The Dan Le Batard Show with Stugotz - Hour 1: Pick a Side, Brutus!

Episode Date: May 23, 2024

Stan Van Gundy sticks around to share his thoughts on Harrison Butker's bigoted commencement speech, Rick Carlisle accepting the blame, and the Top 5 inbounders of all-time. Then, is Charles Barkley allowed to change his mind about a series prior to Game 1? Could Draymond's Warriors beat Shaq's Lakers? And the Top 5 Seths! Plus, Rich Ford of The BigAmatuerism Monologues joins the show to discuss reports of the NCAA undergoing a lobbying campaign to reverse recent progress in NIL as well as a possible settlement in lawsuits involving student-athletes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to Giraffe King's Network. This is the Don Leventor Show with the Stugats Podcast. Speaking of guts, Stan, I saw something that happened here with Roger Goodell saying everyone's entitled to their opinion like in America we all like diversity of opinion. I saw that the Chiefs, Mahomes and Andy Reid both sort of ran scared from having strong opinions about what Harrison Butcher did in his commencement speech. I know that over the time knowing you, because of the love that you have for the women in your life who have taught you so much that you came up through a caveman world and in your family, the women taught you how to be less of a caveman. So when you see leaders in football with power

run scared away from having anything to say about what Harrison Butker did in that commencement speech, your thoughts are what? Well, I have a couple. First is, listen, this was Harrison Butker giving a commencement speech at a, from all I can tell, a pretty conservative Catholic college. So I don't know why what he said there was that surprising.

I mean, you would think people with those kind of views would be the people that they would bring in to speak. And he's certainly entitled to those views. He didn't convene a press conference just to speak out on those things. He spoke at a Catholic university, and he's entitled to those beliefs. We are also, although, entitled to say that we stand to say that we stand against everything that he stood for. And I thought it was amusing coming from him with the, you know, the women's role and the whole thing and his mom is this accomplished scientist and everything else who was clearly working outside of the home the entire time he was growing up.

So I don't know if he resents his mom and, and how he was raised. I don't understand any of that. I don't agree with anything he said. I think it's, it's backwards. I think it's misogynistic. It was it was homophobic and anti-Semitic as well. Well, that's yeah, I mean, listen, the homophobic and anti-Semitic as well. Well, that's, yeah, I mean listen, the homophobic stuff there's no excuse for whatsoever. And listen, one of the things that has annoyed me for a long time is that if you cloak bigotry in, as part of your religious beliefs, then that's supposed to be okay.

You know, like when there were supposedly Christian people that didn't think that black people should be living with white people, that black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, as long as you said, well, hey, it's God's belief. And you know, there's a part of conservative Christianity that doesn't think women should have leadership positions and they go in and quote scripture and all that. Listen, to me, I don't care where your beliefs come from.

Bigotry is bigotry. And saying, well, that's my religious beliefs, Well, fine. Then your religion's bigoted. It doesn't change anything in my opinion. So look, I stand firmly against everything that guy said. And, and I'll tell you, I'm going this far, Dan. He was a kicker on my fantasy team this year. I won't take him. What? Whoa! He's Stan Van Gundy. He is, he is making a stand. I'm boycotting him now. I'm boycotting him this next season on my fantasy team.

I reject everything Butcher did except for this. I'm going to borrow anytime I have the wrong argument, it's God's argument. I like that move. Well that's exactly it. I like that move. I like that move. We hear a lot of that now. Well, you know, it's God's, you know, this is what God wants.

I don't say that this is the way it is. God says it like. Take it up with God. Yeah, that doesn't work for me. Like bigotry is bigotry. Where it comes from is you know probably a lot of different places but it doesn't matter it's all the same let me ask you about the end of the pacer celtics game carlisle said

that one's on me it seemed like there was a lot of stuff at the end of that game that was uh... pretty egregious for late game situations you tell me what you thought of the last 30 seconds of pacer celtics. Well I think rick wanted to foul on the three pointer but they didn't switch the back screen and I don't really think and I'm a guy who believes in Fallon in that situation I'm not sure that siakam really had an opportunity to foul. He was late. He said he was late. He was screened and late. He was late. What you'd

like is if you switched it, you could just run through him when the ball was in the air and he goes to the line. Now, I will say Reggie Miller and I were talking about it last night. The way Jalen Brown shoots free throws, you might have been better off just having him shoot three free throws than shooting the corner three. You know, I mean, he has struggled at the line. The inbound stuff, look, I just don't think people

give enough attention to it. Being able to inbound the ball at any point on the floor late in the game is huge. I mean that is a very very important thing and you've got to have a guy who is really good inbounding the ball and you've got to know what you're doing. I thought on that first of all I don't know their team well enough to say whether Nimhart should have been the guy inbounding a little surprised it wasn't Tyrese Halliburton who has size and who's a good passer and then Siakam didn't come to the basketball. Now you know he ran a route that allowed Brown to get in there so I didn't like the route he took to

the ball but again it's something you have to work on. I know I've been in the same situation and made the exact same mistake. Coaches will always kick themselves in situations like that. And so I wasn't surprised to see what Rick said. But even if they had moved the ball up the sideline, then he would have had the inbound.

