Will Cain Country - Attacks On Elon Musk And X Are About Control

Episode Date: December 8, 2023

OutKick's Bobby Burack joins Will in an action-packed episode centered around his new article discussing why Elon Musk and X are being targeted by, well, everyone.    The two also ask if college presidents truly believe in free speech following the abhorrent testimony before Congress from the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn.    They then debate who won the latest Republican presidential debate, if the future of College Football is to become a minor league for the NFL, and who will be the Republican vice-presidential nominee?   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, the SEC, the DOJ, Disney. Why is everyone attacking Elon Musk and X? Two, do college presidents truly believe in free speech? the abhorrent behavior, the abhorrent testimony before Congress from the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and PIN. Three, who won the latest Republican presidential debate? Winners and losers. Four, a minor league NFL, the future of college football. Five, who will be the vice president?

Who will be the running mate? to Donald Trump. It's the Will Kane podcast on Fox News Podcast. What's up? And welcome to the weekend. Welcome to Friday. As I hope you will download, Ray, and review this podcast wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. You can watch the Will Kane podcast on YouTube and follow me on X at Will Kane. Today, we will be joined by Outkicks Bobby Burrack. You can check him out on Twitter on X or at Outkick. where he writes, I think, some of the most independent and insightful columns on the media, on politics, and on sports. And as such, we're not going to limit ourselves to three stories

today. We're going with a jumbo pack to take you into the weekend. We're going with five stories on Elon Musk, on college football, on the Republican presidential debate, on free speech on college campuses, and on Donald Trump's running mate, who would be the vice president. Here is Outkicks, Bobby Burak. Outkicks, Bobby Burak. What's up, man? It's great to have you on the Will Kane show here today. You have a new column up at Outkick, wherein you address the advertiser boycott of X, the target that is now Elon Musk.

What do you make of Elon Musk being a target, not just of the federal government and various agencies within the federal government, but also now the private market and advertisers boycotting X? Yeah, first of all, I appreciate you having me. I thought this whole idea of trying to, as Elon put it, kill X and destroy it, was always inevitable. From the moment he bought it, Will, you remember that night, you had Democrat politicians, CEOs of business, Hollywood celebrities threatening to leave the service. They were saying that this is going to put us back. This is going to encourage hate speech. And you saw all the investigations from the SEC, the Biden-D-O-J started to investigate Tesla after the purchase. For over 14 months now, Elon Musk and X have been the target of what I would say, this left-wing power cabal of politicians, celebrities, and quote-unquote reporters.

But last month was different. It was the most aggressive attack yet to remind people how this all started. The Watchdog Media Matters ran a report saying that X is placing ads next to pro-Nazi content. That is what triggered this boycott when you had Bob Iger of Disney and Apple had to pull out. But now we know that wasn't really true because if they were actually boycotting anti-Semitism will, why aren't those advertisers boycotting Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, all the witch. have more anti-Semitic content than X by far. So then why are they targeting Musk? Well, things obvious that, look, what's coming up, the 2024 election?

You go back to the last election, I thought the biggest disservice to the country and voters was the lack of factual information to the average American. Doing research on this piece, 54% of Biden voters say they were unaware. aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story. 20% of voters say they would have voted differently had they known. If you go back to the interference that Facebook and Twitter engaged in during the election, it was clearly it assisted Joe Biden. I don't think that is questionable at all. We've seen the data. But had X existed in its current form, those 54% of voters, at least some of them would have been aware of that report.

If they can eliminate X or de-platform it or brow beat Elon Musk into policing thoughts, that is a huge advantage again to Biden. I put in the piece, I think an uncensored mainstream social media service is the greatest threat to Biden's re-election campaign. You're already seeing it. TikTok right now is removing negative. stories about Biden, so is Facebook. X is the one place you can find that information. So if media matters in Disney, both of which clearly do not want Trump or whoever the Republican nominee is

to win, eliminating X is the obstacle they would take. So I think it's all jumbled in there. They say this is a boycott in protests of anti-Semitism. That's a lie. This is a protest against free speech on the internet ahead of an election year. Yeah, and I think process of elimination leads you to that inevitable conclusion. This isn't about anti-Semitism. It's about free speech. That process of elimination you laid out in part, or you laid out in whole, which is that it's not just targeting, if you were truly interested in targeting anti-Semitism,

