The Ryen Russillo Podcast - Hope for Nearly Every NBA Team Left. Plus Danny Kanell on the Pros and Cons of CFB Playoff Expansion

Episode Date: June 15, 2021

Russillo shares his thoughts on the Clippers-Jazz, Hawks-76ers, and Bucks-Nets Round 2 playoff series, now all tied at 2 (2:30). Then Ryen talks with Danny Kanell of SiriusXM and CBS Sports about the proposed 12-team College Football Playoff expansion, the NCAA name, image, and likeness debate, and more (18:00). Finally Ryen answers some listener-submitted Life Advice questions (1:01:00). Host: Ryen Russillo Guest: Danny Kanell Producers: Kyle Crichton and Steve Ceruti Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

like the example of Sam Darnold's year, I think it was 2017 when they were nine and three played Penn state and the Rose bowl, but they kind of figure things out. Like I liked the fact that you could have a team that maybe lost some games early and then they get right. And they could legitimately be a potential national champion, but we penalize them so much in the current model, the 14 playoff where

they don't get access where now they could, and then you get a potential, you know, eight seed who's a, you know, PAC 12 champion in that instance that could possibly knock off one of the higher seeds. And I, and if anybody thinks that this is going to break up, you know, the monopoly that Bama Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia have on the stranglehold they have on those top spots in college football. I don't think that's changing. Bama still would have won last year.

Most years, you would have had the same national champion. But I do think you'll get fine-tuning and you'll get better eight teams once you whittle them down from 12. I think you'll get better four. And you whittle them down from 12 i think you'll get better four and i think ultimately you will get the best two but i think that's i think i think you're going to get a better product and yeah there'll be teams that you'll go in there and we're going to see blowouts we already see blowouts now in the four okay that's danny canal we're going to talk about this new college football playoff expansion proposal feels more than proposal i will

do life advice at the back end but i'm going to start with a little bit of everything, meaning we saw a little bit of everything in our concerns and then hopes for almost all of the playoff teams last night that played. Two series now tied up two-piece. Danny Connell joins in a little bit. I have basketball open that I was kicking around today. A couple thoughts

because I think in the two games we saw, the Clippers win and a great Hawks win at home to even that series up 2-2. So we've got both series that we saw last night at 2-2, a little bit of everything. And, you know, the Clippers back at game one, it's almost like no one's ever watched a series before, right? Or even a game. And it's just kind of the way it happens because it's hard when the evidence is in front of you when it's happening and you see the Jazz and Donovan Mitchell going crazy and Paul George looks reluctant again and you're like, all right, Morris is missing shots,

even though he was terrific to close out Dallas. You're thinking, all right, well, why would I pick the Clippers here? Why would I pick them? And now it seems like there's no way anybody is on Utah's side of this thing. It feels like the Clippers have figured them out. And then the fact that Conley's missed these four games and it's still a complete question mark whether or not he's even coming back, which just usually when it's like day-to-day,

it's like, oh, could he be there for four? Oh, could he be there for five? He might miss all seven if he even goes seven at this point. It just feels like there's no way the Clippers are not advancing at this point because of how bad it's looked. But we always have to remind ourselves, even within the games, right? Even within the games, much like the runs

that we saw from Philadelphia that we get to, like, all right, this thing's going to be 3-1 or the start of some of these Clippers jazz games. You're like, oh, the jazz are on it again. And finally the Clippers got off to a good start game four. And then they're up a ton. I think it was like 28 at one point. I'll look through the notes here again. The jazz were up 48-20, which was just like, okay, this thing's over. And then there's a little bit of a run and we'll talk about some of the third quarter stuff in there, but the runs happen no matter what. And the runs usually happen because the other team's crushing the other. And they're just not going to play as hard at that moment. Right. That's just kind of how it happens. So we got

a little bit of everything in both games. So Kawhi and Paul George go for 30 together. I mentioned on Bill's podcast in game three, that's only the fifth time that's happened with Kawhi and George in the same game only the fifth time that's happened with Kawhi and George in the same game. The fifth time that's happened since they've been together these two years, granted, they both missed a lot of games this season. So then it happens in back to back and Paul George, who we've been kind of like, Oh wow, look at him. Here we go. He's attacking despite the 30, 13 philosophy that still, uh, holds true through him. Um, that was actually, I think your first quarter score last night too. A little Paul George for you.

George now has like the third longest Clippers playoff streak of 20 or more. And I think he's tied with Kawhi. And again, that's a bit of the Lou Dort Award approach that we've seen now in this postseason where you're seeing these names being attached, these historic moments. And you're like, when's the last time that's happened?

I mean, there was, there's a couple other things that happened last night. We're like, oh, Donovan Mitchell, like no one else has done this in so many years of active play. And you're just like, this is nuts. All these historical achievements that we're seeing every single night because the offense continues to flow. So the first quarter was a disaster. Jazz missed 13 to 17 shots.

There was 28, eight run in there. disaster jazz missed 13 to 17 shots there was 28 8 run in there um overall for the game second chance points clippers 18 to 1 12 to nothing and fast break points and i thought in a weird way like it was another bad first quarter for mitchell and i'm thinking hey did the clippers completely figure him out because they're keeping two with them and even if it's not a hard double there's always like that second guy but we also saw them try to double him to close out some of the games in Utah and Mitchell would split that defense and it didn't really matter. It was just like he was going superhero level of accomplishment out there. But it's kind of hard to keep doing that all the time, especially when it doesn't feel like any of the Clippers defenders respect any of the other guys that catch the basketball. Not that

they can't shoot, but that if other players put it on the floor, there's not the same sense of urgency, clearly, that there is there with Mitchell, and not having Conley to try to balance that or get Mitchell initiated in the offense in a different way. It's just really hard when it's all on him. Hey, bring the ball up,

and we're going to meet you at half court, and then there's going to be a second guy shading you, and now you're seeing that. And even with that, Mitchell still got it going, 37 points for the game, but nine at 26 and six of 15 on threes. And they kept that second defender with them. So as I mentioned, you know, 48, 20, I don't know what kind of effort you're going to get out of the Clippers the rest of the way. Cause they feel like, Hey, we figured it out. We tightened that weird rotation where they played 11 guys in the first half of game one. It's fluid mentioned, Hey, we'd come off a tough seven-game series.

And you're seeing a Paul George that you want to see every single night. And history tells us we're not going to see it every single night. But he was terrific again. Another thing we saw defensively is when Gobert is out of the game, it's attack city. But when Gobert is in the game, and I'm not saying it happened constantly, but Kawhi was not afraid to get Gobert in a switch and then keep him away from the hoop. And he hit a couple jumpers in his face where he sized it up

perfectly, and it was really, really impressive. Paul George still has a few moments where he hasn't quite figured out that you're not supposed to drive right at Gobert because Gobert is that good defensively. Where there's a lot of shot blockers, you'll say, hey, just attack him. Don't go away from him. But with Gobert, it's actually hard to do either of those things. Let's talk a little bit more about Gobert. His first field goal attempt was 25 seconds of the third quarter. Yes, I think he had two others where he was fouled. There was also a really good point by Greg Anthony on a high pick and roll with Mitchell, which is the ball handler. Gobert is the roll man, and Mitchell got it to him too soon. Gobert had a dribble. He got fouled, got free throws,

but Anthony made a terrific point saying, hey, you know what? That's the difference with a guy like Mitchell initiating your offense and then Conley because Conley knows to wait and hold the ball just a little bit more. So in that moment, Gobert never has to put it on the floor so the defense can kind of get another second, half second to get over and adjust to him. Terrific point. Thought it was great. But for the Gobert all NBA crowd, because I'm not going to bring up the MVP crowd, even though Hollinger, um, who does not have a ballot.

We asked about it. I think he said he had him second. Um, here's what I want from an MVP and not even an MVP. Here's what I want from an all NBA player considered one of the 15 best. I need you to not be invisible for almost an entire playoff game. If you truly are one of those players, then your game helps your team through the tough times.