I liked them taking the ball out where it was with one time out left. I mean, what I thought is you just tell your inbounder, you know, that gives you two chances to inbound. You tell Nemhard, look, if you can't get it in cleanly, we have a time out, take it, you know, rather than just taking it ahead of time and now I've got no timeout. So I didn't mind the initial decision at all, but I just don't know. Listen, one of the things I had, it's funny, this year we're doing one or two years ago we were doing one of Budenholzer's games. we were talking about end of the game situations. And Bud was saying, talking about, you know, I got to find my inbounder.

He and he looked at me and he said, you had the best late game inbounder ever in Hito Turkalu. And you don't understand how important that is, whether you need a scoring play at the end or just to get it inbounds. The guy you have in bound in the ball Is huge in that situation and I don't think it can be different guys every time not in those situations You got to have a guy who's been there a lot and can get the ball in bounds And we see it a lot in the NBA and I just don't think people take it seriously enough coach

I'm with you 100% as far as having a designated inbounder, but I also like when that guy has size, you talked about Hidu. Hidu at 6'10 can see over almost every defender who's out there. The thing about Nemhard is that he's a small guy, so the vision, the sight lines aren't there. And the other thing is, Nemhard's one of their

best free throw shooters, Siakam isn't. Why isn't Siak And the other thing is, Nemhard's one of their best free throw shooters. Siakam isn't. Why isn't Siakam the inbound guy and Nemhard the guy who's running around trying to get a ball? Well, I can probably tell you why Siakam's not the inbound guy, but, but here's the thing,

I wouldn't have worried as much about that because he was in a situation where he only had to make one out of two to put the game away. So, you know, bigger guys, easier to get the ball to. I think when you have the ball in the scoring area, look, we saw it in our game last night. Minnesota is going to need two possessions, they're down four, they got a side out of bounds. They have Kyle Anderson inbound and they couldn't get the

ball in bounds. They needed to make their They needed to take their last time out, which meant on the last possession, they couldn't advance the ball up the floor. But the reason they couldn't get the ball inbounds, Kyle Anderson's big enough, but to me, I mean, your inbounder's gotta be able to shoot the ball too, because the guy guarding him, Luca just turned and played the court.

He wasn't worried about the ball coming in and going back to Kyle Anderson, because he's not a shooter. So that inbounder, yes, he's got to have size. He's got to have the guts to make the pass when it's open. He can't be a guy who's afraid. Hito was never afraid of making a mistake and he made plenty of them. You know, and he could shoot the ball. So the inbounders worried about getting back to him. So there's a lot of things that go into it. And it's worthy of a lot of thought and a lot of work because these situations come up a lot. And when they do, they're usually at the biggest

in the biggest games of the year. Juju put it on the poll, please, at LeBittard show. Is he to Turculeux the best late game inbound or ever also put on the pole would shane baddie a like to have a word about he don't turkulu and also number five stand I want your top five late game inbound errs ever I want you to put together the list on the fly I want Chris Cody to get all of the materials that need to be gotten so he can have the kind of production that he's accustomed to at the height of entertainment number five Stan I don't I don't I'm not going to be able to do this

number five what do you mean you can't say he do is the best one ever and not have for me some rejected nominees you can't do it no one in his there's no other nominee who's the worst of all time no we, we can't do that. Also I know why I'll tell you what I think Chris Middleton's pretty good in Milwaukee He's pretty good and a guy you have to worry number five Chris Middleton number four Andre Guadalupe, I don't have a four three or two. This is all off it. You should have told me ahead of time. I would have done more research. I didn't know we were going to be talking about late game inbounding and Hedo

Turkle for 4 minutes. That's what I'm saying though. It's not something that, and fans are not going to know if Hedo was or not because it's not something that you think about until you get into a situation like Indiana got into the other night, and you can't get it in bounds. But it's also when you need a bucket. Like, you know, it didn't end up working for us. Courtney Lee missed the shot, but we're playing in the finals, and we're really looking.

Rashard Lewis sets a back screen. We're going to be looking for him coming off the jump shot, but Courtney Lee was open, going to the rim. He don't make the pass, not afraid to make the pass. I think there's too many guys you have either aren't good enough passers or they're afraid to make the play or inbounding they hesitate

because you're usually only open in those situations for a count. You got to put it on time. The guys who hesitate a little are gonna struggle. It's a big skill, but, you know, I think maybe only coaches really understand. Oh, stop, Stan. I know Turcalu is a good inbounder. Don't disrespect me like that.

