Ryan Smith (29:46)

How?

Stephen A. Smith (29:48)

I'm just saying. By the way, one of my boys gave me this idea. Congress and senate only in D.C. two weeks per quarter to vote. Reduce the course. What the hell you living in D.C. for? For what? You ain't doing no work. Just a suggestion. All I'm saying is that as you look at these things and you look at me, I am very sincere when I tell you I have no desire to be a politician. I have no interest. But I have been asked by folks in the business world, folks in corporate America, folks on Capitol Hill, plus folks who are friends of mine to strongly reconsider and to at least leave the door open to the possibilities because you never know what state our country could be in in the next three years or so. STEPHEN A. Just don't shut the door. Just don't shut the door. Please. Just don't shut the door. That's all I was saying yesterday. But what I want y'all to understand is that I had every right to say was necessary because of everything going on, not just in our nation's capital with this tariffs war, but also how helpless the Democratic side is to do anything about it. All they can do is complain for the moment, nothing else. They don't have the seats. And we want to rave about Cory Booker, who we respect, speaking on the floor in the US house for 25 hours plus. But what are we really power? What are we really empowered to do? The party isn't empowered. So it comes down to the people. And one of the people spoke up, that's all. Just want to let y'all know where I'm at. Not interested in running. Hope it doesn't come to that, but I was told I owe it to all of us to at least leave the door open. That's what I did. By the way, this week, this Sunday, I'm scheduled to speak to be on this Week with George Stephanopoulos on abc and practically every other network is called. They're apparently taking it very seriously, so I have no choice but to do so. It comes down to that. It just comes down to that. Coming up, the NCAA could be shelling out billions to settle lawsuits from athletes who accuse them of limiting their ability to capitalize off their name, image and likeness. Us. I'll get into that straight ahead. But first, did y'all see the end of the NCAA men's championship game between Houston and Florida? Congrats to the Gators who prevented Houston from even getting a shot off. I'll get into that sloppy ending in a minute. This is the Stephen A. Smith Show. Holla at your boy. Back with one minute. All right, everybody, listen up. With all the big time sports action that's happening each and every day, the Stephen A. Smith show wants to make sure you are taking advantage of it all. That's why we've partnered with Prize Picks. The best place to win cash while watching sports. The app is really easy to use to make a lineup. All you have to do is pick more or less on a few player stats. Choose from any of your favorite players. Luka Doncic, Jimmy Butler and Zach lavine all in the same entry. Then sit back and watch. The list is absolutely endless. You can play Prize picks in over 40 states including California and Texas. Best of all, Prize Picks will give you 50 when you play your first five dollar lineup. Win or lose, you'll get 50 bucks. Just use promo code SAS and download Prize Picks right now. Again, download the app and use code SAs to get 50 instantly after your first five dollar lineup. Prize picks, run your game.

Ryan Smith (33:52)

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone Paying Big Wireless Way Too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint.

Stephen A. Smith (34:01)

You can get Premium Wireless for just $915 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments.

Ryan Smith (34:06)

But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per.

Stephen A. Smith (34:17)

Month required intro rate first three months.

Ryan Smith (34:18)

Only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com this is Reshaan McDonald.

Stephen A. Smith (34:24)

