The Kevin Sheehan Show - A Little Dan; A Lot Of Ted

Episode Date: July 8, 2022

Kevin today on the latest Snyder/House Investigation news to start. Then it was the Wizards' press conference today with Bradley Beal and Ted Leonsis. Lastly, Kevin had a conversation with Bruce Feldman/The Athletic about college football's changing landscape.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You don't want it. You don't need it. But you're going to get it anyway. The Kevin Cheon Show. Here's Kevin. We've got one guest on the show today. Bruce Feldman is going to join us. Bruce is one of my favorite conversations.

We've had him on the radio show many times. We've had him on the podcast. He covers college football for the athletic. He is part of the Fox College Football Broadcast team. Bruce is going to jump on with us, and we are going to talk about the current state of college sports after USC and UCLA jumped from the PAC 12 to the Big 10 last week. Bruce is always one of the sharpest and one of the best people to talk to about this stuff.

So Bruce will be coming up. I want to get to a couple of things before we get to Bruce, but before I do, just a reminder if you haven't rated or reviewed us, especially on Apple. If you could do that, it's a huge help. anywhere else you're listening to this podcast that allows you to rate the show and review us. It's always helpful. So two things to get to before we have a conversation with Bruce Feldman.

The first is this. The news that came out yesterday evening from, I think the Post, I think it was Mark and Liz and probably Nikki, who wrote this story, that Dan Snyder's lawyer responded to the House Oversight Committee, with a letter saying that Dan would make himself available by Zoom on July 28th or 29th voluntarily to answer questions from the House Oversight and Reform Committee if there, meaning Dan's and Dan's lawyers, due process concerns can be resolved. Dan would do this Zoom call on the 28th and 29th if it were to happen from Israel where he and his family are marking the one-year anniversary of his mother's passing by spending time in Israel and observing her passing from a year ago religiously. Now, will this happen?

Well, they don't spell out in the letter what the due process concerns are. that need to be resolved. This reeks very much of, you know, a PR move to say, hey, we're trying to be accommodating. We've given you two dates. Just resolve these, you know, concerns that we don't really spell out, and we don't need to spell out publicly. And we're good to go.

You know, it just to me feels like the continuation of the delay game, that this is four corners until November, when the midterms happen, and he has not been served as subpoena. This was made clear in the post story. His attorney will not accept a subpoena. Now, if he were to testify, it would be under oath. It would be by Zoom. It would be from Israel.

And it would be only if the House Oversight and Reform Committee meet his due process concerns, whatever they are. I asked Neil and Rockville this morning on the radio show, why doesn't the House Oversight and Reform Committee just call his bluff and give him a list of all of the questions that they're going to ask? And then say, here they are, here are all the questions, either appear or, you know, chicken out, essentially. Call his bluff and see if they provide to him every single question that they are planning on asking if he'll actually accept. but anyway, feels like what everything else has felt like and that is going to be hard to serve him a subpoena.

I know Tommy felt pretty confident that they'd be able to do that on his yacht over in France. They haven't done it yet. They haven't been able to serve his lawyer the subpoena. She won't accept it. He's got to be able to say to her, you know, he's got to clear her to accept it. But in what I would sort of construe

as a bit of a PR move, and there aren't many PR moves that he's got left. But in an attempt to act as if they're being accommodating, they put this letter out in the Post and others reported on it. So the second thing that I wanted to get to is that just moments ago, Ted Leonis, West Unsell Jr., Tommy Shepard, and Bradley Beale held a press conference to announce officially the Brad Beal $251 million five-year supermax contract extension. And I, before recording this portion of the podcast, I watched the entire 48-minute press conference.

Let me begin with this. Brad was super impressive. There's just something about his ability to communicate and to communicate intelligently and with emotion, you know and you kind of sense that it's genuine, he's a hard guy not to think favorably of as a person. It's, you know, on the heels of earlier this week, Terry McClurend's press conference, there are a lot of similarities between Terry McClurend and Bradley Beale.

They are both excellent players. They are both excellent young men. But there's one thing missing with both of them, and that is playing for a winner. You know, if either one of them can figure out how to become part of a winner, a championship contending winner, then they will be elevated to all-time levels. But I listen to Bradley, and I'm not going to play any of the Bradley here, because I'm going to play two sound bites from Ted Leonis that I want to react to. But it's available on YouTube.

And I think that you would more likely than not agree with me. Bradley Beale is just one of those people that strikes you when they speak as somebody who, you know, has it together a little bit. You know, he's bright, he's thoughtful, he's empathetic. he talked a lot about winning. He understands there's a self-awareness. You heard it in his press conference. There is a self-awareness of what the expectations are and that just playing at a high level

and being one of the league's top two or three scores for the next five years isn't good enough. Stats aren't going to do it. He talked about that. It's about winning, and he believes, and I'll take him at his word, he believes that they can build a winner. And he said, I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that we couldn't build a contending team here.

It's going to take a lot. It's going to take a lot of good fortune for that to happen. But I was, like I was with Terry McLaren the other day, really impressed with the way he handled a lot of things. He got emotional at one point about the contract. He also spoke about how, you know, in the world we're living in right now, you know, with especially the last couple of days when you go back to Highland Park. And he talked about there were 22 shootings just in his hometown of St. Louis over a four-year period. I'm sorry, four-day period last weekend over the holiday weekend.

But he's hard not to root for, even though I really don't believe he's good enough to be the number one player on a championship contending team. He's only 29. I guess I could change my mind in the next year or two, but I think I would feel strongly if he were that kind of player by now. I think what he is, he's an excellent player. He's somewhere between 15 and 20, and he would be a phenomenal number two on a contending team and the best kind of number three on an actual champion team,

you know, a championship team. But he's one of the few players that's played for that organization that has wanted to stay here. I mean, he is 29. He got drafted at 19, and he's been here for all of it, and he wants to stay here, and he is going to stay here for the next five years. So what I wanted to do, though, is I wanted to play two sound bites from Ted Leonis. And I'm going to do that right after these words from a few of our sponsors. So I'm going to play two sound bites from Ted Leonces coming up here in a moment. But before I get to that, I did want to mention that Joe Jacoby is one of the semi-finalists for the senior entry into the Hall of Fame for 2023.

He should be in already. I think we all feel that way. I hope Jake gets in this way. I think eventually he will. I don't know if it'll be this year. I think Ken Anderson of the Hall of Fame NFL snubs on the list of snubs. Ken Anderson would be my number one. Great quarterback for the Bengals in the 70s and the 80s.

Those Bengals teams were really high-octane offensively. Ken Anderson was an excellent quarterback. Unfortunately, he was in what was called back then, the AFC Central Division, and it included the Pittsburgh Steelers for much of his career during their dynastic run during the 70s. But Ken Anderson, I do think at some point will be in the Hall of Fame via that senior route. And I think Jake will too. The other list that got announced yesterday were the semi-finalists for the coach contributor category. And both Mike Shanahan and Marty Schottenheimer are on that list. Look, I've said this many times. I think both of them are Hall of Famers.