So condescending. So here it is. It's only for peasants who didn't understand. I could come up with a top five list of inbounders. You could. Well, that was the year before I got there. But that's you know, Turcalu making that pass. I i mean now you also got to have a guy like dwight who can go up in uh you can throw it anywhere those guys are hard to find uh also quite honestly stan before we get out of here and again i will remind uh the audience south beach sessions with stan van gundy tomorrow is fantastic uh can you describe please on our way out for the audio audience, the hotel art

that is over your bed there? It's gorgeous. Can you tell us what it is that you have there and how tired you are of art like that? It's just the whole back wall is, it's wallpaper. Yeah, I don't really, I didn't even notice it was there. What is it? Is it the ocean? Is that what it is? Is it, you don't know what it is there. So what is it? Is it the ocean?

Is that what it is? Is it, you don't know what it is. It's just your guess is as good as mine. I think it's abstract, but it's whatever you see in it. It gets off ocean vibe. Yes, that's exactly right. It's what you bring to the art. All right.

Put it up on the video, please. Now that we have found something to embarrass Stan Van Gundy. Why I said, but here's the thing. That doesn't embarrass me because I said it in a minute. Hito Terkel, if you're in those situations, you're going to make some mistakes. And what a lot of guys do is then

they get afraid to make the play. They hesitate. It leads to more problems. Listen, Hito made plenty of mistakes. He gave me the my bad plenty of times, but I wouldn't want anyone else inbounding the ball in the big situation. See you later, Stan.

Good talking to you, sir. Again, I'll remind the audience, TNT, he's doing fantastic work for TNT. They've got a lot of the playoff games and Stan's on them. Thank you, sir. Since the dawn of mankind, we've cooked our food over and over and flame and debated the best way to grill.

One thing not up for debate, grilling and beer always go together. And not just any beer will do. Whether you barbecue Texas style or celebrate Wednesday with burgers and dogs, you need a beer that tastes great and is less filling, so you have more room for food. You need Miller Lite. As you guys may or may not know, I'm a pretty decent cook, especially behind the barbecue. So when I start the fire for my smoker on a hot day, really, the only thing that I have to worry about is what wood I'm going to use.

The easiest decision for me is what I'll be drinking. That's a nice ice cold can of Miller Lite. Oh, and by the way, here's a pro tip. It really goes well with brisket. Miller Lite keeps it simple, undebatable quality, and tastes as great as your barbecue. A perfect companion for grill masters across America. With the Miller Lite in hand grilling doesn't just taste great it tastes like Miller time. To get Miller Lite delivered right at your door visit MillerLite.com slash Dan or you can find it pretty much anywhere that

sells beer. Celebrate responsibly Miller Brewing Company Milwaukee Wisconsin 96 calories per 12 ounces. Don LeBretardctuate this segment with what is your strike three call. Strike one would be, strike! And then you stand up and you give a good point to the right. Stugatz! That's the same for strike two. But strike three you get down low, you got your hands behind the catcher. Alright, the right arm goes up into the air. Hyah!

And then you finish it with a punch. The right arm flings way up into the air. Hyah! Hyah! I wish I could see that. It's terrible. The audio's great. Hyah!

Hyah! This is the Don LeBattar Show with the Stugats. ["The Stugats Theme"] I would like to ask the group whether something that Charles Barkley did last night is allowed. Not the previous thing that we talked about wondering whether or not it was allowed. Allowed for Charles or allowed? Allowed if we're going to allow it as sports media consumers. Charles Barkley said before the game last night that after watching Minnesota and Denver and watching Minnesota beat Denver that he got caught

up in the moment and picked Minnesota to pick the to beat the Mavericks but then before the game last night changed his pick is that allowed yes before the game yes now if he had said it after the game. But you get caught up in the moment and two days ago or three days ago you had an opinion and then no more new information has come out and your opinion is on the other side. Well, that tells me again that he's thought about it.

Maybe new information has come to him through process. Maybe he's talking to players. That's right. WNBA. Self discovery. Yeah, it's a lot of reporting that Charles Barkley, I mean has Charles Barkley do it. You guys act like Charles doesn't talk to anybody. That's my favorite thing.

He doesn't have a press hat, and he's like, what do you think of this Caitlin Clark character? He's no, he's having conversations with all types of people, and sometimes those conversations might sway him. As a personal friend of Charles Barkley, I could tell you, he's a guy who's very open-minded. Then you should say that.

Look at me, Louis. But. Look at me, Louis. You should also say, I'm changing my pick because I had some conversations, maybe saw a shoot around. Something. This is why.