you wouldn't perhaps even start, but you certainly wouldn't finish with X. You'd go to TikTok, you'd go to Instagram, you'd go to Facebook. If this were truly about anti-Semitism, you'd be targeting X. You wouldn't expand your investigations. into Tesla and SpaceX and Musk's other businesses, which I know those investigations came before this dust up over anti-Semitism. But what it shows, it's not about free speech. It's about, or it's not about offensive speech. It's about control. And Musk represents the biggest threat to narrative control. Absolutely. By far. And you go back and look at the hypocrisy.

these CEOs are saying that they can associate with the quote unquote dangerous content that spread across X. Wait a minute. The Wall Street Journal just put out a expose last week talking about how child predators are finding children for sex trafficking via the algorithm on Instagram. It's far more dangerous than somebody on X saying the vaccine didn't work or that mask were ineffective or that Joe Biden knew about Hunter Biden's business affairs. So I don't believe any of it. And the same people who are saying this is all about anti-Semitism will are the same people

who said that Black Lives Matters was all about racial injustice or that the Russia hoax was about election integrity or that the trans movement is all about equality. All of this stuff is about control. It's never about what they actually say it is. In fact, the people in power continue to exploit so-called marginalized groups in order to further their advantage. All right. Let's talk about what that advantage is in service of and what the control is meant to advance. Let's move to a second story. I want to touch with you here today. And that's the testimony before Congress of College Administrators, the presidents of Harvard and Penn and MIT.

pressed by Congresswoman Elise Stefanik on whether or not calling for the genocide of Jews was against the codes of conduct of those respective colleges. None of them could or would answer directly. It was always an equivocation, a bit of, well, it depends on what context. There was awkward smiling, specifically in the case of the president of the University of Pennsylvania. And so much so that there was apparently an emergency board meeting called after that congressional test. testimony of Penn, wherein they got together to discuss her horrific performance in front of Congress. All of them, by the way, all of them are being absolutely lambasted for just immorality on display before the world. But you know what they did, Bobby, is they all hid

behind the banner, the shield of free speech. And so in this case, they are essentially the Elon Musk. They are claiming the same position held by. Elon Musk for his private business, but in this case, for their universities. Yeah, and I think this is this answer or this conversation is two-part, because hypocrisy is evident, right? Harvard was voted the worst university in America for free speech in September. So Harvard does not value free speech. That's obvious. That's been proven. It's been proven for years. So to see them now hide and use free speech as a shield should demonstrate. diminish and even force us to dismiss their argument.

However, here's where I think conservatives have gotten all of this wrong. And I wrote about this about a month ago. I thought the view, believe it or not, laid it out pretty well when they said college is the perfect place to allow people to express those opinions. And I agree because, well, the answer to hate speech is not less speech, it's more speech. people with truly destructive thoughts, which these Ivy League students have shown us they have, they're most effective when people don't know their thoughts. These Ivy League colleges, they are a gateway to the cultural elite, be it politicians, lawyers,

doctors. So by letting them speak and show us what they think of Jewish people, decolonization, Hamas, and anti-Semitism, that has shown people who didn't believe. hey, what they're actually being programmed to believe in these colleges. I think it's been illuminating for a lot of people. I know you and I, because we've discussed this, I believe on the last time I was on here, you and I have a lot of doubts about higher education. But most of America, they still believe that higher education validates you.

