April 26, 2026 • 22 mins
Coach Gottlieb discusses NFL Draft strategy and GM’s who covet the accumulation of picks vs. those who go all-in on individual players, the problem with the NCAA’s new proposed ‘5 for 5’ collegiate athlete eligibility proposal, why he doesn’t buy the largely unchallenged claim that nothing is better than NHL playoff hockey, and why even LeBron haters need to pause for a second to appreciate 41-year old Lebron’s super hero-like greatness.
Subscribe NOW to get all the latest Doug Gottlieb Show Podcasts and exclusive original content!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Hey, what welcome in. This is the Doug Gottlieb Show.
And the NFL Draft is really interesting. I remember the
movie Ali. Do you remember the movie Ali? You know,
it's about the late great Muhammad Ali. And there was
a joke in there that two fives make a ten.
Five to two's make a ten, right, But you can
(00:27):
obviously that's a guy joke, but there's also something sort
of genius to it in regards to the NFL Draft
because the trading down, trading up, Gotta get the best,
gotta get the brightest. But remember those first round draft
pick quarterbacks, though they're capped, those contracts are fully guaranteed,
(00:49):
and so the real value in this draft, in any draft,
is in the second and third round. Right now, the
hit rate is lower the lower you got, or actually
it's not the hit rate. The hit rates still still
the same. It's about fifty percent with any draft pick.
By the way, fifty percent on a hit rate is
higher than that of the free agency hit rate, which
(01:11):
is only thirty three percent. You're like, what, yeah, so
what does that mean? That means in comparison to the
expected value of the signee or the expected production of
the signee or the expected production of the draft d
fifty percent of the time in the NFL draft you
(01:32):
hit that expectation, whereas in free agency it's one third
of the time. You're like, wow, that's less. On the
other hand, okay, one third of the time. In terms
of the expectation, well, the expectation is usually greater than
that of a draft pick. Right, first round draft picks,
especially high first round draft picks, you're talking about guys
being Pro bowlers and eventually all pros. That's a harder,
(01:57):
that's a very difficult hill to climb. Or as once
you get in late first round and into the second
and third round, now you're talking about guys that just
become veterans, solid starters and productive players. Well, when you
sign as a free agent, generally the thought is you're
going to be a starter and depending upon price point,
maybe a star. And so even if you come up
(02:17):
short of that and you're a miss, you can still
be a productive football player. Does that make sense? It does,
at least in my brain. But here's the point. The
point is that there's always going to be the age
old question, which is is it better to draft one
first round draft pick or two or three second third
round draft picks. And the answer is, I think it depends.
(02:40):
You're like, wait, it depends, Sure, it depends. It depends
upon your team, depends upon the structure of your build.
Are you a young team and you're trying to just
get as much talent as possible, or are you a
veteran team and you just need that one niche Or
are you a veteran team and you miss need and
left tackle, so you trade everything way to move up
to the first round because you've got to get that
(03:01):
left tackle because even though there's not a high hit
rate and they're not terribly expensive, some teams don't need
the multiple draft picks. Some teams don't need nine new
guys coming in mouths defeed, where they could just have
five as long as they have the right five. So
when I hear or I'm flipping around and I'm watching
the movie Ali, and I hear two fives make a ten,
(03:23):
and so do five twos, I actually think of the
NFL draft. So, as you know college sports, the landscape
of college sports has changed dramatically, and it may take
yet another change in an effort to stabilize it. In
an effort to stop the nonsensical, constantly asking for another
(03:47):
year of eligibility. We may have completely screwed up this cycle.
What do I mean? Well, about a month and a
half ago, there was a conference call which, as the
head coach of Wisconsin Green Bay, I was on, and
Charlie Baker, who's the head of the NCAA, President of
(04:07):
the NCAA said, and I'm not kind of quoting verbatim,
but essentially five for five five years of eligibility or
five years and no red shirts, no extra years, no,
nothing is not really on the table. A funny thing
happened in the way of to five for five being dead,
(04:29):
because when I first took over the job, this is
going back two years ago, throughout that first season and
into the last off season, we were told that five
for five had a very strong possibility of passing, only
to have it shut down, shut down, and the conversation
sort of being dead. You fast forward to March, right
(04:52):
middle of March this year. I have a senior, Justin Allen,
tremendous player three years at Carnegie Mellon year at Green Bay,
and he came into my office and said, coach, can
I sue? I said, for what for an extra year
of eligibility, I said, I don't know. So one of
my friends is a man named Darren Heidner. If you
(05:16):
google Darren Heidner, if you follow him on social media.