Give us a reason. Did he give a reason? He did. He said he got caught up in the moment. That's a good reason. And he said he watched the film. Did he say he watched the film? Yeah, I'm pretty sure.

I don't think he says. I'll go look and make sure. I've never heard Charles Barkley say, I watched the film. I've not heard that. Perhaps he has said it, but I don't think of Charles as a, he makes his observations watching the game. I don't think of him as somebody who's going back and- And watching it again.

Going into the tape room. You are more than allowed to change your opinion whenever you want on anything, but what you can't do is if then your pick is wrong, be like, well, I did have the other pick too. You can't go back. You can't still got to? Yeah, that's it.

You can't get any credit for once having the right pick. I want to play some sound for everybody here because this is one of the sports arguments that Google will never be able to destroy. The internet has not quite destroyed the sports argument but it has made it a lot less fun because you can just go look up when most people are wrong about things. But in this particular case Shaq and Draymond Green are talking about I believe it's the Shaq Kobe Lakers versus the Durant is it the Durant Warriors I

mean that they're talking about how these teams would fare against each other here's Shaq and Draymond Green and the facial reactions of Shaq are great but so is the commentary Shaq's Lakers goals they were staying in my terms of the year championship team who wins and the moments question bernie and i'm sorry andrew bogey i don't think any one player on our team could have guards i do think there were defensive schemes that we could have thrown at you to a few to affect you

one is not letting you get the ball so we got gonna guard you with a guy in front of you, a guy behind you. They did that? Yeah, I wasn't on the court though. All right, so what you gonna do, stand behind me? I'm standing in the front, ain't no ball getting to me. What you mean the ball ain't getting to me? I'm not six feet.

But you ain't seven feet. I got seven three wingspan. And I got nine four wingspan. Yeah, but you can't get the ball through me. Andrew Bogan's behind. Stop, stop. You're in the front. Stop, stop. Leave somebody over there to shoot

because you couldn't shoot. But however, Bogan gonna be in foul trouble. Now who your backup center? Me. Draymond, stop. Me. Draymond. Shaq, I don't think I could have guarded you.

I'm not saying that. However, you would have had to bring your big, how did that drop? Man, if you stay back there, I'm gonna nail whoever guarding Steph, I'm gonna nail whoever guardin' Steph, I'm gonna nail whoever guardin' Clay, and we gonna dot ya out every play. Okay, but you know what's gonna happen after that?

I'm gonna tell D. Fish, get up on him, let him drive, and I'm gonna lay his little, stop. Hey, man, we gotta fight. All right, what you gotta fight then? And guess what? You gettin' thrown out the game, and me gettin' thrown out the game, who's that gonna hurt worse?

Yeah, T. Me or ya'll lose? So I guess we not gonna fight then. No. You go on fight then. No. Who's guarding Kobe? Clay. Yeah. That look at the end, who's guarding Kobe, Clay?

What are your thoughts in general? Shaq thinks his team would always beat everyone, even though they lost to the Pistons in five, didn't have a star. That's what I said. There was a scheme, they showed it it and they said like okay we're gonna allow shag people remember this shack was destroying ben wallace was the best defensive player

in the game at the time he was destroyed on but they suffocated everybody else this is shackle nuts it worked it were edited work in this seven games they've been in five they didn't pretty hand a seven game set. They beat them in five, they beat them pretty handily. No, I think the other thing that people never recognize when you talk about old team versus this team is

if the Lakers show up, now we're playing these warrior guys, I've never heard of them, but okay, whatever, and you see Steph Curry pull up from 30, you're like, ah, look at this guy, good luck with that. Oh shit, it went in. All right, and then the next time, like that was a fluke,

and then the next time it happens, and now you're like, okay, we gotta get out there and pick up. But now, your defense isn't used to picking up 30 feet out. You're not used to fighting over on a screen that's above the three point line. So all of these things, it's like showing Isaac Newton an iPad. Like Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientific minds.

If I show him an iPad, he's like, what is this sorcery? There's no way he's gonna get accustomed to it in time. It's like Eddie Murphy and Martin in Life. They're just arguing about what they would've done. The boom boom room, it would've been raised. My name would've been in lights. My bad Jerry. No, speaking of iPads, I mean,

maybe that is what Charles Barkley watched film on because he claims he watched three hours of film on The Timberwolves and the Mavericks before this series. Yeah, I'm trying to shit on my boy Charles man my good friend Charles I won't stand for that kind of slander. I was just Dan He's saying open threats to his daddy on live television. Yes, if Charles Barkley no no no no no I go stand for that I go stand for that. I ain't gonna stand for that. Well, you're sitting. I'm not standing for it.