And I know the math. And I think all of you would agree. I'm not some anti-Gobert guy that loves just trashing them. But when you watch a game like last night, and everybody has bad games, and I know he's an offensive-dependent person because of the screens. And, you know, look, you look at the plus-minus,

you look at all the screen stuff, the screens that he sets, the screen distance traveled. He's in a complete galaxy by himself. But sometimes this isn't about all that stuff. Sometimes it's a lot easier. And you just go, hey, if he's like that good of a basketball player, how come he can't just do more good basketball stuff?

And that's a bad Gobert game. We could talk about the defense or whatever, but it doesn't really matter. And yeah, it's a big difference when he's not out there because his favors have been getting crushed. But that's where I have a limit on my Gobert love because of a game like last night. And I think that's incredibly fair acknowledging what he brings to a team. But what he brings to a team really feels like more of a long-term regular season accumulation than in a,

hey, we're screwed right now. And Mitchell's trying to do this on his own. And you're supposed to be one of the 15 best players in the league? Or do the stats just say that your impact is one of the 15 best of any player? And that's a tough argument for the all-the-way-in, numbers-go-bare crowd. That's a tough argument for you to win. Let's start with the Hawks and Sixers here, because this game felt it was just size, size, size. Size against Trey Young.

Now, um, Trey's over five in the first quarter. He's not getting his bullshit free throw calls, which is this other new development. We have all these side out calls, which is basically the ref saying, Hey, this is kind of a terrible foul that I'm calling here, but to make it less terrible, I'll just, well, let's call it side out. How about this? Just don't call them. But again, we'll see what happens with that kind of stuff. And so as I'm watching the game play out, I'm going, okay, look, the Sixers got this thing. There was a couple of moments there where I think Harris is like backing down Herter, which again, you know, do not underestimate Herter at all, but it just didn't look all that good. Embiid is part of the 24-10 run in the first quarter.

And then you start doing these bigger picture Sixers questions. You're going, hey, they're going to be up 3-1. They're going to win this series, no problem. And you look at the Brooklyn problems and the fact that I look at Milwaukee's offense, and we went over that on Sunday night where I said even after the Game 3 win, I was kind of like down on Milwaukee going, you know, the one question the Nets had was their defense. And you guys have this incredible statistical offense,

and you can't score against them? Like, what's the problem? So yes, I've had a, like, it was like a bad night out friend. And that's who the Milwaukee Bucks like came into town on a Wednesday when nobody was ready and just like broke stuff at your house. And now I'm looking at Milwaukee differently. All right.

And that's where I'm at. So now you add all those components together in the East and you're going, hey, can Philly not only get out of this, are they going to skate through the East and can they win a title? And then it all changes in the second half. Because even though Philly was up, what, 10, 12, looked like they were totally in control, Embiid goes zero for 12 in the second half.

Let me find this number for you because this was important. Embiid, who through three games, 35 points per game, 53% shooting from the field, and 15 free throw attempts per game. Too big, too much size for Atlanta. He went 0 for 12 in the second half. And according to ESPN Stats and Info,

it's the most field goal attempts in a single half by a player without a make in the past 25 years. He said no excuse is going to be better. Trey, I think they were doing some different stuff with him offensively. He didn't shoot it great, but he still ended up with numbers, more importantly, the assist numbers. John Collins had the two dunks and the three-pointer from a Trey Young drive to kick it to the left corner to make it 98-97. Phillies still up one after this Collins three. This was this awesome Collins run.

It was set up by Trey. And now all the anti-Sixers stuff, right? A little bit of everything, the theme here from last night's game, where I'm watching the Hawks going a 9-2 run to close out the last 2-44. And all the concerns that I have, like, you know, that Sixers thing can still get kind of weird and stagnant. And like, do I really trust the spacing? And how are they going to play off of Simmons?

And I mean, Simmons had this awful second half too, and no one could make any shots. And the Sixers, it's not like their 12 turnovers for the game is an alarming number, but it's bad when Atlanta only has four. So even though Trey was missing, he still was doing, you know, 18 assists.

He did a great job of setting other guys up and not burning possessions. The way Philly has a tendency to kind of blow some bad possessions. But even after the Collins three, six is still up a point, but just they couldn't get anything going the rest of the way. And doc was not happy about it. Doc rivers actually said, um,

lacking ball movement in reaction to that said, quote, when you do that, you usually lose, especially when the other team outworks you the whole fucking game. So that was Doc, not happy with what I imagine he feels the better team now being tied 2-2 with Atlanta. The body language in this one was weird. I don't know if it was Embiid laboring or if when he's missing shots, he labors more. There's plenty of guys that are guilty of that. When Embiid missed the layup off the Harris pass where you thought, okay, well, Embiid's still going to get it because you're still watching this going,

is Sixers really going to lose this game? Because they've had stretches where they look far superior to Atlanta. So again, credit Atlanta's toughness, resiliency, young team fighting back at home, crowd going crazy. That John Collins three was, I thought, the biggest deal throughout it all because Trey gets a free throw that a lot of people debated. Look, he got hit. It was a late call. He got hit in the face by Embiid and it was a really, really late foul call, but it was still the right call. So whatever. I didn't have a problem with Trey getting those free throws. problem with Trey getting those free throws. But when Embiid missed the layup, there was a loose ball and Simmons just lost it right off of his hands and it went out baseline. And then

they were trying to set up the Sixers were defensively because they didn't have any timeouts left, but they reviewed the call. So Doc pulled them all over and he was talking to Korkmaz. And Korkmaz is like still intense talking to Simmons being like, all right, hey. And Simmons is like deadpan. And I don't know if he's pissed because

he'd lost the basketball or whatever, but he was shut down. So that's a, that's a look. No one's having a good time blowing games. Nobody's having a good time losing playoff games, but there was some weird body language stuff in there with those two guys where all of the hype and excitement. And I'm thinking, wait, are they actually going to win a title midway through the third quarter all the times where I'm like oh I'm not sure and it still may not even matter I still like the Sixers better in their series than I do like Utah in theirs one last thought related to Simmons because it's something I almost tweeted out when I was watching Giannis brick everything and then I saw that Kurt Goldsberry and Pablo Torre two guys guys I like, talk about this, where is Giannis bricking it left and right, validating

Ben Simmons? And I'll admit, I had this thought about a week ago and I almost tweeted out like, is Giannis doing what we all want Ben Simmons to do? And it would have gotten a lot of play. People would be like, oh, that's so clever. And I'd be like

looking like, oh man malcolm gladwell liked it awesome kicking ass on friday but i wouldn't want to do it and i didn't do it because i was like i don't want to validate not developing an outside shot i don't want to validate by all accounts everything i've ever heard that like ben hasn't figured it out and doesn't put in the work that everybody says that he does, because it's really easy to tell everybody how much you're working out. It's just a lot of harder to actually do all the working out part of it. So don't make that mistake. I think it's an interesting topic, a conversation, but at the end of it, the conclusion would be, why would I watch Giannis miss shots and then go,

Hey, Ben Simmons is actually better than you think? Because he doesn't do that. That seems to be a weird conclusion. It's been kind of fun this last week. Checking out my guy, Danny Cannell. He's with McElroy every morning on SiriusXM 84. You can check him out in the mornings and then, of course, the Cover 3 pod. So I've been listening to them talk ball. What's going on, man?

It's been a long time. It been a minute man things are good things are good crazy busy running after the girls we got all these changes in college athletics so it's been good man been busy yapping for a living and uh it's been good man miss you so this is you're probably not going to miss me at the end of this but we're going to be we're going to be fun here. Uh, no, I, cause I'm really afraid when Sir Rudy sent me,

like he goes, Hey, I checked with canal. He's good to go because I was listening to you and McElroy do a segment on if you did relegation for the power five conferences and then put them in the, the, the group of others here. Um,

how would that work? But you guys knew what you were doing was ridiculous which i was afraid i hope you didn't think that like saruti said hey rossillo thinks your segment sucks he wants you to come on because i was afraid that's maybe how it's made its way to you but the premise of what you were doing was what so first of all let me just say what date is it it's it's mid-june and we're a college sports station and you can only go like college baseball for so long. You know, like I get people are into the road to Omaha, but we do want to encourage listeners to tune in for an entire three hours.