He's a very talented lawyer in Florida who has kind
of been a thorn in the side of the NCAA.
And so when Justin was in my office, we called
Darren and he said, okay, give me the case. And
I said, he played three years of Division three and
one year at Division one. And he said, I wouldn't
(05:38):
take the case. I said, why, said, because there's no
there's no claim there. You can apply for a fifth year,
but you're going to get shot down. And if you appealed,
what are the grounds for the appeal? Again, he wasn't
saying that it was fair because remember, players have gotten
the COVID year, they've gotten an extra COVID year because
(05:59):
of of junior college. And that's the PAVIA rule. And
the idea is wait, wait, so had I gone to
junior college during the exact same time or played Anaia basketball,
which is not an NCAA sanctioned level sport, Well, if
that happened, then I can quite obviously if that happened,
(06:26):
and they got a year. Why can't I get a year?
And he said, currently there's no grounds for this appeal.
It would be dead in the water. And I'm undefeated
right now, this is Darren's word. I'm undefeated. So this
doesn't make any sense. Remember that was one month ago,
two weeks ago, the president of the United States. But
out his thousand points a lot right and in his
(06:47):
thousand points slight some people say this is the greatest ever.
He he basically proposed a five or five plan. And
oh yeah, by the way, one transfer rule, which is
what so many of us have been pushing for, that
you can transfer, it's just the multiple transfers and the
extra additional years. Now I don't agree with five for five,
(07:10):
but I think what they're trying to get away from
is this idea of a red shirt year. You see
this more in football than in basketball, because in football,
if you play four or less games, or maybe it's
three games. I'm not even sure, I'm not a football coach.
Was three games, yeah, I think it's four. So if
you play four games, play four games, and then you
(07:32):
shut it down, you can have a red shirt year.
So what college football coaches have been complaining about. Is
you get guys, especially younger players, who play four games
and the coaches want him to play more and they
shut it down, only to then red shirt and go
to another school. It's like, why am I developing you,
even investing in you for four games when then you're
(07:55):
going to red shirt and play somewhere else next year.
This would take that away, and oh yeah, yeh. By
the way, it would allow it to not happen in
basketball as well. So that's the thinking behind five for five,
no additional years, no play four games and then red
shirt and shut it down. None of that stuff. And
oh yeah, by the way, you can transfer once, but
(08:15):
if you transfer a second time, you have to sit
out a year. And remember you only get you get
five years regardless, so you would still have your four
years to play, but you would have to miss an
entire year. And if you think, well that's not fair
in the business sense, it absolutely is. There's something called
a non compete clause which many people have in their contract,
meaning you can't go across the street and work for
(08:36):
the competitor and you have to sit out a certain
amount of time from work. The issue is that one
football teams are set, they've had spring football, they're already
you know, they're getting ready to come back for summer.
And all of a sudden, you're going to wave a
magic wand and they're all the graduating seniors who only
(08:57):
played four years in college will be able to do?
What play another year? That's gonna be difficult. Just consider
where we are right obviously, Now, do I have to
leave a space open to potentially recruit Justin Allen Back?
And if I do recruit Justin Allen Back, forget about
what do I do with the rest of my team?
What do I do with my incoming freshmen? The likelihood
(09:20):
of them playing and competing when everyone they're playing against
is five years older than them is minuscule. So do
you tell them, hey, don't enroll, because once you enroll,
your five year o' clock starts. And if you do,
and you're honest with them, do you lose those players?
Do you even recruit high school players anymore? I understand
(09:42):
the intentions are good. Matter of fact, most of the
NCA's intentions throughout this stuff, though painted by the media
and some as nefarious, I do not believe are. I
just don't. But the intentions of these rules are good.
It is to stabilize it. It is to make yes.
You have to make people stay at their school. You
(10:03):
have to make it hurt for them to leave their
school at some point. And this is why, because when
you go to a game in February for basketball in
November for football, you should know those players. You shouldn't
be just being introduced for those players for the first time.