See, I'm not gonna stand for it. You're being boring again. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. I'm here sticking up for one of the, not only the greatest players of all time, but one of the greatest TV personalities of all time,

if not the greatest in sports. I would agree with everything you said. I will. Also, your dad be saying some disrespectful shit. Let's let's be honest you let it fly like that. It's gonna come back to you at some point Poppy. Pick a side Brutus. I will apologize on behalf of new information correcting my wrong opinion that I do not associate Charles Barkley with the film room. I associate Charles Barkley with being paid at all times to be Charles Barkley.

To me this becomes self-evident during March Madness when they just throw him out there and he does. He's not gonna be watching that film, come on Dan, let's not be ridiculous now. It's just two teams now, it's not that difficult. It's like NBA basketball versus Marist versus Iona. I just think Charles has to be Charles and I don't think of him as a prep freak because he doesn't have to be yeah

Cuz that's what Clark Kellogg is for and Seth Davis Seth Green which is Seth is Seth Green I liked how you said Clark Kellogg to Seth Green. I would love Seth Green on Marsh Madness Seth McFarlane to oh my god, just all the Seths a variety of Seth. This is good, isn't it? All the Seths. All the Seths. A variety of Seths. This is good, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, Seth Rogen getting in on it. Oh, it's Seth Rogen. Do you have Jason Kidd's laugh back there? Seth Meyers. Since you did a very- C-35 Seth, hold on. That was a good impression. You did a very limited Seth Rogen laugh.

None of us understood until you explained it. Let's get the Jason Kidd laugh. This is the way you laugh when you beat the Timberwolves on the road That's terrifying that's beavis and butthead right there. Oh, I There's something about that it's a bit unpleasant and it's making Jessica and Lucy make the same face. The breaths are as creepy as the laugh. That's me in front of the microwave at 2 a.m. What?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! What's in there, Hot Pocket? Like, what are you staring at in there that you're staring at? So hungry, cause you've gotten, you've got the munchies. What is it that you're staring at? What's in the microwave? Everything concatenated together,

left over in the refrigerator to make one super meal. I'm gonna mess my stomach up in the morning, but eff it. I got top five Seths for you, Dan, if you need them. All right, we'll get to the top five Seths to end the segment, but I do wanna talk about something that Hal Steinbrenner said, it on the poll, please do. Are we still making howls at LeBata show? I would be so mad if I were the Steinbrenner family to have the Yankee name on We Can't

Afford stuff. He's he's talking when they've got Juan Soto and they're playing great and they look better than they've looked in many years because the top of that division is tough. Him saying that they're not finding it sustainable to deal with what's happening financially in the sport, stunning to hear a Steinbrenner actually quoted on that, not anonymously. The Steinbrenner name is today stained by the fact that Hal Steinbrenner is an embarrassment

to his crazy old man number five ameen I have all eyes actually all I number one set Davis Well, I number two Seth Greenberg Number five Seth Meyers Number four Seth Rogan Number three, Seth Green. Number two, Seth McFarlane. Number one, Seth Curry.

Wait a minute. He's the number one, Steph Curry. Oh man, I messed it up. Don Lebatard! For weeks, months even, during the regular season, I wondered aloud what Kevin Stenlon did. And then about three weeks ago, it hit me. Stugats! He gives him one of these, and he gives him one of those.

This is the Don Lebatardardt Show with the StuGuardts. ["The Stugardt Show Theme"] Richard, thank you for being on with us. Let me tell the audience, there was a big story in front of us sports that I felt like it flew under the radar this week, at least in part because people don't really understand what's happening in a whole lot of rule changing all

around us that is making college sports something crazier than it's ever been the headline on the story was a breathtaking lobbying campaign the ncaa sophisticated effort to save amateurism rich Richard Ford joins us now. I'm going to read what I think are a couple of pretty shocking paragraphs in this article. Quote, behind the scenes, the NCAA and Power Five have coordinated a sophisticated campaign in Congress over the past five years to bring back amateurism for good. They want to not only halt future reforms, but also potentially reverse the gains already made. Richard you're a former walk-on on the Duke

basketball team for one of Coach K's first teams. You were the team captain or were the team captain and you've got a podcast called the big amateurism monologues and you're pulling back the curtain on some of this stuff. So thank you for joining us and tell us what it is that you made of both this article and in general the craziness of the last five years yeah well first of all thank you Dan for having me and that was a great article I thought a gutsy article by Amanda Krstovich at front office sports and that that quote is really important because what's been happening in