So you have to generate some content. It's one of those slow times of the year. And it was, and I don't think he would mind if I said this, it was McElroy's suggestion. And he kind of threw it out there. And it wasn't... And he admitted full... As soon as we got into it...

Because you know, some fan bases might take this the wrong way. He fully admitted this would never happen. But the concept was... If a team... Because now with the expanded playoff to 12 teams, you're going to have easier access, especially for the group of five teams. So their big winners are the group of five teams. But is it really changing

that much for mid to low tier power five teams? And it really isn't because they're still not going to sniff the top 12 because it'll still be the top tier teams in each conference. It's still going to be Bama and then Georgia and then Florida and LSU, but is a Mississippi state or a Kentucky who have had windows where they get nine wins and you're like, yes, this is an awesome season. They probably realistically, even as many teams as you could imagine getting to the playoff in a 12 team scenario, they're probably still going imagine getting to the playoff in a 12-team scenario, they're probably still going to be on the outside looking in.

So McElroy's proposition was, the SEC is the worst conference to use because their fans are going to hear one thing and be like, you're crazy. But if you were, and you have to take money out of the equation, right? Because it's a no-brainer that you would stay in the SEC or the ACC or the Big Ten and take the paycheck

that comes along. So just so anybody, you guys were admitting this is ridiculous. Ridiculous, yeah. It was not me in the car being like, I can't believe they're doing this segment.

I was just laughing along with you because you're putting Nebraska in the Sun Belt, for example. But you're right. I mean, the biggest of all the reasons that would be all the reasons why it wouldn't happen as opposed to the zero of why it would, the number one would be,

I don't want to lose the big 10 money. So go ahead. Right. Right. So the concept would be, all right, if you're a coach of a program and you want to, like, if you're in sports, you want to compete for a title, right? That should be, you're not in it for the paycheck, even though some may be, but you just want to compete for a championship. And if you know you really can't, would you take the opportunity to go to a group of five conference that you could potentially win right away and gain access to the playoff?

Like that's your better road. And there were quite a few programs. McElroy said he had 18 that he had made up that he thought could win almost immediately. And he said Kentucky to the Mac, right? Which I don't know. I wanted to push back a little bit more and say, are you sure they would run the table?

But at the same time, you could make a pretty good case that maybe they would go undefeated and then they would have access to the playoff. I gave an example of Cal from the Pac-12 of going to the Mountain West. And it's out there. But Cal, you Cal, some expectations this year, they clearly would have a better record than they would in the Pac-12. Would they knock off Boise State or San Jose State? I mean, if they played on a neutral field right now, you might

favor them. So I don't think it was that crazy. And it was just a fun exercise to kind of think of different ways that it goes. But then I don't know if you heard today, we kind of spun it a little bit differently where... So a team like UCF, the powerhouses of the group of five, Boise State, Houston, Cincinnati, would they... Because forever, they've always wanted access to the group of five. And you kind of assume the only way to get that was try to force their way into a power five conference. assumed the only way to get that was try to force their way into a Power 5 conference. Now, if you're Gus Malzahn at UCF, would you really want to join the ACC or the SEC? If you could, which you probably can't, but would you want to do that? When you could try to win the American every time and you're going to get access, you could have way more playoff appearances by

the time your coaching career is over, or let's just say over the period of a decade, like Luke Fickle at Cincinnati, like would you, if you're Cincinnati, like, would you really want to join the big 10 and try to compete against Michigan, Ohio state and Penn state and all those teams? Or would you be more content as it's set up now? Because now you've got access and that's what always what's been prohibitive for them all right there's a million things to go here because like just saying it out loud doing like all right let's run through a Kentucky max schedule and see what would happen um even though Kentucky as you and Greg pointed out correctly like they've had some runs but there's also weird things that can happen with scheduling with programs where

you'll look up and you're like, that team's 7-0. They're like, okay, well, they didn't play anyone out of conference, and so far their side of the SEC or the Big Ten, the Big Ten, it's happened a bunch of times. You're like, you avoided all the guys from the other division and then your division is down this year. I think it's

actually being a little disrespectful to the Mac, because the Mac's had a rotation of a few teams over the years. You're like, you know, who's pretty good is, you know, like Ball State or, you know, whatever. Like there's been years where I think the Mac to its credits probably had a little bit more depth at the top. And then, you know, Nebraska alone, just because of how much of a disappointment they've been when you guys had them winning like the Sunbelt. I was like, are you sure? Like, are you sure? And I wasn't even trying to be a jerk about it as I was sitting in the car. But you did say something as far as like UCF, because the easiest answer is yes, they would want in one of those two conferences because it would be the money. But if you say selfishly, which is why I think so many coaches are on board with this and why when you and I used to argue about expansion, even though we knew it was coming, I mean, the biggest reason I knew it was coming is because Bill Hancock said it wasn't going to happen. So as soon as he says something, I'm like, okay, I wish I could just hammer. I wish there was a way I could make money hammering the other side of the Bill Hancock opinion, because whatever he says is the opposite. Um, and I know that's his job just to sit there

and carry water over and over and over again. And you're like, Oh, Hey, guess what? We are expanding after I said we weren't. And you're like, all right, cool. So they go to 12, which is bigger because you would argue for six, you would argue for eight. And now we're looking at 12. And it's something that coaches love because now they can say, hey, I made the playoff. We were in the mix for a national championship. And as you, I've always pointed out, it's kind of funny that the conference commissioners even allowed four to happen. Like, hey, all right, so are we all cool that one of us is definitely maybe two getting screwed over every year? Yeah, great idea.

Let's do it. Because they couldn't, like, college football was, like, just too afraid to rip the Band-Aid off. I'd imagine that 12, the only disappointment that you have is there isn't an extra spot for an automatic bid for an Ivy. Let's be more inclusive, right? How do we know? How do we know they're not as good? People think you're an elitist, and you're one of the most inclusive guys that I know. That's right. By the way, your Bill Hancock thing is so accurate. Did you see his opening quote when he got on whatever Zoom call or press conference they had, he opened it up with, what an exciting day for college football after he's been totally just shutting down expansion talk.

It's bad for the game. And he had the exact same line when they went from two to four and he defended the BCS for so long. And I love him. See, he's lucky everybody likes him because everyone will say, you know, he's a hell of a guy. He's the nicest guy ever. I don't know.

Maybe he just plays it that way because he knows every time he says something, like, what exactly is the job? Say the wrong thing for years until we change it. And then say, like, I mentioned this with Feldman, but those college football seminars we used to have when he would get up and speak. And like, Herbie's not a real attacking antagonistic guy. Like he may be on Twitter a little bit, but when Herbie was doing like, hey, you know, Bill, you guys used to say we couldn't go to 11. Then we did say we couldn't go to 12 and then we did and then we couldn't have conference championship games and then we could. And then, you know, so like what do academics you guys used to always say was because of. And now it was like, wow, Herb Street's like really setting them up here. And then Hancock would go, well, Kirk, great question. You know, great. It's a great question. He goes, you know, I remember when we had Hancock on, he must hate me because I bring it up all the time, but I don't care. Um, no, because if he sees me, he'll say, Hey, Ryan, great. Hey, heard you're doing great. But he came on with us once. Remember the first playoff setup that we had is we had the semifinals on New Year's Eve.

So it may not have been the actual first version of it, but it might have been. I forget how that worked. But we had the semifinals on New Year's Eve. And so everybody at ESPN was like, the ratings are going to suck. It's not what we're paying for. Paying $600 million for these three games a year. That was a new tradition, right? Yeah, and that's what Hancock says.

He goes, well, I think college football fans are looking forward to a new tradition. And we're like, nope. And then they got rid of that. And by the way, it's coming around this year. The semis are on the New Year's Eve. But I guarantee you, they'll be protected against that this upcoming one. They'll know. They'll be like, no, no, no. That tradition wasn't working.