From Money Making Conversations Masterclass. How can you free your team from time consuming office tasks? Amazon Business empowers leaders to not only streamline purchasing, but better support their teams. Smart business buying tools enable buyers to find and purchase items fast so they can focus on strategy and growth. It's time to free up your teams and focus on your future. Learn more about the technology, insights and Support available@AmazonBusiness.com Welcome back to the Stephen A. Smith Show. By the way, before I get to my next subject, let me just say one last thing about the topic that I was discussing in the A block. Rather than thinking about me being a politician, don't think for one second I wouldn't mind staying over these airwaves and engaging in even more political commentary day after day after day. A lot of Joe Rogan's, the Megan Kelly's of the World and beyond. That's more my lane. I'd love to continue doing that. Now that is something that I intend to be doing for years and years and years to come as I elevate my level of knowledge about this particular genre. This subject matter, make no mistake about that, that's more suitable for me than the presidency. Just letting you know. Anyway, moving on, I want to get into that crazy finish we saw last night with the NCAA Men's Championship game. Houston. Check this out y'all. Houston had the ball with 11 seconds left in the game and couldn't get a shot off. As a result, the Florida Gators are now national championship champions Coming all the way back from being down 12 points in the second half. It was a disastrous final few min. Y'all know that the Houston Cougars turned the ball over in their final four offensive possessions. You can't do that. You can't do that. And that kid Sharp, I feel so bad for him. He committed a pivotal turnover trying to drive into the lane, got stripped, ball got bounced off his knee about 26 and a half seconds left. And then he jumped up in the air and, and, and, and Clayton Jr. Cleared out on him and had a hand in his face. Great defense on his part. And instead of pump faking and pulling up for the three or pump faking and going to the lane because two would have been enough, he couldn't even get a shot off. And that's sad. Houston is an elite defensive team. They had Florida on the ropes, had them down by 12 in the second half. They should not have lost this game. But major, major props to Florida for staying the course. And that kid Walter Clayton Jr. Is going. He's special. He didn't have the biggest game last night, only 11 points of 3 for 10 shooting. But he came live in the second half. That's when he made some noise, when it really, really counted, giving props where props is due. And I think that he might be, you know, the first or second guard taken in the draft, in the NBA draft. He's that special. He reminds me a lot of Wade Cunningham for the Detroit Pistons. Personally, I don't know what y'all think about that, but that's what I think. Anyway, let me move on and get to this subject that I have. I, I cannot negate getting into this. I want to give props to the one and only Gino Oriema and the Yukon women team who beat South Carolina Sunday to win their 12th national championship. The Lady Huskies were led by Sarah Strong, Ozzy Fudd and Paige Beckers, of course, who played her final game as a Husky. She'll likely be the first pick in the WNBA draft next month. Meanwhile, many people are wondering if UConn's 12th title makes Gino Oriemma the greatest coach in American history. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say it does very simple. The man's been coaching it for 40 years. He's been a 24 Final Fours. He's won 12 national championships. Think about that. He's been the 24 Final Fours and half the time he's won the national title. Okay? Think about that. All time winning as coach. Not only that, he's won in four different decades. So not only does he coach exceptionally well, he recruits exceptionally well, he motivates exceptionally well. Now, Paige is something special. She hadn't torn her acl. Remember, she was national player of the year as a freshman. She went to fourth straight. She went to four Final Fours. She got injured one year with the torn acl and that's why they couldn't close the deal. But this young lady is sensational. My only, my only dissenting opinion is that she didn't get a chance to go against juju Watkins because that USC star, national player of the year, by the way, got hurt in the NCAA tournament. And when UConn could have met them in, in the Elite Eight again for the second consecutive year, Juju wasn't there. She couldn't play. So I was very, very sad about that. But Becca's a special. She is something special. But there's always a special player coming out of UConn. The Maya Moore's of the war, Diana Taurasi's of the world, Brianna Stewart, four time champion in all four years at UConn. Four times most outstanding player in the process. You're looking at Fudd and you're looking at strong. Look at them, ladies. Strong is coming. Strong is special. And Fud can ball too. That young lady can ball. She's going to be special as well. They showed up in the national title game and they beat the brakes off of South Carolina. South Carolina, Dawn Stilly, she didn't have the horses, she didn't have the personnel. And we're not accustomed to seeing that, but that has happened. And so we have to look at it for what it is. Gino Orient has withstood the test of time. And you could talk about Nick Saban, you could talk about Bill Belichick, you could talk about all of these guys. I think Nick Saban is the closest. Bill Belichick had Tom Brady for 20 years. Okay? One with them didn't win without him. Nick Saban won at lsu. He won at Alabama, so I think that's close. John Wooden, you got to think about him and his 11 titles, no doubt. But when you look at Geno Oriemma and the span over which he's won over four different separate decades, I don't think there's any question that he is the greatest coach in American history. His resume says so. The test of time says so. His recruiting ability says so. His basketball acumen says so. And the fact that his players never leave his program, Nil exists. Easy. You know, just saw Olivia Miles decide to depart from Notre Dame. Let me tell you something. Anybody think about leaving UConn? This is Storrs, Connecticut. Ain't nobody think about leaving because you know Orema is there. That's why. It's just that simple. Congratulations to the goat of basketball coaching that is Gino Oriemma. He truly is. There's nothing to say about it. Coming up, Sean Diddy Combs federal sex trafficking trial is less than a month away and Cassie's apparently preparing to testify against him. We've got to get into that. My man Ryan Smith is in the house to discuss that with me. And a little something extra about the NCAA as well. So don't go away. It's the Stephen A. Smith SHOW coming right at you. Back with more in a minute. This is Reshawn McDonald from Money Making Conversations Masterclass. How can you grow your business from idea to industry leaders leader? Bring your vision to life with smart business buying tools and technology from Amazon Business. From fast free shipping to in depth buying insights and automated purchase approvals, Amazon Business delivers everything you need to achieve your goals. It's not easy to stand out from the crowd. Simplify how you stock up to get ahead. Go to amazonbusiness.com for support.

