracuse, like they're actually talking about this in the open now, which I appreciate because whether any of this comes to pass or not, they do have to start talking about a system that would be sustainable. And your audience is probably interested

like how does this happen, right? Yeah. Which is kind of something we've been discussing internally a lot of like, well, is this realistic? And so is this plan going to happen? I'm not so sure about that. But will these ideas maybe last? I think that's very possible because I think during the reporting,

the big thing that I learned, and you might know this because you follow it so closely every day is just when you look at the lawsuits and how much money these universities might owe in back pay because of NIL and that decision and the courts are going to decide and they'll probably be settlements. But it's possible they're going to owe billions of dollars. And at that point, all these schools are going to have to try to figure out what's next. You know, the SEC, the Big Ten, you know, they very well might try to figure out things together. We know that they're working together. They have their own coalition. There's other groups as well. But in terms of if there's a solution for all of college football, I think this group has a lot of good ideas that make a lot of sense because they're borrowing from the

best leagues around the world. The NFL in the United States is the most successful league in terms of viewing. If you look at what you talked about with promotion and relegation, that's a way to make those second tier schools have something to play for. And there's financial incentives for everybody involved. Yeah. And that's what I so I there's a TV consultant named Chris Bevilacqua. I'm sure you've spoken to him many times over the years. In 2010, he sat me down and he said, Listen, the reason the NFL makes so much more per eyeball than college sports is they are the only seller of that level of professional football. And in college, you have these multiple sellers of the same level, and that actually drives the price down somewhat.

And so this would get you to that single seller thing where, because I thought it was interesting in your story, you guys talked about, you know, some TV executives said, there may not be more money in the system, but I think the feeling is probably if they all did actually get together, they could squeeze a little bit more out. Well, there's two things there. Could they generate better ratings with this system?

Yeah, they probably could. The issue right now is that all the major conferences and now the CFP are locked up into the 2030s. So the TV networks have really no incentive to do new deals or to rip any contracts up. And to create a new system is not really in their best interest at the moment. And so I think that's an issue that is going to... Someone involved told me they're going to have to bring the networks in and they're going to have to buy in. So how do you get them to buy in? Well, if you're ESPN or you're Fox, you say, well, give us a 10-year extension. So then we have rights to the 2040s and maybe you figure out the pay structure there. But do I think you get better ratings with a better system that's more like the NFL's TV setup? Yeah, you probably could.

Do I think you go from 3 million to 9 million people watching. I'm not as certain about that. Yeah. I don't know that the ratings would jump to NFL levels. I was thinking more dollars per eyeball than anything else. But it's also interesting, as you pointed out in your story, the Big Ten and the SEC have not so far been willing to meet with this group. The Big 12 hasn't, even though one of its presidents, Gordon Gee, is out front with this. And as you mentioned, the networks, ESPN and the SEC kind of tied together, Fox and the Big Ten tied together, and they are invested in this until 2030 for the Fox and the big 10 2034 for for espn and the sec

how how do you get those people to the table if you're if you're the group doing this well you see the thing that that the beauty of this group is that they don't really have any real ties to the conferences or you know to if they're not media entities. And so they do have that advantage when they look at it. The problem that you have when you talk about the conferences, if you're someone like the SEC and you're Greg Sankey, you represent Alabama, but you also represent Vanderbilt. Same thing with Tony Petitti at the Big Ten. You represent Michigan and Ohio State, but you also represent Northwestern. So how do you go into a meeting where it clearly wouldn't be as good if you look at this setup and your ranking and they're going to be paid accordingly

at the top 70 schools. And let's say Northwestern's, when you go in there, they're 50 to 60, but right now they're being paid like any top school because they're getting big 10 money. This doesn't seem like a good plan for them. They'd rather be tied in with Michigan and Ohio State in terms of what kind of check they're getting cut. So that's one issue. Another issue is if you're Tony Petitti or Greg Sankey, do you want to basically get rid of the SEC or the Big Ten and then you don't have a job? Or you do have a job, but you don't have football, which is obviously the number one sport in the United States and for those commissioners so they're not really incentivized to do that so

do I think that Petitti and Sankey I think you know they're the two most important commissioners they can kind of drive where things go and I they represent the big 10 and the SEC. So that coalition is one to watch. But when you read our story, do I think that there's potential for these ideas to go forward? Maybe not with this group. I do. I think that is realistic. Yeah, and I think that's the important thing

that's going to come out of this. Because like you said, to create what they're talking about would require a dismantling of the conference system that has ruled college sports for over a hundred years that seems a little bit far-fetched but the idea of these ideas trickling into discussions that greg sankey and tony patiti have admitted need to be had that doesn't seem far-fetched at all. Well, yeah, I mean, again, you're more versed on this than I am,

but the idea of the SEC and the Big Ten just becoming the AFC and the NFC has been out there, right? That's been floated. Fans have thought about it. Media has talked about it. Everyone's talked about that. But do you want to be the ones that kill college football everywhere else? I don't think you want to be that, you know,

I don't even know if that's even good. Right. Is that even good for you? You know, you can argue that it's not. So you look at this system and, you know, maybe you, you bring the covers. The other issue that you have to, that's looming over all of this is how are you going to pay the players? Yeah. And so if it's one entity, you know, the way they look at it, the group that we put, we wrote, the Perna group, you know, there would be a players' union, which probably might be coming regardless.