I do think so. I don't know how... Did the 12 surprise you? The number? Because it caught me a little bit by surprise, even though they had been given these 63 different options. That's what this consulting firm, which brought to the four chairs or whatever you call them, the Sankey, Swarbrick, and the crew that kind of took this to the rest of the committee

now. And now they'll take it to the bigger aspect of it. But I was kind of ready for anything. But in my mind, I was like, they're probably going to land on eight, right? They don't want to get too big. Or if they they didn't i thought 16 would be the number and they'd somehow incorporate conference championship games so i did not see this 12 coming but that being said like i really like the 12 and i like it for a couple different reasons which i do think in one of the first i think it was thamel that had the first whisper of this

and he put out a couple of quotes and there was one line in there that said, this was in consideration for all of the potential criticisms that could come of it. And I think you can see that, like they're aware of the people that say the regular season has to matter. The people that are aware that said

the group of five never had access. The people that have always criticized and said, oh, the Pac-12, we have to keep them relevant. But at the same time, they're also aware that they want to incentivize keeping the regular season competitive. So like the regular season criticism would be, oh, this is gonna dilute the regular season.

Well, I think that's one big reason why we have buys, why we have four buys. Because if you're one of those four, you run the risk if you rest players or you don't, you know, if you only play them a half in your last game and you lose that game, you could lose a buy. Like you could lose that coveted buy to get healthy and, you know, to get to that next game.

So I think that incentivizes the regular season to keep it sacred and keep it competitive in the regular season. The Pac-12, them being irrelevant, this is the best part about it. They're going to be included, but it doesn't mean they're a lock as was the case last year, which I don't think they should be a lock. That's always been the criticism. If you went to five Power 5 auto bids, well, what happens if the Pac-12 or pick your conference, ACC or whatever, was a 9-3, 8-4 conference champion? Are we going to reward that mediocrity? And the way they have it set up with the six highest conference champions, not Power 5, that doesn't guarantee you that you'll get in. It doesn't guarantee you to get a home game.

It doesn't guarantee you that you'll get a buy. So I think there's a lot of unique angles to this that really answer a lot of criticism of the critics who have had, oh, I don't want expansion. It's bad for the game of football, which I completely don't understand. But at least we have answers to them saying,

yep, there's this, this, and this, and we're going to protect against those things from happening. I never had a problem with feeling like people were left out. I just didn't. And I know that that's probably not a popular opinion. I don't hear many people say it. But when it was like, hey, the group of five doesn't really have a chance, I was okay with it.

And I know that people hate when I say it. But look, when I look at the way schedules break down, it's just a different level. It's just a different level when you're playing in one of the power fives, unless you really luck out. The conference championship part of it where it's like, okay, so you just play in the SEC title game, you play in the Pac-12 title game, but it's really hard to say that that's always the most fair way of doing it because if we a really like, at least when it was just the four, they were actually saying, Hey, you know what? It's a committee and we're just picking who we think the four best teams are. And I know that drove you crazy because it devalued conference championships,

but I think we'd agree that it was also really hard to always keep it. Even considering scheduling is so cyclical that, you know, somebody could end up out of the conference championship game. And we all clearly think they're the best team in the conference, but because of the way their schedule broke down, and then somebody that beats them head-to-head has a weaker cross-matching. And I'm thinking about some of the SEC years where Auburn would be like, wait a minute, is Auburn actually better than Alabama?

And I knew you'd always be pissed that you felt like Alabama got hooked up again. I thought it was always very simple that most of us would watch the entire season and go, yeah, I think Alabama's still one of the best four. And that's why the committee would vote him in. So this eliminates all of that stuff, right? So it eliminates all of that stuff. So I do think that that's a positive. I don't like 12 because then we're going to start having teams at like 15, 16 and 17 actually arguing. But then again, who, what do I really care? Do I care about the arguments that much? I guess I shouldn't really. So now that everybody feels included now that the group of five, even though I've said, hey, I didn't care

that it wasn't fair. All right, good for you now. I mean, you guys are in there. You'll have this shot at it. And it'll be kind of interesting how the rest of it plays out because now for all the bias, Danny, that you've argued about where it's more like propaganda and perception or a Joel Klatt who said a lot of those same things, I think this is going to make it worse for that, for the filler teams. So once you're through the conference champions, once you're through perception and the propaganda that I just think you've overstated, we've disagreed about it, I feel like now that'll come into play way more filling the rest of the slots. So the perception of conference would become even more valuable.

Yes, I agree. And I think that's one of the reasons there wasn't a limitation put, because I do think that was probably proposed and quickly laughed out the window by Greg Sankey. Like, you guys only want us to have two in there? Are you kidding me? Like, there's no way we're signing up for that. So yeah, there are going to be some instances where you could have three and potentially even four SEC teams being in the final 12, which is what you're alluding to. But if you've heard the people write that say,

and even this goes back to the BCS, people that didn't want expansion to four say, well, the controversy is good for the sport. All those debates, they're good for the sport because they drive conversation, they drive viewers, they drive all of this attention to the sport. That'll still exist. I do agree with you. And I think last year is a pretty good example because last year in a hypothetical,

if you just took the final rankings before the bowls, the group of five would have had two teams in. They would have had Cincinnati and coastal Carolina. I don't think that's the circumstance. Like I think there's a way that they, and this is where the committee still will be in play because they'll be seeding teams that come in here for the first six spots. They'll determine the seeding of who gets the four buys.

And then they do the filler teams, the back end of the the six and i do think that'll be a part of it the and the sec i don't know this is like they've they have gamed the system though across all sports with the rain like the college world series has taken place they had nine teams you know reach the postseason they had the most teams in the super regionals they'll had the most teams in the Super Regionals. They'll have the most teams in the World Series. And that's always played into their favor. And they've ran with it. And to their benefit, they take advantage of it when it gets there.

And they've built up incredible brands, incredible fan bases, and incredible product on the field where you can justify it. But at this point, I'll sacrifice it. Maybe I'll cry about it when it happens if there is you know a team that gets quote screwed out of the top 12 you know that's a 13 or 14 but and it yeah right i mean think about what you just said like how mad are you really going to get

about the three lost team who you think is just better right Right, than a coastal Carolina that's undefeated. That's like, hey, what about us? The little guy, we beat BYU. Like that'll be a very real thing that will unfold. And there still will be controversy, but then we'll see how it goes. Like, I think, I still think it'll be much better than we've had.

And I guess at some point, you just have to accept the flaws that are in college football and accept them for what they are. People always want to complain. And I honestly don't know if there's a perfect solution. The one thing that I wish we could address, because in two years, we're gonna have this shift. And it is a major change in college football. For a sport that's always had a real hard time deciding their national champion. It's a massive shift.

And I know this isn't the college football playoff, the corporation that makes the college football playoff. It's not their job to do this. Their job is strictly postseason. I wish there was some way that some... And you can't because you have all these different conferences and commissioners. But I wish there was a way you could address the regular season flaws because I think that would really enhance the 12 teams. If you had, for instance, all teams either playing an eight or nine conference regular season schedule,

if you had did away with divisions and you'd all have to do it or all not to if you really wanted the best product at the end of the season and the best way to judge those six filler teams, because it's still going to be harder to compare. But at this point, I'll take what I can get and say, all right, we can argue about that.

And if the SEC gets a three-loss team in there, so be it. And we can argue about it. But that's the only thing I wish we could tweak would be, let's really delve into the regular season flaws that are there. Yeah, unless you want these kids playing 15, 16 games, which will probably happen in 20 years, because it's not going the other direction. I don't know how you can balance it with the bigger conferences.

And you'd said something about the controversy, which keeps us engaged. Much like the NBA offseason, college football is probably the closest thing that we have to all the stuff that isn't on the field that we're constantly wringing our hands over and that's really valuable it's really valuable to sport it's valuable when you're talking about all the time it's one of my favorite things to talk about look i hated the original setup where it was just bowl assignment things and then the bcs got so lucky so many years in a row and there was like only a

few people that really understood it and the more you dug into the BCS, you would just go like, this is like Brad Edwards. I would sit with him on a plane for six years and he would explain it to me. So I thought I understood it pretty well. And then I started thinking like, why would you do any, why would you schedule anybody tough out of conference? Like the math does not benefit you. Like that loss is way more damaging than the win. You might as well just play no one. And he was like, yeah, you're right. He goes, there's ways to do it. Like the big 12 used to do some weird stuff where all of a sudden they would have teams high in the BCS rankings because they weren't playing tough out of conference.