But now you're starting to see high esteem law firms pull job offers to students from Ivy League colleges. So I'm glad they've been able to speak who they are, tell us who they are. And I agree. I am glad Harvard, Yale, Princeton are letting these colleges, students tell us what they think about this topic. I just wish they'd also let students speak out about other controversial topics, which they haven't. Okay, I want to take this one. I think this is a fascinating subject that I want to take this in three parts. So I want to go step by step. First of all, on let's use the view as our prism into seeing whether or not this is truly a principled stand for free speech. You have a column up about this as well at Outkick. Sonny Hosten, who's an attorney, made the argument in

defense of these university professors that college, as you pointed out, is the perfect place to sort of let these debates rage. And she pointed out that this kind of speech is protected by the First Amendment. She's somewhat correct in that the line, the limit of free speech is a direct incitement of violence. That was established in the late 19th, in a case before the Supreme Court. It essentially amounts to, hey, boys, let's go get them. That's essentially the limit of free speech. It's not the much used and worn out fire in a crowded theater standard. It is essentially, in my words, the hey boys, let's go get them standard. That is the limit of free speech. So as abhorrent as it may be to say, you know, from the river

to the sea or whatever that is anti-Semitic, or however we define. And all these are very important things. How do you define calling for the genocide of Jews? All these things are the definition is important because that's what we're setting the standard of free speech. However, what I'm getting at is I don't think Sonny Hosten, nor do I think those university professors are principal defenders of free speech. They, if you just replaced a few words in this line of questioning, would absolutely put on another hat. They would sit on the other side of the table. If you replaced anti-Semitism with racism, if you replaced Jews with blacks, you would, and truthfully, you could also do the same thing, most likely with trans, replaced Jews with trans. And you would see these university professors saying this type of language absolutely violates our code of conduct on harassment and bullying and has no place at Harvard.

They wouldn't sit before Congress and equivocate saying, you know, it depends on the context. Oh, absolutely. And that's, yeah, two-part answer, right? The hypocrisy is evident, but the same time, I'm glad they can say it. But I wish they could say, hey, all lives matter, which a New York Post story found students in 2020 who would yell all lives matter or posted on social media. They were punished by the university. So you're right. You can say right now pretty much whatever you want about Jewish students. But if you were to counter black, black, life matter in 2020 or trans people now, the repercussions would be far more severe. So the hypocrisy is obviously gross and obvious. And I mean, it shouldn't happen. But sometimes it's, I think that some people think, and it can be sometimes unproductive or cheap to point out hypocrisy. But not in this case. I think hypocrisy is important. So first of all, it just, okay, we can disavow ourselves of the pretense that universities are bastions of free speech. I don't think anybody believed it anyway so we can dismiss with that idea to start, nor are most social media companies.

That's the sin of the attempt of Elon Musk in X. But the reason for the hypocrisy is even more interesting. And that's why I said when we started this topic, let's talk about what the controls are in pursuit of. Why? Why would those university professors tolerate hateful speech towards Jews, but not tolerate. hateful speech towards blacks. Now, each and every one of those words that I just use required definition, what is hateful? You know, I think that's the most important thing.

But for the moment, let's just presume that we could all arrive at a definition or one example and say, that's clearly hateful. Why is there a different standard for Jews than there are for trans or for blacks? Because these institutions, just like a lot of politicians and corporate leaders, They bucket every member of society into two categories, oppressed and oppressors. In this case of the Hamas-Israel war, it's colonized versus colonizers. They simplify it into good guy, bad guy. They believe, in this case, the Jews are the bad guys, just like they say the white people

and the straight people are, or they say, in the case of Black Lives Matter, black people and the Palestinians and trans people are victims. That's what it boils down to. Yes, I think that is exactly correct. And by the way, we should go ahead and reach the equal sign in on this. Do you think set aside the student that's actually uttering those hateful words, but the university that is attempting to sit in the seat of a judge of those hateful words? So do you think, therefore, it's less that the judge, the university policy, the university president, is hateful towards Jewish people. So it's less traditional concepts of anti-Semitism and more that they just simply see Jewish people as oppressor and they're indistinguishable in that situation, then

therefore your standard white person in America, and therefore they're bad. In other words, In other words, that professor or that college president isn't walking around on a daily basis hateful of Jews, but is walking around on a daily basis hateful of anyone that they see as an oppressor, and that is a constantly sliding scale of contextual relationships. Well, I think it's the latter, but I would even go deeper. I think it's what they believe Jewish people represent. And in this case, it's, well, they stole that land, white people. stole this. I think it's deeper than that. I think they're absolutely looking at them as