(10:24):
There shouldn't constantly be a turnstile in terms of where
you can go and who you can play for. This
is not au basketball. This is a commitment. And you're like, well,
then it should be a job. What people who claim
that it should be an employment have to understand that
it is and it isn't right. While you are being compensated,
(10:49):
you still have to be a student. That's still a
real thing. If we eliminate that, maybe it changes. There's
also the tax free shelter within college athletics, which is
incredibly valuable to the schools. Otherwise things become two x
of the expense they are now. There's so much to
unpack with the idea of making them employees. That's not
(11:10):
really a starter. It doesn't mean, though, that they're not
entitled to some rights, and they have a ton of them.
But what's really important to note is that we're in
the middle of trying to put together a team and
there's probably about four hundred five hundred players out there,
many of whom we'd like to have if they're available,
but we don't know if they're available, and the ones
(11:32):
who are currently available are just sitting there waiting. The
market becomes stagnant, and maybe it regresses, maybe it expands,
maybe this passes, maybe it doesn't. But what's crazy, and
maybe this is about the power of the president of
the United States is a month ago it was a
(11:54):
non starter. Now they're going to speed up the vote.
It's going to happen in May, and we all got
to hang on to our hats. As for me, I
don't think you need five or five I think you
need a five year window period. Stop. If you want
a red shirt, you can red shirt red shirt. It's
still I think all of those rules are great. I
just think that you need to cap it at five years.
(12:16):
That's it, five years and you're done, which is the
way it's always been. So we're going back to the
rule that has always been there. The only thing is
we're eliminating the red shirt. We're liliminating the red shirt
because of the football rule with the red shirt. So hey,
how about if you do away with that football rule
the red shirt instead of completely toppling the system that
(12:37):
has been in place and generally works for ninety eight
ninety nine percent of the people. There's nothing better than
overtime playoff hockey. How many of your friends have said
that to you? Well, I hate to be that guy. No,
I don't. If you know me this long, I am
(12:58):
that guy. I lean into being that gay guy, and
I can tell you that overtime playoff hockey is cool.
The issue that I think most of us have with
it is we didn't play it grown up right. They
don't really know it obviously. The other issue is can't
see the puck. And I think the biggest issue in
sports is here you are deciding your championship and there's
(13:21):
a randomness to a puck going in the net. Right,
There's not the tipped slap shot or the redirect. I
know there's a skill to it, but it's not always skill,
Whereas it does feel like there's a little bit more
skill to scoring a game winning touchdown. To kicking a
(13:42):
game winning field goal, to making a game winning three
point shot. It would be as if it would be
as if baseball's extra innings only ended on a wild pitch,
a kind of random event that doesn't always happen. That's
how it feels. Again. I know that there are clean
(14:02):
slap shots. I know that there are breakaways. I know
that there are various ways in which people score clean goals.
It does feel like jumble in front of the net
and all of a sudden, somehow the puck just finds
the back of the net and we celebrate as if,
oh I meant to have that happen, when there's that
kind of luck and randomness to it. Right, So to
(14:24):
people who say, and many of you, matter of fact,
all of you, because no non hockey fans says it, says,
I don't know. Playoff overtime hockey is the best? Ever?
Is it? When Villanova beat North Carolina on a game
winning three point shot? What was more thrilling that? Or
overtime hockey Game seven between the Warriors and the Calves,
(14:48):
when Kyrie Irving hit a three, Lebron James makes a
free throw. When that happened on the three to one
comeback was that, and that was which was more exciting?
Playoff football, playoff anything, it's thrilling. Or how about Wimbledon
(15:09):
where there is no tiebreaker in the third set and
you just have almost like a boxing match between two
of the greats of all time. I can recall a
Federer Nadah final for the ages that was better than
playoff hockey, even in overtime. Maybe it's because the rules
are a little simpler. Maybe it's because I can see
(15:31):
the ball. Maybe it's because I grew up watching and
understanding the sport more. But you do lose a lot
of people when you say be as the greatest ever.
And if you don't like it, you are a hater. No,
not a hater. There's other incredible, incredible things in sports.
Game winning three game winning touchdown pat or the interception
(15:56):
of Russell Wilson by Malcolm Butler in the end zone
of the Super Bowl. Which is better? Yeah, I know
what the answer is. Malcolm Butler, who no one had
had ever heard of, in picking off a Russell Wilson pass.
And that wasn't the last play of the game that
essentially ended the game. The twenty eight to three comeback
by the Patriots. So this is not me hating on hockey.
