Kirby Smart gives in to Big Ten; NCAA Tournament and College Football Playoff expansion & more

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Bill and Doug Show – "Kirby Smart Gives in to Big Ten; NCAA Tournament and CFP Expansion & More"

Date: May 1, 2026
Hosts: Doug Lesmerises and Bill Landis
Produced by: Blue Wire

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Doug and Bill tackle a rare "layup line" of five major college football and sports news topics, discussing perceived seismic shifts in college football, eligibility rules, expansion debates in college basketball and football, the continuing evolution of NIL, and what the future holds for non-revenue college sports. Their signature blend of humor, Midwest pride, and data-driven debate is on full display as they riff on everything from SEC-Big Ten power dynamics to the "participation trophy" argument in playoff and tournament expansion.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Kirby Smart’s "Concession" to the Big Ten

[00:00–16:47]

• Context:
  Kirby Smart, Georgia's head coach, made headlines at the annual SEC coaches golf event (now rained out, leading to offhanded discussions) by admitting the Big Ten's top teams are, at this moment, better than the SEC's.
• Doug’s Take:
  "This is Lee handing over the sword. Kirby admitted it... there's almost nothing left to say." (03:26)
• Bill's Analysis:
  “For Kirby Smart to be the one who’s kind of out there the most, I think just makes it all the more interesting because he’s the guy in the conference now.” (03:55)
• Debate:
  • The hosts dissect whether the SEC’s depth argument still holds (“the grind”), with Doug dismissing it as increasingly irrelevant as the Big Ten's top third has outpaced the SEC.
  • Comparative breakdown of conference bottoms; both agree even the worst in the SEC are stronger than the Big Ten’s “true bottom”—though this isn’t a persuasive argument about overall conference superiority.
  • Use of advanced stats (EPA per play) and recent bowl/season records to support claims.

Notable Quotes

• Doug (on the SEC’s depth talking point):
  "If your best teams are having trouble beating your 13th-best team, it’s in part because your best teams aren’t as good as the Big Ten’s best teams." (09:20)
• Bill (on statistical slices):
  “I think the top halves of both leagues are basically the same… but the next tier, the SEC is better. Not argued.” (06:46)

---

2. Five Years of Eligibility Proposal

[16:47–22:23]

• NCAA Proposal: Allow athletes five years to play five seasons, eliminating redshirt/waiver/exception chaos.
• Doug’s Stance:
  Strongly in favor—"No more exceptions, five for five." He rails against lawyers and exception culture ("society falls apart" when everyone thinks they're the exception) and provides a parenting analogy about group rules.
• Bill's Perspective:
  Pragmatically supportive, but predicts legal challenges from players caught between rule change timelines.

Memorable Moments

• Doug’s rant:
  "I’m sick of lawyers. I'm sick of waivers... If everybody's an exception, then there’s no exceptions, there’s no rules, there’s no structure." (18:16)
• Bill:
  "I would like to hope that that is the case, but I think we'd be naive to believe that suddenly the lawyers are going to go away.” (21:26)

---

3. NCAA Tournament (Basketball) Expansion Debate

[22:36–47:03]

• Proposed Move: 68 to 76 teams for 2027; primarily to create more at-large spots for power conferences.
• Bill’s Immediate Reaction:
  “We don’t need it... the only people asking for it are college basketball coaches who now have an easier pathway to keeping their jobs.” (23:11)
• Doug’s Nuanced Take:
  Neutral on expansion, not convinced it will “ruin” the event; proposes treating expanded “play-in” rounds as meaningfully separate from the true 64-team bracket.
  • Links NBA play-in logic and reduces the meaningfulness of being a play-in participant.
  • Argues that if participation means a lot to a program or fans (like Virginia Tech), there's at least some value.
• Larger "Participation Trophy" Theme:
  Both hosts return repeatedly to whether “letting everyone in” cheapens the experience or simply provides more hope to more fans.

Notable Quotes

• Bill:
  “I’m just generally, I think, opposed to anything that’s like, ‘Hey, here’s this new exciting thing that literally no one’s asking for.’” (38:41)
• Doug (on power conference bloat):
  “If you go to 76 [teams], 63% of the power conference teams would make the NCAA... Then who cares about making it?” (41:11)
• Bill’s summary:
  “Is it a feel-good story, or is it a frustrating ‘this sport is broken’ story?” (44:00)

---

4. College Football Playoff (CFP) Expansion – 24-Team Proposal

[47:03–56:33]

• Framework:
  • 24 teams, with 8 getting a bye, initial play-in round to get to 16.
  • Parallels to FCS playoff format and past examples (i.e., Illinois State’s surprising run to FCS title game).
• Debate Focus:
  Expansion as “play-in rounds” softens the offense, but “doesn’t fundamentally ruin everything.”
• Doug’s Main Argument:
  Skeptics should clarify whether adding more teams is truly damaging—“If the teams that don’t deserve to get in just lose, okay, they were excited just to be there… If they win and make a run, is it a joke or is it 1980 hockey?” (55:29)
• Bill’s Skepticism:
  Compares pushback to “participation trophy” logic: "Do these teams actually deserve to be there?" (56:33)

---

5. NFL Draft Prospects and 2026 Season Crystal Ball

[59:11–62:45]

• Observation:
  Early mock drafts are SEC dominant—potential “Empire Strikes Back” year for the SEC.
• Doug:
  “Big Ten might have to take one next year…[the SEC] are gonna freeze Jeremiah Smith in Carbonite, they’re gonna cut off Dante Moore’s hand… battening down the hatches for this a little bit.” (61:17)
• Bill:
  Notes that the draft is volatile and the Big Ten’s moment of dominance may be peaking.

---

6. Brendan Sorsby, Gambling, and College Athlete Accountability

[62:45–74:00]

• Current:
  Texas Tech QB Brendan Sorsby faces possible suspension following betting violations.
• Culture War:
  • Public/media handwringing about legal gambling coexisting with athlete bans.
  • Doug’s stance:
    Not hypocrisy; rules are part of adult responsibility—“You can get $5 million to go to your third school…but then be like, ‘Oh, this poor kid’…no, you broke the rule.” (65:16)
  • Bill posits there’s greater corporate hypocrisy in pro sports, where leagues openly profit from betting ads.

Memorable Moments

• Doug: “College is the point where you come in as a kid and you leave as an adult... we have swung way toward the professionalization… but then also, guess what? You’re adults now.” (65:07)

---

7. Cutting Non-Revenue Sports (Arkansas Tennis Example)

[74:00–81:43]

• Trend Discussion:
  How football’s revenue (and now direct player compensation) means many Olympic/non-revenue sports are becoming unsustainable.
• Doug’s Argument:
  Compares college tennis to niche academic programs (music, chemistry): “Any sport at college that is not self-sufficient has much more in common with the chemistry department… than it does with football.” (74:10)
• Bill’s Input:
  Advocates for creative, regional, non-scholarship models to retain opportunities, but acknowledges there’s no clean solution.
• Both hosts stress: Title IX is a necessary consideration but does not automatically protect every non-revenue sport in the new era.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Topic | Timestamps | |------------------------------------------------|------------------| | SEC-Big Ten Power Dynamic (Kirby Smart) | 00:00–16:47 | | 5 Years of Eligibility Proposal | 16:47–22:23 | | NCAA Tournament Expansion Debate (Basketball) | 22:36–47:03 | | CFB Playoff Expansion (24 teams, "participation trophy" argument) | 47:03–56:33 | | NFL Draft Outlook / 2026 Season | 59:11–62:45 | | Sorsby, Gambling, Rules as Accountability | 62:45–74:00 | | Cutting Non-Revenue/“Olympic” Sports | 74:00–81:43 |

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Doug (on Kirby Smart’s SEC “admission”):
  “This is Lee handing over the sword… Kirby admitted it, and it just is.” (03:26)
• Bill:
  “We don’t need [basketball tournament expansion]… the only people asking for it are college basketball coaches who now have an easier pathway to keeping their jobs.” (23:11)
• Doug:
  "No more exceptions, five for five. I think that is worthwhile enough that even if it's not perfect, we have to get out of the space that we've been in ever since COVID." (19:30)
• Doug, on the fear of expansion:
  "If the teams that don't deserve to get in lose? Okay, they were excited just to be there, then they lost... If they win and win multiple games and make a run to the championship game, is the conversation 'this is a joke' or is the conversation 'this is the 1980 hockey team'?" (55:29)

---

Podcast Tone & Takeaways

• Originality and Tone:
  The hosts maintain their trademark blend of punchy, irreverent banter and sympathetic insight into the complexities of the college sports landscape, always foregrounding the Northern/Big Ten perspective and a skepticism for Southern CFB bias.
• Big Themes:
  • The Big Ten is (for now) recognized as the top dog, but the pendulum could swing again.
  • Expansion debates (in both football and basketball) center around who benefits—the fans, the coaches, or the product as a whole.
  • As college sports professionalize, expectations for athletes’ maturity and accountability will necessarily increase.
  • Non-revenue sports are likely to be streamlined or restructured in the new financial order.

---

For listeners who missed this episode:
Doug and Bill challenge knee-jerk outrage, question entrenched narratives, and invite fans to be clear-eyed about both what’s being lost—and what’s being gained—as college sports lurches into its next era.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Welcome back to the Bill and Doug Show. I'm Doug Lame Reese. He's Bill Landis. We're talking like kind of five news items. In college football. We don't do this that much, Landis, but everybody else is talking about this stuff, so we might as well chime in. Eh?

[B]

Yeah, we don't typically just sort of like take the layup. Content items that very easily lend themselves to podcasts and maybe we should do that more. So we're going to do it today.