And then all of a sudden, like halfway through the season, you have all these highly ranked BCS games that count because you're beating other top teams in your conference that have a high BCS rankings because they're still undefeated. Like when he would explain, and then the bowl assignment with the BCS was a joke because it'd be like, Hey, we're going to take the lesser team that didn't just lose in its conference championship game because the fans won't be as bummed out. And so now, you know, even though you lost head to head, you get to go to the orange bowl, like that kind of stuff drove me crazy. So look, I'll enjoy this. It's not going to kill the regular season,

but I just know that when I see a team, when you go through all the rankings and look at those teams that finish up before the conference championship games or after the conference championship games, how many teams have three losses that are in that mix that then they're still going to play in a tournament for a chance for a national championship. I don't like it. And if people counter with like, well, hey, college basketball, you love the automatic bid from all the conferences. Yeah, but then you still got to win six games. And history tells us those teams don't do that. And I could also do this, which may be a little unfair because it's not going to happen to college football. But I'd ask people, how many college basketball regular season games do you watch now?

Like, how many do you watch? Because that sport has really struggled in the regular season. But don't you think the trade-off for a potential... And there's the example of Sam Darnold's year, I think it was 2017, when they were 9-3, played Penn State in the Rose Bowl, but they kind of figured things out. I like the fact that you could have a team that maybe lost some games early, and then they get get right and they could legitimately be a potential national champion, but we penalize them so much. And the current model, the four-team playoff where they don't get access, where now

they could and then you get a potential eight seed who's a Pac-12 champion in that instance that could possibly knock off one of the higher seeds. And if anybody thinks that this is going to break up the monopoly that Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia have on the stranglehold they have on those top spots in college football,

I don't think that's changing. Bama still would have won last year. In most years, you would have had the same national champion. But I do think you'll get fine-tuning and you'll get better eight teams once you whittle them down from 12. I think you'll get better four. And I think ultimately you will get the best two.

But I think that's, I think you're going to get a better product. And yeah, there'll be teams that you'll go in there and we're going to see blowouts. We already see blowouts now in the four. I'm not worried about that. Look, I mean, to those those are one-offs. Sometimes you're going to have blowouts we already see blowouts now in the four you know like we saw i'm not worried about that that's yeah look i mean to those those are one-offs like sometimes you're gonna have good games you're gonna have bad games like i don't like i'm i'm not sitting here telling you hey everybody be nicer to notre dame but like notre dame makes it to the playoff then everybody makes

fun of them and then it's like oh i hope they never get in again well guess what if they have the best resume of the four teams they're gonna get a bye you know what i mean so like what are we doing um but here's let me just say real quick, though, like, I get your USC point and like, hey, they kind of figured it out and that Penn State game was really good, but, and it was a great game. And then I do think we're guilty of a little bit like after the fact, be like, hey, you know what?

No one, maybe no one's playing better than them. But then it's like, okay, so Bama goes 14-0 and wins the SEC and, or excuse me, 13-0 and it'd be 14-0 to get into the national title game under this setup. But I'm like, so there's 13-0, and now they're playing a 10-3 team that won their first playoff game,

and that's who they're playing in the 1-8 matchup. So, you know, what's the point of me just going 13-0? And so I do think that there's some questions, but as I say it all, like, I know I'm going to like the playoff games. I know we're all going to be talking about them. So I'm not, like, anti, I can't believe this is happening. I knew it was going to happen. I just, I don't know. I have a

hard time with some of those teams. I look at every, I've gone through every one of the rankings prior to and after the conference championship games. And you're like, wait, so that team's going to be in a playoff. That seems ridiculous. Especially some of the teams that skate through a really favorable season on their scheduling. Right. Did you... So I had definitely a shift in opinion in the span of 48 hours because when this model first came out, my initial reaction was, ooh, four buys, have to be conference champion.

Doesn't have to be power five, but conference champion. Notre Dame's going to join the ACC. Like, boom, that's going to happen. They have to. They won't kowtow to the pressure. then I completely flipped that because I saw some very bright people in college football saying why Notre Dame has the best scenario possibility of anybody because they don't have to play in a conference champion game they can get a first so they don't care about the first yeah they could take a buy but they essentially get one by not playing in the conference champion game then they instead of getting a buy they get

a home playoff game which is a massive advantage and a potential huge windfall financial windfall from being able to have all their fans there so that was one like switch that i had i'm like oh i thought notre dame was going to be a loser kind of and they'd have to join ACC, where now they look like one of the biggest winners along with the group of five. But I'm still wondering, and I feel like this model is really close. Like when it first came out and it was reported, I was like, all right, this is just a loose outline. It's subject to change. Maybe it's they throw out 12 and they end on eight or whatever it was. But it feels like

this is what they're doing. But I do think the one thing that I've heard that I do think is worthy of discussion, and maybe even the power players like Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State, they might push back against saying, wait a second. Because when we talk about, hey, in the current model, what sense does it make to have five power five champions and you only have four play? What sense does it make if you're a top four seed, which should be the most coveted spot, and I get that you get a bye, but you don't get a home playoff game? That, to me, doesn't make a ton of sense. And I wonder if there would be enough pushback where that could potentially be addressed.

Now, then you'll find out, because the reason they're doing this is to keep the Bulls somewhat involved. It took us too long. They were going to see that power struggle. But I wonder if there's enough of a pushback. And the Bulls, let's be honest, they've been diminished. They don't have as much power as they did even seven or eight years ago. and I do wonder if there's enough pushback from very influential people at Clemson, at BAM, at Ohio State, at the teams that would likely host a home game,

that they would be able to push that through. I have no idea. Something tells me this is closer to Sharpie than it is Pencil, but that's the one thing that I would love to see. But I do, I appreciate the bowl experience. I appreciate the bowls. It just doesn't make a lot of sense that you could possibly be one of the best four teams and you dear fans don't get

to see you play at home. Yeah. I mean, that's where it gets a little dicey, but you knew that the bowls were going to find a way to survive through this because those guys are still really powerful. And you could see with not only players opting out, that's not really the biggest part of it, but just it's the consumer. Like, wait, this bowl just is a name now. Like it doesn't really mean anything. It's not attached to what the playoff is at this point. I mean, look, the four that we have was still attached to the bowl other than the national championship game, which still was technically like the site of the other bowl. So, and I'm glad you cleaned it up on the Notre Dame thing. Cause it was actually just off the top of my head, like the worst example because of the setup where

they wouldn't get that because of not being with the top of my head, like the worst example because of the setup where they wouldn't get that because of not being with the conference. I still think despite the home fan thing, you know, like the fans always lose on all of these deals. Like the fan is ranked last in level of concern on every single sports transaction. So I don't know. I'd rather just have, you know, I want one less game.

I want one less game to a chance to lose, especially if I'm one of these really special teams at the end of the season. And I'm still trying to win a national championship. All right. I want to bring this up because I saw you. You're way nicer about the baseball SEC stuff live here on the podcast than you were in the tweets. Cause I was seeing some of your stuff and I was like, man, he's gone. It's permeated into the baseball thing. So I think we're going to try to

keep this as cordial as we can. But the ESPN deal, as I mentioned before, $608 million per year for the three playoff games. So we get to 11 games. I was reading some stuff by a media company that was projecting that it was a $1.9 billion deal. So tripling, whenever these TV deals come around, I could see that coming in low. I could see the number, meaning the $1.9 billion projection, that might be low. It might be low. I know that the name, image, and likeness thing is pissed you off although not everything that people think you say you've said i know that you also got really upset because you were reading through some of the arguments which again if anybody's ever read court like arguments i was watching i actually watched c3 yeah right right, I unfortunately have like read divorce proceeding documents and been like,

well, this is ridiculous. And then read the other ones and you're like, well, that's not true. And it's like, it's two people lying slash exaggerating really harshly to make their point. So you're not anti name, image, and likeness. I don't believe, but you were very anti the arguments for it. Is that fair? Yes, because that wasn't only about name, image, and likeness. And as politicians go, because the name, image, and likeness is very bipartisan, right? It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on. You have Republicans that love it. You have Democrats that love it. So that's a great thing. But I do think there is an angle coming in that's, and this is kind of what's happening