Congress and to press rewind, really, this whole congressional debate began in 2019. And it was a response to the California Name, Image, and Lightness Law, SB 206, the Fair Pay to Play Act. And there was a bill put in by Mark Walker, Republican from North Carolina in the House that would give the NCAA, I'm sorry, the athletes some no compensation and put that would give the NCAA, I'm sorry, the athletes some no

compensation and put some pressure on the NCAA. At that point, the NCAA and Power 5 were faced with a very important choice. Do they deal with those two things as one-off threats and use the whack-a-mole approach, which they had traditionally used? Or do they look at their chessboard, step back, look at all the external regulatory threats that were mounting then and you had, you back, look at all the external regulatory threats that were mounting then and you had state legislatures with SB 206, you had federal antitrust litigation, which is a really hot issue right now. You had federal administrative agencies through

the National Labor Relations Board under the National Labor Relations Act. You had the potential for Congress doing something that the NCAA and Power Five didn't want them to do. Then you had the potential for some free market activity, which is also an external regulatory threat. So the NCAA and Power Five looked at their chessboard. They wanted to deal with all of these external regulatory threats in one fell swoop. And they came up with a man, a brilliant plan. I mean, when you look at it from my lawyer, from a lawyer's standpoint, and I look at what they put together, it's really sophisticated.

So they wanted three things. This is really to neutralize these external regulatory threats. They wanted the federal preemption of state laws. So they wanted the federal government to say to the states, you cannot regulate in college sports. And the name image of likeness laws, any revenue sharing laws, any laws that were inconsistent

with the NCAA's regulatory authority would get wiped off the map with a stroke of a pen. Second, they wanted absolute antitrust immunity so that they could continue to violate America's free competition laws with impunity, imposing their compensation limits on athletes. And those compensation limits are really directed to controlling the labor force in football and men's basketball.

That's what this is all about. They want to control the labor force. And the third thing they want, and this is so important right now because it could be in play after this, you know, global settlement and then the NCAA and Power 5 go to Congress. The NCAA and Power 5 want a provision from Congress that as a matter of federal law, athletes cannot be employees of their institutions. What's the consequence of that? It means that they would not have standing to pursue their rights under the National Labor

Relations Act. They couldn't engage in collective bargaining. They couldn't force the NCAA and Power Five to a bargaining table. And they would be left with really not much of a remedy to get some of these non-economic issues like health and safety, like work conditions, like the athlete voice on the table. So what we're seeing right now and what that paragraph referred to is that you have all this activity on compensation, but behind the scenes, the NCAA through some of the most powerful lobbyists in America are trying to set the table for protective federal legislation that would allow them to roll back the nil market and then to prevent athletes from forcing the NCAA to a bargaining table in the future. Richard, there's a lot of stuff here that's appalling, but according to your research, when you talk about those lobbyists, it's $7 million between 2019 and 2023 that they're, they have an in-house office of government relations where they're getting some expensive lobbyists here to protect the injustice.

Where's that money coming from? Who's paying the lobbyists to protect the injustice? Yeah, Dan, that's such a good point. And one of the things that we've talked about is that all of the revenue that the NCAA gets comes from March Madness money. They don't get a penny of football money because of a 1984 Supreme Court decision, Board of Regents, which gave the Power Five football interest

their football freedom, financial freedom. So the NCAA relies exclusively on revenue from Division One, men's basketball, and the March Madness Tournament. Those athletes, the labors of those athletes, are being used and then taken by the NCAA to fund their Office of Government Relations. And we don't know what the budget is that doesn't show up as a line item on their budget on the form 990 tax returns that they have to file every year. And then they have outside experts, they have Brownstein Hyatt, which is the number one ranked lobbying firm in Washington DC. And they are damn good at what they do. You know, I'm not criticizing the lobbyists, you know, they're very, very good at what they do. And'm not criticizing the lobbyists. They're very, very good at what they do. And when I look at how they have orchestrated this congressional campaign

and navigated it through four years, and it's made much more progress than a lot of people will acknowledge it. And I think it's invisible to the public, but I admire the craft of these lobbyists. But I fundamentally disagree with what they're trying to accomplish for their clients. And I fundamentally disagree with the tactics that they have used because they've used some divisive utilitarian based tactics to try to divide the few who are the revenue producers who actually underwrite this entire business model and the many who are beneficiaries of the existing business model because that money from football,

men's basketball goes downstream to fund non-revenue and Olympic sports and women's sports. And we're not talking honestly about what's happening here. And that $7 million figure you mentioned Dan was really just for the NCAA. It doesn't include the Power 5. Rich, I have a million questions. I'm going to try to be as quickly, go to these as quickly as possible. Right now, I've spoken to a lot of student athletes.