[A]

Yeah, we like half court shots.

[B]

Yeah, we're.

[A]

We're far enough.

[B]

Threes over. Yeah.

[A]

Alley oops. A lot of alley oop. Like behind the back. Kind of like, I like doing like the kind of like The Dwayne Wade LeBron thing right where like I'm standing like this with my arms staring into the camera and you're behind me dunking. And like we do that, but this is just a layup line and we're gonna, we're gonna do some sec, Big Ten stuff. We're gonna do college basketball tournament expansion, playoff expansion, NFL draft for next year. Brendan Sorsby, all this kind of stuff. But we're going to start with this. The. What do they have a golf tournament? All the, all the Southern coaches.

[B]

Yeah, that was. Yes, they. I know they play golf every year. I don't know where or why, but I know that it happens.

[A]

And I think this year got rained out, so then they just. It's just. They just talked instead of golfed. So.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah.

[A]

Anyway.

[B]

A bunch of bad swings, by the way.

[A]

Yeah. I will say I saw someone. They sort of ran through some of the. The SEC coach swings and, And I. Someone. The person I saw on Twitter said like, Kirby's sounds different. And I agreed. Kirby like Kirby thing.

[B]

He did. I did. I saw that same post and I guess it's good, right? You don't want your football coach having a good golf swing because that means he plays golf a lot.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And his name is Hugh Freeze, so.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. For the best. Yeah.

[A]

Like, of all the things where it's like Kirby Smart. I mean like we did sort of did a thing for a while. It's like Kirby Smart, like Chuck Norris stuff, but like with mundane things. It's like when Kirby Smart takes his dog for a walk. He only brings one poop bag, but he puts three poops in one bag. Dog mentality, like that kind of thing. And it's like Kirby Smart golfs once a year, but when he does, he hits 320 yard drives. Dog mentality. That's actually real. So congrats to curbs. Right? Do your thing. Yeah. Dog mentality. He also, like, I guess, said this, chatting to people, and it's like, the Big Ten. He's like, more acknowledgment of the Big Ten, Big Ten, SEC stuff. He said, I just think they have a more competitive conference. This is what he said about the Big Ten, like, at the top of their conference. There are more good teams. It used to be Ohio State was good, or Michigan was really good. Harbaugh had a really good team. Indiana is good. Then they've got Oregon. They have the ability to track good players. Now. Nil has a factor, too, but so does Miami. People have money. More people have money. So I think the talent is spread out thin. Where before in the sec, it was a magnet to talent, a magnet to talent. The disparity was so great that you couldn't mess it up. You could win regardless. Now it's like, okay, it's more even, and it's just been three in a row. So, like, I guess we keep saying this, but it's just like, it's over. Like, this is. Is this the last. Last stand? This is Lee. This is at Appomattox Courthouse, right? This is. Yeah, this is. This is Lee handing over the sword like, we're done. Kirby admitted it, and it. It just is. There's. There's almost nothing left to say. And it just, like, it made my ears happy to. To realize that Kirby Smart sang it, too. It's.

[B]

Yeah, it did sort of feel like the final stage of it. Right. Because. Because you sort of got Fine Bomb to admit it or at least, you know, it. He couldn't hide from the obvious.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But I don't think we've heard really much in the way of. Of SEC coaches talking about this new reality. And for Kirby Smart to be the one who's, like, kind of out there the most, I think just makes it all the more interesting because he's kind of. I don't know. I guess he's. He's on. He's. He's the guy in the conference now, right? I would say so. So it was funny, too, to watch. Did you watch the video of it, or did you just read. Read his quotes? Because the video, I thought was funny to sort of, like, how dumbfounded he was and sort of at a loss to. To. To sort of succinctly try to describe what is happening within the sport. So he ended up, like, kind of meandering a little bit, and the Guy he was talking to, like, knew nothing about college football.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So shout out to Kirby for at least getting something meaningful and useful out of that conversation. But yes, he. You sort of have to acknowledge the fact, right, that at the very top, the Big Ten is better. He did kind of rewind it back to the SEC is more of a slog than the Big Ten. But yeah, he at least, at least did so while acknowledging that the tops of these conferences have flipped for all intents and purposes.

[A]

Right.

[B]

It used to be that the, the premier SEC teams dominated the sport. Now the premier Big Ten teams are.

[A]

Yeah. The continuation of that quote. A lot of SEC coaches say this in my meetings is they don't have the grind that we do. Meeting the Big Ten. There's no way three of their nine games are hard. Their bottom four games are not our bottom four games. I'm going to play in Starkville and Vanderbilt, my bottom four. And I am holding on to my butt to play play at noon on Saturday in Starkville. A good team who beat. Oh, I guess he's meeting Mississippi State, a good team who beat Arizona State, who goes and plays these teams. So there is a theory that we are beating each other up. And it's like the intensity, it wears you down. Like the hard thing about that is, you know who the big Tens. Vanderbilt is Indiana. That's like one of those things.

[B]

Like, the funny part about that too is like Vanderbilt is not in the bottom of your conference anymore. I don't know if you bothered to pay attention to the fact that Vanderbilt is the fourth or fifth best team in your conference. I, I do. I think there is some truth to what he's saying. Like, I was actually like going through and sketching some stuff out. I looked at SP plus and I looked at like EPA per play because EPA per play is just sort of like more play driven and doesn't have any of the recruiting stuff baked into it. But they're more or less the same. I, I think like the top halves of both leagues are basically the same. And I think if you did that too, you could even say like the top two or three in a Big Ten is better than the sec. But then when you cut the league in half and look at the bottom of both of them, the SEC is better. I think like it's, it's undoubted. I don't think it's up for discussion that the SEC is better now. Part of that is because some historically better Big Ten teams are down right now, but they are down. And while they're down. I think the bottom of the SEC is. Is certainly better than the bottom of the Big Ten.

[A]

And we've sort of had this. I would say. I don't think it's. I think it's like how you slice it. I think if you slice the conferences into four pieces, I think you would say the top piece, the Big Ten, is better. I think I would argue that piece two and piece three are pretty similar. And then I might argue that piece four is better in the sec. But I think the discussion that really drags down the Big Ten is like the true bottom of the Big Ten. Yeah, like, like Rutgers when Rutgers is down. Right. But then also because, like, what's the bottom of the Big Ten? Well, it's like, who got Penn State was a preseason national championship favorite last year and who ended Penn State, UCLA and Northwestern. So, like, what is that? What is that? Like, what like is. And then like Northwestern like, made a bowl and won a bowl game. But like, like what is. When we say the bottom. So bottom half, like, I don't think it's half, like, who are the worst teams in the Big Ten right now? If we were doing one through 18, maybe like recent history mostly this year, a little bit of the future. What do we think are like the bottom four in the Big Ten right now?

[B]

Rutgers, Purdue, Maryland and ucla.

[A]

Okay, I think, I think, I think I agree with that. And then like, UCLA beat Penn State last year, just made a very exciting hire at head coach and has Nico at quarterback. Has Nico. I'm Aliaba. So I think. And then it's like, who's the bottom of the sec? Right. So, well, one thing is the Big Ten has two more teams. But if you think about like the bottom of the sec, like, who's the bottom of the sec?

[B]

Like Kentucky, Arkansas, Mississippi State and probably South Carolina.

[A]

Okay. So, like, I think one of it is, like, if you cut off the worst two teams in the Big Ten to make it 16 on 16. Right. So we're cutting off Rutgers and Purdue and now we're having a more legitimate conversation. Right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And then also like, literally the worst team in the Big Ten, the worst team in college football, just went undefeated and won the national championship.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So it's like, okay, well, I don't know. It's like, what does that matter? Like, all of a sudden Indiana is like a blue blood. Indiana is getting compared to Georgia and it's like Indiana was, Kentucky was, Vanderbilt was all these things like, two years ago. So does, like, does the Big Ten get credit for that or no. And it's like the, the true bottom. The bottom. Bottom. Bottom is worse. But I think that's their strongest talking point for the SEC. I don't think, I don't think 6 versus 6 is a strong talking point for the SEC versus the Big Ten. I don't think 8 versus 8 is. I don't think 9 versus 9 is. But like 13 versus 13 is. So then congratulations. Great. Yeah, your 13th best team is better than the Big Ten's 13th best team. But also if your best teams are having trouble beating your 13th best team, it's in part because your best teams aren't as good as the Big Ten's best teams. I'm sorry that when Ohio State and Oregon play Rutgers, they kick their butt. That's not only about Rutgers.

[B]

Correct. No, I agree with that too. Like, it's, it's. Yeah, it was kind of left unsaid by, by Kirby. I, I looked at like, the reason I said what I said, and there, I mean, there's a million different ways you could, you could slice it. And this is not a historical look. This was just looking at last year, the final EPA per play rankings, which is sort of like how you played last year. Opponent adjusted. Arkansas was 66th in the country, so they were last in the big in the sec. And Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rutgers, Michigan State, ucla, Purdue, and Maryland were all worse than the worst team in the SEC. So. And like there was half of the big tens in the top 30. Half of the SEC is in the top 24. Which is why I, I said I think the top half of the league leagues are basically even. But then like, the next team for the SEC is Tennessee, which is 25th, and the next team for the Big Ten is Northwestern, which was 53rd. Yeah, it's like there's a middle there. Like Tennessee, LSU, Auburn are like the next three teams in the SEC against Northwestern, Nebraska, Wisconsin, who are the next three teams in the Big Ten.

[A]

I, I, but if those teams last year, Northwestern, Nebraska and Wisconsin didn't fire their head coaches. Auburn, lsu, and who?

[B]

Tennessee was the other one.