in the political landscape with a lot of issues across our country, is that there's, when you have this opportunity, you wanna make your chance to try to say, all right, we have massive movement. We've got public sentiment on our side. Let's just go ahead and keep going. Let's see if we can push the ball, not only through the goal line, let's see if we can

celebrate and throw it out of the stands. That's essentially what I saw happening. Because the name, image, and likeness is clearly going to happen. It's already happened. And I think they're up to seven states now in two weeks, which is nuts that we still haven't figured it out. But that's happening. But what I'm worried about happening is the push to unionize, the push to, and when you say pay the players, that push would actually have them employees and they're actually professionals. And I do think that push was coming

from several senators on Capitol Hill who are gonna have this opportunity on national TV, on C-SPAN, and they've already done it. It's not like they're hiding it, but they came out and were like really hammering it home where billions of dollars, and that term is used all the time, and it's only gonna be more billions of dollars,

are made when it's not actually made. It's really the money that's circulating through the business, but they want to have players compensated as employees. And that to me is sort of the sacred landscape of, man, if we change that, then you potentially destroy everything that college athletics has always been about. And maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm too old-fashioned. Maybe I appreciate what they actually give to you as a student athlete. But I do worry that that's what was happening. They were trying to push this through. But for instance, the first thing that I heard, and this is where I kind of just tuned out, was Cory Booker was the first politician to testify.

And he was saying it. And I don't know. It's always been my experience. The people that played the least tell you the most that they played. And so Cory Booker likes to remind you, hey, I played at Stanford. And he did. He had some stats. He had a nice catcher, too, which I did look up. Yeah, but that's a hell of a lot better than everybody else that's sitting up there. So it's not like it's... Right. But if I want to want to hear from somebody who quote played, give me a current player who's actually playing or give me somebody who actually played a lot and was quote exploited or who felt like they could have made a lot of money. I mean, I, you, you, by the way, you've been very consistent on this. You hate kickers. So I don't just don't, I'm friendly with him. I just don't like him on the field.

So he said, so his opening salvo was like, I've been on Capitol Hill for 20 years and we've been talking about this and nothing has changed. He kept coming back to that. Nothing has changed. And we keep walking and talking in circles and nothing has changed. And I would argue a ton has changed since the time I played, since the time a guy like McElroy, who I work with on The Morning Show, who played about 10, 11 years ago. Things have gotten dramatically better

for the student athlete, any sport. And I'm watching that. I'm like, wait a second. Are you not just gonna ignore that they're getting stipends, that they're getting four-year guaranteed scholarships, that they're getting better healthcare, that they're getting all-year guaranteed scholarships, that they're getting better healthcare, that they're getting all-you-can-eat food.

There have been improvements made, not to mention the facilities that they play in, which are palaces. And I get that it's not paying them. But when I hear that, I'm like, all right, so I see how we're going here. And it's going back to your thing. He's bringing it in from over the top

because a lot of those people hear that and they're not as invested as we are in college athletics. And they're like, oh man, we do need to make big changes when there have been a lot of big changes that have made to make the experience better for students. Could it be better? A hundred percent. And I think the name, image, and likeness

is going to be a monumental shift, but I just want to protect the college experience because if we go to where they have to share revenues with these TV deals, with the conferences, and then the schools are paying them out or wherever that works, then it gets ugly. I played minor league baseball. And it's minor league football, there would be a lot of corners that would be cut. There would be players would be cut. You would see sports cut and even some football programs cut

because I think a lot of schools would realize, you know what, is this really worth it for us? If we're gonna have to pay these guys, let's go in a different direction. I just think it would devastate everything we know that the college athletics has become. And as much as we hear about the negative side, there is a lot of value out there if you're

a scholarship athlete, no matter what sport you play. I took Booker's comments as a fundamental change, not the improvements that you're talking about. So that's kind of how I took it. Because here's the deal. I know the alarmist side of this, of like, hey, look at all these programs that aren't making money, and now you want to do this. If you're talking about the TV revenue that we're looking at here, where this shit's going to triple, okay? Again, the position of so many people on the NCAA side of it being like, wow, there's just not enough money. There's just not enough money.

I want you to tell me the imaginary make-believe number that you would have to get to where then there would be quote enough money. Just admit to me that there's an imaginary number where, cause they'll never going to tell you. They're never going to tell you that that number even exists, even though the numbers probably already been smashed through. So I am not a tear it down guy. I like you, um, can tell who in the media I'm like, you just want it all destroyed. Like you don't even like it. You just want it destroyed. And the problem is for college football and college basketball, specifically when you've made this much money off the backs of athletes and you haven't been honest about it. And the whole approach to the foundation of the structure of the amateur

athlete thing through college is pretty screwed up. My problem is a lot of you programs are broke because you're terrible at running your program and you're continuously gifted this faucet of television cash and the unbelievable growth in revenue for just the conferences in their specific TV deals. And this is in a very short amount of time that this money has been flooded into college football. And you're still going to tell me there's not enough money and that's the part where i go well why would i want to side with that argument why would i want to side with that argument not taking away from all of the positives that you and i have talked about that you have pointed out and why it's always kind

of funny that the people that argue against it never played for the most part. And all the guys that have played, again, this is generalizing, but so many of the people that I've interacted with are like, yeah, it's actually not that bad. And then the people that played are told by the people that didn't play that they're idiots. by the people that didn't play that they're idiots. So that's where if I were you and I were a quarterback at a big time program like Florida State, I know I'd have problems with those arguments. But as I've sift through all of it in the last few years and kind of pivoted and changed my mind, I don't want to defend the corporation, the corporation being the NCAA here that keeps lying to us and telling us that there's not enough money when they're just bad at spending. So I totally agree with you. There's got to be a point at the number becomes

outrageous. The numbers are outrageous. The numbers have already been passed where you could take care of people. But when you look at the NCAA's bottom line balance sheet, do you think they're walking away with billions? They're not. Like, it's expensive to run the entire landscape of sports. I know it's expensive. Stop firing coaches and buying them out for $30 million every two or three years. Those don't come from the NCAA's money. Those come from boosters.

So there you go. So you should have even more cash then. Right. Well, no doubt there's frivolous spending across campuses. I mean, I'm actually in Tallahassee this week. And I'm not saying Florida State's being frivolous, but there are a lot of buildings going up. They have a lot of plans that are implemented to increase the weight room and the locker room and every college football program and college basketball program. And a lot of times it's spread out throughout.

This is one of the things I like about it, where there's a beach volleyball program here. The golf program has been implemented. It's grown and they're really nice facilities. And it goes to all of sports. The money kind of flows throughout. And that's where I think you could say... And that's the thing, the consequence that could be if you said,

all right, well, all this money that's coming in, it's going to go to the football players. We're going to have to pay them, the football and basketball players. What happens to the ancillary products? Because you know that they're still going to want to make a certain amount of money. And if that comes out of the school's bottom lines, the programs they're going to cut or at least significantly alter will be those non-revenue earning sports,

baseball, the women's sports. And I honestly don't know what the solution is because we do have Title IX in place. And I don't know how that works. If you said, you know what? All these programs are making money and I let you use that line, which I can't stand,

off the backs of basketball and football players. Why does that have to go to everybody? Let's just keep it and give it all to the football and basketball players. What does that mean to everybody else? No, that's why I always think it's also a really tricky thing when I can see somebody that is tear down college football, but then also pro like Title IX, Title IX, no matter what. And then it's like, man, you're, you just walked yourself into a corner because if you want everybody to be paid, but then you also want the non generating, you know, revenue, um, sports. And I'm not even talking like just title nine, but like, I don't want the soccer team to make money if they're not making money, you know,

like I just don't, but, um, it's, I just think the schools could be better. I think it's a lot like tuition spikes when this, when you look at tuition spikes and you go just think the schools could be better. I think it's a lot like tuition spikes. When you look at tuition spikes and you go, how the hell could we be here on tuition in such a short amount of time? The inflation of tuition matching compared to other things, it's beyond it. And then you'll look at like, oh, well, schools are hiring more and more administrators. And you're like, oh, okay. Well, what the hell's going on there then? So that's just being passed along. So I think the price of this, if you were to go back in time 15 like, oh, okay. Well, that's what the hell's going on there then. So like that's just being passed along. So I think the price of this,

if you were to go back in time 15 years, Danny, and said to conference commissioners, hey, this is how much money you're going to be making per team on your TV deal. And this is what they would think. Like we won't even have enough time to spend all that money. And then guess what? All they do is tell us how much they spend it.