But if there's one players' union, that makes more sense than if there's a players' union for the SEC, a players' union for the Big Ten. If there's an overall that you're negotiating with, that makes more sense because the way it's constructed now, which again, became clear in my reporting, there's going to be more and more lawsuits. Like if this is not going to end because there's no rules. And so like the pay should be unlimited. And so, and that's probably unsustainable for college sports, no matter who you are, you know, no matter how big your boosters are, I don't know if that will work. Oh, no matter how big the boosters are, the boosters are tired of being double charged for this. So they would like to see something more organized as well. But yeah, it's funny.

We mentioned the rules. I was talking to an administrator last week and the guy was explaining to me, he picked one rule and explained how they could actually be sued by both from both sides of the rule by athletes and they would lose both ways. So you're right. Something has to be created that allows for collective bargaining, which would make them mostly antitrust lawsuit proof. And I think that what they came up with is actually a pretty good idea. And it is something that I know has been talked about in the SEC, in the Big Ten, where you have this single entity that is the employer. So you're dealing with one state's employment law. It's a private

company that is paying as opposed to public schools trying to deal with their own employment laws. But yeah, getting everybody to agree to that, to have one thing is the big stumbling block with this group. As I'm sure you noticed. Yeah, and I think that you want to be out in front on this because before the court decisions come to fruition, before Congress gets involved, I do think if you're... The question is, and again, you know this space better than I do, is the college presidents, they're engaged in a lot of things. They have a lot of responsibilities. And as important as college football is, especially on, you know, when you talk about those top 70 programs that would be in that number one division, but even there, those

presidents not, you know, they don't necessarily have their full focus always on football and trying to figure this out. And so we've seen that, you know, we saw what happened with realignment. And so, but I do think you want to be out in front of this. They'd be smart. Again, can you, you know, get everyone together? And that's where Sankey and Petitti have all the power because they have the strongest teams. They have the strongest television deals. And so they're the ones that have a very good chance of deciding.

But they also have to look out for all their members and they're going to look out for themselves. So, you know, in terms of their their jobs, and so it's very complicated in terms of how it goes forward. And this group's not the only one trying to do it. There are many right trying to and looking into this and trying to figure out how to go forward. So in your world, you talked to a lot of television executives, and you know, with all of the sports the pro sports and and everything else

what do they think of any of this because it really is fox espn they are the ones bankrolling the sport how do they feel about all of the ideas like because i'm sure they know something has to get done because of what you just mentioned with the lawsuits and everything. But they- Well, I think, yeah, I think what gets lost and I, you know, covering realignment and like kind of, you know, we kind of, John Orr and I, we kind of have a unique perspective because we cover media as opposed to college. And so I think what sometimes is missed is that like their responsibilities are to their company and the shareholders and making money. It's not like, you know, I know when the Pac-12 stuff happened, it felt like, you know, again, it shouldn't really go by social media. But like they're not like charities. So they're making business decisions.

And so if you look at Fox, for example, they have a very good setup. They own much of the Big Ten network. They're able to control the Big Ten rights. Yeah, they're basically sub-licensing games. Exactly. And they're getting the best games. So I don't think they're going to be in a get together and say, how can we figure this out? With those two being in control.

We're trying to avoid antitrust lawsuits here. Well, maybe, but I guess I just think that's more feasible. Because it's all about leverage and power and money when you come down to it. We might be talking about intercollegiate amateur athletics. feasible because like it's all about leverage and power and money when you come down to it we might be talking about intercollegiate amateur athletics but at the end of the day the people who have the gold make the rules and so the media they have the goal now look against the 2030s and the digital players like amazon you know maybe apple finally gets really into sports uh and so there could be a lot of gold out there from other places. But those contracts are tied up now.

And if you tried to break them, which they're not going to try. I mean, that's not part of the plan. At one point, we were looking into that. Are they going to try to break the contracts? And that would just result in lawsuits. And it's just like, that's untenable. So I don't think that's it. At some point, if this were to go forward, they'd try to bring in the networks and see if there could be some sort of understanding with them. Because the point of this group is that if you have a distressed asset and they claim that bankruptcy is on the horizon after these lawsuits go through

and the settlements go through, then that's not valuable to anybody if it can't function. I'm not saying that's happening. I'm saying that's what the presidents seem to indicate that we spoke to. But if that's on the horizon- They know we can see the books on the entire school, right? We know they are multi-billion dollar endeavors. That is true. That is true. But if you owe billions of dollars, I don't know if all the funds are supposed to go towards that. So yeah. Well, I'm glad you brought up the golden rule on this show. We love the golden rule on this show. We also love, uh, we more often use Don Drapers. That's what the money's for,

but I feel like he who has the gold makes the rules also is right on point. So Andrew, thank you so much for, uh, for enlightening us on this thing, because I'm just glad somebody broke the seal. People who matter, not people like me, but people who matter broke the seal and started talking about this thing publicly. So it's going to give us a lot to talk about. So thank you so much, Andrew. Well, that's what we're trying to do. It's time now for Dear Andy.