Ryan Smith (41:59)

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. Spring is in full swing, which means it's time for spring cleaning. Don't worry, we've got everything you need to stock up on spring cleaning essentials because a clean home is a happy home. Shop in store or online for spring cleaning favorites like Method All Purpose Cleaner.

Stephen A. Smith (42:15)

Swiffer Heavy Duty Mopping Cloths, Lysol Bathroom.

Ryan Smith (42:19)

Cleaner, Scotch Brite Sponges and Clorox Disinfecting Wipes and Save. Offer ends April 22nd.

Stephen A. Smith (42:25)

Promotions may vary.

Ryan Smith (42:26)

Restrictions apply. Visit albertsons or safeway.com for more details.

Stephen A. Smith (42:31)

Welcome back to Stephen A. Smith Show. Now let's get to the latest on Sean Diddy Combs, whose federal trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges is set to begin next month. Sources tell People magazine that Cassandra Cassie Ventura is prepared to testify against her ex partner Diddy at the upcoming trial using her name. Last Friday, prosecutors filed a motion stating that, quote, victim number one would not be testifying anonymously during Combs upcoming trial where he faces charges of racketeering and conspiracy, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. People magazine exclusively confirmed with sources that Ventura is victim number one or victim one and that she will be testifying in the trial. Meanwhile, three other victims are preparing to testify anonymously against the disgraced musician Listen, in recent news, we've seen a lot of things come to the fold. We've seen charges being dropped by other folks, things going away, but this hasn't. And to me, this is why this is so incredibly damaging for Diddy. Because the one person that visually incriminates him more than anything else is Cassie Ventura, his ex girlfriend. She is the person he was seen in that video that he ran down the hallway half naked, grabbed her, yanked her, throw it to the floor, kicked her, you know, threw a vase at her. The behavior was despicable, and it's incredibly incriminating to me. If you're the prosecution and you can use that video to smear P. Diddy, that's bad. That's very, very bad. Now, I understand that some people will sit up there, say racketeering and all of this other stuff that, you know, the charges that have been leveled against him this may, how much this may have to do with that remains to be seen. But these are 12 jurors. We're talking about jurors of your peers. And if you have an opportunity to visualize a heinous act on the part of the defendant, then that's not going to garner sympathy, it's not going to garner neutrality. It's not going to garner the kind of emotion that one would surmise you would need from a jury in order for you to win your case and ultimately get off with a not guilty verdict and able to go home. I don't know if that's possible. Once you see that video of him putting his hands on Cassie Ventura, and for her to be the one to testify, and for her to be the one testifying on behalf of the prosecution, considering the fact that she was his lady, considering the fact that purportedly reportedly she engaged in activities she otherwise would not have wanted to at the behest of him. When you consider some of the things that they're saying about him and the fact that your ex girl, with all the evidence in the world to come at you, one with Smash, is willing to do so for the prosecution, ladies and gentlemen, that's not good. That's very, very bad. That's very bad. I mean, I, I, I, I just don't know what to say about it. I really, really don't. Because again, I'm not trying to convict a brother in the court of public opinion, nor am I trying to let him off. I'm trying to let the facts bear themselves out. But with the litany of charges and allegations that have been thrown in his direction, I can't imagine anything more incriminating than her. She's the last person that I would have expected to testify on behalf of the prosecution. I thought somehow, some way, Diddy and his defense team would have prevented that part from happening. That's not going to happen. And whatever, think about it, whatever they ask, you're just. Ladies and gentlemen, just pause for a second, just close your eyes for a second and just imagine that when your eyes were open just a few seconds earlier, you saw that video. And it's Continental Hotel. I believe that's where it was in la, where he's running down the hallway half naked, he grabs a, yanks it to the floor, she lays helpless on the ground. He kicks her, he shoves, he throws a vase at her, he drags her down the hallway, he does all of this stuff. The hotel clearly had the video. They held on for it for quite some time because it happened years ago. And yet somehow, some way, it didn't come to light until this. And then you're showing that to jurors. Jurors see this. After that, every question they ask her, they're going to believe her before they believe him. They could even play the video of him on social media looking disheveled and contrite and saying that he was real messed up, he was in a messed up place, he had a lot going on. You see it right there? There it is. That's him on social media of his own volition, putting that post out. He's in no position to refute what she says, especially if they can find their questions to her personal experiences. Like if they ask her dates and times and stuff like that, and they could try to get a caught up in all of that and she gives the wrong answers, yeah, that could be incriminating. But if they're asking her about what she felt like, how terrorized she felt, what the fear factor was like, these are things that you can't police. And it all impacts the jury. This is why I say he's in trouble. It's not just because of the litany of charges. It's not just because it's being brought by the Southern state of the Southern District of New York. It's not just because of those things. It's because the person or people who are incriminating him, especially as it pertains to her specifically, it's not going to be hard for her to be very convincing. It just isn't. Those are my thoughts, as minimal as they may be insignificance. But my next guest, that's not a problem. He has. Joining me to discuss this is ESPN and ABC News legal analyst, one of the best in the business, I might add. He's also a Sports Sports center anchor as well. The one and only Ryan Smith, my colleague. What's going on, buddy? How you doing, man? How's everything?