oppressors, but I think they also look at them as a poster of the people they hate most in America. You've seen... But they see Jews as the oppressor in this contextual relationship, right? When set next to the Palestinians and on the issue of Israel. If it were, if it were a white student at a white Caucasian wasp student at Penn, who, who in some way were saying something, you know, unacceptable to a Jewish student, that same administrator would flip it on the oppressor oppressed, you know, dynamic and take the side of the Jewish student, regardless of the merits of the statement or anything else. The point is the relationship is always a contextual, present tense, a judgment of who is the oppressor and the press based upon your superficial characteristics. Yeah. So it goes back to what I call the hierarchy of victimhood, right? Like if you get an argument with a woman will on Twitter, they can say, well, Will Kane sexes. But if that same woman is to get an argument with a trans person, they'll call that woman transphobic, right? So it's where you rank on that hierarchy of victimhood. And in this case, Jews rank lower. Right. I think that's fascinating. The world as viewed through the prism of a totem pole, not through principle or even facts. It's never a fact-based analysis. We learned that during all the racial injustice crimes from 2015 to 2020. There's no interest in whether or not it was a garage pull or it was a noose in Bubba Wallace's garage. The facts didn't matter. What matters is the character in the drama and where they rank,

on the societal totem pole. And in this huge issue, what Jews have learned, American Jews have learned, is that they are higher on the totem pole than Palestinians. And then therefore, you always defend the person who is the oppressed lower member of the totem pole. Yeah. And we saw this in June when I wrote about it when there were several gay journalists who said, hey, we used to be told we're victims. now they say were privileged because of trans people, right?

So gay people have been pushed down in favor of trans people, but still, if it's a gay person versus straight person, then again, the gay group is more likely to be called the victims. So it's all about who you're stacked up against. It would be a perfect, if there were a set of nuts inside of Saturday Not Live, it'd be the perfect skit for Saturday Not Live. I mean, this is the richest ground for comedy. and, you know, setting out our standards.

What does it look like? What is the ranking on the totem pole? What happens when you're confronted with two different victims? Which one is higher on the hierarchy? Who wins, you know, when nothing matters but for your superficial characteristics on the totem pole? I want to move on the hypocrisy. Oh, yeah, final thought on that is I so badly, and I joke about this when I go on radio hits, I do want a serious each week.

I want to write a counter to S&L because there is so much fodder to make fun of right now and nobody's doing it, that'd be a perfect cold open. And so kudos to you on that idea. We'll be right back with more of the Will Cain podcast. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise seven

million dollars visit go dot box forward slash tx flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts well i want to move to the principal for just a moment now um you're you're exactly right and i love how you laid it out on if you truly become someone who believes in free speech you don't find yourself today i think in the position of many people highlighting this story with the university professors you don't find yourself advocating for increasing you know, policies towards suppressing speech that is deemed anti-Semitic. I think the defender of free speech today says, hey, we need to spend some time defining what is anti-Semitic.

And that's obviously almost impossible to do. And by the way, a university's code of conduct is not one in the same as the First Amendment. I will say, Sonny Hosten got that roughly. It wasn't Sunny Austin. It was actually her co-host, Alyssa Griffin, who said that, that, The First Amendment is not the same thing. The United States government's approach to free speech is not the same thing as universities or social media companies unless the government is working behind the scenes to go back door into a social media company to suppress speech. But I am concerned that, you know, through this moment, that all of a sudden the censors have become the defenders of free speech and the defenders of free speech have become the censors on when it comes to anti-Semitism.

You know, to hear the university professors hide behind the shield of free speech, even hypocritically is odd. And to hear Republicans now talking about doing away with speech is concerning. I agree with you. These institutions having displayed this horrific speech is useful. It should show us all. Hey, maybe that's not where you need to be. Maybe you don't need to be at Penn or Harvard. Maybe that's a bad place to continue to outsource credibility.