So I don't know. Hey, let me let you go here, but say hi to the girls for me. I hope everybody's doing great. I see the videos all the time. All they do is tell us how much they spend it. So I don't know. Hey, let me let you go here, but say hi to the girls for me. I hope everybody's doing great. I see the videos all the time. It looks like you've got just a posse of athletes there with this group. Instagram can be misleading, right?

So they're really athletic. It's not like I have phenoms, though. They're awesome. I love it. I will say this. I don't have a favorite, but I have a favorite age. My girl Brady's age is going to be nine in two weeks. That is the sweet spot.

12, 13, 14, not so much the sweet spot. Take it for what it's worth. All right. All right. Noted. We all know that I wanted Brady to stay five the rest of her life. I'm trying to get her to stay eight the rest of her life. That's Danny Cannell.

It's good to catch up. Thanks, man. Yeah, you got it. You want details? Fine. I drive a Ferrari. 355 Cabriolet. What's up?

I have a ridiculous house in the South Fork. I have every toy you could possibly imagine. And best of all, kids, I am liquid. So, now you know what's possible. Let me tell you what's required. Hey, Life Advice. It is lifeadvicerr at gmail.com. We got a simple one here.

Money owed by an ex. 6'1", 185. Girlfriend of two years and I broke up a couple weeks ago. Sorry to hear that, man. I was listening to the pod today and you talked about, uh, your producer selling your stuff on Poshmark and I'm right there with you. Um,

why didn't date my producer though? So I think that's a slight different, we were talking about small men, by the way, small men and I, we, uh, got to the bottom of it.

I let her keep all the money for the failed Poshmark attempt. So I did not, I knew I, it's not my tendency to like screw somebody over on something like that. So, like ever, but she was like,

no, no, no. She's like, you let me keep all the other clothes that didn't sell and there was about 200 bucks in sales and I was going to keep

a percentage and you just let me keep it all because you felt bad. I was like, all right, credit to myself. All right. So while this guy

who's emailing was dating his girl, she suggested selling my Melanzana hoodie. Does that sound right, guys? I'm not familiar with that brand. He says it's a Colorado company. Super big with outdoorsy college kids right now. I need some guidance on this one.

I'm not saying it's not great gear. I just don't know anything about it. Anyone? I just looked it up. I never heard it before, looks pretty dope kind of like a cooler patagonia cooler cooler patty i don't know dude well you know like not as mainstream as patagonia that's what i'm trying to i think it goes and save it for a year and then patagonia and then north face wait kyle's a patagonia that's that again surprising me i did not expect

kyle to be a patagonia guy wait a a minute. Rank the outdoor gear in order again, Kyle? What were your rankings? It goes Summit Ice, Patagonia, then North Face. And then actually, Columbia's actually got some really awesome stuff. I actually like their women's line. Took one of those jackets in college. It was like the North Face stealing game at a party. Somebody stole mine.

I ended up stealing something. And I ended up with a a woman's large woman's um columbia jacket and i loved it for like two solid years you wore a woman's large columbia jacket we didn't know we didn't know it was women's for a little while but it did turn out to be uh women's when you found out it was women's you were like i don't care i love this jacket i'm not taking it i've already been wearing it for a while so i don't know what color was it it was women's, you were like, I don't care. I love this jacket. I'm not taking it off. I've already been wearing it for a while. So I don't know. What color was it?

It was like maroon and white. It was real nice. Clean, too. Yeah. It was kind of like an early Aviator Nation color combo. Because Aviator Nation goes with those kind of retro colors for some of their more winterized gear. Yeah. Sure.

Sure. What about CB? Kids still rocking that hmm LL Bean I'd have North Face higher but that was that was you know you go to Vermont you get a North Face being below Patagonia my my era would have argued that that would have been like a Westbrook Chris Paul argument I mean it's just I would not concede anything so all right all right My era would have argued that. That would have been like a Westbrook-Chris Paul argument.

I mean, I would not concede anything. All right, back to this. Thanks for sharing that, though, Kyle. Okay, she got our emailer a new hoodie while she was up in Colorado last summer, which I paid for, he says. Okay, so he paid for the new one. The old one I had was redundant. You can't have two hoodies from the same company that you like? That's weird. Maybe these guys are real small space, small carbon footprint people. Colorado, maybe? All right. So I gave it to her

to sell on Poshmark, and she said she'd send me the money once she sold it. She told me she sold it about a week before we broke up. You can probably see where this is going. My question is, do I ask her for the money? She's still in college, and money is always tight for her. I'm a recent grad and doing well for a 23-year-old. Just got a raise after my six-month review. What's up? 15% plus 4% matching in the 401k. Also, what's up?

Thank you for those stats. My thoughts right now are it's only $80. And I really don't want to get in contact with her as I was the one who was broken up with. So she dumped you. Should I just let it go? Or fuck it, it's my money. Screw her for ditching a dude who's smart with a 401k. Just kidding.

How sad would it be if that was a primary characteristic of mine? I don't know. I didn't mind you saying it, but I could also see why it would be criticized. Love the podcast. Kyle, please weigh in. All right, well, we've already gotten some gems from Kyle

before we even get to the answer to this one. So we're talking about 80 bucks. We're talking about 80 bucks. Yeah, the principle is that it's your 80 bucks. Like she said, she sold it. And then you broke up a week after you sold it and she would do this for you. And it's a favor, but I don't know. You want to track her down for the 80 bucks. I mean, you didn't mention whether or not you want to get back together with her at all. I would not bring it up. If you do want to get back together with her. Um, that'll be a funny little story though. If you

get back together and you have kids, you have lemonades out on the back porch, and you're like, hey, you know, I almost asked you for that 80 bucks, but then I listened to this podcast and I didn't. Now look at this. Or you're going to really miss her for like three years and be super pissed. And then you'll send her a drunk DM on Instagram one night and say, hey, you still owe me 80 bucks for that. And then you're just going to look like a clown.

So you have a lot of options here. Don't know where it's going to all go. You don't have to follow up with the deeper relationship understanding for the email because probably not going to read it anyway. But I think it's 80 bucks. I think it sounds like you're doing fine. You are right to feel annoyed. She is wrong for keeping the money.

But sometimes in life, these transactions that are not monumental amounts of money are just easier to move on from. So that would be my advice. Word. I had a similar thing years ago. I helped this girl fix her phone. It was a girl I was dating. It was a short summer thing.

Helped her fix her phone. Cost a hundred bucks. She said she was going to pay me back. Super volatile relationship. We break up. And then I was having, I was in the same situation. I was like, do I ask her? Do I not?

I asked her. She made it really difficult for me. And I hate that I asked her now. I don't know why I do. I don't actually, I couldn't reach into the files of cabinet of my brain and say exactly why I wish I didn't ask her, but I wish I didn't.

I did something where I broke up with somebody and I was bummed out about it, but I owed her a little bit of money for a hotel stay and I always cover everything. And I, it just happened to be that she had made the reservation. So she paid for the hotel stay. And then I, um, after we broke up, I was like, ah, you know, I don't want her to think I never want to pay it so i gave her like too much money and guess what that didn't work so don't do that guys don't don't give yourself a bummed out tax after the fact and think like a little extra in a check is gonna make her come back and if it does make her come back it's probably a terrible sign too right so uh i don't know i don't know how old i was i don't know if i was i had to have been over 30

because i didn't make any money any until like i don't know 32 maybe so yeah maybe right around that range just trying to i was going to try to show off my net worth. Didn't know how to act. Like $500 check. Yeah, yeah. I'm going to make this out for $750. Got some extra cash lying around. I do think it is a weird, I think it's almost cooler, even if you don't want to get back together with her,

it's almost cooler if you don't ask her for the money because then she's like, wow, he's doing really well. And she might kind of second guess her decision, even if you don't want to get back with her. You kind of want that vibe out there. Yeah, it's also 80 bucks. So I don't know if she's bragging to her friends being like this guy, man, I regret this.