(16:20):
I like hockey. I don't necessarily understand hockey, but I
appreciate it. I respect it. They're amazing athletes. But like
eighty percent of the United States, I didn't grow up
playing it. Like eighty percent of the United States, I
can't really see the puck when I watch it on TV.
And like probably ninety percent of the United States, there's
just a randomness to how an overtime playoff hockey game
(16:42):
sometimes ends. So I'm not willing to say it's even close.
I'll tell you what it's like. People say New York
City is the greatest city in the world. Well, I've
worked in New York City, and there's about two weeks
in the winter when it's uninhabitable, and there's about two
weeks in the summer when it's uninhabitable and smells like
(17:02):
a stench of urine because the humidity and how old
the streets are. And you can't be the greatest city
in the world if you have a month of the
year in which you're uninhabitable, right, So it's not the
statement that playoff hockey is great. It's a statement that
it's the greatest thing ever. Hyperbole has no place here.
(17:24):
It's really fun, but it's not the greatest ever. So
we're watching Lebron James in the NBA Playoffs, and what
inevitably comes from it is the discussion about Lebron and
Jordan and the greatest of all time. There's other side
(17:46):
conversations to be had, but there's this one thing about
history and legacy, which I do think we need to
pause for a moment. You know, it's a lot like
if you're out on a date and you just start
talking about future things, or you start comparing this relationship
with another one instead of just enjoying the presence of
(18:08):
somebody else. Right, maybe that analogy doesn't work for you,
but think about it. If you're only thinking big picture,
you are missing the small picture which is right in
front of you. And I bring that up because why
can't we just appreciate Lebron James carrying a team at
(18:28):
forty years old, Like, yeah, you can point out some
of the flaws to the things he doesn't do anymore,
and you may not be down with Lebron because they're
clearly jamming it in to play Bronny when he's not
good enough to play at this level. All of that said,
what he's doing is nothing short of amazing. It just
(18:50):
is nothing short of amazing. And to people who want
to question Lebron and his politics as motives anything he
says in a podcast, asked his relationship with his agent,
his relationship with in terms of how that how that
factors into the sport of basketball, to his team, the Lakers,
the relationship with that agency, Rich Rich Paul's agency, and
(19:13):
the LA Lakers. Like, all of that stuff is interesting.
It makes for really really good sports talk fodder, but
it really has no effect on what you should be doing,
which is enjoying and marveling at the fact that he's
freaking amazing and oh yeah, by the way, these two
things can be true. Michael Jordan can be your favorite
(19:34):
player ever. You can say he was the greatest player ever.
You can say, hey, Michael Jordan at forty years old
was actually great. Hey, his team just wasn't as good.
He didn't have Luke on his team and I know
Luca's not playing right now. He didn't have other pieces
that could carry him to this to this place or
this seed in a playoffs, and so we don't remember
(19:56):
the fact that or that Michael Jordan played eighty two games,
so he would have been better in the playoffs if
he had done what Lebron's doing, which is playing sixty
five games right, resting himself so he still has the
energy for the playoffs. Like you can point out the
flaws to the legacy of Lebron, or simply say I
thought Michael Jordan's better. You can even be like me
where you're like, hey, are we really not talking about
(20:17):
Magic and Larry Bird, the two greatest players of the
nineteen eighties, two guys who saved the NBA, two guys
who I think all of us who have any brain
who were born in the seventies or eighties would say,
if they're not on the list of all time greats,
who is, throw in Tim Duncan, throw in Kobe Bryant
if you want. I would even throw out anybody who
(20:37):
preceded that because I wasn't alive to see them play.
But the point is that it can't. You can be
a Jordan guy and marvel at Lebron. You can say
I'd rather have Larry Bird in his prime in one
game because of all the things he's done and his
willingness to take and make the big shot. He rebounds
(20:59):
better than any of the above listed. You can say
Tim Duncan if you'd like, you're allowed, but you still
can marvel and appreciate that at over forty years old,
Lebron James continues to rise to the level of the competition,
or rise to the moment, and while he is playing
(21:19):
with house money, and when he does fail in the
context of a game, he will always get the pass
of well, you know, he's forty. The fact is that
he's forty and none of us could be doing that.