[A]

Okay. Auburn and LSU did. Right. So as for everything Wisconsin and Nebraska and Northwestern weren't last year, I wouldn't be afraid to have Wisconsin play Auburn. Like if, if we're like, you know what I mean? Like, I, like.

[B]

Yeah, but I also think there's, and it's probably, it's probably unfair. There's, there's the thing of like, Wisconsin probably should have fired Luke Fickle. So like there's Like a. There's like a bit of inertia there that makes you think that because LSU and Auburn fired their coaches and revamped their rosters, they're going to be better because the energy around those programs is just different because they actually pulled the trigger on firing their coach.

[A]

Right. And also, like, what are we supposed to. Wisconsin beat two ranked teams at the end of last year when you thought they were dead. They beat Washington and Illinois. So like, what is that? Does that mean that Washington. Again, this is, this goes back to like when you're. When a bad team upsets a good team, is that strength or weakness from your conference?

[B]

Right.

[A]

So I, I don't know, but I, I would dispute it. It's not, it's not about. I don't want to be blind to the stats. I don't want to be blind to the realities. But. And stats matter and we like those stats. I don't want to like, use EPA per play when it serves my purposes and. And poo poo it when it doesn't serve my purposes. Yeah, but. But like, I'm also not exactly sure that's the end all be all right. Because like, if those stats are like, I. They're a bunch of choking dogs. So like, Brian Kelly sucked my. Sucks. I almost said sucks my stuff in

[B]

a way that we don't say that on the show.

[A]

Like, Brian Kelly sucks. And who is Aubrey Hugh Freeze sucks.

[B]

He Freeze.

[A]

So it's like, like, I don't know. Can we. Can you knock some off your EPA per play? Because Brian Kelly's an incompetent boob who ran your program into the ground. Like, where's that show up in the stats? Can we have like the incompetent boob rankings that. Like that. Well, you've gotta. You gotta take off like 1.5 points in the EPA per play because Brian Kelly has his head up his butt. Right. That, like, and for everything that that rule isn't. I think Brian Kelly, you. It would. You would subtract more incompetent boob points because of Brian Kelly than you would because of Matt Rule. And I think you would subtract more for Hugh Freeze than you would for Luke Fickle.

[B]

I think that's probably fair. Yeah. I'm also looking like the. Is this right? The Big Ten only has two new coaches.

[A]

And Matt Campbell.

[B]

Oh, all right. Matt Campbell. So I'm just looking at the bottom half. So the bottom halves of these leagues. The bottom nine teams for the Big Ten. The bottom. What is it, eight teams for the sec, two new coaches for the Big Ten and five new coaches for the sec.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We should probably do. We'll do. We'll do some comparisons. We want to do. We want to do some more. This is a quick brush. We want to do some more deep dives this. This summer on some of this.

[B]

Yeah, we will. Yeah, we should. We will. But it's also like, even the conversation we're having is just a fundamentally different one than we were having.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Four years ago. It's like, I don't think it's a. It's a conversation that's not worthwhile and doesn't have some merit. But if this is where we are when talking about these two conferences, then the SEC has sort of already lost, which I think is kind of Kirby's point. Right.

[A]

Like, it's whatever. Whatever the. The trend line is. You know, like, even if the SEC line is above the Big ten, the gap went from, you know, from the top of the graph to the bottom of the graph to, like, now they're both in the middle of the graph. And so it's like. And one's going up and one's going down. Okay. Well, congratulations to Kirby to. Way to strike that. That three wood.

[B]

Oh, one other thing that was at. One other thing that was asked. Sorry. During that interview that I'm sure wasn't included in the quotes from people aggregating. It was. Whoever was talking to him said, whatever. However many years ago it was that Kirby was leaving Alabama to go to Georgia and taking his first head coaching job. And they said, like, could you imagine taking the Indiana job back then? And he said, of course not. But, like, so he said it letting ways, like, I take it now, like, so maybe we can. Maybe we can get Kirby to the Big Ten.

[A]

Oh, God. God, what would I do? Well, you're one of us, right?

[B]

Yeah, he's. He's welcome. Of course. Yeah, he's welcome.

[A]

Yeah, it's all about choices.

[B]

Keep it within the speed limit, but otherwise, you're welcome.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. Oh, no. We'd hit that hard.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

We'd ask 11 questions about that at Big Ten media days. But, yeah, it's about where you choose to be because you can't control where you're born, but you can. You can make choices about, like, it's like, do you want. If you want to be part of us?

[B]

We're.

[A]

You know, we'll take anybody. Topic two, Looks like we're moving to five years of eligibility to play five seasons of college sports. Charlie Baker, the NCAA president, had a quote to ESPN when they were talking about this last week. Like if you've used up your eligibility, if you've used it up, like I like that quote. I'm sick of lawyers. I'm sick of waivers. I'm sick of every 24 year old who wants their situation to be the exception to the rule. They are going to vote on this maybe on May 22nd. And so it. Baker has said he's pretty optimistic the new rules will pass. Age based eligibility would give athletes five years to compete in Division 1, starting immediately after their high school graduation or their 19th birthday, whichever comes first. We've got to get these super old adults out of college sports and we've got to stop having people play seven years. I did see like Muffet McGraw and like kind of came out against like the, the five years of being able to play that. She thinks this is not the solution there. I mean that was I maybe some conversation about like, are we sure this is right? Because now like everybody's gonna have five. But Bill, like I'm, I'm so in favor of shutting the lawyers down and shutting the waivers down and shutting the. I hate exceptions to the rule because everybody in life thinks they're the exception. And you'll encounter this in life. This is one of my least favorite things. It's when you go to like a meeting at school and it's about like, it's about a big field trip or like a big thing that's affecting a large group of kids. And then they ask, they say, are there questions? And then inevitably parents raise their hands and it's about 117 kids loading up their band equipment to go to Disney World for five days. And somebody asks, little Stevie has a pair of Mike Wazowski slippers that he likes to wear. Do you know if he can wear those on the bus or should he bring an extra? And it's just like, what are you doing? And like every parent who's like, this is not the time. This is a group situation. This is not about your little tiny exception to the rule. Shut your hole. Deal with it afterward. But everybody's like, well I'll just let me squeeze this in. Just let me squeeze in my seventh year of eligibility. Just make my 25 year old player eligible. Because it's just one exception, it's just me. And that's when society falls apart. Because if everybody's an exception, then there's no exceptions. There's no rules, there's no structure. So the idea of like, no more exceptions, five for five. I think that is worthwhile enough that even if it's not perfect, we have to get out of the space that we've been in ever since COVID Yeah,

[B]

I think it's, I think it's fine. It seems mostly sensible, I think, but like, everything that happens with college athletics, I was just fearful of whichever way people figure out to involve the lawyers again, like, they're not someone's going to sue to challenge this when the time comes. Like, I'm even wondering because around, even around, I know around Ohio State, there were some conversations about guys who ended up red shirting last year to preserve a fifth year who were sort of like, on the fence of whether or not they should play because they thought this rule, like, might get passed last year. So, so are there going to be players who didn't play a season in 2025, hoping this would have happened sooner, who were then on the other side of it going to challenge it and try to get a sixth year in college because they didn't get their five years of eligibility? Like, I, like, my hope would just be like, no, like, sorry, like the timing sucks. I get it, but that's life. Deal with it. I'm sure it won't be that, that, that clean and easy, but I think this probably gets us down the right road in terms of eligibility and not having guys who go off to the G league and flame out, try to come back to college basketball or guys who sign undrafted free agent contracts with NFL teams and don't quite make it trying to come back to college football because they have years left. So I, like, I, I don't think anybody wants that. So hopefully this nips a lot of that in the bud. We'll see. I, I, I would like to hope that that is the case, but I think we'd be naive to believe that suddenly the lawyers are going to go away.

[A]

I hate college sports. Lawyers, like, like, players need to have, like, players need a voice, but like the individual lawyer, like every individual little case. And it is one of these where it's like, okay, if you get squeezed and like, it might be this class of players who get squeezed. It's like, well, by the way, did you make thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars while you're playing college sports? Which, like, nobody in the first hundred years of, of college sports did. So it's like, sorry, like, like, but there's a lot of other things. Like, I'm sorry, but also, you weren't in the worst Situation. This is not the wor now that you can't get a sixth year while you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Like, ask the guys from the 80s who made no money. Right? Like, I don't. Like what, like, everybody, like, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but no lawsuits. God, I'm on Twitter too much. I hate Twitter. God, do you hate Twitter now?

[B]

I'm not really on it that much anymore, to be honest. My brother asked me, he's like, something yesterday. He's like, did you see this video on Twitter? And I was like, no. He's like, really? He didn't see it? It's like, no, because I just. Yeah, I don't have a work reason to be on there. I don't really go on there anymore.

[A]

It's all college sports lawyers. I followed. I followed too many college sports lawyers. God, I hate them all. You're not invited on the show. It's terrible. Okay. Tournament expansion. The idea to expand the NCAA basketball tournament from 68 to 76 as early as 2027. The goal primarily is to get more at large spots for para conference teams. Like, people are freaking out, but where are you on the idea of potentially going from 68 to 76?