Ryan Smith (49:10)

Everything's good, man. How you doing?

Stephen A. Smith (49:13)

I'm doing all right, man. Let's get right to it. I already heard me talking about Diddy a little bit earlier. His trial date starts on May 5. What's the significance of Cassandra Cassie Ventura testifying under her real name instead of anonymously like three other people named in the indictment?

Ryan Smith (49:28)

Yeah, this could be huge in a couple different ways. And let's break it down between symbolically and legally. Symbolically, for me, this is huge because it lends credibility to her testimony. So you think about it like this. Cassie gets up on the stand, she's naming herself. And for jurors and even in the court of public opinion, there's this sense that she's standing behind her allegations full throttle, using her name. Now, that's nothing against other accusers who might not be willing to use their names. It's just that how we tend to look at things, especially how juries might tend to look at things, they might say, well, this person standing behind what they're saying, so we're going to back her a little bit more. We might believe her a little bit more, and it lends credibility to her allegations. The other thing is putting her name out there. And I know it's been out there in some connections, in many ways so far. Far. It also helps others possibly come forward. Prosecutors always talked about how this case might not be done. There might be other factors, and that could still be a possibility. Legally, I think it's twofold. Number one, it's. It's showing of strength for the prosecution. We are here. We are naming ourselves. We are out there. Come at us. The other thing I think that's critical here is it puts the defense on the defensive. Here's why. She gets up on the stand, she names herself. She's got the credibility. Jurors are connecting with her. It might make it harder for them to try to discredit her or intimidate her or come at her really hard on cross examination. So those are some factors that play into all this. And I think for the prosecution, it's a win to have her naming herself.

Stephen A. Smith (50:56)

Let's look at the specificity of the actual charges against Diddy. When you talk about her name instead of Being anonymous, her name being put out there, specifically what can she speak to? I'm talking about the actual specifications of the charges against him. How can she specifically speak against that? We heard the words racketeering, for crying out loud. What would she have to do with that? Explain that to my viewers.