So what I'm getting at is in the political presidential debate earlier this week, Nikki Haley, for example, fully became a voice for censorship when it comes to anti-Semitism. And she, I believe this was her direct statement, Bobby, she said, we need to redefine anti-Semitism to include anti-Zionism. So if you are anti-Zionist, which means you have questions about the creation of the state of Israel, then you hate Jewish people. I'm not anti-Zionist, nor am I anti-Semitic, but I know the difference in those. two things. I don't think they're one and the same. Or if they are one and the same, then we need to have a

very strict definition. If we're going to start outlying or condemning speech, the power always resides in the hands of the dictionary, the person doing the defining. And in that case, I don't feel very good about the definer being Nikki Haley. Yeah, I don't either. And she's exposed herself. I mean, the wrong side, it seems to be on so many of these issues, including that one, right? And that's why I've hated any tech platform, especially YouTube, defining hate speech because we're allowing people who really aren't all that credible

to decide what's hateful and what's not. She's one of them. I don't want her deciding what's appropriate, not appropriate, or hateful or not hateful. I mean, this is a woman who, as it reemerged this week, was pretty reluctant to say that people under 18 shouldn't go through genital mutilation. So to give her any sort of authority to define anything gives me cause to pause. It does for me as well.

And look, I just think the answer, I'm a true believer in free speech. And I think it is the sunlight that is the disinfectic. It's not a toxic soup that creates more hatred. Let's move to that debate. Let's move to the Republican primary debate that featured Chris Christie, Nikki, Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Vivek Ramaswamy. I want to set the record straight, Bobby, because I think I got this wrong as well. Nikki Haley, in an interview with CBS this past summer, seems to have said that genital

or gender surgery should be left up to a parent and a child, and there should be no interference from the state. It seemed to be implied there, including for people under the age of 18. A, she didn't say it this week when it went viral, it was from this last summer. B, I think that video was edited in a way where it didn't include that she said later I was talking about people over the age of 18. So I am going to give her some grace on maybe we have not all consumed a video that is an accurate representation of her views.

Still, that being said, she gives me a ton of pause on free speech, on anonymity on the internet, on strength. She was on the wrong side of that Bubba Wallace issue. I just mentioned earlier. And I still am not wholly confident in where she is on the trans issue because I feel like she goes with the flow, meaning if it gives the mainstream culture is going a certain way, she goes that way. And she got hammered in that debate by Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Yeah. And I thought DeSantis, the first debate, September, maybe late up, yeah, September, DeSantis was weak, didn't come out as aggressive. I think he has won the past two G. debates in the past, in the debate against Gavin Newsom about 10 days ago. But I'm with you. I thought that Haley was the clear loser in the debate last night. Christy, I don't even really count at this point, but I thought she was the biggest loser.

Yeah, and I go back to the first debate when she wanted to give more money to Ukraine. We don't really know where she stands in the trans movement. We could debate that video. We know where she stands on Ukraine. Her track record on free speech is not impressive, and her instincts, which I believe most importantly, is poor. You go back to the Bubba Wallace thing. You were the first one really to expose her last May by bringing that up. Her instincts are not good.

Conversely, I think Ron DeSantis, for the most part, particularly as governor, has shown that his instincts are more or less aligned with. the base. So this is my takeaway, Bobby. I thought as well that Ron DeSantis was the winner of that debate. I do not think it will move the needle in the Republican primary, but I do think it was the best version yet we've seen of Ron DeSantis. I try to, and I have this debate with Rachel Campos Duffy a lot. I try to differentiate what I think and what I like from what I think the public may like and what resonates with the public. I recognize they're not always one in the same. And I like Vivek Grandma Swami. I think he makes very substantive, intellectual, interesting, deep points. I'm afraid the public is done with Vivek. I'm afraid the public is

tired of his demeanor, his sort of like smartest guy in the room persona. I just have this feeling that the casual person out there, who I don't think was tuned into that debate, but maybe is tuned in to, you know, two of them so far is probably turned off by Vivek. And by the same token, I've already explained in this podcast and to my audience, I have grave concerns, grave concerns about Nikki Haley. But I think she may, I'm not willing to call her the loser that debate because I think she may, Bobby, resonate with the general public. I think she has a pleasant demeanor, a nice smile. I think she carries herself fairly dignified on a stage. And I think all of that comes off as, huh, she's a nice lady, Nikki Haley.