[B]

We don't need it. I don't know no one who. The only people asking for it are college basketball coaches who now have like an easier pathway to keeping their drops because they can say, I made a tournament as the 75th best team in the country. So I don't like it. I don't, like, I feel the tournament already feels a little watered down. And that's more about the way that this, like, rosters have been organized these last couple of years. Like, you know, Cinderella's dead and like, that's fine. I think I'm almost willing to make the trade off of there being fewer first and second round upsets because then the second weekend of the tournament is just like 16 really good teams and eight really good teams playing against each other. So, like, that's. I think that's an okay trade off. That's actually probably in the long run better for the sport. But this of like adding. I was just looking at some of the teams who like, would have made the tournament last year and like been playing each other on whatever, a Tuesday. And it's like, are those going to be fun, compelling basketball games are just going to be like two very average teams playing each other for an opportunity they didn't earn during their season. So I don't, I understand, like, people are going to watch and, and that's the bottom line. So as long as there's eyeballs on televisions, this is, this is going to happen. But I don't think it actually does anything to enhance the product. And in fact I actually think it, it worsens it a little bit.

[A]

So I do think if, and we're going to talk about the football expansion in a similar way because to, to me it's a similar conversation. And if we are having play in games to get into the real bracket sort of on any level, you know, we control how we view things. And so if Jake Der at Ohio State gets into the expanded tournament, but they get into a play in game. Right. This is an expanded play in. So what you would be doing is it was a 64 team tournament and then they expanded it to 68. We have four play in games. So now we would have 12 playing games. Right? That's what we would be doing.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

So then if I want to fire my coach, if I'm a fan base that's trying to decide if a coach is hitting a mark or not, I don't count those frickin playing games. I want to know if you made the actual 64 team tournament. So it's like well whatever in your contract it's like well that's not good enough. And like I think we see a little bit of that with it with like the NBA play in games that they expanded it. So it's like there's six playoff teams and then you have four teams playing for two spots. But if you make the play in game, you didn't actually make the playoffs. And nobody's like well you know what, that was still a great year for the Clippers because they made the play in game. Because it's not the same, it's not viewed as the same. And so what it would be is instead of four games on Tuesday and Wednesday in Dayton, we're going to have 12 games on Tuesday and Wednesday probably at three different sites. But then when we make up our brackets and we're do like we're picking our 64 teams for the bracket, we're going by the full bracket. We're going by this, I mean not, not the full bracket, we're going by the 64. I don't think people will even pick the Tuesday and Wednesday games. Just like you don't really pick them now. You might have to see who comes out of it. But if you don't make it cool to lose a play in game, if you don't make that an accomplishment? If you don't like, and if, and if your school is all of a sudden like given raises and given like an extra year of a contract because you like playing game, then like right to your idea, complain about it. Because nobody gives a crap about the playing game. Like, that's not good enough. But you know, if it gives like one like smaller opportunity to like even a power conference program that hasn't been in that much, but then maybe the playing game isn't. Is an accomplishment for you. I don't know. Like if, if they're play ins, we're expanding because to me, and it applies a little bit.

[B]

Don't play ins already exist in basketball? Is that what conference tournaments are?

[A]

Well, but it's like, okay, you're the four, you know, whatever. You're the, the 12 seed and you're trying. It's like if you, you're not going to make the NCAA tournament, but if you win your conference tournament, you're going to make it, right?

[B]

So yeah, you have to be hard to make the NCAA tournament.

[A]

But I would argue you're not making that tournament. You're making a playing game.

[B]

Yeah, but you're making a playing game like on the virtue of winning 18. Like you're gonna be a 500 power conference team who then has to go in one play in game to get into the actual NCAA tournament.

[A]

Yeah, playing game against like a team that's similar to you. Like that whole crop of teams is

[B]

just like none of them should be able to play their way in. They didn't earn it. Why are we extra opportunity to earn it. But they wouldn't. Those are teams that would more than likely have to win their conference tournament to get in the NCAA tournament. No, now we're just giving them an extra pathway to get there.

[A]

No, but half of them are in already because you're, you're expanding from 68 to 76. It's like eight more. But then you're just making these elevens play against each other. Tens, eleven and elevens play against each other in the first round.

[B]

Right, but has it like the bubble sucked the last two years?

[A]

Bubble does suck, but they're like the bubble already.

[B]

We want more of that.

[A]

I'm not so, I'm not in favor of it, but I don't know that it's like if, if it's like, well, the whole bubble sucks. It's like, all right, the whole bubble sucks. We'll have a bubble playing tournament and then like everybody on the bubbles playing a play in tournament so at least if you're in, you had to win a bubble game because otherwise we're picking in a room. Which of these sucky bubble teams get in? We're not. Now we're picking all of them and we're like, we're throwing them in a gladiator pit and seeing who emerges. Like, like, it's just.

[B]

I guess that's better because they're not gonna, they're not gonna, they're not gonna lessen the number of teams in the NCAA tournament, which is what I want. I want a 32 team tournament of actual good teams.

[A]

So, so it's like ev, like, you know, that bubble, like the whole bubble's in. But maybe it's like, oh, that bubble team that, that would have gotten it in the past is not in now because they lost their playing game. And it's like, I guess we would have put them in. They probably shouldn't have been in. Like, I guess it's one of those. I'm not in favor of it, but I'm not that offended to have a play in tournament of mediocre sucky power conference teams that you can ignore and like, tell me who's in the bracket on Thursday and then I'll make my real bracket. And if you want to ignore the Tuesday and Wednesday games, ignore them. There's going to be 12 games instead of four. We're already, we already like tiptoed into this area. It's not a new area. We're expanding the area so that, and like some of these, and it's, it is some of these things that I think what offends people is if you are like a mediocre, like Texas got in this year, then made a run. But if you're like a team that should be good, you should be good, but you had a lousy year and you still get in. That's what offends people, right? Because it's like, if you should be good and you have a lousy year, then you should be punished. But there are power conference programs that aren't that good, that are consistently not that good, and kind of the best they can shoot for is mediocrity. And so like, if that team that, that power conference team that's never good in a mediocre year is rewarded with a play in game. And then if they win, it's like, oh, they made the field for the first time in 28 years. And, and if they lose, who cares? They're done. Like, is, is that ruining the experience for people? Like, again, I'm not for it, but I'm not sure that it's gonna ruin it. Just ignore the Tuesday and Wednesday games at FU1. Ignore them.

[B]

Yeah, I, I mean, I guess there's, yeah, that, that is a way to sell it. I think I'm a little offended by the, I mean it just being a transparent television grab. But everything in college sports is now. Yeah, everything in the world is, I guess so. By the way, if anybody wants to buy our show and put it on television, we're available. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, it's like one of those, it's one of those things where it's like, I think this is dumb and then like I'm gonna watch it. So like, like what? Like how much can I really be upset about it? I suppose I, I, I'm curious because I'm sure it's not going to happen. But like, and I guess it's rare that like a truly deserving mid major team just happens to stumble in its conference tournament and doesn't get let in. But when that happens moving forward, are those teams going to get left out? Because I don't know, Oregon basketball won 18 games and they get to go play in the plane, the bubble playing instead of like a really good Missouri Valley team who has two losses, but one of them happened to be in the conference tournament game. Conference tournament. Yeah.

[A]

I mean I, you know, I do think like that's a, that's a worthy argument. You know, that continues to be, I think a worthy argument about getting more mid majors in. But like, so we're just gonna have more examples like of what Texas did this year. Right. So Texas is supposed to be good. Texas athletic programs can get bent. Right. Like their, their basketball, men's basketball. It's a good comparison because Texas men's, Texas football and Texas men's basketball was like the same thing this year. They both probably should be good and they both were mediocre. And the football team didn't get in because the football playoff is still at 12. It's not at 16 or 24 yet. If it was at 16 or 24, they would have gotten in and the Texas men's basketball team got in because we're a 68 team tournament and they, they went to Dayton and they want to play in game and then they won two more games and then they made the sweet 16 and like as people talked about like underdogs, they were the lowest seeded team. Right. To make the sweet 16. Is Texas a Cinderella? I don't know. Not really. They're a power. We're going to create more of those. And they lose to Purdue in a, in a 2 versus 11 game in the sweet 16. Like, was it awful? Like, and maybe it was like, is it like stupid and offensive and like, this is contrary to what we're trying to do here, that Texas basketball is alive, right? And if Texas football had made an expanded tournament, would that have been like, oh my God, this is the stupidest fricking thing. Or is it like, well, you're mediocre as all get out. They finished, you know, Texas basketball was 9 and 9 in the SEC. They were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10th in the SEC regular season standings. Like, but then they, they beat Gonzaga, right? Like, it, like if you're in, then you do have to beat a couple good teams to do anything. So like, I don't. Did people feel like, because that's what's going to happen more that Texas basketball and Texas football, right? This is the example. You get more of Texas basketball and less of Texas football because these mediocre power conference teams are going to get in. Did it make it suck? Did it ruin it? Did you watch it with disdain? Did you think to yourself, like, this is not what this is about. This is stupid. Everybody. Like, you just get hot at the right time or like, was it okay? And you know what, if you want to play in game and you're an 11 seed and you beat a six and you beat a three, then like you earned it. Like, I don't know. But that we've, we know what it's going to look like.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I like that specific example of Texas. Like, no, I thought it was fine, but I believe, I think like Virginia Tech was one of the teams that would have got in last year. Virginia tech, which lost 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, like 11 of its last like 18 games. Like, that's the kind of, those are the kind of teams we're going to put into the, into the NCAA tournament now. So that's.

[A]

But if Virginia Tech goes, gets into a playing game and gets its doors blown off in the first in the play in game, it's not even like, right, like, then what. Because they made that playing game with Virginia Tech's fans be like, oh, look at us, we made it. We thought our coach sucked, but wait, he's actually good because we made a play in game and lost by 15. If they just lose, like, I guess I would say, like, it's not better, but is it Worse than what it is now.

[B]

But what if that Virginia Tech team plays a team that did deserve to make the NCAA tournament? And then when that team blows, Virginia Tech stores off, his best player springs his ankle and he can't play anymore. Was it worth it to make them play Virginia Tech?