We will start with some questions in the chat. Coming off that interview with Andrew Marchand, Jared Jones asked, does this proposal kill the Group of Five? Well, no, because it would include the Group of Five. Would the Group of Five be a notch below the power conferences? Yes. Guess what? The Group of Five is already a notch below the power conferences,

yet they still continue to operate. And that's the other part of this. We'll start. We'll go to Briley's more of a statement than a question. I'm going to probably do the dramatic voice because Briley's being very dramatic here. College football is dying. Sucks.

But the genie's out of the ball. And five years from now, it'll be a shell of what it was. And many schools, 40 or so D1 type programs will be dead. Yes, the entire universities, Briley, will shut down because they are not power conference football schools. That's not how it's going to work. It's also not dying. The ratings are going up. And guess what? If it's not this plan, which would keep everybody kind of where they are, and schools that are currently in power conferences are not in what is viewed as a power conference in four or five years,

you know what they're going to keep doing? Playing football. You know why? Because the FCS exists. Division II exists. Division III exists. The NAIA exists. They're not going to stop playing football. They like playing football. That's why they play football. Will they be getting crazy rich off football? No, they're not now. The schools that get rich off football will get richer off football. The ones that are charging their students

like 16 bucks a credit hour to subsidize their athletic department, maybe they don't need big time football. Maybe they shouldn't be trying to play big time football. You ever thought of that? Briley, Andy, you're an ass. No, Briley, you are reactionary and overly dramatic. That's what you are.

You're looking at the ratings going up. You're like, it's dying. Logic and facts. Logic and facts. Logic and facts. The facts say people are more interested than they were. Logic says you come up with a better system that takes some of the stuff that's making people more interested, player movement, expanded playoff, and create something workable where the universities aren't getting sued every five seconds,

you're going to have a pretty good thing going. This actually brings us to our first year any question. Because that is, what happened this week is actually great proof that all of the doomsayers, the people that Briley believes. We're wrong and they're always wrong. Like, I don't know how many times I have to tell you guys that they're wrong and they're going to be wrong, but. We can go back into history like Major League Baseball when Kurt Flood challenged the reserve clause. This will kill our business. It did not.

The NFL when Freeman McNeil sued them. This will kill our business. It didn't. Their businesses got better. So speaking of business getting better, we start with a question from Scott. Which football games this fall will draw more eyeballs than LSU Iowa did on Monday? This is a great question. Because that LSU Iowa Elite Eight game in the Women's NCAA Tournament

was the high-water mark for women's basketball. Shattered every record for women's basketball games. Shattered the records for college basketball games, men's or women's, broadcast on ESPN. Now, there have been men's tournament games, and there have been men's tournament games and have there been men's tournament games this year that drew more, but most of those were on CBS. This is, we're talking to ESPN. This is on cable. This game drew 12.3 million viewers, 12.3 million. And then the USC UConn game afterward

got six point seven million, which is great for a college basketball. It's great for an NBA playoff game like that's a big number. So. It brings up the question from Scott, how many football games are going to outrate this? Not many, right? Well, he's right. Because if you go to last year, how many college football games outrated this game? How many college football games drew more than 12.3 million viewers? There were only five. The Rose Bowl had 27.8 million. The national title

game had 25 million. Ohio State Michigan had 19 million. The Sugar Bowl had 18.8 million. And the SEC championship had 17.5 million. Everything else was below that. That's pretty impressive. And what it takes is multiple years of storylines, giant stars, and that's what you had. I mean, you think about the star power of that game and the storylines going back to LSU beating Iowa for the national title last year. So you had Kaitlyn Clark, who we're arguing now whether she's the best women's basketball player ever. You had Angel Reese, fantastic player, who you saw talk trash to Caitlin Clark after they won the national title last year and then was, again, one of the best players in

the country. You have Kim Mulkey, who is a cartoonish person like she's a caricature of a hard-boiled crazy college basketball coach or college coach period and then she also dresses like cruella de Vil like it is you got it all in a game like that and I think with college football we're going to have some good storylines like that too we're going to have games where it's a game we wanted to see last year or it's a rematch from a game we did see last year and I think you're going to see some games like that this year. So in terms of regular season games, what will outdraw that one? I'm going to Ohio state, Michigan. I think every year we'll outdraw that one.

Ohio state, Michigan, as long as they're both pretty good. Now, if one of them is terrible, then it might not, but this year we don't have to worry about that. Ohio state is going to be really good. We'll see what happens with Michigan in terms of the quarterback after spring practice, but I'm telling you right now, guys, not falling off that much. So that game in the regular season, for sure. Alabama, Georgia in September. I think that'll beat it. Depending on how these teams are doing at the time, but I imagine they're going to be doing pretty well. Georgia, Texas, Georgia at Texas. I think that's going to beat it. I think Ohio State, Oregon is going to be up there. It'll depend on what else is that day

where the time slots fall. But I suspect Ohio State, Oregon is probably a big noon game on Fox. I don't know that ESPN is going to try to counter-program a great SEC game against it. I think they probably just let that have its moment. And then the good SEC games will go 3.30 and 8 o'clock. Actually, no, I take that back. That game's at Oregon. They're not playing that at 9 a.m. Eastern. Whoops.