I think Mike's contribution beyond being a coach that won two Super Bowls, but his contribution as an offensive innovator, I think the combination of everything that he was as coach, innovator, pioneer, etc. I think he deserves Hall of Fame recognition. But of the two, Marty Schottenheimer deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Marty's the number one snubbed head coach of all time in terms of the Hall of Fame. Marty's eighth all time and wins. Only Shula, Hallis, Belichick, Landry, Andy Reed, Curly Lambo, and Paul Brown have more wins. He's eighth all time, and he's only one of eight coaches with 200 or more wins all time. Marty's not in the Hall of Fame because of his postseason record, period. Five and 13 in the postseason. In 21 years, Marty had two losing seasons, and one of those two losing seasons was seven and nine.

That was his final year in Kansas City in 1998. He was four and 12 in 2003. Every other season, all 19 seasons other than those two, were 500 or better. Marty was in the playoffs 13 times in his 21 years as a head coach. And when he wasn't in the playoffs, he was in contention until almost the final week of the season in most of the other seasons. Look, he got conservative in playoff games, coached too conservatively. But there was so much bad luck, the drive, the fumble in Cleveland.

He had field goal kickers shank short field goals to lose. playoff games. He had a guy intercept a pass against the Patriots when he was 14 and 2 in San Diego and on the return fumbled it back to the Patriots and Brady went down and beat him on that same drive. Just some horrible luck in the postseason. But yeah, Marty more so than Mike and I'm a big fan of Mike, as most of you know. Marty should get in as a Hall of Famer at point. He deserves that. I think Mike does too, but I think of the two, Marty would be the one to go first. So I want to get to this press conference with Ted Liancis and Bradley Beale and Wes Unsell Jr. and Tommy Shepard. I want to focus on two answers that Ted gave during this press

conference. Before I do that, I want to preface what I'm going to say about Ted's answers with this. Ted's in a tough spot, like many NBA owners are. They're in a really tough spot. It is the hardest league to win big in. Each year, there are legitimately like two to three teams that can win the title. That's it. It's not like football. It's not like hockey.

It's not like baseball. We're just getting to the dance and anything can happen. No, in the NBA, legitimately each year, there's like two to three teams max. that can actually win the title. In two decades now, you have not had a title winner without an obvious top five-ish kind of superstar on your team. So, you know, by definition there, if you don't have a top five player,

meaning the five best players, let's just say they're all on different teams, no more than five teams can win a title going into a season. The Pistons in 2004 were the last team. 2004, 18 years ago, to win a title without an obvious top five player on its roster. So unless you have a superstar at that kind of level, you just don't have a chance to win a championship in the NBA. You just don't. So the same criticism that you can punch the wizards in the face for is the same criticism that you can punch most NBA teams in the face for.

You know, they just haven't struck or hit on a top five player. In the last 11 years, 10 of the titles have been won by LeBron James, who's got four, Steph Curry, who's got four, and Kauai Leonard, who's got two. Yonis has the other one. I mean, four players, four superstars have won the last 11 titles. three of those superstars have won 10 of the last 11. So if you didn't have LeBron James, Steph Curry, or Kauai Leonard on your team in 10 out of the last 11 years,

or Janus for the other one, you didn't win the championship. So Ted was asked several questions during this press conference, and per usual, long-winded answers, not exactly awe-inspiring. but the truth is he doesn't have any real answers because there aren't really any legitimate answers to the key question which is how are you going to legitimately contend for a title? There just isn't an answer.

You're not going to say we can't. We just don't have a top five superstar so we actually can't legitimately contend for an NBA title. You're not going to answer the question that way. So you get from Ted long-winded, you know, not exactly on-spiring answers. So there are two answers from this press conference that I wanted you to hear. Before I play the first question and answer, I wanted to mention that sort of in a preventative way, Ted early on before they went to the Q&A said about Bradley Beale's no trade clause.

He's the only player in the NBA with a no trade clause. he said Brad doesn't want to be traded and we don't want to trade him. Okay. Well, that's certainly how you both feel now. You know, the five-year, $251 million deal with still fresh ink on the contract. But what if you feel differently in two or three years? You know, it's just not a great idea, really, to give a player a no-trade clause. And you certainly don't have to give Bradley Beale a no-trade clause. So, in a kind of preventative way, or at least in his own mind, in a preventative way. He just said he doesn't want to be traded and we don't want to trade him. But that did not stop Ava Wallace from the Washington Post from asking this question, and this is the first question and answer I want you to hear with Leonsis. I wanted to ask you since you mentioned how you guys don't want to trade Brad. Brad doesn't want to be traded and obviously you've spoken of the deep loyalty over many years.

I'm wondering, and I'm asking because it is such a rarity to have that formally included in a contract. Why did you want to take that extra step and include that in Bradfield? You have to trust me that I've come back from a lot of league meetings. I'm back on my way out to Vegas. And several fellow NBA owners have said, I wish we had a relationship like you have with your players. a lot of movement, a lot of non-partnership that you see around the league, and for there to be a public statement that essentially says, we have a player wants to be here and serve out his contract,

as do we. That allows your general manager to plan and to be able to have the confidence that your best player, your bedrock player, is a part of the process. And so that was something that we did. And when the player brings that to you, we're not naive, right? I mean, I've seen, I read the press on occasion and I see what people are thinking. I didn't take it as a point of leverage. I took it more as a point of partnership. And all we can do is show you. that that's what we're in this together. And so, you know, this was another way for us to show Brad our commitment to him. And, you know, with that commitment, it's helped us now to take the next step and rebuild

and get the team to where it should be very, very competitive, playoff caliber, keep adding young talent, be able to bring in players like Tommy's done during the offseason and via trades and free agent signings and be in it for the long term with us. So I don't know. You know, when he says you've got to trust me, you know, I was out with the other owners and other owners were coming up to me and saying,

I wish we had relationships with our players that you have with yours. It's just nauseating. Like, who cares about that? like I would rather they have shitty relationships with their players, but not be 66 games under 500 over the last four years. It's just, again, he's in a tough spot, but he just drones on and on and talks about things that just really might be significant to him personally,

but for a fan base that's been starving for a, winner since 1979, a fan base that I've been a part of, and I love this team and have loved this team for my entire life. And we're talking about literally, you know, 30, you know, 43 years, 43 years since they, this, this franchise went beyond the second round of the postseason. And does he really think we're going to care that other owners came up and said to him, man, I really wish, I really wish we had the relationships with our players that you have with yours. You know, on the trade thing, I mean, he talked about, you know, it's a way for us to show our

commitment to Bradley. I think five years, $251 million is a pretty significant way to show your commitment. Look, the bottom line is you lose flexibility. You don't have a contingency plan that is as strong if it doesn't work out. What if three years from now, you're another 15 or 20 games? I'm being hopeful here. Let's just say you're 500 over the next couple of years, and it's clear that Bradley Beale isn't going to be the number one player to lead you.