This guy's doing real well. Like 80 bucks, he didn't even sneeze. I don't think that's going to happen. Yes, but the opposite would happen if you were like, hey, about that 80 bucks. You're right, Cerruti. That's why I feel yucky about asking that girl for the 100 bucks.

Thank you. That's exactly what it was. Bad luck. All right. We have a check-in from over a year ago where a guy asked about potentially getting engaged and staying with a girlfriend, even though he's trying to get into coaching. And apparently the advice worked and he has a ring and he's going to propose. Now you're saying, all right, what are you doing? Pat yourself on the back, follow-ups? We don't do that very much here. I'd say maybe less than 1% of the content, but our man has a question. So Kyle filed this one off and I think there's, there's a really good, this is unique enough. So let's do it. All right. Last one. Thanks for answering the first one.

And the best advice that you gave was not have it all figured out and go through the process with her. Well, good news is that I have a ring. So I do remember this. I think it was like, Hey, don't try to check every single box at this age. If you care about her this much and she's down and you think she's the one, then go for it. Like, don't, don't feel like you have to be like a do it yourself-yourself kit or a take-home pasta night deal where all the ingredients are already there. Because most of us aren't and most of us never will be. So I'm kind of stalling here a bit as I'm reading a little ahead. All right. So he goes, he's ready to propose. Very excited. I have only one small thing playing a factor. I'm relatively new to the stage of my life where friends get married and need to know

if this issue is a real thing. All right, let me check. He was 25 when he sent the email. So he's 26 now. My best friend is getting married in two weeks, knows myself and another one of our groomsmen are ready to propose. He's made jokes about us not popping the question at the wedding, which we laugh off. But then there's another part.

He continues to joke that we have to avoid asking too close to his wedding day. Is there an unwritten rule about giving him his space and time around his wedding? I want to propose this Friday, June 18th, during the night, because then we can see family with Father's Day and celebrate with them. His wedding is June 26th. One side of me says it's my life and proposal. I shouldn't be concerned with when it is in relation to his wedding. And it's not like he gets to put yellow caution tape on the calendar to block it out. I also don't want to be the shitty friend that steps on his toes and steals his thunder. Am I overthinking this or essentially bunting for a hint in the ninth of a no hitter? Thanks and appreciate it.

The no engagement thing on a wedding day, I think, makes a lot of sense. Now, some people like it and think it's cool. And if you get to sign up, that's great. That's not what you're asking here. And I think it is a bold, borderline dick move to do it on somebody's wedding day if you haven't gotten clearance ahead of time. But the way you set this up, like, you want to propose this Friday. You want to be able to see friends and family, especially coming off of everything that we've gone through here in the last year plus, then you do it. You propose to her on Friday.

Everything you're saying is totally fine. I don't, I don't never heard about this. Like, I guess I've, I guess it's come up like the too soon, but what, what's the window here? Um, so yeah, man, I mean, honestly, the fact that you were, let's see, were you from the Midwest? Yeah, I think he was. Um, the fact that you're even concerned about this hypothetical, I've, I've not heard enough about this to think that this is some rule again, is the non-married guy. Um, I, there's always, there's a few holes in my game, but I don't remember any of my friends saying to somebody else,

like, hey, I hope you don't propose in a private situation not affiliated whatsoever with my wedding or wedding party or rehearsal dinner, and I need like a one-month buffer. That's ridiculous. So I would go ahead and do it and let it fly. And if he has a problem with that, I think he's being a little too selfish about how much territory he owns here. So Rudy, have you heard about anything like this? You're married.

I have. I think the week leading up is kind of like a no-fly zone. I wouldn't care, but I know people definitely do care. I know that was a thing around certain weddings that I've been to. Um, obviously like you're in that stage of your life where everyone's getting engaged like every other week. So, and you're going to a lot of weddings. So there's a

lot of congested things going on, but if it's a month out, that's not fine. I think the problem would be that if you propose the lead up, like a week up to one of your friend's wedding, right? And then you go to that person's wedding as a newly engaged person, it's taking all the shine off of the couple that's actually getting married, you know, because everyone's asking you, oh my God, congratulations, instead of paying attention to the couple that's actually getting married. So I'm not saying it's right, but I have heard it before. And I think, I think the, a week out is probably a bad look, but I think if you're a month out, that's fine. Well, it's not going to be a month out. We're talking a week out here. I'm

saying go for it. I mean, I guess if you really wanted to freak out about it, you could propose, you could share it with friends and family and then keep it on the down low for the wedding weekend. That's a good idea. You could do it that way too. I just think there's a level of attention that I know that the bride is expecting to get in this moment, but it's also kind of a bride thing.

But apparently this guy's also kind of down with it too, so that means the bride is probably down with it so it sounds like as saruti maps it out maybe they are going to get a little bummed out by the whole thing but i don't know man like if if you're real friends and you say hey i wanted to get proposed so friday on or excuse me on father's day this weekend we could spend it with family and celebrate because we haven't got to see each other a ton and on top of that like we don't know when we're all going to be together again around holiday, unless you guys are just crazy holiday get together families, you know, um,

I would, again, I'm a reasonable person. Okay. So I can't say everybody else there is as reasonable. Um, I don't have a problem with it, but I think Cerruti brings up some important things there because you're right. Like you're going to have your new rock on or your your girl is unless you have some newer newer you know arrangement that i haven't read about yet on reddit but um i would yeah you get it like she's gonna show up other girls are gonna be like oh my god oh my god my god and if this guy's already hinting at that then he's yeah and he's probably gonna be bummed out about it. So I would just go ahead with a proposal on Friday and then just keep it, keep it on the down low throughout the weekend. And, and, or you could just be like, as soon as the toast is over, you'd be like, oh, and by the way, no, just a mess with

everybody. Kyle, I know what you would do. I have no thoughts. I would actually do it when you're planning on doing it. I mean, I could say, yeah, obviously don't like propose at the wedding. And, you know, definitely don't ever do that, I think. But yeah, do it when you want to do it. And then maybe hide the ring or don't hide the fucking ring. I actually kind of don't like this guy's friends for doing all these weird suggestions. But, you know, I'm not I'm not the one that's going to make your life easier. So I don't I should just abstain.

I mean, you'd like to think that, uh, another couple in the wedding party, as this guy mentioned, he's a groomsman in this deal that like, Hey, those, those few moments over the course of the wedding, you know,

reception where someone comes up and congratulates, you know, one of my best friends, now fiance's, like I could share that shine a little bit. You'd like to think that more people could kind of do that, but I don't know, man, people, we all have kind of like some weird rules, uh, about stuff, but I didn't know. So you've talked about this with friends. I can't believe, I don't know, maybe my friends, it was never, it was never aligned that way and it never came up or maybe

no one was ever worried about me proposing to anyone, so they never came up with me. I remember one or two, one time specifically when I believe the groom, not the groom, I believe the guy who was proposing asked the bride-to-be whose wedding was coming up whether or not it was okay to do that. So maybe you could do that in this situation. She's probably going to say yes no matter what because she's not going to want to seem like a total tool. But you can kind of read her reaction. If she doesn't seem super pumped about it, maybe, you know, maybe lay off. And then here's the other thing. If you just get engaged, you know, the friends at the wedding shouldn't be all in front of the bride and groom being like, oh my God, I'm so happy about your engagement. Just do it in private. Like, you know, make sure

you're not throwing it in the bride and groom's face. This is their day. And this is obviously what everyone's there for in the first place. So I think you just have to handle it carefully and have to figure out what your friend's vibe is going to be too. Well said. Big thanks to Steve Cerruti and, of course, Kyle Crichton on another terrific episode of the Ryan Rusillo Podcast on Spotify. Please subscribe,

rate, and review, and we will talk to you on Thursday. Thank you.