They have no idea that this is happening. They are unaware, and it kind of feels like the ruling class has been planning this for quite a while, which is why Charlie Baker was brought in, to get one over on the people that don't have a union, that aren't really super aware of this, that don't have a unified voice. They wanna take this settlement,

which on the surface level, a settlement is great. It behooves everybody to take the money right now, but in turn, going to Congress and asking them to codify this actually puts the student athletes behind an eight ball. They don't even know exist. And that's not even the non-revenue sports, which I don't know how with antitrust laws, how title nine gets considered in

there. I know I've thrown a lot at you, but this is a very tangled web and it's happening kind of under the cover of darkness. Yeah, a few things that you addressed there. I want to want to tackle. Um, I think that, uh, the athletes don't know what's happening here. And that's one of the real problems. And that's why we started this DYK project. We have the DYK media website and can I plug my website? Am I allowed to do that? I'll do it for you.

You just did. dykmedia.io, dykmedia.io. If you want more research, it's Did You Know Media and his podcast is The Big Amateurism monologues, but I don't know which parts of this you wanted to tackle, but the settlement and the Title IX stuff, both of them are interesting. Yes, so the purpose of our project,

the reason I wanted to inject that is that what we're trying to do is take some of this complicated stuff and get it to athletes. Where they live, it's a challenge challenge because nobody's really been able to penetrate the athlete community to speak on these terms and what's really happening in Congress this settlement one caveat they've been selective leaks Strategic leaks. We don't know what the settlement looks like and I'm gonna keep my powder dry until we have an actual And I'm going to keep my powder dry until we have an actual document that the parties are prepared to present to the judges. And remember, there are three cases that are going to be settled here.

House, which has gotten so much attention, that's name, image and likeness. Hubbard, which is back Austin payments. And then Carter, which is all compensation limits. The same lawyers, Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman represent the athletes in all three of those cases. And you know, we don't really know what the what the form of the settlement is going to look like. So I think I don't want to criticize it. I mean, I want athletes to get more money.

I'm in favor of athletes getting something closer to what they're worth, rather than these incremental fixed sums that really don't do a lot to address the equity issues as I see them. Then you have this Title IX piece, and that's a complicated piece. And there's been a lot of pushback in the House litigation. The NCAA and Power Five used Title IX really as kind of a defense to the plaintiff's claims. And they were saying that in this formula that the athletes experts had put together where Power 5 football, men's basketball players, and then to a lesser extent women's basketball players, we're going to get the lion's share of the money. And this is for the damages component, not the revenue sharing, just the damages

component. But they said that money is going to the men. And there's a Title IX issue here, and you cannot create a remedy in this antitrust suit that creates a violation of Title IX. They've used the Title IX arguments in Congress. They've been very, very effective as a wedge issue. And I think it's a divisive issue. They haven't come up with any evidence to show that women are being harmed in this name, image and likeness market. They just want the presumption of harm to be their goal. And so we have this environment where Title IX is front and center. And it's our belief that there's plenty of money and plenty of equity to go around in college sports. I think that the issue with this settlement, you know, we have the damages payouts. I don't know what that's going to look like. It's going to have to account for Title IX, but more importantly,

the revenue sharing going forward, where the universities are making these payments. And in that context, Title IX undoubtedly applies because those universities are receiving federal funds and they're subject to Title IX. What those allocations look like, and it could vary from school to school, but I think that if I'm talking to the general council at a Power Five school, I'm going to advise them to err on the side of Title IX compliance, whether that results in equal shares of this money, you know, this money with a $20 million cap for revenue sharing. I don't know. But I do think that there's going to be Title IX litigation on the backside of that. One of the ironies of this whole global settlement is the NCAA and Power 5

want everybody to believe this is going to solve all of the litigation issues. Well, on the backside of this revenue sharing agreement, depending on how the schools, you know, allocate that money, there could be additional litigation, there's a case pending right now in federal district court in Oregon, where a group of female athletes have sued the university and really targeting the collective money saying the collective is actually acting as an agent of the university, which means Title IX would apply, and too much money is going to the men, we need more money going to the women. So those issues are percolating, and I think you're going to see on the backside of this

settlement, if it goes through, and this revenue sharing goes through, you're going to see some Title IX pushback. This would give the ruling class all the benefits of capitalism while capping the labor force to what they could make. I've been really concerned about this because it's it's got all the warning signs. It's happening so quickly even though this has been a five-year plan it's operated in the shadows. I've been dismissed by a lot of people who are pretty well informed that say try to have Congress pass something in an election year right now. There's no way this happens especially since the labor

force here is going to eventually be taken for a ride, even though it initially be celebrated as look, here's all this money, who doesn't want money that you weren't expecting? Do you think this actually gets passed in Congress? Yeah, I mean, that's, that's the big question. And I got two responses to that. I agree with your analysis. I really think you're framing a well. It's not just the likelihood of Congress acting, you have to look at the consequence if they do. So even if there's a small likelihood that they act, what they might

do with these federal protections and immunities would forever impair athletes rights and treat many college athletes as second class citizens, they've been will be denied the basic freedoms that most Americans enjoy and take for granted. So I think that you also have to look, and I paid very, very close attention to these hearings. I've studied the congressional campaign and it has a rhythm.