Yeah. And what you say right there, your breakdown of what the general public thinks, that's consistent with the betting odds in the United Kingdom. You might say, well, why do those matter? I'll take you guys back to 2016 and 2020 when the betting odds were far more accurate than the national polling in the United States. And I've been researching these betting odds. Nikki Haley has now moved into third place, obviously well behind Biden and Trump, or actually Trump and Biden in that order. But Vivek was in that third place in June and July.

Well, he's now down to about eighth after candidates who aren't even serious about running. So your perspective is pretty much dead on. What the odds are saying is that she is resonating far more with. voters than Vivek, DeSantis, especially Christie, and even Gavin Newsom, who's high in the odds but says he's not running. So I'm with you. I have grave concerns about her, maybe potentially winning in four years or I don't think she'll win this year. But I do think the general public, not conservative influences or conservative media, see her as more likable, warm, and welcoming than any other three on stage last night.

anywhere more of the will cane podcast right after this this is jason chaffetz from the jason and the house podcast join me every monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests listen and follow now at foxnews podcast dot com or wherever you download podcasts speaking of betting odds i have a newfound skepticism towards betting odds after they you know stubbornly continued to pick uh organ heavily over Washington in the Pac-12 championship game and throughout the year and got that wrong and people leaning on betting on us to pick the four best teams in college football, which brings us to our next topic, college football. Let's start with this, Bobby. I don't think I've heard

your opinion on this. Florida State left out in favor of Alabama. Did the college football playoff committee get it right in rejecting Florida State? No, because the idea is you leave Florida State out because they're not one of the four best teams. You just said, we don't know who the four best teams are because last week they told us Oregon was better than Washington. That is all the odds makers in Vegas. Do I think Florida State would beat any of the four teams? I don't.

But I can't say that for certain because I remember last year, I thought TCU had no shot against Michigan and they beat them. So a team went 13 and 0, scheduled LSU from the SEC, beat them, and is still left out in favor of an Alabama team that needed one of the most unlikeliest throws the week prior against Auburn. I'm skeptical about the whole thing, why they're in there, why they're not, whether there's TV money or the association with the SEC. but Florida State on the field earned a right to be one of the four best teams, and they're not in there. Yeah, I totally agree. Florida State did everything that they possibly could, including scheduling LSU and Florida out of conference and win their games. And I'm glad you brought up TCU. I don't like people saying, looking to Lash and going, well, we can't have another TCU because TCU got blown out in the final by Georgia.

They just forget the TCU won the semifinal. TCU beat Michigan, which is really all you can ask of a team you put into the final. four, right? I mean, I don't know. Would Michigan have done better against Georgia? We'll never know. But I don't think TCU last year is a cautionary tale like people hope. I don't either. And real quick, it feels, no, to say, the only reason this is a debate at all is because Alabama lost once this year. So it's Florida State, look, I don't think they beat Alabama on a neutral field, but I don't know that because we don't know anything in sports, right? We gave the Giants no shot of being the Patriots.

What was it? 2010 when they were undefeated. You play the games because sports are inherently uncertain. So to take away that uncertainty and put the verdict in the hands of 13 compromise officials, I think it was just totally disgusting and reflects poorly on college football. All right. I want to talk then about the future of college football, Bobby, because I've been hearing this. First of all, there was a letter within the NCAA this week.

talking about creating a subdivision within college football, essentially separating the haves from the have-nots and allowing them to work within an NIL framework. But I've heard others saying you're about to see essentially you're watching the launching pad of college football becoming the alternative to the NFL. All this work on the XFL and the USFL, college football is now transitioning into a professional environment and an alternative league to the NFL. Maybe a minor league, but an alternative league to the NFL. It has free agency, which is going on right now.

The portals are open. It has compensation through NIL. It has a Super League being created, in essence, with the SEC and the Big Ten. And what I heard people discussing recently, Bobby, is if that Super League divorces itself from the NCAA, they can set eligibility requirements. And we already see some quarterbacks like J.T. Daniels, who was it, I believe he started at USC, and then he went to Georgia, and then he went to West. Virginia and he ended up at Rice. He was in college football for like seven years. There's a lot of

guys doing six years because of the COVID year. But if they could set their own eligibility, you could see a college football quarterback like Dylan Gabriel, right? He went from UCF to and next year he'll go someplace else and make a million dollars. Suggestions are he may go to Oregon and he may make a million a half. He may make two million dollars. He'll never be an NFL quarterback. At least nobody thinks he will. So he has this career and the future college football could be You're in college football for seven plus years, making serious money. This is a professional league now that rivals the NFL. Yeah, I never thought about it like that, but it is a really good point.