So that might be counter-programmed by a really good SEC game. That one, maybe not. Maybe not. The question is, are the playoff games going to get more viewers than, say, the comparable bowl game would have? I was actually shocked at how many people watched the Orange Bowl last year. So the Orange Bowl last year had, I believe, yeah, 10.4 million viewers for a game that we kind of agreed beforehand might not be very good because most of Florida State's starters weren't playing. With that one being a quarterfinal game, actually, I'm blanking on which which i know the orange bowl is a semi but with let's say a new year's six type game like that being a quarterfinal game i think the the ratings for that will be much higher because there's stakes my question is what do ratings look like for that first weekend of the on-campus games i think this year especially there'll be some

novelty to it you'll have some people tuning in because it's the first time this is happening. But I think there will also be kind of matchup dependent. How big is the brand in this game? Where is the game being played? That sort of thing. I think that always will matter in that situation. And then as you get higher up the chain, the stakes go up, the ratings go up. So I think you only had five last year that beat that LSU-Iowa total.

And the 12.3 million is great. So talking to TV people, if you can get over 4 million for a college football game, that's doing really well. They feel really good about that. And there are going to be a lot of those for sure. But how many can eclipse that 12 million mark? If they can get to double digits, I think that'd be a big improvement. And I do feel like there's a rising tide factor here because again, a couple of years ago, we would have never imagined a women's basketball game drawing those kinds of numbers.

Now the question is when Kaitlin Clark leaves for the WNBA, can they keep that up? I would argue that they probably can because there are stars kind of ascendant in the in the women's game and i think the women's and the men's game now the women's game you always had people staying four years the men's game you're getting a lot of stars staying in school so you're getting those storylines developing like zach ed being back in the in the NCAA tournament this year after getting knocked out by a 16 seed last year that's a storyline that we want to follow that's a storyline that we find

interesting so I think basketball is going to do pretty well on that front too regular season basketball I still don't think the appetite for that is as big. I think there'll be some, some games that do fairly well for regular season college basketball games. I think the viewership will probably tick up on that, but that's still going to be more tournament play where you see the massive ratings college football. I think you're going to see some massive ratings in the regular season just because of the new matchups, the way the new conference alignments work out. I think just from a helmet perspective, like Penn State-USC, whether that game is huge for the Big Ten or has a lot of bearing on who plays for the Big Ten title or who makes the playoff. I don't even think that matters. I think people are gonna watch that game no matter what. That's where I'm curious to see how much the ratings

change when, when you have Oklahoma and Texas playing against these sec schools that they don't, they haven't played against before. When you have USC, Oregon, Washington, UCLA playing against the big 10 schools, they haven't played against before. I think that's, that's where I'm interested. And then I also want to see what happens with the big 12, because the big 12 is going to have a very competitive product in terms of so many games are going to be competitive. They're going to be so many teams at the top of the league fighting for spots in that big 12 title game. I suspect their ratings do fairly well relative to what they were doing before when you, when you,

cause we, you know, we all charted the non Texas, non Oklahoma, big 12 games to see what they would, what they would look like. And I think they're going to do better than that. I think the,

the, the mix of teams they have because the games are going to do better than that. I think the mix of teams they have, because the games are going to be fun and competitive. It's going to be one of the, the big 12 is going to be one of those, like Paul Pabst from the Dan Patrick show. He's always alerting people when games are close, when there's a really tight game somewhere, like you're going to see those alerts go out on Saturdays.

Like, Hey, listen, guys, listen, guys, we got K state, Arizona. It's close. You're going to want to tune in right now.

They're, they're coming down to the wire. You know, five minutes left. They're coming down to the wire. They're, they're tight. Big 12 is going to have a lot of that.

Are they going to have any 12 million games? I don't think so, but I do think across the board, this will be a season where the ratings are bigger. So next question. I mentioned Zach Eadie. This is from Justin. Dear Andy, there's plenty of buzz in regard to fouls involving Zach Eadie,

whether called for or against him. Has there ever been a buzz in regard to fouls involving Zach Eadie, whether called for or against him. Has there ever been a college football equivalent to it? I don't know that there's been a college football player equivalent to Zach Eadie. So Zach Eadie, let me, I can, because I've been watching this phenomenon all tournament long and it's fascinating to me. And I don't blame the people who are getting mad because it is it is a frustrating watch so Zach 80 seven foot four he's 300 plus pounds he's very difficult to move but he rarely gets called for a foul and it feels like opponents get called for ticky tack stuff against him when he's getting