Ryan Smith (51:19)

My biggest thing is she's going to try to explain what happened at these pre coughs, and that's going to be huge. I think people tend to look at legal trials and they say, well, this person's going to give us the smoking gun. This person's going to tell us the one thing that's connect everything. But racketeering cases are a vast thing that you have to build. So you have to show through the different witnesses, through the different evidence, all the different things you have, that there was a criminal enterprise going on in furtherance of these activities, in furtherance in this case of these assaults, of these different things in terms of prostitution, of the allegations they're making. So you have to build that case. And I think what Cassie can do is we've all seen the video and there's been a lot of connections to her in that video. But this goes beyond that. This is her being able to frame what the situation was like for Diddy, what some of these events were like, so they can use her testimony along with the evidence they have to prove the racketeering.

Stephen A. Smith (52:14)

But Ryan, when we talk about that, just, just playing devil's advocate for a second, Diddy, in all likelihood, one would surmise, would say she was consensual in these actions, okay, she wasn't forced, etc. His proof could be the fact that they were in a relationship for years. So if he was so reprehensible, such, such a. Such an insidious figure, why was she involved with him for so long? What defense do you anticipate he'll be able to make that he has a snowball's chance and you know what of making against her, particularly when she's the one we saw him hit and kick on a video.

Ryan Smith (52:56)

That's the defense. He's going to say she was consensual. He's going to say all the people involved, everybody the prosecution is bringing in was all consensual that people did this because they liked it, they wanted to be there. But prosecutors, you got to look at it in terms of the way prosecutors are trying to build their case. They're building it in the same way or in a similar way that the Weinstein case was built. This is a person in power A gatekeeper to certain things in this industry. If you wanted to get into this industry in certain ways, you had to do the things he said and this was how he did it. And these are the things these people had to do. I think you make a great point that they were in a relationship, that that might be part of what they might use. But my sense is that, and we don't all the prosecution's case, my sense is that they're going to build this and say she was in that relationship. But just because you're in a relationship doesn't mean that person gets to control you and make you do certain things. And perhaps there was a point where he was doing this and doing things that she felt like she had to do in order to not only further her career, but in order to be a part of this world. And I think that's one way in which prosecutors are going to try to build this case. They're going to try to build similarities among Cassie and other people that might testify and other people that are contributing to this case to say this was a pattern, these were the things he did in order to continue this criminal enterprise.

Stephen A. Smith (54:14)

But if she's willing to put her name on Front street instead of being anonymous and others refrain from doing so, won't that diminish potentially their argument against Diddy, the anonymous ones?

Ryan Smith (54:27)

I love that you asked that question because that's a common thing that people ask when you talk about one person revealing their name and others not. And you make a great point because in some ways it looks like, well, they're not willing to stand behind their claims. So how can we believe their claims? What the judge and what others are going to have to decide in this case, and what probably will play out a little bit is the reason why people are trying to remain anonymous here. Cassie is a well known public figure. She was also connected in that initial videotape. We know that she is a part of this. Anybody who knows anything about this case. So in many ways it's amazing that she's still coming forward and offering herself out there like this with all the public scrutiny that she might face, with the harassment she might face with. But Stephen, a look at it from the other people's perspective. Are they supposed to be in a place where they're supposed to deal with the harassment and the public scrutiny? I think it becomes hard for people sometimes to realize that people who are accusers in cases like this, they come forward with their story. And as painful as that is, there becomes the aftermath of sharing the Story, they're harassed online, people get their address, they try to find them. The complaints, the accusations dog them for most of their lives. How does that affect their ability to get a job? How does that affect their ability to live in society? So I think it's incredibly brave that Cassie is able to come forward and use her name, but she's also a public figure, and she's been accustomed to that scrutiny a little bit. I think what will help the other accusers is they might not be as famous, maybe not as a custom, and maybe it'll be easier for the prosecution to say to jurors, hey, look, they don't have the public profile that she does. Let's try to hear their words and respect their privacy.

Stephen A. Smith (56:08)

The word anonymous, and I'm gonna go off the subject in a second, but the word anonymous, a lot of people don't realize what that means. It just says, okay, you're not. You don't know the meaning the public. But those who will testify against Diddy anonymously, does Diddy and his defense team know specifically who they are? Do they know their names, et cetera? Can you explain that to my audience?