As a former hooper, I can tell you when you
get to thirty, you start pulling everything. When you get
to thirty five, now all of a sudden, there's your back,
(21:41):
maybe your knee, maybe your achilles. For this guy to
do it this long and this well is superhuman. He
may be an X Man, And even if he isn't
your favorite X Man, even if he isn't in one
of your top two, top three, top five all time players,
if that's how you feel about him, you're allowed to,
but you're not allowed to gloss over the fact that,
(22:04):
at forty plus years old, he's still pretty awesome.
Hey, what welcome in. This is the Doug Gottlieb Show.
And the NFL Draft is really interesting. I remember the
movie Ali. Do you remember the movie Ali? You know,
it's about the late great Muhammad Ali. And there was
a joke in there that two fives make a ten.
Five to two's make a ten, right, But you can
(00:27):
obviously that's a guy joke, but there's also something sort
of genius to it in regards to the NFL Draft
because the trading down, trading up, Gotta get the best,
gotta get the brightest. But remember those first round draft
pick quarterbacks, though they're capped, those contracts are fully guaranteed,
(00:49):
and so the real value in this draft, in any draft,
is in the second and third round. Right now, the
hit rate is lower the lower you got, or actually
it's not the hit rate. The hit rates still still
the same. It's about fifty percent with any draft pick.
By the way, fifty percent on a hit rate is
higher than that of the free agency hit rate, which
(01:11):
is only thirty three percent. You're like, what, yeah, so
what does that mean? That means in comparison to the
expected value of the signee or the expected production of
the signee or the expected production of the draft d
fifty percent of the time in the NFL draft you
(01:32):
hit that expectation, whereas in free agency it's one third
of the time. You're like, wow, that's less. On the
other hand, okay, one third of the time. In terms
of the expectation, well, the expectation is usually greater than
that of a draft pick. Right, first round draft picks,
especially high first round draft picks, you're talking about guys
being Pro bowlers and eventually all pros. That's a harder,
(01:57):
that's a very difficult hill to climb. Or as once
you get in late first round and into the second
and third round, now you're talking about guys that just
become veterans, solid starters and productive players. Well, when you
sign as a free agent, generally the thought is you're
going to be a starter and depending upon price point,
maybe a star. And so even if you come up
(02:17):
short of that and you're a miss, you can still
be a productive football player. Does that make sense? It does,
at least in my brain. But here's the point. The
point is that there's always going to be the age
old question, which is is it better to draft one
first round draft pick or two or three second third
round draft picks. And the answer is, I think it depends.
(02:40):
You're like, wait, it depends, Sure, it depends. It depends
upon your team, depends upon the structure of your build.
Are you a young team and you're trying to just
get as much talent as possible, or are you a
veteran team and you just need that one niche Or
are you a veteran team and you miss need and
left tackle, so you trade everything way to move up
to the first round because you've got to get that
(03:01):
left tackle because even though there's not a high hit
rate and they're not terribly expensive, some teams don't need
the multiple draft picks. Some teams don't need nine new
guys coming in mouths defeed, where they could just have
five as long as they have the right five. So
when I hear or I'm flipping around and I'm watching
the movie Ali, and I hear two fives make a ten,
(03:23):
and so do five twos, I actually think of the
NFL draft. So, as you know college sports, the landscape
of college sports has changed dramatically, and it may take
yet another change in an effort to stabilize it. In
an effort to stop the nonsensical, constantly asking for another
(03:47):
year of eligibility. We may have completely screwed up this cycle.
What do I mean? Well, about a month and a
half ago, there was a conference call which, as the
head coach of Wisconsin Green Bay, I was on, and
Charlie Baker, who's the head of the NCAA, President of
(04:07):
the NCAA said, and I'm not kind of quoting verbatim,
but essentially five for five five years of eligibility or
five years and no red shirts, no extra years, no,
nothing is not really on the table. A funny thing
happened in the way of to five for five being dead,
(04:29):
because when I first took over the job, this is
going back two years ago, throughout that first season and
into the last off season, we were told that five
for five had a very strong possibility of passing, only
to have it shut down, shut down, and the conversation
sort of being dead. You fast forward to March, right
(04:52):
middle of March this year. I have a senior, Justin Allen,
tremendous player three years at Carnegie Mellon year at Green Bay,
and he came into my office and said, coach, can
I sue? I said, for what for an extra year
of eligibility, I said, I don't know. So one of
my friends is a man named Darren Heidner. If you
(05:16):
google Darren Heidner, if you follow him on social media.
He's a very talented lawyer in Florida who has kind
of been a thorn in the side of the NCAA.