And over the course of this debate, particularly on this employee issue, you see movement away from sort of an athlete-ric way of thinking about this more towards protecting the institutional interests through an employee provision. And that's a dangerous dynamic. So I think, you know, you have to look at people say it was after the elections and you know, don't nothing's going to happen. I have a different view. They have worked this particular Congress very carefully and they have positioned some important decision makers and notably some moderate Democrat women who have been very tuned into the Title IX issues that the NCAA are using to kind of shape federal legislation.

And you're going to have a lot of turnover in Congress after the elections. One of the key committees is the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That committee is going to have enormous turnover. And so the NCBLA and Power 5, I don't think their lobbyists want to have to re-educate a whole new class of congressmen and women. I think that you have this settlement that's moving along on a pace where it could be approved by August, maybe September, depending on how much pushback it gets, then you have the election. And then you have this period between the election and January when the new Congress is seated, where I think you could see the NCAA Power Five come in, I mean, and just really put the pressure on Congress to get something with these legislators that they have been working for several years now

richard my concern but you have a lot of expertise here and it's quite the thicket but just your uh... best assumption here or best guess based on the thoroughness of how it is you've attacked this subject for a long time the leaks on the settlement field to me the way that Don King used to put a suitcase of cash in front of Muhammad Ali and say, here's a million dollars, sign your life away. And he would sign because he didn't realize what the value of his future earnings are.

Yes or no, they should accept the settlement. Athletes should be okay with the settlement. Yes or no? I can't give you a yes or no because I haven't seen the settlement. They need more money, but I don't know what the settlement looks like. And I should also point out,

there's an important thing hanging out there right now. And there's a lawsuit in Colorado that is almost identical to Carter. The Colorado case is called Fontano versus NCAA. It's challenging all NCAA compensation limits. The NCAA and the plaintiffs in the Berman-Kessler cases want to get Fontano transferred to California so it can be brought within the settlement. There's some interesting fighting going on just recently, just within the last 48

hours, the athletes in Fontano filed a brief because there's going to be a hearing very soon on whether that case is going to be transferred. In that brief, they attacked the settlement and raised four or five really good points. Again, with the caveat that we haven't seen that the agreement, that I think are going to be some interesting points to discuss. You know there's going to be pushback to the settlement. There's no question about that. Should the athletes get more money? Absolutely. I just can't opine on saying yes to this settlement or no to this settlement unless I see the terms. But what you should be saying is these

b****** are trying to do it again. They're trying to cheat the whole thing again. That's what they're trying to do. Let's smoke them out. Richard, smoke them out. Their settlement is fraudulent no matter what it is because they're trying to get over on the kids. Well, yeah, I mean, again, I'm reluctant to put it in those terms. Richard, yes is the answer. It's a little bit more nuanced. Yours is more nuanced. Yours is more nuanced. Hey Dan, let me correct the record. Yes. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, thank you, I appreciate it. You bullied the expert. The Big Amateurism Monologues is the podcast. And if you want more information on his research, dykmedia.io. Richard, thank you for the expertise, sir. Yes, it's great to see you guys.

Thank you so much for having me. Thank you, sir. Keep up the good work. I know it's a very complicated thing to explain. Yes, it is good work. It is good work. He's doing good work on behalf of the kids. I've spoken to 20 student athletes.

They have no idea this thing is going to happen. No idea. Richard is out here advocating for them. These lobbyists, they're trying to steal all future monies. Since the dawn of mankind, we've cooked our food over an open flame and debated the best way to grill. One thing not up for debate, grilling and beer always go together. And not just any beer will do.

Whether you barbecue Texas style or celebrate Wednesday with burgers and dogs, you need a beer that tastes great and is less filling. So you have more room for food. You need Miller Lite. As you guys may or may not know, I'm a pretty decent cook especially behind the barbecue. So when I start the fire for my smoker on a hot day, really the only thing that I have to worry about is what wood I'm gonna use. The easiest decision for me is what I'll be drinking. That's a nice ice cold can of Mille-Lite. Oh and by the way here's a

pro tip, it really goes well with brisket. Mille-Lite keeps it simple, undebatable quality and tastes as great as your barbecue. A perfect companion for grill masters across America. With the Miller Lite in hand, grilling doesn't just taste great, it tastes like Miller time. To get Miller Lite delivered right at your door, visit MillerLite.com slash Dan. Or you can find it pretty much anywhere that sells beer. Celebrate responsibly. Miller Brewing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

96 calories per 12 ounces.