Ryan Smith (56:29)

Yeah, they'll know their names. Discovery should have all come out. A lot of that information should come out, unless there's some sort of play by the prosecutor to try to restrict that access because there's some concern about harassment or that they can be threatened. But in theory, the way this should work is they should have a right to confront their accusers. They should have a right to know their names, background on them, and that's part of what they're going to try to use to credit their story.

Stephen A. Smith (56:51)

So.

Ryan Smith (56:51)

But the naming anonymous ends up being significant in a case like this, because you mentioned it. Once you put Cassie's name out on Front street, everybody's going to hear about it. We're going to be waiting for the testimony. We're going to be trying to figure out what she said. She's going to probably have to do press conferences, possibly at some point, speak, are the other people signing up for that in order to share what happened to them. And I think that's the critical part of leaving their names anonymous in that courtroom. That stuff is supposed to be confidential and allows them to go ahead and live their lives while also sharing their truth as the prosecution needs them to to build their case.

Stephen A. Smith (57:27)

The video that Diddy put out on social media where he appeared contrite and disheveled, those are the words that I used, basically saying he was effed up, he was in a very, very bad place when he did what he did to Cassie Ventura. You see the video right there? How incriminating could that end up being against him? Now that Cassie has been willing to attach her name to the lawsuit and she's going to come out on Front street and say whatever it is that she has to to say, it could.

Ryan Smith (57:56)

Be a very big problem for him because prosecutors are going to pull up that videotape, they're going to put it out there in court, and they're going to say, look at what this man said. He is sorry for what he did. Folks, let's outline for you now what he did. Cassie, let's get on the stand and outline for us what he did. And coupled with our evidence, that's going to prove our case. So typically, when you have a situation like that, your lawyers will tell you, if you're representing Diddy, hey, don't say anything. I know there's a temptation to do that. Don't say anything because it can be used against you. I think it did his mind. It's a way to get public sympathy. It's a way to get. And I think in some ways his defense team can say about this, hey, he's apologizing for the relationship. He is not a perfect person, but he is not a criminal. That's going to be their messaging. But still, you don't want to have to have a videotape out there from your client saying, I'm sorry for what I did. Giving the prosecution the ability to explore that and with their evidence with Cassie and with other witnesses to be able to prove, yeah, you're sorry for what you did because it was criminal. That's what prosecutors are going to want to do.

Stephen A. Smith (58:57)

Knowing the law, knowing criminal cases the way that you do. What does this case eerily remind you of as it pertains to other cases that may have existed out there in the past. When you think about what P. Diddy is going through right now, what. What's the comparison you draw it to?

Ryan Smith (59:12)

My biggest comparison is the Weinstein case, also the R. Kelly case. Both of those cases involved a situation where prosecutors were able to build it as you have a gatekeeper, and it's impossible to really make inroads in this area without the gatekeeper. Now, I know people are going to hear that and say, well, all of these people, they could have. Diddy is doing this. They could have gone to Dre or somebody else, and there's a million other rap artists and production companies out there. But I think what they're trying to build in the same way that it was built in the Weinstein case was. He wasn't the only studio in town. Miramax wasn't the only place to make films, but in a particular way. Once you got in this world, there was a way to build your career, to foster development. And I think what this case draws a similarity to and what prosecutors have been trying to do with these cases is show no one is above the law. You can't go out in prosecutor's mind, create a business and then make people do your bidding, even if it's illegal, in order to move up in that business. If it's a legitimate business, you can't do that. And so in the same way that the Weinstein case was prosecuted and the R. Kelly case was prosecuted, feels like prosecutors are following the similar playbook here, trying to make that point, not only publicly, but also in the courtroom. These are criminal enterprises that in many ways were set up in furtherance of Diddy and the people with him and at the expense of these in their minds, accusers and victims.