away with more on the other end of the court. And then there's the other piece of it that drives people really nuts is the three seconds thing. So Zach Eaddy doesn't get called for three seconds very often. It does seem like he's in the lane a lot. Now I'll point out that in men's college basketball, if you put a foot outside the lane and above, you know, off the ground and outside the lane, they're going to reset the clock. So it's a little different. But I've watched some videos over the past weeks of where it seems like Zach Eaddy is

just camped out. So is there anybody in college football like that? Not a player. I was thinking did Cam Newton get officiated differently because he was a superhuman? It's just hard to do that in college football because how do you officiate someone differently like that? Where you see the conspiracy theories in college football is on the line of scrimmage. There are Tennessee fans, LSU fans, various SEC fan bases who contend that Alabama never gets called for holding. Now they occasionally do get called for holding, but you'll see the clips on YouTube where they have compiled many instances where it looks like there's an Alabama offensive lineman holding and nothing got called. So there's that conspiracy theory. There's also the ones that go the other way. And I remember this specifically from Nebraska in the mid 2016 to 18 era.

And then Florida State in the early Jimbo Fisher era. You got this from their fan bases. Like nobody ever calls holding against our opponents. Like our pass rushers are good. They're not getting home because they're being held, but no one's ever calling it. And that is, well, sometimes there's, there's truth to it. You see the numbers and they're just not calling stuff. Sometimes it's very selective memory.

My team lost. Therefore, I think the refs job this. I think if you like going back to Alabama, the Alabama fans are convinced the refs screwed them out of the 2022 Tennessee game. The Tennessee fans are absolutely convinced the refs screwed them out of the 2023 Alabama game. The fact of the matter is, I don't know what the ref screwed either team. One team lost in 2022, one team lost in 2023. But that's what you see more in college football.

In college basketball, you can have one player who's officiated differently. And again, I do think, and granted, this has been going on probably all tournament, but you're going to see those coaches working. Like I'm sure Kevin Keats, when he talks to the refs before the game, because they always, you know, they meet with the coaches before the game. He's going to say, watch Edie for three seconds. Watch it. Don't let him camp out in the lane.

I guarantee you that will be, he will make sure that is fresh in their minds before the game. Now it's interesting because DJ Burns plays for NC State. He's another crazy physical specimen who does not look like anybody else on the basketball court. So how will they officiate that game on both sides of the court where you have these three but i know dj burns is listed at 275 we we had jim naggy from the senior bowl put his scouts eye on dj burns and he says he's over three bills so we're gonna go with that so you have these two guys who were over three bills banging in the lane how do you officiate that? And come to think of it, and I don't know that DJ Burns will be matched up

on Zach Eady as much. Diarra, he's a better leaper. So maybe that, he gets more of a run against Zach Eady. But if you get Zach Eady and DJ Burns together on the block because they are more physically at least in terms of weight similar is it easier to officiate because it's not like these little gnats bouncing off Zach Eadie I don't know I I think it's interesting I will say on the other side of the floor, when Zach Eady's playing defense, here's why they don't call him for many fouls. And if you played organized basketball at any level,

you understand this. Zach Eady doesn't leave his feet very often when he defends. He doesn't need to. So if he's straight up and down, the officials are trained to look for, is the defender straight up and down, not leaving their feet, not out of control? If they're not, they're not going to get called very often.

Usually it's when a defender is beat and is trying to recover that you see them commit a foul. Zach Eaddy is very much in control and very much straight up and down because he's super tall, because he can touch the rim without jumping. is very much in control and very much straight up and down. Cause he's super tall. Cause he can touch the rim without jumping. Like that's why. So that's the part on the defensive end that I don't,

I don't know if it's necessarily the refs struggling to officiate him on that. And I think he just, what he does, the way he defends their training tells them that's not a foul. Got some serious arguments going on in the chat about why college football is the way it is, why it works the way it does. That ratings question got you going. Cornelius says, stop being an SEC homer, Andy. How am I being an SEC homer by saying people will want to watch Georgia play Texas? People want to watch Georgia play Texas. Sorry, dude.

It's going to be interesting. Here's Briley again. Nobody's under any obligation to do anything, but the result of being completely driven by money is that the only get thing you get is what people think will sell. Nobody would have thought app state, Michigan would have been a rating producer ended up being the pinnacle of upsets, but it's not marketable in advance. Actually Briley app state, Michigan got terrible ratings because it was the first game ever on the Big Ten Network. And it did help the Big Ten Network get carried because everybody called in going, how do I get this on my cable? So App State Michigan was actually very helpful on that

front. Though I agree with you, they did not intend for it to be. That said, I'd still rather see Michigan playing Oregon, which by the way, they did the following week. It was not a very close game because Chip Kelly's offense mystified Michigan that year. But if you had Appalachian State and Michigan play 10 times and Oregon and Michigan played 10 times, which is going to be the better series of games? Which one will be the better series of games? Honest question. I think we know the answer to that. It's going to be Oregon.

So I get that everybody wants this to be a broad-based thing. People want to watch the name brands. That's why when I got the ratings question, I'm like, yeah, Alabama, Georgia, Georgia, Texas, Ohio state, Oregon, those games are going to do really well. Will there be great games? Not involving those teams or involving one of those types of teams versus somebody who's not supposed to beat them, who does beat them? Yes.