Look, I think the changes to college football going forward are mostly for the positive. I know the traditional fans don't like it. But look, the worst part about college football, to me, is the cupcake schedules, right? Like Michigan, whom I root for, they didn't play anybody until Penn State a few weeks ago. you look at their schedule, it's going to be much harder and you have all these teams joining the Big Ten. It's going to be much more interesting going forward. I love the 12 team playoffs. I think that is going to create a lot of extra excitement and incentive late in the regular season. As far as the minor league NFL, I mean, that's a great point because there are college

football players who can maybe stay longer now and have longer careers and set them up for better life's after football. I'm excited. Look, full disclosure, I've never been the biggest college football fan, but over the past two years, I've really gotten into the community of it, the tradition, how passionate people are. I think the product's actually better than the NFL. So anything to elevate college football more towards a national level, because it is a relatively regional sport, at least as far as hype and sports talk go, I'm all for it. I want to see college football succeeds. So I love that idea. And I think it's accurate. Look, I don't believe in the XFL or the UCFL or whatever that new league is calling. I know the rocks behind it. To me,

that's going to fail. Those always fail. But an expansion of college football won't fail. Well, it's impossible to say, well, not I'm excited or nervous or it will be good or bad because I don't know that we have any really strong ability to project what it's going to end up being like, but I do think it's going to be vastly different than the thing that we fell in. in love with. And that's the only danger is because the reason it will succeed is because of what you said, the passion, the tradition. So how much can you evolve and retain the passion and tradition? And there is a market for it. Like, you know, in baseball, we call them like quadruple A players, 4A players, guys that are all constantly being shuttled between AAA and

the majors because they're, they seem like, you know, they're a little better than everybody in AAA, but for some reason, they're never good enough to stay in the majors. That's what Dylan Gabriel seems to be as a quarterback, right? I'm talking about Oklahoma's quarterback who's going to transfer. There's a lot of those guys, though. And if I can watch UT, and maybe UT won't be the team that requires a quarterback like this. But look, Ohio State's in this boat. They need to find a quarterback next year.

They're losing Kyle McCord. They have a couple of high draft pick, high recruits, but they're like sophomores, so are they ready. Otherwise, Ohio State goes and buys a free agent quarterback, and maybe they keep him for two years. It's going to, again, I don't know. I am going to stay a fan. I'm excited about the 12-team playoff, but I really think we're only at the very beginning of this earthquake. Well, here's why I think it will be better, because what sports fans really want, and I mean sports fans like you and I, not people who just watch one team. They want games to matter. And one of the issues that college football had for a long time is a team would lose an early game

and it felt like the rest of their season didn't matter because they weren't going to be eligible for the playoff most likely. The 12-team playoffs as incentives and intrigue to later match. I think the transfer portal like the free agency gives teams and fans more hope and more interest in other teams. I think what this does is it helps grow college football national. where I still believe it struggles in the marketing level. So I'm a fan of all of these changes. Now, I get the tradition and stuff, but that's not really going to change, right? The tailgating, the face paint, all that, all that's going to remain.

I think in a couple of years, we'll look back at most of these changes as a clear positive. Well, I'll tell you, well, the first test that will be like, who shows up to the Gator Bowl? Who shows up to the Citrus Bowl? You know, if they're not part of the 12-team playoff and you don't make the 12-team playoff, what happens to those other bowls? And if those stadiums are empty, I think you got a little bit of a problem that you could be eroding that passion and tradition. Really quickly, Texas versus Washington, Alabama versus Michigan, what's your picks?