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I guess, I guess that's, that's a point. It's like, are we playing, are we playing games that shouldn't be played in the name of TV revenue, in the name of money that then puts things at risk? But it's hard because also like. Well, what you like about the NCAA tournament is upset. So I think what is it?

[B]

Is that what you like upsets of good teams? You like when good mid major teams upset major conference teams? Did people. I guess we don't know yet because we haven't really had like, I don't know, I guess like a team from this one in Dayton has advanced past the first round every year. Right. So. Yeah, but like I don't, people don't hold on to those games as like Cinderella type of upsets. No, the type of upsets people get fired up about are the, the actual low seed versus high seeds. Not when an 11 beats a 6.

[A]

But we're probably already going to have less of those because like the players who drove those upsets are now leaving in the portal for nil and are not sticking around.

[B]

Right? Yeah, so, but I don't think like, I think those are just dead, right? And like they're gone and there's really no way you can get them back unless you rewind the sport 15 years and change the way we build rosters. And like this is gonna, that's not gonna be a replacement for that. If you're like trying to recapture that magic that doesn't exist anymore. We can't recapture it. And I don't know if that's any kind of motivation for this or not, but if it is, it's misguided, but

[A]

it's not the most offensive part of it. A team that never should be in winning a couple games and advancing. Yeah, that's the worst case scenario, right. This team, I think sucked all year and now they got lucky and they won a couple games and now they're in the sweet 16 and they suck. So. Which is kind of Texas, but is. So like, is that, that's the worst case scenario if you just suck, you shouldn't be in and then you make a play in game which isn't even the real tournament and you lose. Like if tree falls in the forest.

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

Like, there's no one here. Like, I didn't watch it. Are you gonna watch like the two crappy 11 seeds play each other? I don't know. Probably not. If there's 12 different games, I'm not gonna be locked in on all of those. So I, I guess the question is, again, I don't know that I am not for it. I'm not sure. I think it's as offensive as I think the primary reaction. You are much more in line, I think, with the consensus reaction. But I think perhaps it's less of a big deal to me because it's more mediocre teams. Let the mediocre teams fight it out and, and you can either watch or not and we'll see in the real bracket.

[B]

Right? Yeah, I'm just generally, I think, opposed to anything that's like offered up. It's like, hey, here's this new exciting thing that literally no one's asking for.

[A]

For.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

It's not.

[B]

Yeah. So it's like. And that doesn't mean that it'll always be bad. Like, I'm sure there will be compelling games in this new format that people will be excited about. But like the long term benefit of it, like, I fail to see anything other than extra TV dollars and coaches using it to prolong mediocre stints at whichever school they're at.

[A]

Let me look at something real quick. But even like, because like coaches can get bent, players come and go, it really is about the fans. People should be talking about the F. So like Virginia Tech hasn't won an NCAA tournament game since 2019. So like if Virginia Tech had made the tournament this past year and it's one of those things like you can, you can ignore the first round games, but the teams that win play in games count them, that count them as like NCAA tournament wins. So it's like, all right, you're a Virginia Tech basketball fan, You've been lousy, right? So 1, 2, 5. The last six, seven years, they've missed it five times and they've lost in the third round, first round twice. They've been a 10 seed and 11 seed. They were a four seed and lost in the Sweet 16 in 2019. Like, like that was the last good year. Virginia Tech basketball had their fans as mad as they would have been at the current team for sucking. They would have been excited if they made a play in game. So then if they make the playing game and those fans maybe get to go to watch the game, they Have a little watch. Like, is that like, Virginia Tech's not a basketball power?

[B]

Right.

[A]

Their fans get a little excited about one thing. Maybe they get excited for one game and it's over. But like, is, is there value in that? Is there any value in like, hey, Virginia Tech fans had a good four days.

[B]

Yeah, I think so. I mean, because I, I, that was certainly part of my thinking when we talked about expanding the college football playoff from 4 to 12 was like, well, think it's kind of cool that other fan bases get to have hope for something and get to have like a different avenue for enjoying their season. Now I don't think that's sort of like unlimited because you can apply that to anything and say, like, why doesn't everybody make the playoff in college football? But so I think there's value in it. I don't know that there's enough value in it to convince me that this is the right thing to do for the tournament.

[A]

Yeah, I, I agree, but I think it's a, it's a small point on the side of, well, you know, if we go to 76, this is what happens. Just looking at the numbers, like, if you like, right, the four power conference football leagues, plus like the Big east, if you think of them as like the power conferences in basketball, there's 76. No, there's 79 teams in those power conferences. 38 of those 79 made the tournament this year. If you go to a 76 bids and you're like, really opening up the power conferences, there's 31 basketball conferences. If everybody who's not one of those five power conference leagues is a one bid league, that would mean the power conferences could get up to 50 bids. So now you would have 50 of the 79 power conference teams would make the tournament. That's 63% of the teams from the power conferences could make the ncaa. Two thirds would make it. Right? Which is like, well then who cares about making it? Because two, like everybody who doesn't act absolutely suck makes it. But then if the idea is, well, we're saving jobs or whatever, it's like, well then, but you did a thing that is no longer has value. So we can fire you anyway. Right? So like the Orlando Magic, right now people thought the Magic were going to fire their coach. Orlando made the play in game. They lost their first play in game and then they had to play Charlotte. Everybody was picking Charlotte. Charlotte was hot. Charlotte was the team to pick. And people thought if Orlando loses that game, their head coach is going to get fired. Instead, they win that game and now they're up on the one seed and then it's like, okay, well, I guess that coach isn't going to get fired. But if Orlando had won that playing game, been the eighth seed, and then got swept in the first round, they still would have fired their coach. And I think it still would have been viewed as an underachieving, lousy season for the Magic. So like, should the ma now the Magic in the old world just would have made the playoffs because they were the eight seed, right? They just, they just would have made it. But like, is that bad that Orlando, like was. Was favored to lose the play in game and end its season and instead they might end up beating the one seed? Is that offensive? Is that a travesty? They shouldn't have even. They shouldn't even have this, right? They suck. Or is it like, ooh, sports. You never know what's going to happen in Orlando. I. Orlando's like a power conference team because, like, they have good players. They were supposed to be good this year and they weren't. They had an underachieving season and might beat the 1 seed in the playoff. Should they have even had the opportunity to do that? Or should they, should they wallow in their lousy 82 games? Like, that's what we're talking about here. I don't know.

[B]

I think it's slightly different because if they would have just been in as the eight, like if they were, if they were the Hornets or whatever and whatever the roles were reversed, like, I would, I would say, like, no, like, unless. Unless you just don't want the regular season to matter at all anymore. But it's like you, like, if you don't think people should be punished for underachieving in the regular season, then, then I guess you'd be saying, oh, sports are cool, this is fun. But I don't really think that's the point of professional sports. So I don't. Yeah, I don't know. Like, I don't. I'm trying to think, like, I don't know, like, if Kansas's season, like, really went off the rails this year with all the stuff that was going on there, but they still ended up getting into one of these additional spots and because they have good players, they suddenly figured out and went on the run and won the tournament, like, that would be fun for people. Or would they be mad that a team that woefully underachieved backdoored into an expanded tournament and then got its stuff together and won? Like I don't, I don't think that's a feel good story. I think that's a frustrating, this sport is broken story.

[A]

And I do think like people I think are, are more scared of like the theoretical like that.

[B]

Like I just Described Ohio State's 2024 season by the way.

[A]

Yeah, I mean that's one of those. So it's, I don't know. Right. I mean Ohio State had a great playoff run that they four team truthers and a lot of people would argue they never should have had the chance to do. And that's right. And they're, they're blue blood. Like the Orlando Magic haven't won an NBA playoff series since 2010 and they have a chance to beat the 1 seed right now. And it's like maybe they didn't deserve it. Maybe they, you know, and again, I understand your point that if they're the nine seed it might be different, but it's like did they earn this spot? Like we're letting a lot of mediocre underachieving teams in. But Magic fans are excited and the Magic aren't even though they under chief this year. They're not the Lakers, they're not the Celtics. Like this is a big deal for Orlando sports if they get have the chance to win a playoff series. So like, and I don't think really

[B]

anybody's upset about it other than Pistons fans.

[A]