Stephen A. Smith (60:39)

We use words. Last question on this matter. We use words like criminal enterprise. We use words like racketeering and what have you. Is it wrong for us to get the impression that it's not Diddy that they're after? They're after him, of course, please don't get me wrong. But it's not just him thereafter, a whole string of individuals that he's connected to as opposed to. It just be. It was about R. Kelly. It was about Harvey Weinstein. It doesn't appear to be thereafter. Just Diddy. It's like he's the guy to get. So all the dominoes will fall and we'll get everybody associated with it. That's the impression that I'm getting to. That you say what Ryan Smith.

Ryan Smith (61:18)

Yeah, I say I completely agree. And I say I would go beyond that. The first thing is you're absolutely right. They're trying to get him and the enterprise and everything that backed him and everything that created this enterprise. Because that's what they try to do when they prosecute criminal cases. I know the people out there say, hey, this is just about Diddy. It's not just about Diddy. It's about trying to uphold the law. Is. That's what prosecutor. That's how prosecutors see it. But the way I go beyond it is this. With each one of these cases, they are trying to send a message not just to the diddies of the world or to the Harvey Weinstein or R Kelly's they're trying to send a message to the people who have other things going on or people who might come up later who might have ideas of doing something that they are saying Diddy did. They're saying, we will find you. We will come after you. The fact that Diddy is there in the courtroom, perhaps he is telling us things about you, about people you know. So if you're doing something on the wrong side of the law and you think your power and your money and influence is going to protect you, it will not. And that's the message they're trying to send. We obviously Stephen A. We talk about this case. We have to see how it's litigated and how everything comes out. But for prosecutors, this is every success they have in this area is another ability for them to be able to say to everybody else out there in all of these businesses, you are not above the law no matter how much money or power you have.

Stephen A. Smith (62:41)

I want to transition back to the world of sports and off this P. Diddy topic and thank you so much for coming on Ryan, and talking about this, but I want to talk about this potential multi billion dollar settlement between NCAA and student athletes, past and present. By the way, this deal could reshape the business of college sports, correct?

Ryan Smith (62:58)

Yeah, absolutely. And this deal is like it's labeled as a $2.8 billion settlement, but really it's a deal that looks backwards and forwards. So the backwards part is it's spending billions of dollars to pay back athletes who didn't, who weren't able to make deals before nil, who are part of these antitrust lawsuits that were all combined. So, for example, that could mean that athletes who made a lot of money for their schools, like Power 5 Conference football players, basketball players, could make hundreds of thousands of dollars. Small sport athletes at mid majors could end up making only hundreds of dollars, but in ways it kind of compensates them. The looking forward part ends up being interesting too, because what it does is it sets up sort of a salary cap, just like we see in pro sports. 20 million bucks or so for each school to spend on athletes. The idea is to try to rein in some of the nil spending by boosters and all that. And it also sets up something that I think is going to actually be a legal issue beyond this settlement, which is like a clearinghouse for nil deals. So if somebody's making a deal over 600 bucks, they have a clearinghouse that's going to look at that and maybe say, hey, is this circumventing the salary cap. If not, you can't do it. I think that one's going to face court challenges even after this settlement. At least it has a likelihood to what?

Stephen A. Smith (64:10)

I think the part that turns me off, Ryan, is that they're talking about cap and, you know, revenue at 20 million per school or what have you, something along those lines. The $2.8 million billion dollar settlement that they've been talking about is retroactive from what happened between 2016 and 2024. The athletes that were denied money at that particular moment in time and sort of reimbursing them for missed wages and things of that nature. I understand that part, even though I think it should be more. My issue is why does it need to be capped? Why does it be capped at $20 million as opposed to a percentage of revenue generated by the universities just like you have in basketball or football, where there's a percentage of football or basketball related income or revenue that comes to the players. Why can't the same be with NCAA athletes? That's I'm suspicious is what I'm trying to say about that cap. Trying to derail the kind of money guys are able to get in nil, guys and ladies able to get in nil and beyond and stuff like that. I'm kind of suspicious anytime I see a capped number associated with student athletes playing in the NCAA under the NCAA umbrella, because I don't trust them one bit. To that, you say what?