But there's a team out there that could use Bradley Beale to make a run for a title. you know, and you could get a hell of a lot back for him at 32 years old. Well, you're limited. He's got to say yes. He's got a no trade clause. You can only trade him to the team that he agrees to. You've got to be careful, organizationally, of putting yourself into that position. Look, I know how they feel about each other now, you know?

And as a practical matter, if you get to the point where you want to trade them, he probably at that point will want to be traded. But you've, you know, you've hamstrung yourself a little bit there with this no trade clause. So the second answer I want you to hear is an answer to a question that David Aldridge asked. Aldridge asked a couple of questions, and this was the second of his questions where he, you know, talks in terms of, you know, kind of building a championship roster and how those conversations went with Bradley B. you'll hear the question and then you'll hear Ted's rather lengthy answer. Like it's a few minutes of an answer. But I think it's worth, I guess it's worth listening to the whole thing.

Here it is. You know obviously having been around the league for a long time now, whether it's a homegrown team like Golden State or Memphis, or it's a team that goes all in a super team like Brooklyn, or it's a hybrid of those two that, you know, eventually it comes down to having to go into luxury tax, having to do all of that to keep a championship team together. And I just wonder what those discussions were like between you and Brad in terms of how you told him, hey, we're going to do whatever it takes.

Well, David, we have a pretty good hockey team. We won a championship. We've kept the team together. We've had MVP players. spend as much money as we can. We have the best training facility. We have great coaching, great staff, great infrastructure. We did the same with our WNBA team. We won a championship there. We have the winning is coaching GM and history there. We treat the players first class. We have MVP players who are committed to us and want to

stay there. We've entered into new businesses and fields, be it the short-lived arena football league, but again, we won a championship there and we were the standout organization. East sports has become a very, very important new category and segment. We have the best esports team in the world in Team Liquid. You see behind me one of trophies. We're back-to-back, NBA 2K champs. We've built a great training facility for the Wizards. We've made incredible investments in our health and training group. We've made great investments in the infrastructure that's needed to be successful.

And when I look, it's all about the Wizards. When I bought the Wizards about a little more than a decade ago, we blew the team up. We traded a lot of our players. We didn't resign some of the players, and we rebuilt through the draft. We had three good drafts with John Wall and Otto Porter and Brad. And now we have a lot of new young players that we've drafted, Rui and Todd and Denny and Corey, now Johnny Davis. So we essentially have one, two, three, three.

three, four, five players that Tommy's drafted that are rotation players that are going to earn time in Summer League with Johnny, but Corey and Denny and Rui are really good NBA players and they've been drafted. We know that the NBA is about stars. And so, you know, keeping your stars is like signing a great free agent. And, you know, we'd love to see how Brad, plays with Borsenghis. These are two very, very skilled, very unique players. We think that'll be a good tandem. And then as Brad mentioned, having Kuzma Gafford,

who now can be, you know, very, very focused on rebounding in defense. And then bringing in a group of real professionals, real NBA grade players like Barton and Monte and Dilan. It's just a way to rebuild the team while you're participating in showing everyone that you want to win. And I don't buy into the, you either have to win a championship or blow the team, team up and rebuild it. I think that you can improve by having young players take the next step up. I think you can improve by having your players on the floor. We shouldn't forget that Brad missed half the season last year.

And it's very difficult to perform at high levels when you don't have your star players, highest paid players, you know, on the floor. And so we're going to do everything we can to get that mix right. And we're a free agent away. We will always be looking at how can we improve the team. And Tommy has been given the green light, and I've said no to nothing. And I want to win.

The Wizards are where all of our focus as an organization has to be. We're in a big market. We're one of the bigger sports organizations around. We're one of the few organizations, as you know, that owns our building, owns multiple teams, owns a part of our network. We are accretive, if you will. We want to continue to grow. We want to continue to improve. And so by taking your bedrock player and signing him in a great play in a great building, train in a great training facility being in front of a great fan base. We're at over 90% renewals already for our season

ticket holders. You think next year will be another very, very good year. We weathered better than most teams, the pandemic, which basically pandemic downturn in the economy. It's a thousand day kind of experience. We weathered that really, really well, which shows the durability. of the excellence of our fan base and our organization and our business. So, you know, while we're muted in our enthusiasm today, basically because of the societal issues that we're all facing, we're very, very positive that we can continue to improve and be a have team. And that's how I kind of look at the league.

Are you a have team? And one thing, David, that I'd like you, because you're so experienced here to understand, is you just heard Brad talk about his faith, his family, his connectivity with the community, being at peace. Those are things that you don't hear for many NBA star players, is it? And to me, that's the biggest selling tool that we have. If you want to be happy, fulfilled, trust the organization, feel that you're a part of something, that there's a higher calling together, this is a great place to do it, most powerful city in the world. And so I'm always upbeat when you say prove to us that you can win and you want to win. You can see it everywhere in our organization.

And we know that we haven't won a championship and haven't really put a team out that can win 50 games yet. But let's try to do it this year. And let's continuously improve year after year. So where to begin here? It was a long answer. I get it. And if you didn't endure it, if you didn't hold up for the whole thing and you fast forward, let me help you with a recap. He went to his hockey team, his WNBA title, and his NBA two K team title, his

e-sports team title. Is he serious? Did he really tell us as he was pretty much kind of reading his resume as a sports owner? Did he really give us in a basketball press conference about his NBA team, the fact that, you know, kind of we know what we're doing, we've got an NBA 2K team champion? Oh my God. He focused, look, again, there aren't really any good answers. The answer is really hard to build a championship team in this league. We're doing our best, and we're hoping that what we're building here will result in a lot more wins and maybe even a

contender, but he went to, you know, what he does often, which is to talk about what a great organization he's built, infrastructure, you know, and we're the most successful organization in this town. We own our own building. We've built something that's been accretive. He used the word accretive, like accretion, like, you know, ice build up. Like it's It's a buildup. They've been building up this thing. It's accretive. It's going, you know, incrementally, step by step, positively building.

But that's not what the answer is with the NBA team. That hasn't happened with the NBA team. It's been fits and starts, and none of them, none of those starts have actually resulted in anything significant. You know, he seemed very proud that they weathered the pandemic as an organization. Okay, that's great. Congratulations on weathering the pandemic from an organizational standpoint, from not losing as much money as maybe other franchises did. But your basketball team during the pandemic went 25 and 47,

34 and 38, and 35 and 47. I don't know. I understand, you know, he wants and he. does this a lot. He wants to continue to let everybody know that he is really the most successful owner in town. And I'm not going to debate him on that.

He's clearly a better owner than Snyder, obviously. I mean, it's kind of beneficial for any owner to be in a town where Snyder is in town. You look so great comparatively. The learners, you know, they did win a World Series, and they had a winning organization and had a great eight-year run. But, you know, Ted, you know, has,

Ted's got a real understanding of consumer businesses. I mean, that's what AOL was at the end of the day. It's a technology business, but it was a technology provided to consumers and had to figure out a way to make the user experience, the consumer experience, great. And I think he really does get that. I think he is very good at that.