Yeah, so. So it's like these, it's like this is what we're creating. We're creating more opportunities for mediocre teams to underachieve and still have life. But most of them still won't do anything with it. Most of them will still get booted. Right. And it's like, well, the regular season doesn't matter. It's like, well, I'd still rather be the one seed than in a play in game. I'd still rather be like a number two seed in the NCAA tournaments. Like, oh well, you won the Big Ten. Like what's is still an easier path. Right. So yeah, but, but the idea of okay, like we're letting 2/3 of the power conference teams into the field, that's pretty nuts. But still how many are going to do anything with it? So again, like I'm not, I'm just trying to. I'm defending the idea of I'm not exact. I'm not exactly sure that your favorite sporting event is going to be ruined by this. That's what I would argue against. I'm not arguing that it's good. I'm arguing that it's not as terrible as maybe you think it is.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And football's similar. If they go so, so basketball, if they go to a 76 team feel there are 361 Division 1 basketball teams, 76 of 361, 21% of teams would be getting in. And again, there's a great divide between the power conference teams and the not football. If they go to 24, a 24 team playoff out of 138 FBS teams, 17% of them would be getting in. And again, there is a great divide. Right. If we're Talking about potentially 23 power conference teams of 68, that's a third of them getting in. 34% of power conference football teams would now be in the football playoff. But again, basketball, we had a chance to have like 2/3 of basketball teams in power conferences having a chance to get in that. It feels like we don't have to do much with football because it feels like we're in a similar spot, which is the SEC wants 16, the Big Ten wants 24. Maybe more people are getting lining up behind 24. But again, I think that the thing that I want to bring up with this is if the 24 team proposal is eight teams have buys and then the first round is kind of like a play in round than a 16 team field, which is really not that different than a 12 team field because you're just getting rid of the buys. Right. So 12 to 16 is not that much of a jump. So then what you're doing is you are adding an extra round. And, and we don't have to get bogged down on the calendar stuff because the calendar is, it is a separate issue. You're adding a week, but this is more about who deserves it. Do you want to, you know, are you hurting the regular season? It's the number of teams that we're talking about. If what you're doing instead of having 16 teams, you're having 24 teams. But really you're playing eight play in games to create the 16 team field that the top eight are in. And then you know what, like if 24 beats nine, then so be it. Like if you're the ninth best team and you get knocked out by the 24th best team, like I guess, I'm sorry, but also like, I don't know, don't lose to the 24th best team. If you think of it as a play in round and then it just takes an extra week to get to where we're already getting to. Is it that offensive? Because probably 24, 23, 22, 21 are gonna lose, right? And then it's like, well, 9, 10, 11, 12, they're all in and whatever. If 18 upsets, 13 or whatever. Like, I don't know, is that offensive? So if you think of it as a play in round, this is the main thing. If we're. I'm. I'm more okay with expansion when you're creating play in rounds and those mediocre teams are just playing an extra. An extra game to determine who gets to play the good teams. So. I don't know.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Is that. Is that similar to the basketball conversation in your mind?

[B]

Yeah, I. I think so. I think you worry a little more about, like, an undeserving team going on a run in basketball just because, like, the nature of the sport. I think that, like, not that it's impossible in football, gc, it's kind of like, far less likely to happen.

[A]

So.

[B]

Yeah. And I think maybe just because we've been talking about college football playoff expansion for so long that I've sort of come to terms with it that I'm, like, a little less fired up about that than I am the basketball tournament, because that's fresh and new. But yeah, I mean, I think if you kind of whatever. Twist it the way you're doing it and thinking of it that way, it's not the most offensive thing in the world. I don't think it's ideal, but I don't think it fundamentally ruins everything.

[A]

And I think, like. Right, so. So there'd be a G6 guarantee. Maybe another G6 team would make it great. Right? We see top 25s that have multiple G6 teams in great. You see teams like, if Minnesota made a 24 team playoff like they would have a couple years ago, right? When they were 10 and 2 and they had Rashad Bate and those guys. Right. If they had made a playoff that year, women bonkers. Minnesota football fans would have been going. Going crazy. Right? Like. Like, that would be. And, like, would Minnesota have won a national championship that year or, like, won three games in the playoff and got to the final four? No, but getting in would have been huge. And so, again, I think what people are most afraid of is truly mediocre blue bloods backing in and then like, sort of not earning it, but having an opportunity to win it all. But I just don't know that, like, hey, Ohio State went 8 and 4 and they're the 21 seed, and. And they won it all. Like, it's one thing for Ohio State to be sixth ranked in the final rankings. And it was like, well what happens? Like well, they lost to the undefeated number one team and then they lost to their rival. But they have a bunch of great players. But it's like if you're, if you're the 22 seed and it's like oh my God, what if the 22 seed wins it all and they never should have been there, is the 22 seed ever going to win at all? Like for real, we're talking about how hard it would be for Bama and Georgia and Ohio State to get through that. And more often than not, isn't the 22 seed gonna be a program that is so freaking excited to be the 22 seed? That being the 22 seed in the playoffs is one of the great things that ever has happened to that team. And then they'll maybe win a game at most and then be on their way and we'll get down to the teams that really matter.

[B]

So yeah, I don't know how many now it will look like how many

[A]

times

[B]

like unseated or low seated teams ended up winning the FCS playoffs? Because usually it just feels like at the end it's number one versus number three.

[A]

Who didn't, didn't like Illinois State or somebody go on a run this year?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Yeah, like as an. Unlike a. Even like a, like a very low seed. Did they get to the semis?

[B]

I think that's right. Yeah. Illinois State was unseated, so they don't seed everybody. Illinois State was unseated and got to the semifinals. Yeah. And then they played Villanova who. So one, one semi final was unseated Illinois State and 12th seated Villanova. And the other semi final was number two Montana State and number three Montana. And then Illinois State got to the title game and lost to Montana State by a point.

[A]

Okay, so Illinois State who like what was Illinois State's regular season record?

[B]

And now you're asking me. Hard stuff. Illinois State was. Where are they? 8 and 4.

[A]

Okay. They went 8 and 4 in the regular season. They got in. How many teams make the FCS tournament? I'm not gonna apologize for that.

[B]

24.

[A]

So 24.

[B]

Illinois State was 8 and 4, got in, beat 16 seeds, Southeastern Louisiana 9 and 3 for the right to go play at top seed at North Dakota State. And then Illinois State beat them in Fargo.

[A]

And that's what this would be, that's what we're talking about. This 2014 proposal is like that first round play in is home sites and Then when you get is. Is the proposal. And then when you. Those winners. So right. Like if you're, if you're like seated nine through 16, you get a home game. So that's like an extra bonus. If you're seated 17 through 24, you got in when you never thought you were going to get in. And now nine through 16, like, whatever. Any of those teams now you got to go play on the road at one of the top eight seeds. And those top eight seeds all get home games. When Illinois State beat who? North Dakota State.

[B]

North Dakota State. Yeah.

[A]

Was the coverage of that game. What a fricking joke. I can't believe Illinois State even had this opportunity to knock off this, this blue blood of fcs. This is a joke. This is over saturation. This is the death of college football. Illinois State is everything that's wrong with the FCS playoff or was the coverage. Holy crap. Illinois State beat the one seed at their place.

[B]

It was the latter. Yeah.

[A]

So then like, what are we doing?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So if Minnesota goes and beats one seed Texas after winning a first round game, like, what's the cup like? What's. Like, what are we mad about? So if the, if the favorites win, then we're just at the same place we were. And then it's like if we were in a conversation about, like, wear and tear on players, about the calendar. Those are all meaningful. But what we're talking about is like, are we screwing up the tournament by letting in teams that don't deserve to get in? So if the teams that don't deserve to get in lose. Okay, they were excited just to be there, then they lost. I'm not sure why we're offended. And if they win and win multiple games and make a run to the championship game, is the conversation. This is a joke or is the conversation. This is the 1980 hockey team. Like, what. Like what are we. Right, so then what are we. Like, what are we offended about? I'm just looking. It feels like mostly people are offended by the idea of expanding this tournament and this playoff. And I guess I'm asking exactly what we're potentially offended about.

[B]

I think it's just a. It's a. I think it's a little bit of a pushback against like the participation trophy. Thought, like, do teams that. Do these teams actually deserve to be there? Whether or not they have an ability to win once they're there is besides the point. They deserve to be there in place. The first. First place.

[A]

And I do think again, if. If 7 and 5 Ohio State is the 22 seed and makes a run to the national championship game. That's what people would be most offense offended by. Right. Because here's the thing about participation trophies. The people who hate participation trophies are the people who win a lot of stuff.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Right. And you know who appreciates participation trophies? People who don't win but who enjoy participating. And maybe the most they're ever going to hope for is participating. And so like Ohio State doesn't need a participation trophy. And I get the idea that not only does Ohio State not need a participation trophy, potentially giving Ohio State a participation trophy makes your blood boil. Minnesota would take a participation trophy. Minnesota will put a participation trophy in its, in its trophy lobby. Right. Like out of 100 and whatever I said 36 or 38 teams that are playing FBS football now, like probably 118 would take a participation trophy.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And so it's just one of those, like usually that conversation comes from the people who have a bunch of first place trophies on their wall. And I don't know, like we're not taking away your first place trophy by giving the 22nd best team in college football and its fan base a participation trophy. Is it lessening your first place trophy that they got a participation trophy? So, and if they, if they do more, if they earn a second place trophy as the 22 seed, is that horrible or is that exciting? So again, like that's, that's the. My. Yeah, I'm, I, I want to make clear, like I'm not. I actually sort of have made the case for the 2014 playoff, but I guess I'm just more arguing for maybe it's not the worst thing ever. Not that it's good, but it might not be the worst thing ever.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I'm not trying to change your mind. Like I, my goal is not to change your mind. It's just to maybe like there might be some set of listeners who are like worried that their, this sport they love is being eradicated by expansion. And I'm not sure that that actually will turn out to be true.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So anyway, mock drafts in 2027. Dane Brugler has 16 SEC teams and not 16 SEC players and nine Big Ten players in his projected first round. Jordan Reed of ESPN has 19 SEC players and six, seven Big Ten players in his projected first Round. I would just like to give a heads up to everybody that like Big Ten might have to like take one next year. Like.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, stuff can change, right? I was looking at those. I think, I think Dane and Jordan both had their SEC picks spread amongst 10 different teams, which I thought was interesting. Whereas the Big Ten, the only teams in either mock draft with only Big Ten teams of picks were Ohio State, Oregon, Indiana and I think Dane had Jada Maeva and his from usc. So the consolidation in the Big Ten relative to the SEC was interesting. But I also sort of like kind of gets back to the heart of the conversation we started the show with. We'll see. I, I don't, I'm like, you know, it won't exactly I think end up playing out this way. A couple of like the SEC ones also were guys who transferred in from other leagues which like else it counts for them. But you know, I don't know that it's a hundred percent reflective of anything about the two conferences themselves. So I don't know. I think like and like Ohio State and both only has one projected first round draft pick which could end up happening. But the Buckeyes also have a lot of talent. They, they're probably the team in the country most likely to have a guy or two rise up the draft boards and give them more first round picks. So there will be a gap, it seems like, but I don't know that the gap will be quite as stark as it seems like it will be right now.