And we love that too, but there will always be teams at the bottom of the table, no matter how you stack it, because everybody's got to play somebody. They're not going to reduce it to 10 teams. It's going to be a somewhat large number. The question is how large? And that's why, you know, you go back to this proposal, College Sports Tomorrow's proposal. It'd be great if they could pull that off. I'd love to see 80 teams in the top division. I think that'd be awesome. I'm just not sure the TV networks would love that. As Andrew Marchand said, they're not running a charity. Next question from Arthur in Atlanta. Your discussion last week about Marvin Harrison and Malik neighbors as the top two receivers in this year's draft class and how some teams

prefer one versus the other, but both look to be elite. Reminded me of a similar discussion heading into the 2011 draft. AJ Green and Julio Jones were both elite prospects and expected to be taken very early in the draft, just like Harrison and neighbors. Which one would go first really just depended on how certain teams viewed one versus the other. But it was widely assumed you couldn't go wrong with either. And I would say that played out over their careers. The Bengals took Green at number four overall,

and he ended up with 10,000 yards receiving and 70 touchdowns in a borderline Hall of Fame-worthy career. Meanwhile, the Falcons traded up to take Jones two picks later and he had a no doubt hall of fame career, which is still going with almost 14,000 yards receiving and 66 touchdowns. It wouldn't shock me if in 15 years we're saying the same thing about Harrison and neighbors, Arthur,

that is a really reasonable comment, really reasonable. It has no place on the internet. It has no place in the discourse in 2024, and I'll tell you why. When I go to the gym, they always have the debate shows on the TVs, but they're on mute, so I never have to listen to them. I only see them, so I see the topics that are going across the screen. Marvin Harrison versus Malik Neighbors

has been a topic on the debate shows every day this week, every single day. There's three more weeks till the draft. It's three weeks from today. We're going to get that every day, every day. But Arthur, you're right. It's quite possible that these two guys may be both great. And both teams that take them are very happy and nobody regrets who they

didn't take. So that's the thing. If you don't out think the room here, but Malik neighbors and Marvin Harrison, you're both going to be very, very good. Roma dunes. It also has the potential to be very, very good.

You heard Jim Nagy say, he feels like Roma dunes is, is either right there with those two or just kind of a notch below. And that's the thing. Receivers have been getting better and better as the sport has evolved, as seven on seven has come into play, where you have guys running routes basically year round now, where that wasn't happening before. And I just think we're going to have these drafts for the next few years till we get used to how many good receivers there are now.

Where it's just like, hey, pick your flavor. Pick what you want. Now, you still can't overthink things. Like, remember Jalen Rager got taken ahead of Justin Jefferson. That was crazy. That was what but in this situation like you've seen what they've put on tape and i i realized it and you heard jim nagy say it the other day a lot of the the thing about neighbors with the scouts and with the personnel people is neighbors being willing to test being

willing to run it may be that the harrison people have said look we don't think he being willing to run. It may be that the Harrison people have said, look, we don't think he's going to run as well as Malik. So we're not going to do that. Why, why make him look like he's not as good when we've got tape saying he is. Neighbors has good tape too, but if he's going to run a better time, then yeah, you go run that better time. So this is, this is all part of the, the game going into the draft. But the thing about Harrison and neighbors that you can't, the tape is so great. Clearly it translates size, speed, everything translates. So Arthur, I appreciate that. I like people like Arthur. I like reasonable people who think things through like this. Unfortunately, it's not good for internet and not good for YouTube. We need somebody else. If I really wanted to make some money on this show,

we'd have somebody else. we'd be split screen, or we'd be sitting together, and I'd be yelling, you're crazy if you don't take Marvin Harrison Jr. ahead of Malik Nabors. And the other person would be like, you don't know what you're talking about. Malik Nabors is 10 times better than Marvin Harrison Jr. Like, we'll get T-Bob Hebert.

He's an LSU guy. He'll take the Nabors side. I'll take the Harrison side. Neither of us will actually believe any of it, but we'll just yell at each other. Andrew says, boo, more hot takes. I'm with you, Andrew. And the good thing is if we got T-Bob here and we tried to do that, we would probably end up talking about like the Godzilla King Kong movie. So I don't think you have to worry about that. But yes, I appreciate Arthur's reasonableness. I got a question from Malbus who watched the Kalen DeBoer interview the other day. How close does Alabama have to be to Georgia for Bama fans not to call for Kalen DeBoer's job in the first season? So I understand why you're framing this as an Alabama-Georgia thing, because Georgia's the team we probably expect to win the SEC. Of the teams in the SEC,

we expect Georgia to be the best national title contender. But I really don't think it matters whether it's Georgia, whether it's Texas, whether it's LSU, Tennessee, Ole Miss, whoever it is that is a real playoff contender in the SEC. Alabama has to be among those. Alabama has to be in the mix for the playoff. I would argue has to make the playoff for the Alabama fans to be happy with Kalen DeBoer in year one. And you heard the man on Monday. He understands what he's getting himself into. He's not going into this blind. He gets it.