And unfortunately, though, in the NBA, you know, you can't control the number one desire, which is a winner. You know, he got to this point at the end where he said, we're a have, you know, implying that we're a have, not a have not. And he said, Brad, you know, he mentioned that Bradley Beale had talked about faith, peace, and family. And he said to David Aldridge, he said, David, we have a selling tool here. we're a higher calling place. A higher calling place.

Like it's a congregation. Like he is, you know, the monseigneur of some parish. I mean, maybe next year, if they're 500 or sub 500, they'll pass the hat around at games. I don't know. I just, I get it. I know there aren't any answers and I know I'm critical of him a lot. And I think it's part, in part,

because there's this long-winded approach to, you know, propping himself up and what he's built. And I'm not saying that he hasn't built something that's impressive. You know, their business, I'm sure, is very impressive, monumental. He's gotten into a lot of things. He's been a successful entrepreneur during his life. Just, and I, and the answers are hard when it comes to the NBA team. But anyway, I don't know. I just thought you would be interested in hearing some of TED from today's press conference.

All right, that's it on that. Bruce Feldman next right after these words from a few of our sponsors. Eight weeks from today, the debut of the smell test for 2022, 2023. Yeah, we're just eight weeks away from the Friday that will lead you into Labor Day weekend, the Friday that will proceed the first full Saturday of college football season. All the week one point spreads are up at MyBooky. Go to MyBooky.com, mybooky.ag. Use my promo code.

Kevin D.C., they'll double your first deposit all the way up to $1,000. Maryland opens up with Buffalo. There are 21.5 point favorite against Buffalo, their game on Saturday, September 3rd. Washington's still a four-point favorite over Jacksonville. Actually, that's up a half point, I think, from the last time I checked it. I think they were three and a half a few weeks ago. Washington now a four-point favorite over Jacksonville. But eight weeks from today, the debut of the smell test for 2022, 2022, 23,

I guarantee I'll have a handful of week one college games. I hate week one in the NFL and college football. I think it is so hard. But anyway, go to my bookie and sign up using my promo code, Kevin D.C. All right, let's bring on to the podcast. One of my favorite guests over the years, he really is. Bruce Feldman has been a fabulous writer when it comes to college football. He's writing and has been writing for the last three years for the athletic.

Another reason, by the way, to subscribe to the athletic. Bruce has been a big part of Fox's coverage of college football on. Saturday afternoons. And he joins us right now. It's been a while since we've talked, so I'm so glad I'm having this opportunity to kind of pick your brain on some of the stuff that's happened here over the last couple of weeks. Before Bruce, we get to, you know, what's next in the Big Ten? What's next in the SEC, et cetera? I think that not enough, at least from my perspective, I could be wrong, I don't think enough people have contemplated kind of the bigger picture question when it comes to all of this, which is, is it good for the consumer?

Is it good for fans? You know, all of this change in potentially having two super leagues that may break apart from the NCAA. You know, we're all wrapped up into, all right, what does the Big Ten do? What does the SEC do next? What is the Big 12? What happens to the ACC, et cetera? And I sometimes wonder whether or not we discuss enough, whether.

or not, all of this is actually good for those that consume the sport. What do you think? That's a great question. I feel like it doesn't get addressed or focused on enough. Like on our podcast, last week we did an emergency podcast episode of the Audible, and we got to talking about, you know, because sometimes when the people who cover this, you know, as I do, like you're too close to it. And you just like, it's, you know, that expression. seeing the forest through the trees. And because you're all, you know, you kind of papped out of the rooting interest part of it. You're more into just kind of like, okay, what's next?

How are they going to play it? And I definitely think there are, if you are an older fan, and I want to say older, I mean probably over 35 or 40, where you remember things a certain way, there's going to be a lot of stuff that you will miss. And I think if you're just kind of one of these people who's going to roll with the changes because we've had so much in college sports in the last 10 years, you'll adapt unless, of course, your school gets, like, kind of relegated without, you know, like not in the traditional European soccer model,

but relegated to the margins even further than they already are. And that's going to be tough because, you know, college football is different than the NFL. And I think for a lot of people, and I don't want to say they say it cynically, but a lot of the people who are in the sport or work in the sport in the media kind of view it as well it's going to become a more professionalized model for the deal of it because like their attachment is different and I think that's a little bittersweet to be honest and you know like I'll still love the sport and I'll still love the games but I don't I don't view it the same way as the fan of Oregon State does or the fan

of, you know, you pick the school that's kind of going to get marginalized because there's a bunch of them. I mean, how about Duke basketball, just as an example, if they get left out of all these big leagues and end up in just a basketball league only, you know, something like that? Yeah, I think that's a, I don't want to say to dismiss it, but I think that's like almost a different conversation because we see Gonzaga basketball being, you know, elevating to powerhouse status. And I feel like it's football that where you can get squeezed. Now, look, money is money. And if you don't have the revenue coming in from football, sometimes those other sports are really going to feel it.

I find it hard to believe that, like, do basketball will be marginalized in this because there's so many other leagues that are not, you know, fueled by football the same way where their basketball programs are flourishing. So you might. right. I don't know, but I just feel like you look at some of those examples of the basketball only or basketball dominated league, and I feel like you can still flourish without being a football big brand in the SEC or the big 10. Yeah, maybe Duke's the wrong example, and maybe

somebody like Wake Forest is a better example, but I think one of the things I've thought about, and I want to further the answer that you gave to my first question, but it's all kind of connected. We know football's driving it, but, you know, the prize jewel of college sports in terms of the overall aggregate value of a television deal is March Madness and the NCAA tournament. And if you end up with 40 schools in two leagues that eventually break off from the NCAA, I just wonder what that means for the NCAA tournament's future. Yeah, it's a valid question because that is, you know, when you and I grew up, I felt like college basketball felt like with every bit as much of a draw as college football. And, you know, when conference realignment, the last big wave of it about 10 or 10 years ago showed everybody or reminded people is football drives all the money through TV. and so you see whether it was like, you know, some of these basketball scandals that happened,

some of my, you know, friends in the college basketball media talk about how, like, college basketball is doomed, it'll never be the same, and then March Madness, I think, is still lands, and it's still as big a spectacle and a joy as it was previous to this. But I do think the sport, the way that TV people have showcased, it and the way it is covered is diminished because it's been pushed off or squeezed out more by the other sports, especially football. And so that calendar gets squeezed. And I think that's the kind of thing that I think ultimately has a side effect into the

money you're talking about. But at the end of the day, if it's going to draw eyeballs and people still love the spectacle, people are going to still pay a lot of money to put it on TV and to showcase it as best they can. It's just, you know, we consume it differently than, you know, it wasn't that long ago. I mean, it was, but it's like where you had, you mainly get to watch one game of the tournament, you know, the first couple of days, and it was on, you know, back when I was growing up, it was on taped away, you know, kind of thing. Now we get everything, right?