And so when Justin was in my office, we called
Darren and he said, okay, give me the case. And
I said, he played three years of Division three and
one year at Division one. And he said, I wouldn't
(05:38):
take the case. I said, why, said, because there's no
there's no claim there. You can apply for a fifth year,
but you're going to get shot down. And if you appealed,
what are the grounds for the appeal? Again, he wasn't
saying that it was fair because remember, players have gotten
the COVID year, they've gotten an extra COVID year because
(05:59):
of of junior college. And that's the PAVIA rule. And
the idea is wait, wait, so had I gone to
junior college during the exact same time or played Anaia basketball,
which is not an NCAA sanctioned level sport, Well, if
that happened, then I can quite obviously if that happened,
(06:26):
and they got a year. Why can't I get a year?
And he said, currently there's no grounds for this appeal.
It would be dead in the water. And I'm undefeated
right now, this is Darren's word. I'm undefeated. So this
doesn't make any sense. Remember that was one month ago,
two weeks ago, the president of the United States. But
out his thousand points a lot right and in his
(06:47):
thousand points slight some people say this is the greatest ever.
He he basically proposed a five or five plan. And
oh yeah, by the way, one transfer rule, which is
what so many of us have been pushing for, that
you can transfer, it's just the multiple transfers and the
extra additional years. Now I don't agree with five for five,
(07:10):
but I think what they're trying to get away from
is this idea of a red shirt year. You see
this more in football than in basketball, because in football,
if you play four or less games, or maybe it's
three games. I'm not even sure, I'm not a football coach.
Was three games, yeah, I think it's four. So if
you play four games, play four games, and then you
(07:32):
shut it down, you can have a red shirt year.
So what college football coaches have been complaining about. Is
you get guys, especially younger players, who play four games
and the coaches want him to play more and they
shut it down, only to then red shirt and go
to another school. It's like, why am I developing you,
even investing in you for four games when then you're
(07:55):
going to red shirt and play somewhere else next year.
This would take that away, and oh yeah, yeh. By
the way, it would allow it to not happen in
basketball as well. So that's the thinking behind five for five,
no additional years, no play four games and then red
shirt and shut it down. None of that stuff. And
oh yeah, by the way, you can transfer once, but
(08:15):
if you transfer a second time, you have to sit
out a year. And remember you only get you get
five years regardless, so you would still have your four
years to play, but you would have to miss an
entire year. And if you think, well that's not fair
in the business sense, it absolutely is. There's something called
a non compete clause which many people have in their contract,
meaning you can't go across the street and work for
(08:36):
the competitor and you have to sit out a certain
amount of time from work. The issue is that one
football teams are set, they've had spring football, they're already
you know, they're getting ready to come back for summer.
And all of a sudden, you're going to wave a
magic wand and they're all the graduating seniors who only
(08:57):
played four years in college will be able to do?
What play another year? That's gonna be difficult. Just consider
where we are right obviously, Now, do I have to
leave a space open to potentially recruit Justin Allen Back?
And if I do recruit Justin Allen Back, forget about
what do I do with the rest of my team?
What do I do with my incoming freshmen? The likelihood
(09:20):
of them playing and competing when everyone they're playing against
is five years older than them is minuscule. So do
you tell them, hey, don't enroll, because once you enroll,
your five year o' clock starts. And if you do,
and you're honest with them, do you lose those players?
Do you even recruit high school players anymore? I understand
(09:42):
the intentions are good. Matter of fact, most of the
NCA's intentions throughout this stuff, though painted by the media
and some as nefarious, I do not believe are. I
just don't. But the intentions of these rules are good.
It is to stabilize it. It is to make yes.
You have to make people stay at their school. You
(10:03):
have to make it hurt for them to leave their
school at some point. And this is why, because when
you go to a game in February for basketball in
November for football, you should know those players. You shouldn't
be just being introduced for those players for the first time.
(10:24):
There shouldn't constantly be a turnstile in terms of where
you can go and who you can play for. This
is not au basketball. This is a commitment. And you're like, well,
then it should be a job. What people who claim
that it should be an employment have to understand that
it is and it isn't right. While you are being compensated,
(10:49):
you still have to be a student. That's still a
real thing. If we eliminate that, maybe it changes. There's
also the tax free shelter within college athletics, which is
incredibly valuable to the schools. Otherwise things become two x
of the expense they are now. There's so much to
unpack with the idea of making them employees. That's not
(11:10):
really a starter. It doesn't mean, though, that they're not
entitled to some rights, and they have a ton of them.