It's a very high-pressure job. He also inherits a lot of talent. But the fact of the matter is, I guess it's not a fact, because we haven't seen it happen yet, but we don't know, but we can reasonably assume that if you go 10-2 this year,

you're going to make the playoff if you're in the SEC of the Big Ten. If Alabama goes 10-2 against this schedule, they're going to make the playoff. Is that good enough? How deep do they're going to make the playoff. Is that good enough? How deep do you have to go in the playoff? How many games do you have to win? Do you have to make the semis?

Do you have to make the final? I would argue that as long as you have a team that looks like the national champion in terms of roster makeup, and you play deep enough into the playoffs to where you lose to another one of those teams people won't be happy in alabama but they'll understand and that's the thing like with kirby smart and georgia before he got over the hump and won a

national title everybody would ask me well when do you think they're going to get sick of Kirby Smart? They're not because they're always right there. And eventually they'll break through. As long as Caleb DeBoer has Alabama right there, then I don't think he has anything to worry about. It's where they either don't make the playoff or they make the playoff and they lose in round one because they had to go on the road somewhere. Like that's where Alabama fans will be like, listen, we are used to being in the hunt for the national title every single season. And we will accept no less. I think they're going to put a lot of pressure on him. I think they're going to ask a lot.

I think they're going to demand a lot. But I also think they have the roster and he has the chops to keep them happy. How long they stay happy is another question. But I do think going into this season, he can keep them pretty happy. He can, he can have them feeling like they're in a good position going forward because they're still going to be one of the most talented teams in the country. And if he does what he's done everywhere else,

from a schematic standpoint, from an X's and O's game day coaching standpoint, they should be just fine. They should be in the playoff. And again, once you get into the playoff and you get to the point where you're playing similar teams, then it's sort of all bets are off. We talked about this with the basketball tournament this year, when you got to the elite eight on the men's side, like at that point, everybody's really good. And if you lose you lose so i think in this case probably got to get into quarterfinals at least probably the semi-finals to keep them happy but as long as they feel like

you were right there with the teams that that eventually won the national title they're probably okay with it because you're going to break through. You keep doing that, you break through. But man, yeah, you miss the playoff? Ooh, nah, wouldn't want to be Caelan DeVore because yeah, they will be super, super demanding. All right, this question comes from Aaron.

Dear Annie, thanks for putting out a great show every day. Love when you appear on other shows too. Got to get you back as a guest on Snaps with T-Bob for some non-vasectomy talk. Hey, our vasectomy segment was really good. If you haven't seen that, it's on YouTube. Speaking of guest spots, your friend PFT commenter from Pardon My Take recently had to attend a wedding on March Madness opening weekend while his James Madison Dukes played against Big Cats Wisconsin, no less. This reminded me of perhaps the worst sin someone can commit against us CFB diehards, a Saturday wedding during the fall. Is there anything more sacrilegious? What would your response be if someone from your college group invited you to a wedding during college football season? And how should they be treated going forward in the college group chat during reunions?

As Bob Ufer used to say, college football is a religion and Saturday is the holy day of obligation. All right. So I realize it is very popular to just bash the fall wedding people. And why wouldn't you? Look, if you invite me to a fall wedding on a saturday in college football season i'm not coming i have to work like i i still it's weird because i still have family members who struggle with that not my immediate family my wife gets it my kids get it but like i cover college football i don't get to take saturdays off in the fall. And it's funny because there are actually

people in my business who will take Saturdays off sometimes. Well, I had this thing. There's no thing that's more important, but that's our job. If it's not your job, there are ways to deal with this. I actually think the rise of the streaming services or the cable bundle on streaming has made this easier. If you get invited to a wedding on a Saturday in the fall, you can still watch the game you want to watch. You can have it on your phone at the reception. Maybe not during the ceremony, but you can kind of probably do it during the ceremony too, as long as you're sitting far enough back. So it's not cool if your friends do this, but at least now you have a way to still get your fix. Like if, if this were 15 years ago

and you had to go find a TV, like I've been to weddings where there was a sporting event going on. And so you had, everybody would go to a TV, like in the bar area of whatever hotel they were having a reception at. And that's going to off the bride because you're leaving the reception. And she's like, where's everybody we're doing the chicken dance right now. Where is everybody? Well, they're cuddled around the reception. And she's like, we're doing the chicken dance right now. Where is everybody? Well, they're cuddled around the TV. Is that her fault because she scheduled

a wedding during a sporting event? Everybody wants it? Yeah, that's her fault. She should have thought about that. But in my experience, the happy couple is concerned with some other things when they're picking the date. But I think we're okay. I don't think we need to excommunicate these people anymore because we have an outlet. We have a way to watch. If the couple were cool, they'd incorporate it. They'd just bring TVs into the reception, especially if they're a couple that went to the same school. Could you actually do this? Here's my question. Could you actually build your wedding around a big college football game? Let's say you're a Texas grad and you want to get married the day that they play Georgia. You're like, listen, nobody can afford a hotel room in Austin.