Ryan Smith (65:15)

I say the pushback to you is going to be, well, it's going to go up next year, it might be more and then it's going to be more. But the problem is it doesn't answer your claim, which is there's still a cap. And I think you make a great point. I also think what becomes interesting in what you're saying is the clearinghouse aspect of this. Think about this, Stephen A. In the advent of nil and even before that, athletes became, in many ways, these college athletes became business people. They built up huge followings online, millions of people. Some of their income might be coming from boosters, some of it might be coming from their own deals. Are we now going to look at those deals that they in many ways created on their own and say, well, you're going to circumvent the salary cap, so you can't do that. Now we're back in the same bag that we were in before nil, which is not only your cap argument, which means people might be limited from getting their real market value. But then also, even if you could go out and have millions of followers and do all these other things on your own. Well, now we might try to cap that. We might try to limit that because we feel like it's circumventing the cap we already have. I am in agreement with you. I think when you have a situation like nil, it's almost like letting the cat out of the bag. Once they open that bag up, you can't close it off and now say, okay, let's pull everybody back in and cut the number and try to keep everybody down a little bit lower. That ship has already sailed. I think if people. I think at this point, the booster system, the fact that I agree with the idea of paying players directly from colleges, but I think to try to cap it and to try to rein it in is always going to be a problem and it's always going to face legal challenges and it's always going to have critics because people are going to say, just when you open the floodgates so we can make money and create businesses and earn more, you're trying to close them back up again to the benefit of schools. Which is the same reason why we ended up in many ways in the nil spot in the first place.

Stephen A. Smith (67:02)

And by the way, you know, it's bad when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Donald Trump, was the one that made the argument in 2021 where he called him out and he said, I've not. There's no business in America that could get away with doing this other than you guys. And sure enough, I think they're finding they're fine. They're trying to find an end around to get around this stuff to do the same thing they've always been doing. So we'll see what happens with all of that. Ryan Smith, man, I really, really appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule. Thanks for coming on, my brother. I appreciate it. Thanks so much.

Ryan Smith (67:31)

Anytime, man. Good to talk to you.

Stephen A. Smith (67:33)

All right, one and only Ryan Smith, legal analyst, ABC and espn. Also anchor for Sports Center. The brothers. Outstanding. One of the best in the business. Make no mistake about that. That's it for this edition of the Stephen A. Smith Show. I hope y'all enjoyed it. I'll be back in a few days. I'm on vacation, but I still make sure to give y'all some shows. And keep in mind, the next time you see me, I got bad news for you. Nephew Josh will be with me. Nephewtism, that's what they call it. Not nepotism. Nephewism, you understand? That's what he tells everybody. Okay, so it, it was important to him not just to be on the show, but to be the show. So this Friday, Josh is going to be on with me. I'll never get the show by his damn self. I'm too scared, too scared of what he'll say. I'm too scared of what he'll do. He just doesn't know anybody. I just don't. I don't trust him. I don't trust him like that. I gotta see. But we will be on together nevertheless. Anyway, hope y'all enjoyed this edition of the Stephen A. Smith Show. And before I go, I just want to say this. You're supporting me on this show is very appreciative. In other words, I approve this message. God bless you and God bless the United States of America. Till next time, everybody signing off. Peace and love. AT&T has a new guarantee because most things in life are not guaranteed, like getting through self checkout by yourself. Not guaranteed in a world where Nothing is guaranteed. AT&T is bringing something new to the table. AT&T is introducing a guarantee with connectivity you can depend on, deals you want and service you deserve or they make it right. Learn more@att.com guarantee@&t connecting changes everything. Terms and conditions apply. Visit att.comguarantee for details. Wendy's is the official hamburger of March Manners, which means more deals for you and more burgers for your face. It also means we got a junior bacon cheeseburger or a double stack for $1 with an in app offer and a purchase. It's hard not to get excited when there's an offer of two of the freshest hot off the grill burgers that Wendy's makes. The Junior Bacon Cheeseburger with the fresh beef, applewood, smoked bacon, cheese, crispy lettuce, tomato and mayo and a hot and juicy double stack with two patties of fresh never frozen beef with cheese, ketchup, mustard, pickle, onion. The real champions of March Madness. Head to Wendy's app and grab a $1 junior bacon cheeseburger or a $1 double stack with an in app offer and a purchase for the freshest deal in fast food gotta be Wendy's.