But what's really important to note is that we're in
the middle of trying to put together a team and
there's probably about four hundred five hundred players out there,
many of whom we'd like to have if they're available,
but we don't know if they're available, and the ones
(11:32):
who are currently available are just sitting there waiting. The
market becomes stagnant, and maybe it regresses, maybe it expands,
maybe this passes, maybe it doesn't. But what's crazy, and
maybe this is about the power of the president of
the United States is a month ago it was a
(11:54):
non starter. Now they're going to speed up the vote.
It's going to happen in May, and we all got
to hang on to our hats. As for me, I
don't think you need five or five I think you
need a five year window period. Stop. If you want
a red shirt, you can red shirt red shirt. It's
still I think all of those rules are great. I
just think that you need to cap it at five years.
(12:16):
That's it, five years and you're done, which is the
way it's always been. So we're going back to the
rule that has always been there. The only thing is
we're eliminating the red shirt. We're liliminating the red shirt
because of the football rule with the red shirt. So hey,
how about if you do away with that football rule
the red shirt instead of completely toppling the system that
(12:37):
has been in place and generally works for ninety eight
ninety nine percent of the people. There's nothing better than
overtime playoff hockey. How many of your friends have said
that to you? Well, I hate to be that guy. No,
I don't. If you know me this long, I am
(12:58):
that guy. I lean into being that gay guy, and
I can tell you that overtime playoff hockey is cool.
The issue that I think most of us have with
it is we didn't play it grown up right. They
don't really know it obviously. The other issue is can't
see the puck. And I think the biggest issue in
sports is here you are deciding your championship and there's
(13:21):
a randomness to a puck going in the net. Right,
There's not the tipped slap shot or the redirect. I
know there's a skill to it, but it's not always skill,
Whereas it does feel like there's a little bit more
skill to scoring a game winning touchdown. To kicking a
(13:42):
game winning field goal, to making a game winning three
point shot. It would be as if it would be
as if baseball's extra innings only ended on a wild pitch,
a kind of random event that doesn't always happen. That's
how it feels. Again. I know that there are clean
(14:02):
slap shots. I know that there are breakaways. I know
that there are various ways in which people score clean goals.
It does feel like jumble in front of the net
and all of a sudden, somehow the puck just finds
the back of the net and we celebrate as if,
oh I meant to have that happen, when there's that
kind of luck and randomness to it. Right, So to
(14:24):
people who say, and many of you, matter of fact,
all of you, because no non hockey fans says it, says,
I don't know. Playoff overtime hockey is the best? Ever?
Is it? When Villanova beat North Carolina on a game
winning three point shot? What was more thrilling that? Or
overtime hockey Game seven between the Warriors and the Calves,
(14:48):
when Kyrie Irving hit a three, Lebron James makes a
free throw. When that happened on the three to one
comeback was that, and that was which was more exciting?
Playoff football, playoff anything, it's thrilling. Or how about Wimbledon
(15:09):
where there is no tiebreaker in the third set and
you just have almost like a boxing match between two
of the greats of all time. I can recall a
Federer Nadah final for the ages that was better than
playoff hockey, even in overtime. Maybe it's because the rules
are a little simpler. Maybe it's because I can see
(15:31):
the ball. Maybe it's because I grew up watching and
understanding the sport more. But you do lose a lot
of people when you say be as the greatest ever.
And if you don't like it, you are a hater. No,
not a hater. There's other incredible, incredible things in sports.
Game winning three game winning touchdown pat or the interception
(15:56):
of Russell Wilson by Malcolm Butler in the end zone
of the Super Bowl. Which is better? Yeah, I know
what the answer is. Malcolm Butler, who no one had
had ever heard of, in picking off a Russell Wilson pass.
And that wasn't the last play of the game that
essentially ended the game. The twenty eight to three comeback
by the Patriots. So this is not me hating on hockey.
(16:20):
I like hockey. I don't necessarily understand hockey, but I
appreciate it. I respect it. They're amazing athletes. But like
eighty percent of the United States, I didn't grow up
playing it. Like eighty percent of the United States, I
can't really see the puck when I watch it on TV.
And like probably ninety percent of the United States, there's
just a randomness to how an overtime playoff hockey game
(16:42):
sometimes ends. So I'm not willing to say it's even close.