That's the week of the F1 race. Tickets are out of sight expensive. Let's have a way to make this fun where we can all get together and watch the game. I know, let's get married while we do it. That would be cool. You have the giant Jumbotron screen in the reception. I realize that maybe takes away from the happy couple, but you would be the most memorable wedding. Everybody would remember your wedding. Everybody would have fun at your wedding. So I think instead of, instead of telling these people, Hey, you don't know where you're and like in, in Aaron's question, the, the, the couple, so PFT commenter had to go to a wedding right before James Madison played

Wisconsin. It actually worked out great because the wedding was in New York. The game was in Brooklyn and the wedding finished soon enough that he could walk over to the game. So that worked out perfectly. I don't think if you're picking random Fridays in March like that, I don't know what you're going to do. Like. Unless you're a North Carolina or a Kansas or a Kentucky grad. Like, how do you know what you don't even know what day your team's going to be playing on? They could be a Thursday, Saturday team. They could be a Friday, Sunday team. So let's let's take a little pressure off our happy couples.

We don't need to kill them for wedding date selection. We can manage this. It doesn't have to be something that makes you a complete outcast. We can figure it out. But yeah, if you went to a big, big 10 school or a big SEC school, and you don't consult your team's schedule to at least find the open date before you schedule your wedding, what are you doing? What are you thinking? Be a better friend.

That's all I can say. All right. Producer River has a question. River, come on up. What you got? So talking about the delegation regulation, give me your top three schools, fan bases, who are on the hot seat or worried about moving down.

Who's going to get relegated versus who gets promoted? Yeah. Okay. So this Super League, down who's going to get relegated versus who gets promoted yeah okay so this super league they're talking like 70 teams in the in the permanent top division then rotating 10 team division from the group of five so like here's the thing about that i don't know like if you're vanderbilt or indiana you should be worried if you have real promotion relegation. But in this case, I don't think you get relegated.

So this would be more like Boise State, San Diego State, Troy, Tulane, the group of five teams that have been good the last few years, they're going to be in that top division. So who's in danger of falling out would be the question. Like, you know, as James Madison has come in like a ball of fire in the Sunbelt, like they would, if they weren't in it, they would be about to play their way into it. So they would be ready to get in. The question is who'd be about to fall out. And you know, that's, that's a, that's an interesting one. Like if you're Boise state, you know, remember they fired Andy Avalos mid season last year and then they go on a run and win the mountain West or maybe you'll go on a run to the, to

the mountain West championship game. I just, I think that like, if you were Boise state, if you were San Diego state, if you were the teams that are typically in that mix, you would be, you'd be very scared of losing your place in that. Now in a true promotion relegation situation where everybody would be in danger of falling out, it would be Northwestern, Indiana, Vanderbilt, like Arkansas would be in danger of falling out it would be Northwestern Indiana Vanderbilt like Arkansas would be sitting there shaking right now because Arkansas wasn't very good last year um that would be that would be terrifying for those teams and it's crazy like when you look at the the Premier League in england like to fall out of the premier league

which is just gobs and gobs of money coming to you like you have to change everything about how how your organization works and so i it'd be it'd be interesting to see what the financial projections are for this this particular super like what's the difference financially between being in that top division versus being in the next division? Because if it's significant, then, yeah, you should be scared to death. Yeah. Do I think this will happen, River? No, I don't. I still have no faith that American sports will ever embrace the idea of promotion or relegation. Like I said, when we were talking to Andrew, it happened in the Premier League because it already existed in English soccer when they created the Premier League. And that was a case of if we don't include this, the fans will revolt.

And so it's like with college football, if you don't have Michigan and Ohio State playing at noon Eastern on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, the fans will revolt. Like there's certain non-negotiables, but that's not one of them in our, on our side of the pond, unfortunately. Although I do think, I mean, watching it happen on the other side is fascinating and hilarious. It's wild. Yes. So we'll, we'll see, but river Tennessee grad. I sensed during that Zach Eadie question,

you grinding your teeth a little bit. Do you think the refs gave him the special treatment during his 40-point game against the Vols? Look, you know, as a fan, as a grad, yeah. Sunday was not a fun place to be with the family. You're at the Easter dinner, and you can't react how you want to react in front of the whole family that's all i'll say about that but your whole family's from east tennessee they're they're

all cussing at the tv well your family's maybe not cussing your family's a little more you got the kids there you got the little team so listen yeah they gave him you gotta get them ready for football season river you could throw a few F-bombs at the TV. Maybe. Maybe. All right. Incredibly fun show today. Thank you to everyone.

We're going to have Roddy Jones from the ACC Network on. We talked some ACC football. Clemson's spring game is this weekend. We have not talked much about the Tigers. We need to talk about this group because, again, they're still going to have one of the most talented rosters in college football. But will the lack of use of the transfer portal hold them back again? We'll talk to Roddy about that.

Gets you ready for the women's Final Four. That's a big, big matchups there. Of course, Iowa and yukon caitlyn clark against the team she wanted to play for that did not recruit her and james lexan third will help us preview the men's final four talk to you tomorrow