So it's just, it's still got a lot of value. I just don't know if it'll, you know, the other things are going to dwarf it, the Big Ten deal is going to dwarf it. The SEC deal with ESPN is going to dwarf it. And, you know, so I think that's the perspective. I think we're looking at it through. Well, I think you nailed it at the beginning, too, and that is college basketball has really become a one-month sport.

You know, it's become this pop culture phenomenon, which is March Madness and brackets and filling out brackets. And, you know, the regular season of college basketball used to be a huge deal. And it wasn't that long ago, but really, I think over the last decade anyway, it's become a one-month sport. And football, the NFL and college football have just, you know, they've become basically year-round deals. Now, back to what I asked you at the beginning, because you said it. It's like sometimes I think not everybody is seeing the forest, you know, through the trees. And I wonder whether or not in this relentless chase for every single media dollar that is,

out there if whatever they end up with is ultimately going to turn on or turn off customers and whether or not the passion level for the sport, which you could, you know, argue is the highest of any sport, whether or not it will be the same. I don't think Kevin, they look through it through that prism. And to be honest, it's like depends how you kind of come up. Like, for instance, for me, for a long time in my career now, at least for my writing, has been behind a paywall. And so I looked at the people who read me or subscribed to the places I write as my customers. And so, you know, for a lot of stories, I will be in the comments to respond to what people say

and just to feel like, you know, they are valued. And I think what you're talking about is a valid concern because I do think that the people who are seeing big dollar signs and bigger dollar signs take that audience for granted, right? I think, I'm not saying they all of you, but I feel like that's a big thing. It's like,

you know what? What else are they going to watch? What else are they going to do with their time? And I think that it's very dismissive because I think people look at it as habits. But what I don't know if they kind of, and I'm sure some of them kind of think about it, but I don't know where they go with it is, you know, as somebody who has young kids, like, and I know what they're, you know, their viewing habits are different

because they're coming up differently, right? And so I think people spend more time on their phone, people spend more time looking at different things than they did, you know, at least in, you know, my kid is a huge football fan, but I feel like he's not, like, that's how most of my friends grew up, and I'm sure that's how most of your friends grew up. Like major sports were a big part of their socialization and their lives. And while my kid might be like that, I'm not sure how many of his friends are like that.

And so you take that as people getting older and they have all these different options, and you're not catering to them. You are going to lose that potential audience or you're going to lose a big chunk of it, especially if the ones who want to be a part of it feel like you've turned your back on them. And I think that should be a real concern. Yeah. And I also know that there are people listening to this that are going, you know what, at the end of the day in five years,

if it's Penn State Southern Cal on a Saturday night at 8 o'clock, who cares if they're in the same league or not in the same league, I'm going to watch it. You know, and it's going to be a white out game and happy Vassie. and it's going to be a scene and it's going to be the whole thing, even if it turns into a weird conference game. And like we've gotten used to a lot of things as sports fans, we'll get used to that one as well. All right.

So I want, here's something that I haven't discussed at all. And I saw that you wrote about this in the athletic. And I think people will be surprised at this. I think most people understand that USC is flush with money. And, you know, they're just going for more, but they're a very healthy athletic department. But tell everybody why UCLA had to make this leap to the Big Ten. UCLA, so Martin Jarman, you know, like he has, he was the AD at Boston College before he was at UCLA, and he came up through, he was a Gene Smith at the AD of Ohio State.

A lot of your listeners know, he learned under him and it was at Michigan State. And when he got to UCLA the previous two years, they were in sizable deficit in terms of what was good. Obviously, L.A. it's a big market. It's not cheap to be there, and they were not flourishing at all. Then the pandemic happened, and they had a huge deficit. So for those three years, they were over nine, I'm trying to do this, nine, figure deficit, which is a huge number. And so when he started to talk to the power brokers of the school regions and different

people who really need their blessing, they're not athletic people, to make such a big move and basically turn your back on the rest of the PAC 12, which they've had generations of connections to and feel like they're like-minded and how they view a lot of stuff. but because they were in so much of a financial hole you know martin told me he felt like they were very receptive hey we got to make a drastic move they didn't want to have to potentially cut sports which they might have and remember like yeah usually football

may not have been great for a while yeah I agree john wooden basketball is iconic but then there's these other sports where UCLA has produced some amazing Olympians and talent so they take their pride in that you know people can snicker about the bill wall and conference of champion stuff. But I think the notion that they may have to cut some sports really made a lot of folks

uncomfortable. The deficit was so big that they were like, you know what, these are tough decisions, but they're really not tough because we cannot be left behind when the music stops playing. If we're at the Pac-12, and I think whether it's USC or certainly UCLA, when you're looking at schools with way smaller brands in other leagues, whether it's Purdue or Vanderbilt or, you know, you name it, and they're going to make twice, maybe even well more than twice, what you're making because of their TV deals,

they couldn't afford not to make the move. It's so, when I read what you wrote about UCLA, for me, it really struck home because that's why, Maryland jumped to the Big Ten eight years ago. They had over, you know, built. They had taken on a ton of debt in the wake of Ralph Regian having a big run in football and them selling a lot of tickets at Bird Stadium. And all of a sudden, they weren't doing well.

And they were in a huge financial crunch. And they took the money. You know, they took the Big Ten's money. Now, the Big Ten was interested because it's such a big market. And it's two markets really combined in D.C. and Baltimore that, you know, you're accessing with the Big Ten network and everything else. But the other part of that, too, Bruce, is that, I don't know, I forget where you come in on this. And now it's kind of a moot point anyway with NIL.

But forever, I would debate with people about, well, they've got to get paid. You've got to pay these players. And my answer was not many athletic departments, if you're going to keep all of those sports, make money. A lot of them, and most of them lose money. and if they make money, it's peanuts. I mean, we're only talking about the Alabama's and the Texases and the U.S.Cs of the world that are really in a massive sort of positive

situation with respect to profitability. But I thought it was interesting. UCLA was, they were in dire need. They needed to be a part of this. UCLA were talking about, you know? Yeah, and I think Martin, you know, went on the record with me to talk about they desperately needed stability.

And I think for, like if you ask, and I live around a lot of USC people living in Los Angeles, if you ask most of them, I think there was a couple of things that would drive it. First of all, there was a lot of people who are USC people who feel like, why are we only getting the same cut as Oregon State and Washington State? They don't drive the bus.

We're the ones who are the real ratings draw. And so that had been sitting in their craw for a long time. And I think, you know, then the aspect of, you know, we're getting left behind. And this is, you know, you brought up NIL about a month ago. It was an elite 11 regional out in Southern California, the big quarterback operation. I had dinner with somebody out there who's pretty connected,

and they had talked about this conversation with a big power broker in sports, talking about how Pact 12 schools, even USC are going to get left behind compared to some of these other schools. And I was like, I don't, I was having a hard time wrapping my brain around that, you know, and because I know

USC has big, big money boosters, and they have a lot of potential. And sometimes it gets mismanaged off, and it does. But the idea, and I didn't, you know, at that point, that was, like I said, a month ago, I hadn't heard anything about this potentially happening.