I'll tell you what it's like. People say New York
City is the greatest city in the world. Well, I've
worked in New York City, and there's about two weeks
in the winter when it's uninhabitable, and there's about two
weeks in the summer when it's uninhabitable and smells like
(17:02):
a stench of urine because the humidity and how old
the streets are. And you can't be the greatest city
in the world if you have a month of the
year in which you're uninhabitable, right, So it's not the
statement that playoff hockey is great. It's a statement that
it's the greatest thing ever. Hyperbole has no place here.
(17:24):
It's really fun, but it's not the greatest ever. So
we're watching Lebron James in the NBA Playoffs, and what
inevitably comes from it is the discussion about Lebron and
Jordan and the greatest of all time. There's other side
(17:46):
conversations to be had, but there's this one thing about
history and legacy, which I do think we need to
pause for a moment. You know, it's a lot like
if you're out on a date and you just start
talking about future things, or you start comparing this relationship
with another one instead of just enjoying the presence of
(18:08):
somebody else. Right, maybe that analogy doesn't work for you,
but think about it. If you're only thinking big picture,
you are missing the small picture which is right in
front of you. And I bring that up because why
can't we just appreciate Lebron James carrying a team at
(18:28):
forty years old, Like, yeah, you can point out some
of the flaws to the things he doesn't do anymore,
and you may not be down with Lebron because they're
clearly jamming it in to play Bronny when he's not
good enough to play at this level. All of that said,
what he's doing is nothing short of amazing. It just
(18:50):
is nothing short of amazing. And to people who want
to question Lebron and his politics as motives anything he
says in a podcast, asked his relationship with his agent,
his relationship with in terms of how that how that
factors into the sport of basketball, to his team, the Lakers,
the relationship with that agency, Rich Rich Paul's agency, and
(19:13):
the LA Lakers. Like, all of that stuff is interesting.
It makes for really really good sports talk fodder, but
it really has no effect on what you should be doing,
which is enjoying and marveling at the fact that he's
freaking amazing and oh yeah, by the way, these two
things can be true. Michael Jordan can be your favorite
(19:34):
player ever. You can say he was the greatest player ever.
You can say, hey, Michael Jordan at forty years old
was actually great. Hey, his team just wasn't as good.
He didn't have Luke on his team and I know
Luca's not playing right now. He didn't have other pieces
that could carry him to this to this place or
this seed in a playoffs, and so we don't remember
(19:56):
the fact that or that Michael Jordan played eighty two games,
so he would have been better in the playoffs if
he had done what Lebron's doing, which is playing sixty
five games right, resting himself so he still has the
energy for the playoffs. Like you can point out the
flaws to the legacy of Lebron, or simply say I
thought Michael Jordan's better. You can even be like me
where you're like, hey, are we really not talking about
(20:17):
Magic and Larry Bird, the two greatest players of the
nineteen eighties, two guys who saved the NBA, two guys
who I think all of us who have any brain
who were born in the seventies or eighties would say,
if they're not on the list of all time greats,
who is, throw in Tim Duncan, throw in Kobe Bryant
if you want. I would even throw out anybody who
(20:37):
preceded that because I wasn't alive to see them play.
But the point is that it can't. You can be
a Jordan guy and marvel at Lebron. You can say
I'd rather have Larry Bird in his prime in one
game because of all the things he's done and his
willingness to take and make the big shot. He rebounds
(20:59):
better than any of the above listed. You can say
Tim Duncan if you'd like, you're allowed, but you still
can marvel and appreciate that at over forty years old,
Lebron James continues to rise to the level of the competition,
or rise to the moment, and while he is playing
(21:19):
with house money, and when he does fail in the
context of a game, he will always get the pass
of well, you know, he's forty. The fact is that
he's forty and none of us could be doing that.
As a former hooper, I can tell you when you
get to thirty, you start pulling everything. When you get
to thirty five, now all of a sudden, there's your back,
(21:41):
maybe your knee, maybe your achilles. For this guy to
do it this long and this well is superhuman. He
may be an X Man, And even if he isn't
your favorite X Man, even if he isn't in one
of your top two, top three, top five all time players,
if that's how you feel about him, you're allowed to,
but you're not allowed to gloss over the fact that,
(22:04):
at forty plus years old, he's still pretty awesome.
Host
Doug Gottlieb
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.