I think Texas beats Washington. I think they're a better team, although I think it's going to be close. I would say Texas 30, Washington. 27. Look, I so badly want to see Michigan win, but I said all year, I didn't want them to play Georgia. I didn't want to play Alabama. They got Alabama the first round. I say Alabama wins by a touchdown. I don't mean to insult you. And I'll make my picks a little bit later this month, but I really wish Texas was playing Michigan and not Washington. Washington can throw the ball all over the field, three NFL receivers, a Heisman finalist of quarterback. Texas

stuff's the run. And that's what Michigan. does, runs the ball. So, man, I wish we were playing Michigan. I'm nervous about Washington. All right, final topic. Texas. What? Final topic. Donald Trump, Axios has a report out that the favorites for his vice presidential running mate are as follows. They are Ohio Senator J.D. Vance. They are South Dakota Governor Christy Knoem. Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders and

Arizona gubernatorial and now senatorial candidate, Kerry Lake. There are a few other names in there that are being mentioned. Tucker Carlson, former Fox News host, has been mentioned. Marjorie Taylor Green, Congresswoman from Alabama has been mentioned as well. But the four favorites are Luck, Lake, Huckabee Sanders, Nome, and J.D. Vance. Your thoughts? Hey, I've always thought he'll pick a woman. I don't like picking a woman for the sake of picking a woman.

A lot of his people close to him and leaks of Politico have said he will favor picking a woman VP. Again, I go back to those odds that I cite often. Christy Noem has been the favorite for a while now. I checked again this morning. She's still the favorite. So if you were to ask me to predict, first of all, yes, I do believe Trump will be their Republican nominee. And I would guess she will be his running me. I don't think it will be Christy Noam.

First of all, I think there's some scandals brewing in Christy Noam's. life. Also, I believe those reports are out there. And what more, you know, usually when you pick a running mate, you pick someone that offers you something that you do not have. Right. So Trump as an outsider picks an insider politician who's been there forever in Mike Pence. Barack Obama does the same thing in picking Joe Biden. George W. Bush, by the way, coming from the state of Texas, does the same thing in Dick Cheney. Those guys as outsiders picked an insider to give a form of gravitas. You can also pick states that you need to win.

And Trump is going to win South Dakota. So Christian Ome doesn't really give him anything in that way. Arizona will be more in play. And you could say, well, does Lake give me Arizona? I think there's some open questions about whether or not she would give him Arizona. Ohio, obviously, if Vance remains popular, that would be valuable, although Ohio's been trending red. So I don't know that any of these, same thing with Arkansas, I don't know that any of these

checked the box of what a traditional running mate would do. Strengthen your weakness or deliver a state you need to win the presidency. Well, New York Times had a poll a couple weeks ago about how Trump was leading in all these, a lot of swing states that he lost last time, but they cautioned that suburban women in those swing states still do not like Donald Trump. If I were advising him, I think he needs a running mate that can ease some of those concerns because those suburban women heard him last time. Who is that? You think that's Christine known? I don't know that she is the poster of what suburban women want, but I certainly think she would be a better option for them than J.D. Vance or

Tim Scott, who I see is also pretty high in the odds. But that, I think, his biggest weakness. That demographic does not like him. They didn't like his candidates in 2022 either. And based on polling, they don't like him now. So he needs to figure out a way to a piece that group, at least marginally, to give him some advantage over Biden, those. States. The only other name that I've heard, the only other name that I've heard is Tulsi Gabbard. Well, go ahead. Yeah, I don't know. I think Tulsi Gabbard is a hard sell for some people. I think maybe Trump's core base would like her by also hearing it people who already don't like the outsiders say you're picking a former Democrat. I don't believe she'd be a good option for him.

Although I do like her. I find her insightful and informative. But I don't. know among traditional GOP voters if she's a good answer. All right. Outkicks Bobby Burak. It's always great to talk to you, man, about a whole world of topics. You are an insightful mind, and everyone should check out your columns at outkick.com. Thanks, man. There you go. I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Bobby Burwick. Again, check him out at outkick.com. That's going to do it for me today. Have a nice weekend. I'll see you again next time listen to ad-free with a fox news podcast plus subscription on apple podcast and amazon prime members you can listen to this show ad-free on the amazon music app i'm janestine

join me every sunday as i focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast dot com