But in retrospect, it makes a ton of sense. Now, if you're Maryland, geographically, I get it. You have a lot of rivalries-filled ACC-based that people grew up with those relationships. But it makes a lot of, you know, geographically, it's an easy move relatively. For USC and UCLA, it's not going to be an easy move.

Right, yeah. So I think there's going to be a lot of stuff that people have not sunk their teeth into wrap their brains around beyond it being just a bottom line. Like so many, many people, both in my space, in your space, who are now crunching numbers to try to figure out the cable business or, you know, whatever, like what my bosses at Fox Sports, you know,

have experts that they are talking about. And I think, you know, like, look, I'm sure there are a handful of people, and it's not a lot, who know how some of these deals work and what it means for for subscribers and everything else like because i work in college football i've always had the end and i think it's a great you know i think it's a great product now you know full disclosure i work for fox and i work you know connected to them but like for a lot of people in los angeles or in california you're going to have to go find it and subscribe and probably change your cable system or maybe you'll go to youtube tv to get it because you know you cannot be without that if you really care about your team, because whoever's going to put it on the air,

this isn't just like, hey, we got ESPN, so we're covered. And I think all those decisions get factored into this big picture of what's going to be the next step of realignment. All right. Well, let's talk about that. Let's go one league at a time. What's next for the Big Ten? I think they are hoping that Jack Swarbrick and Notre Dame decide to say, you know, but this isn't the best interest for us long term.

Let's not delay it. Let's see if we can make that happen. From everything I understand, their grant of rights issue with the ACC is not prohibitive when it comes to football, and that's what everybody cares about. Now, I think they're intrigued. I don't know how much further it is.

I don't know how much they feel like they need to make a decision in the hurry. It sounds like from everything I've heard, and, you know, our reporters with the athletic who are really plugged in, In South Bend, feel like, okay, nothing is imminent at this point. But, you know, when Greg Sank, this is the one thing I would keep an eye on, when Greg Sanky floated the idea a month or so ago about the SEC,

maybe having its own college football playoff, essentially, like, we can have our own national title playoff. And I think a lot of people kind of like, eh, let's pump the breaks on that. Yeah, you guys have the best league, but it wouldn't be a national championship. Well, this is where a guy like, this addresses what we were talking about earlier. This is a guy so inside in the best league. And that would be, I think, intuitively, that would be terrible for the consumer. By the way, I think it would be terrible for an SEC fan.

But go ahead. Well, so I think that was his way of flexing his muscle because at this point, they had a right to be dismissive of the quote-unquote alliance. It turned out to be a kind of a joke. And I think there was a lot of stuff where they're like, look, you guys are making, we get that your feelings are hurt. You feel like you got your toes stepped on, but so I feel like we're the ones with the real juice. And yet here and now is the Big Ten that is going to expand significantly. And if you said, okay, these two leagues decided, hey, we're going to have a national title game.

a title playoff. And now we're talking about 32 teams, or let's see what the ACC ends up, or what the Big Ten ends up at. But previously, the power conference have always said, yeah, what, you know what, Notre Dame, we're going to always, we'll make room for you. What happens if they decided

to say, you know what, you're not going to be part of this. If you're not joining one of our leagues, there's no reason for us to include you. And if they made that stance, then I think if you're Notre Dame, it kind of forces your hand because I think, and again, I'm not Jack Forber, but I think Notre Dame could look at it and say, you know what?

Geographically, it makes a lot of sense for us to be in the Big Ten. Culturally, we're most aligned with them. They have a lot of, you know, terrific educational colleges, you know, very prestigious schools. That's how they feel they are. That makes a lot of sense. Now USC, there are archivalers in the league. makes a lot of sense there too. I think that would be something that they could buy.

I'm not saying it's going to be imminent. And I'm not saying that the SEC and the Big Ten are going to do that kind of agreement. But if you think about it in this context also, you have two networks. The SEC is really tied and kind of driven to some degree with ESPN. And we're seeing the Big Ten and Fox. and their alignment, you know, there's a lot of, there's a lot of cards that are on the table, and there's a lot of cards that are like not far from the table right now. I wonder where it goes.

And I'm not saying I know anything because I work at Fox that's imminent. But just from reading the tea leaves, that's a scenario that wouldn't shock me if it kind of went in that direction. Why is Notre Dame Bruce still treated like it's Notre Dame? if you follow. It's not the same, but it still gets treated as if it's the same. Why? I would make this case.

So, Notre Dame has a national brand because it's had it for a long time, and they have a big following. You know what else they have? They have a lot of people who hate Notre Dame. They have a lot of people who tune into hoping Notre Dame loses. So you have a rooting interest one way or the other. I'll be honest. Like, if you put

let's say it's Auburn in a big game or you put you know even Oklahoma I don't know if necessarily people look at it and go yeah I hope they lose you know there's some people who don't lose you know more and more people probably don't like Davos so now they're going to get sick of Clemson they're probably rude against I think Alabama's become the most polarizing college football team in America more so than even Notre Dame. Well, we've seen them so much.

You know what's interesting, though, is I think a lot of it has to do with who the head coach is. Right. If, like, there are people now who are starting to root for Notre Dame, who used to hate Notre Dame. Like, if Lou Holtz was the head coach there, they would still hate him. If Brian Kelly was still there, I think they would look at him and, you know, his persona and think he's a smug guy.

We don't like him. Mark and Freeman, I'm not sure that they have that kind. I don't think they have much of a read, but I think a lot of people actually like market agreement. And so I think it's different. You know, like, this is, I don't want to hijack the conversation, but like there's a lot of people who probably didn't like Ohio State, and they probably didn't like them a lot more when Urban was the head coach.

Ryan Day, you know, he's not as not, you know, he's, you know, he's, I don't think he gender, he drives the hatred, you know, the way maybe Urban did. You know, there's certain coaches. who people just either are sick of or they just don't like them. And I think that adds to it. So. Well, the coaches, too, are the consistent faces to these brands.

You know, the players come and go. The coaches, for the most part, stay. So, no, I get it. I just think sometimes, like, I grew up loving Notre Dame, not as my favorite team. Maryland was always my favorite team, but Sunday mornings Lindsay Nelson repeats and being a Catholic coming back from church, it was like a big deal. And I can remember, you know, always kind of rooting for Notre Dame. But I just don't think as many people care, but you might be right.

Let's go back to the Big Ten. So if Notre Dame is the next, then what? Like, and why, by the way, have people focused in on the number 20? Like the SEC is going to get to 20, the Big Ten's going to get to 20. Why is there a limit? I'm not sure. I think what the thing that we have to wrap our heads around, if we're going to follow this, is what is cost effective?