[A]

I would like to prepare people for this. I think it is possibly an Empire Strikes Back season for the SEC this

[B]

year and you can make an SEC national champ.

[A]

I might like. They're gonna freeze Jeremiah Smith and Carbonite. They're gonna cut off Dante Moore's hand. You know, like there's gonna, they're gonna do like this is like it's not again, like the point of this isn't. And then the Big Ten won 40 straight national championships and vanquish the SEC. It is that the evil empire, right like you a blow has been struck and now they're gonna fight back and then they're gonna have to get all this teddy bears in the woods to like get on our side and like then fight back again. I, I, I do think it's like right as they're admitting it, I am like battening down the hatches for this a little bit because there does just seem to be maybe an influx of talent. They are going to win another one eventually and I would just like to put our loyal Northern fans just like gird yourself.

[B]

So yeah, there would be something like sort of poetic I think about like if the sport, whatever the sport got to the place where the Big Ten kind of like rested Power back and won three in a row. Doing so initially with like two of the bluest bloods possible with, with Michigan and Ohio State. And then it's like Indiana comes out of nowhere to be sort of like the ultimate symbol of like this sport is different. And now we're sort of like resetting it and like maybe we'll reset it with like a new Big Ten team in Oregon and a new Big Ten team in or SEC team in Texas and then we'll see where the sport goes from there. I don't know. I could get, I could get excited for that, I think.

[A]

Yeah. So I just like, again, it's not, it's not, it's not a straight, it's not a straight line to the, to the, to the stars, man. Right. I mean it's not, there's going to be some dips and stuff in it. So I just, I thought that that NFL draft stuff was like a tiny reflection of like what we're talking about here. So, so let's talk about Brendan Sorsby briefly. Is not most of the conversation, hey, sports betting is legal now. What a hypocritical world we live in where sports betting is legal. But yet this college football player who is facing something that a lot of college age people are facing which is like they're gambling too much. Like he's being punished while everybody else is making money off gambling. Right. Is that the general consensus conversation there?

[B]

I think so, yeah. Did you see the CBS story? I think it was cbs. The story that was floating around about it was like, Brendan Sorsby may not be able to play this season. Here's how it affects Texas Tex. National championship odds.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. It's like, okay, well that gets the part of it.

[A]

Yeah. But I don't agree with it. I don't, I don't agree with that, that version of, of events. I think it's simplistic and it's like it is a, it is, it is legal in America to do it. But you, you, it is not allowed in certain subsets. Right. So it's like he's not going to jail. He's not going to jail for it. He didn't, he didn't break laws of our, of our, of our federal system. He broke the rules of the activity that he chooses to be a part of and which by the way he is, was going to be very heavily compensated for being part of. And here's my overall thing on this is college is the point where you come in as a kid and you leave as an adult. And it is why college sports is fascinating. It is why college sports is complicated. It is, has always been the case that it's kind of high school and it kind of the pros and you have expectations for these people, but yet they're kids in a lot of ways. And when we get to a point where you're making a whole bunch of money as football players and as basketball players and maybe some other athletes, where you're making a whole bunch of money, where you have the ultimate freedom to go do and play for anybody you want to play for when in a world where you did not have those opportunities in the past, we have swung way toward the professionalization of this in, in all the good ways for players. And I'm, I'm for that. I'm for players being paid. I think we need better structure. But I'm for players having more freedom than they did in the past. But then also like, guess what, we're your adults now. You're being treated as adults. You're making $5 million a year. You can go to three different colleges and not have to sit out. You're being treated as an adult. So this is part of being treated as an adult. So what I don't think can happen is to give somebody $5 million, let him play wherever he wants to play, go to the highest bidder, but then be like, oh, this poor kid. And I'm sympathetic to gambling addictions and all those other things, but like also there are plenty of things that are legal in America that people get addicted to. So like, I don't know what we're supposed to do, but the idea that it is like hypocritical to, to have betting be legal, but you then like punish a college age athlete for breaking the rule of the sport that he is part of, but not breaking a law. I don't know why that's hypocritical.

[B]

Like, what's, well, yeah, I think specifically applied to college maybe because I, I, I'm unaware. Well, like what is the relationship between the NCAA and, and the sports books? Right. I can't, I actually can't even recall there being like, are there like DraftKings ads during the NCAA tournament that the NCAA is making money off of?

[A]

But like, is how it feels because

[B]

I think it's, I think professional Sports. I would 100 agree with you or I would agree with the assertion that it is, that it is hypocritical when like they are business partners of the sports books. But I don't know that, that, like, I, I guess I should know. I don't know that that relationship exists in college sports in a way that would make it.

[A]

You think it, you think in the pros. It is hypocritical. It's more hypocritical if they're, it's more hypocritical.

[B]

I think it's more hypocritical for pro sports to punish its, its participants for gambling when they make money for. From gambling sites. Yes.

[A]

Oh, see, I don't think that's hypocritical because it's a rule they made. Because you can't bet on your own sport. Like, that's a common rule. You can't bet on your own sport. You can't bet on sport you play. Everybody knows that.

[B]

Why, why can't you bet on the sport you play if you're not betting on the team?

[A]

Because it affects your performance. Because I think you have inside information, potentially because you're part of that. Even if you bet on yourself, it's like, well, now I'm going to play harder because I have a bet on this game as opposed to, like, if I wasn't playing. Like, I think. But also it's a rule. And this is all like the collective bargaining stuff, because if your sport says you can't bet on our game, like if the NFL says you can't bet on NFL games and then you bet on NFL games, will you agree to the rule? So if you don't like the rule, then collectively bargain that we can bet on NFL games, but otherwise you agree to the rule.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And so there's not collective bargaining in college athletics, but it's like, well, these are the rules of the Sport. You're getting $5 million. Like, don't bet on the sport that you play. Okay? That's the rule. It's not a law. It's a rule. We all have to.

[B]

Do you think they should be banned from betting, period, or just on the sport that they play?

[A]

I, and I know this. There's like, there's been consternation about this because they were going to let, like, college athletes bet on pro sports, and then they were like, no, no, no, no, no, don't do that. And they pulled that back. I just think you should follow the rules or whatever the rules are. Yeah. Like, I, I don't know if I have a strong opinion about what it, what the rule should be, but I don't know how much sympathy I have for breaking the rule. When you're making $5 million you can go play wherever you want to play, and we're treating you as an adult in those ways. So now you have to. You're punished as an adult for the choices that you've made.

[B]

I don't know, Heather, has there been a lot of, like, poor Brendan Sorsby?

[A]

I think there's. To me, it's been mostly like, oh, it's so hypocritical to do this. And I think, like, it's more people pointing out that it's the hypocrisy, but then it's like, well, then what? And also, like, I don't think it's hypocrisy. Like, like, what is critical about it that we. That we take money from a business, but then we have. We have rules for the participants of the sport around how you engage with that business. I don't know, but the people.

[B]

The people, yeah, I guess. Who's saying it's hypocritical? Like, the sports media who work for companies that are also in cahoots with the gambling sites because those gambling sites pay them money for advertising.

[A]

I. I mean, is it just not like a. Has that not been, like, the overwhelming, like, general consensus?

[B]

Yeah, yeah. No, Yeah, I think. I think it has. Like, that's been the gist of the coverage. But I'm just saying, like, I think it's. I think it's fueled by the people who are sort of spouting those opinions being, like, conflating, like, their own businesses, relationship with betting companies, with the NCAAs, which, like, I actually don't think are very similar at all.

[A]

Yeah. And I'm not like, pro betting company. Like, I actually do think so. The, the thing about having a betting app on your phone is, like, what if you could, like, hit a button on your phone and then beer came out of it?

[B]

Let's see how it's like. If cigarettes are dangerous, everyone can make their own decision whether or not they want to smoke them. But what if people just. If the company just meld you a carton of cigarettes every week, right. Then they're just sitting there in front of you. It's like, yeah, it's a little easier to make the decision to smoke one, though.

[A]

So I would be in favor. As someone who bets $2 on gambling apps, I would be in favor of. Of gambling not being allowed on your phone that you can't. That you have to do it in a place of business. I would be in favor of that. But it's like. But does Brendan Sorsby breaking the Existing rules change my opinion on that. No, he broke the rule. So, like, I don't. Yeah, I don't. You can't bet on your own team. Like, you can't, you can't. You can't bet on the team you play for. Like, there's just.

[B]

No, I agree with that. Yeah. Once if it was like Brendan Sorsby was betting balls and strikes at Reds games and he got suspended, I think I'd be pretty fired up about it. But if he's betting on the team that he played for, regardless of whether or not he was on the field, if he's betting on the team that he played for, then, like, okay, well, that's the end of the conversation, you know?

[A]

But even if they said, like, you can't bet on balls and strikes, you can't. You can't bet anything on Major League Baseball, it's like, well, why can't I? It's like, because it's a rule of our sport.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And so again, like, now we get back to collective bargaining. Well, you just, like, you, you pushed that rule on me. I didn't have any say in that. It's like, okay, well, then they should have collective bargaining for everything. But in the meantime, you cannot play college football and bet as much as you want because it is legal. Or you can get $5 million to go to your third school. So I just. It's like, I don't. And, like, it is a. It is an issue. And I, And I'm sympathetic to any college age person. And I've heard stories from my kids about, you know, kids of college and like, that they're doing this stuff. But I. But then, like. But then what? Right? So people, do people think that we shouldn't have gambling on your phones? So it's like you and I just said we think you should. Because I, I think I told the story. I went to the NCAA tournament during the NCB tournament tournament. My daughter and I, who's of age, went to a sports book in Columbus. And, like, there was nobody there. I thought it might be fun. There was like, nobody there. Because it's like, why would you go to a sports book to bet the NCAA tournament when you can do it on your phone? But if you couldn't bet on your phone and you had to go to a sports book, that would have been jammed and it would have been fun. It would have been making money for a business. It would have been employing people. Right. There's all kinds of good things about that. And you have to make a Concerted effort, like I'm going to the place to get to do the thing. And then there's, there's a, there's an economic benefit, there's a social benefit, like all those kind of things. And it's fun and exciting, so I'm in favor of that. But in the meantime, we have this and just follow the rules. I don't know. I, I, I, I don't, I, I just thought it was, I thought it was, I thought it was a simplistic reaction by a lot of media, like, oh, well, what did you think you were gonna get? It's like, I don't know, I thought maybe that we wouldn't get quarterbacks betting on the team we played for because you're not allowed to.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And then also if they did, I thought they'd be punished like this. So then, so then what, like, what are you mad at, Are you just anti, you don't think sports gambling should, we should go back to what it was. The sports gambling is only legal in Vegas. Like, is that what you're like, is that everybody's point? Because Brendan Sworesby's might be suspended? I don't know.

[B]

What's the other thing? Right? Like, is he, has he actually been suspended?

[A]

So like, I know he's leaving the

[B]

team to go to rehab or whatever, but like, has he actually been punished for anything?

[A]

Right. So I don't know, I don't know where that stands. It feels like people think that like there the rule is in place, like you can't bet on your own team and that that might be severe enough that if he actually did that while he was in Indiana, then, then he would be suspended. But it's also, it's just like one of those things if, like, should you get rid of anything that some people abuse? Some people abuse this. So we have to get rid of it for everybody. Because then it's like, well then like, I don't know, like there's, there's a lot of stuff that that would apply to. So is that, is that the point that we're at or are you somewhat responsible for your actions? And we'll try, we'll give you the best help that we can and we'll try to have that happen to as few people as possible. But it doesn't mean that the existence of the thing is in itself hypocr critical because some people unfortunately abuse it. Like, I don't, I don't know. Like, I don't know. I just, I, I just thought it was, I thought that was like, that was like. Right. Oh, I keep. And I just like, I don't. Is that really the thing? Last thing is Arkansas cut tennis. I feel like I'm being a contrarian, but I don't. I'm not doing it to be, just to be a contrarian. I just, I just, this is jumps, not jumpstart. It's like the continuing conversation of as we become more football centric in college sports, what does that mean? As you are now paying the labor force for sports, what does that mean? And I just think anymore, any sport at college that is not self sufficient, that is a. Is. Is not making, does not make money, falls to me much more in line with the chemistry department and the drama department and the music department and anything else that is a function of the university that you, you lose money on it. But you have to buy beakers for the lab experiments and you have to buy microphones for the music department and you have to have a stage for the drama department. And it doesn't mean that those things don't exist, but they're, you know, they're responsible. Like, you know what I mean? Like, it's just, I, I think like tennis that nobody cares about and nobody watches except the people who play it. Just shorthand. I don't know. Do you ever have you watched a college tennis match on tv? Like, so I think that has much more in common with playing the flute and being in the robotics club than it does with football. And I, of course, title nine. Of course, title nine. So there's some margin of this that like you have to provide some opportunities. But again, this is back to the college thing of like, are we amateur or are we pro? And guess what? NFL teams don't have a tennis team on the side. Right? So it's like we just. Or what are we? And like the decision has been made. Football players for 100 years never agreed to, to prop up every other sport. They just did it and they never got any money and then they paid for every other sport to exist. So now we're out of that business. So again, like the, the initial sort of like the outrage by some people, it's like, I hope you are as outraged when there are cuts to the music department and when there are cuts to the chemistry department and when there are cuts to the drama department, because those are also departments that a small group of people care about. But also chemistry has a positive effect on the world more than a tennis team does. So I just, I don't mean to be glib about Olympic sports. But I, I just think people think of it wrong. Like you, you don't have an automatic right to have a college tennis team that loses money. You know, again, if we're giving scholarships for anything, I would, I would be more, I'm in favor of more scholarships to engineering students and fewer scholarships to tennis students because. To tennis players, because engineering has a higher societal purpose than playing tennis does. So, and it happens to be a sport, but it has nothing in common with football. So again, it's like knee jerk outrage of how dare we not have our athletic departments operate exactly the same way they operated when the football players were playing for free. And it's like, I just think we think about it wrong.

[B]

Yeah, I, I think that's right. I think, I think there's, there's not enough sort of like, just like acknowledging the real world. I do wonder if, if more could be done. I, it feels to me like a lot of times athletic administrator administrators just sort of like throw their hands up and just like, oh, we can't possibly have a tennis team. And I think that there are probably ways to at least think about making it work in this new world. Right. Like I, and I, like, I wouldn't pretend to know all the answers but like why can't, why can't all non revenue sports just become like regional? Right. Like it's part of the reason Arkansas cut tennis, because Arkansas's tennis team has to go play in one of the West Columbia, South Carolina instead of like playing Arkansas, Pine Bluff and whatever other schools are within a reasonable bus ride for the team. Right. I think that there are sensible solutions to help keep some of these sports around. And yes, they would probably compete on a slightly different stage, but at least you're still providing athletic opportunities for students who might want them. But yeah, it's not like college football is big business now and it always has been. But like now the people who actually like are doing the labor are getting paid for it and there are consequences to that. I guess. Maybe coaches should make less money. Then you can have a tennis team.

[A]

College football.

[B]

How much is Arkansas playing Ryan Silverfield to go win five games next year?

[A]

Yeah, reasonable, reasonable also still, the football team's going to make money no matter how much Ryan Silverfield makes or doesn't make. I just am mostly responding in almost all of these topics to what I feel like is initial knee jerk reactions to anything that's like a change and people automatically. And I just think like, you have to be realistic with, with where we are in college. Athletics. And the primary driver of all of this is that the workforce that was free for 100 years is no longer free. And the sport that people care the most about and has all has been providing for all of this. And as a result then there's other things that have to happen for people to try to make money to support this. But I'm sorry that your niche thing might be, might not exist anymore. But guess what? Like there's lots of things that are niche that are important to a small subset of people that don't exist. That you have to like find a way to do it on your own and like again, like have a club, like whatever. Not saying you can't play tennis, have tennis courts, right. But like, you know, like it's not, it's not a right. Again, title nine. Title nine. There's has to be that's right for some, right? I'm pro title nine. But like if you're within title nine, I just think we're going to be at a place where like we have many fewer sports that are intercollegiate and might be more like club teams and non scholarship and whatever. And it's like, okay, so I don't know, I just don't, I don't like the, I don't write, I don't like the immediate outrage about stuff when it's like, well what do you, like, what do you, how do you think this is supposed to work then? So anyway, I don't think many people are going to agree with me on any of this stuff. That's okay.

[B]

There's not a. Yeah, there's not a clean solution to any of it. I don't think so.

[A]

Yeah, but like, you know, it, it is this thing like when you've had a free labor force for a hundred years and it's like, man, all college sports cares about now is making money. It's like, yeah, because I got to pay these guys. I don't know. So like I think that the, the football players who are part of a very high revenue thing should, should be able to partake of some of that revenue. So you got to make it, you got to share it. And then you've. But then also the people who are then getting the money have to be responsible. You're not, you're not some poor, poor little kid who's. I'm just a 19 year old kid playing the sport I love. It's like you gotta get a million dollars, man. I'll tell you, like, you gotta, you gotta hold up your end of the bargain. Then too. So, okay, this is why we don't do these shows. Just people end up. End up hating me. Absolutely. And again, almost everything that I say is a reaction to something that somebody else said. So we're gonna keep doing this. We're actually also going to start on this channel some Ohio State opponent breakdowns. They got 12 regular season games. We got about 12 weeks until Big Ten media days. So those are going to start popping in here week by week. We'll continue to do around the shoe. We'll continue to touch on these bigger national and Big Ten and northern college football topics, and we usually won't react to the news. We'll usually have a plan. So, anything else you want to add?

[B]

No, I'm excited to. To do. Start doing some of these opponent previews because I also need to educate myself on the teams that Ohio State is playing this year.

[A]

But I will say, like, isn't talking about ball better? Like, we didn't talk about any ball.

[B]

Yeah, I like talking about ball. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. It's like, I don't know how these

[B]

people have sports podcasts where they never talk about ball.

[A]

No, no. But again, like, I. I. Like, we're the last people to have these conversations. So we thought, well, if, like, there's 400 other podcasts having these conversations, we may as well do it, too. But, like, I just don't want to live in a world where the main thing is tournament expansion, gambling regulations, and cutting sports. Like, that's not what we're here for. We're here to talk ball. So we try to do this pretty infrequently. All right, that's it. Look at it. It's like a downer. It's like, that's it.

[B]

That's a Bill and Doug show.

[A]

Doug just crapped over the Arkansas. All over the Arkansas tennis players and had no sympathy for Brendan Sorsby and told us that the expansion in the name of money is wonderful. I love that guy. All right, Texas. Ohio State's gonna be a good game, though. Is that gonna be good? Oh, it's gonna be a good game. Jeremiah Smith, good at football. Yeah, that's a good one. All right. He's behind us on Douglas Maurice. And that was a. I think I'm not gonna get sued out of this, am I? All these lawyers. God, lawyers. College sports lawyers can cram it so hard. I'm so sick of them. That was the Bill and Doug Show.