Meaning like, oh, yeah, it sounds like Oregon would make a lot of sense. Or a travel partner, they got film night, they got cool uniforms, whatever. I don't know that if you're the Big Ten, you add four schools, and they don't bring in the TV audience. it makes sense for them, you know, because at the end of the day, it's a pie of money. And if the pie is not generating enough money for Nebraska, Purdue, Minnesota, you name it. You don't want to share with more teams. Then they make that decision. Yeah. Yeah. Like, why are we diluting it then? You know, like,

there was a part about a year ago at this time when the Big 12 got poached by the SEC in Texas and oh, you were leaving. And I remember I'd hear from these other schools and some of the, these ADs from other schools talking about, well, like, if we were in the Big 12, we would rate, you know, like our TV audience. If you look at where we were in the ACC, we'd be like fourth. And my point to them from having these conversations with both, you know, TV people was it's not, like once you get past two, it's like a non-entity. You know, like Oklahoma State has won a lot of college football games over the last, you know,

15 years. Their TV numbers, you know, on their own, you know, in Oklahoma State, Texas Tech game, is nothing compared to what, like, Ohio State, Indiana, or, you know, if you have a heavyweight blue blood brand and they're opposite, somebody who's, like, mediocre or average, everyone to say it, that average mediocre is going to really matter, you know, but if you have two, if you don't have any distinguish a brand with a big following, you know, you're at a loss for that. I think that's what the Big 12, you know, it has to worry about in its next deal without the Texas and OU. Like, I know this from whenever, you know, my crew would do an Ohio State game, a Michigan game, a Penn State game, and then even the next level down, let's say it's Michigan State, Nebraska, you know, maybe Wisconsin, those still are like another level above what those schools I'm talking about are.

Yeah, Texas Techook State, yeah. Yeah, and it's just like that following, And, you know, that's what gets the TV people excited. And honestly, because the TV will get excited, that's what gets the conference commissioner. So who would the Big Ten be excited about after Notre Dame? I don't know. You know, if you look at the ACC school, let's just focus on on, like, Clemson, I don't know. It's not a big market.

It's, you know, they're obviously had a ton of success. I don't know if, if you would say it's culturally, it's in line with a lot of what the big sees itself as. I'm not sure of that. North Carolina obviously has an iconic brand. They've been great in basketball. They've been, you know, at times, good in football. You know, there's a TV market there that's sizable.

I don't know if that's like a huge, huge yes, but I definitely think there's, it's viable. Miami has a big brand. They've been down in football, but all of a sudden Miami is a big TV market. I could see there being, you know, an interest in Miami. I don't, you know, Florida State, to a lesser degree, probably, yes. And then after that, I don't really know, like, is Virginia enough of a big sell to them where it's, you know, I don't think it's to the degree North Carolina is,

and I don't think it's certainly not to the degree Notre Dame is. So I don't know the answer where you get, once you, get past. You know, I could see there be an interest in Miami and North Carolina. I'm not sure about UVA. I'm not sure about Florida State. I wonder about some of the other ones. I wonder about Syracuse, you know, and the following that it has in the New York

metropolitan area, the bottom line is it has a much bigger following than Rutgers does, you know, in New York metro. You know, I'm talking about New York, you know, Burden County, New Jersey, Fairfield County, Connecticut, the New York metro area. Syracuse is a much bigger team than his Rutgers. One thing that's tricky, I feel like, about Syracuse, and there's a few schools that are like this, but I wonder if there's a little bit of an overinflated sense of it. Obviously, you and I both grew up where Syracuse basketball in the Big East was a huge thing. I'm not saying Syracuse has fallen off the map basketball-wise, but Syracuse football, you know, it's been a long time since Paul Pascoloni was

winning games there. They have really, really struggled. But the question, the thing I was going to bring up is there's a lot of media people in the sports world who are Syracuse fans, Syracuse Graves. And so sometimes that gets kind of pushed into the orbit a little bigger than maybe it's actually out there. I can give you a little bit of a false sense. And I mean, to some degree Northwestern, to a smaller degree is that way. But where they get talked about, where they I don't know if it's entirely that way, but that is something I would consider. Just because the Big Ten went down the road on Rutgers, I'm not necessarily sure they go down the road on Syracuse. Yeah, I mean, to me, of the ACC teams worth picking, Carolina leads the pack.

I mean, it's every single market in that state is, you know, whether it's sharp, or Raleigh Durham, and I'm talking about the bigger metropolitan areas, it's North Carolina, it's Chapel Hill, it's heels first, and everything else is a distant second. In fact, if you live in that state, actually, NC states probably number two. Duke's got more of the national following, obviously, but in the state, it's probably North Carolina and NC State, one, two. So that, that to me, you know, going after and getting North Carolina, and we didn't mention Georgia Tech out of a big market like Atlanta. Also a very good...

I didn't mention Boston College also. And BC, too. And by the way, both academic fits for the Big Ten, you know, from that standpoint. So you really... The bottom line is you're kind of sitting back. You were shocked by USC, UCLA, and you don't know what's coming next either. Other than Notre Dame and the Big Ten seems like certainly the Big Ten would want it. Now we just wait to figure out.

out whether or not, you know, Notre Dame wants it. Yeah, because I don't know that what's viable from these like mergers or kind of, I don't know if it like actually makes real money sense. The thing I'm skeptical of is, you know, the UFC, UCLA, like the life of what it's going to be like for their teams from a travel standpoint is not going to be easy. I don't know how much of a consideration that really is going to be when it comes to some of these other things where are they real partnerships, or they kind of lose partnerships?

I just know the TV money is going to drive everything. If the TV money doesn't really work out or doesn't work out on the napkin, I don't think these deals are going to get done. Well, look, I mean, Maryland went through this. You know, the additional expense of playing games in the Twin Cities, playing games in Iowa City, playing games in Lowe City, playing games in Lincoln, Nebraska. You know, they've dealt with this

traveling from, you know, the as far east as you can go, pretty much. And so, yeah, it's, they've had experience with this. But one thing on that, Kevin, just is my own experience, I'm doing a bunch of Maryland games for football. Like, they, Maryland plays Ohio State

and last year I was in Columbus. It was, you know, they were short-handed, no cornerbacks, you know, that's the worst team you want to face. If you have no cornerbacks. I get it. That was a blowout. But typically, they play Michigan.

They play Ohio State. They play Penn State. No, you're right. You're right. Maryland is, like, they have the chance. Look, I think Locksley's done a really nice job elevating it. If they're healthy, they can be a top 25 team, and they can do a big TV number. And that matters when it comes to these contract deals.

And the rest of the Big Ten, athletically, you know, in these other sports is so attractive and desirable for, like for Maryland to me, it's like, I get it. I did not grow up, you know, grow up, you know,

we grew up in a different landscape, but like this does not seem like an outlier to me. It's not like when I look at them, it's not like I look at Rutgers, you know, because it's similar to what you alluded to a minute ago when you're talking about Syracuse. And there's certain places where I'm like,

yeah, that doesn't seem like a, Maryland makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways for them. I think the thing, that the Big Ten needs to keep kind of looking at is where does it, where does the fit that it, and where's the place that this doesn't seem like it belongs, and we've got to be careful about getting a little too aggressive? No, I agree with you. As much as I hated it,

I do recognize, even with my bias, Maryland's a different conversation than Rutgers. I mean, Maryland's a national championship basketball program. It's, you know, for many years has had, you It's also one of the few in that league basketball first schools. I mean, football is a distant second in terms of the importance to the alums and everybody associated with it, even though Loxley's doing a great job. You know, it leads me to this, and I don't want to keep you much longer because you've been so generous with your time, but you mentioned something earlier that made me think about something. You said, you know, why does USC want to share equally in revenues with, you know, Oregon or Oregon State?

or Washington State. Why will the Big Ten, why will Ohio State and Michigan and Penn State, as long as we're heading in this direction of essentially, you know, of essentially saying tradition and historical

rivalries, et cetera, really don't mean shit at this point. Why will Ohio State at some point down the road, Michigan and Penn State, want to share equally in revenue with Northwestern or with Rutgers? it's a fair question I mean the big 12

when Texano you were there had had different rights deals there were other tiers so they could I remember that you know like UT had the Longhorn Network Oklahoma had sooner sports

and there was like some other aspects of what they could tie to it and so you didn't have the same I don't know Ohio State is a just a enormous man with huge family

yeah and that's a good question because if I was Gene Smith, you know, you were carrying, you were carrying other people. And is that something that, you know, like we're, like your question, which I think is a, is the right way to ask it is, is our eyes are open now. We've seen Texas and OU basically and the SEC do end runs where they made really, you know, awkward mood in terms of like basically, hey, I know this is what, this doesn't look great in terms of like, you know, from a loyalty sense, whatever, we're acting in our own

best interest. And that's what USC is doing. That's certainly what UCLA is doing. So now, if you're Ohio State, are we leaving a lot of money on the table? I think the answer is yes, because of that. But is it like, I'm sure there's calculations and discussions that are had inside of Columbus where they have said, all right, well, this is how much money we might be could get on our own. but are there other things in terms of scheduling

and all these other opportunities that we might be hurting ourselves with that aren't in the cash register? But as long as, you know, it's not like the horse just left the barn. It left many years ago with all of the reshuffling. But Ohio State may not even look at it in the way of, well, why are we sharing equally with Northwestern and with Rutgers, they may as a group with Alabama and with LSU who are also saying the same thing about Vanderbilt and some of the schools in their league in Kentucky, you know, from a football

standpoint. I don't know. Maybe you would tell me that Kentucky actually brings something to the table in terms of fan base from a football standpoint. And then it's like the next iteration of this in 2029 is Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, USC, Michigan, Penn State, you know, the top 16 to 20 football programs truly break off and just say, we're now professional. This is what we're going to do and we're going to target, you know, the biggest brands in

the sport. And maybe the only other thing they would think about, like you brought up, is we're going to target big markets, too, that have teams with at least some brand recognition. You know, a Washington or, you know, a BC like we just mentioned, or Georgia Tech or a Colorado or something like that, I don't know, just to get, you know, every big market covered. Who knows where this goes? Because it is all about the money and it is all about themselves for the most part. Yeah, and we're used to it now.

I mean, that's just a reality and see where the next domino goes, I guess. One more for you. I think, and I bet we've actually talked about this in the past at some point during one of these, you know. I mean, for me, it all started to change when my, Miami and Virginia Tech and BC joined the ACC. That was like, to me, the beginning of where we are now. You know, Nebraska and then Colorado and Utah and whatever, A&M and Missouri, et cetera. Do you think that if we turn the clock back, call it 15 to 20 years?

You know, 15 years would put us 2000. It'll go back 20 years before all of the major, you know, last two decade reshuffling started. and college sports did away with the emphasis and the obsession and the ties to the bowl system and created at that point a 12-team playoff or a 16-team playoff. Do you think that any of this would have ever happened? I think it probably would have gotten that point because of the conversation, you know, like where USC is and where UCLA is. Like, I think a lot of these moves, I think, were bound to happen at some point.

I just think that these schools were always going to find a way to have to chase the money because of a variety of reasons that put them into a bind. You know, and I think ultimately they would have worked their way into some really awkward conversations that actually, you know, once they looked at it, we're like, these are kind of no-brainers. really think it would have gotten to that point. You know, I mean, there's no way of knowing for sure, but I just think from talking to some people who are involved in these, I just think they know what their reality is and they know what they're up against.

I mean, the reason I asked the question is because initially it was all about chasing the conference championship, you know, opportunity and all the money that came with a conference championship game. And I just think if you had said, yeah, do your conference championship game, no matter How many teams you have in the league? And, oh, by the way, we're going to have a 12-team playoff with the top four seeds having a first round buy and the eights, you know, and seeds five through 12 playing home round, you know, home field games and a quarter-final round on a Saturday and mid-December. It would have generated so much money from that point on that maybe they just wouldn't have ever thought about the other because they all would have been so flush. Because ultimately, waiting that long for a playoff wasn't very healthy.

Yeah, I mean, the part that I think is a hard thing to sort out. Kevin, is so much of what you're talking about is tied to a lot of, like, you know, mismanagement or it's tied to, like, you could go even big picture where, like, the NCAA and asleep at the wheel when it comes to NIL. and like it's like a big umbrella of bad decisions that are all kind of intertwined and from way or another. And I think it's just hard to pinpoint and said, okay, if they at least got this part right, the money would have been this way.

And it's all would have, like, I still don't think it would have, you know, prohibited all the other, all the other kind of futility from bubbling up and causing some problems. You know, I think you're giving, not even not that you're trying to do this, but I think you're giving too much of the benefit of the doubt. to like all the other, like, you know, bad leaders or whatever you want to go, you know, like, you know, ineffective leaders or, you know, like, the Larry Scott piece of this where he never kept the main thing, the main thing, you know, in the Pac-12.

And, like I said, the NCAA side of this with Mark Gemmer and the ineptitude on that side. Like, ultimately all those things were just going to, like, you know, you can't keep the bad smell in the room. eventually it's going to come out of it, it's going to seek out of the, from underneath the door. It was a world of academics trying to make big-time business decisions. And, you know, more times than not, I'm not saying that that was uniform, but you had a lot of that over the years. And because of it, there just wasn't a real understanding of what the right things to do were. Thank you.

As always, I hope you're well. Bruce has a podcast, by the way. He does a podcast with Stuart Mandel. It's called The Audible with Stu and Bruce. If you're a college football fan, and I've mentioned this before, Bruce Feldman's an absolute must-follow and must-read. He's at Bruce Feldman's CFB. He writes for the athletic, and of course you see him as part of the Fox crew

during the season where he gets a chance to go to some of the biggest games and some of the best venues. You've got a hell of a job. Thanks for doing this. Talk to you soon. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. All right.

That's it for the show today, back on Monday.