June 5, 2025 • 46 mins
Yahoo! Sports Senior College Football Reporter Ross Dellenger talks to Matt about the financial future of college conferences along with potential actions Congress might take to help college athletics after the NCAA settlement and the impact it will have.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, it's Matt Jones Show, episode five.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
And you know, everybody listening, Kentucky fans, Louisville fans, college
sports fans. You know that the college sports environment is
changing by the minute. And Ross Dellinger might be the
best person, might be he is the best person at
knowing what's happening in the national landscape of college sports.
I'm not sure there's any story that breaks Ross that
(00:27):
you're not the first one to have said it. Thank
you very much for coming on and sort of catching
us up on this.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Yeah, no problem, Matt, it's going to be on.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
So Ross, let's just start with this.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Going into the twenty twenty five college football season. How
where would you say college athletics is going into would
you say this will be like the most tumultuous change
in a year of all time?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Yeah, yeah, probably so. And we've that's saying a lot,
because we've certainly had a lot of changes the last
few years. Uh. You know, I like to often say
that college sports uh doesn't run or jog, but it crawls.
But we've been moving a little faster lately, and the
(01:14):
changes have have come much quicker than than they have
in the past. When you look at and you know
they're all Most of these changes are are all driven
by athlete groups, advocacy groups, by state lawmakers, and by
(01:35):
court court rulings, and they're all based around providing athletes
with more benefits in compensation. And the biggest one yet, obviously,
has been this onset of of rev share that will
start expected to start at least on July one.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
So July first, as I understand it, and if anything
I say here is wrong, at least correct me. Twenty
point five million dollars each university. They can, but they
don't have to do. Am I correct about that?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
That's right? It's a it's kind of permitted. The rev
shar is permitted, but it's it's not required. And I
think you'll probably have I don't know it, Probably sixty
to seventy percent of the Power Conference schools probably get
to that twenty million mark.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Oh you don't think it'll be all of them, only
sixty to seven.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
I know for sure it won't be all of them.
They just you know, financially, there are some schools that
won't get there.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Can you give me an example of one like that
won't or maybe you can't, But are there schools you
know that can't or won't.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Yeah, there's schools I know that will not and they
haven't announced it yet, and I hate to say it,
but there's plenty that that will not. And I would say,
you know, it's as many as twenty to as few
as ten. I guess maybe they probably won't get there. Now,
they'll probably get close fifteen seventeen million, but they probably
won't get to twenty twenty one million, but I think
(03:08):
the vast majority will SEC.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Do you think everyone in the SEC does it?
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Yeah, it'd be surprising if anybody in the SEC wasn't
able to get to twenty And the same goes for
the Big ten. Probably two, I would think most are.
I would think all, if not a large large group
will in the Big ten will be able to reach
the twenty million. It's obviously the Big twelve in the
(03:33):
ACC and certainly all those schools below it. Right the
group of six schools, you know, I doubt there'd be
any school in the group of six that gets to twenty.
Only one I could think of is maybe like a Memphis,
Maybe maybe Boise gets close to there. But it would
(03:54):
kind of surprise me if any of those schools would
get to twenty because I think the average is probably
in the three to five million range for those schools
that are allowed.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
That's a huge, huge discrepancy.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Okay, so this all starts because of a court settlement
at least that has as of this taping has not
been approved yet, but it is expected to be. I
think where you know that this is part of a
player suing for rev share, and this is part of
the settlement. But as I understand it, Ross, I mean this,
(04:33):
it still is the case to me looking at it
from a legal perspective, that this doesn't foreclose, like a
court could still say down the road like this, Okay,
yeah you had this, but we don't think this. Actually
this class represents future athletes, I mean, and without congressional legislation,
(04:54):
aren't these schools still vulnerable no matter what?
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Yeah, very much.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
The settlement it is as you said, it's a settling
of three antitrust cases that are all over more athlete compensation.
And so instead of going to court and losing, as
the NCAA has done quite a bit lately in it
costing them probably ten plus billion, they settled for two
(05:19):
point eight billion in back pay to former athletes that
are suing, and then the revshare is part of the
settlement going forward. And so they've settled these three lawsuits.
But while the settlement I think it's best described, I
(05:41):
think the settlement as kind of a step in down
the path of reaching eventually solution in stability in college athletics.
And I think one of the big reasons this settlement
was made, outside of that a loss in court would
(06:01):
probably bankrupt everyone, one of the other big reasons is
that they they being the college executives and leaders and
commissioners and the NCAA executives, thought that settling and then
starting to pay athletes through this REA share would trigger
Congress to act in the passages.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Their hope is that Congress will see this and say, hey,
these terms of the settlement were good for some athletes.
Let's make this the basis of the legislation going forward.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Is that their.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Hope right right, and they're hoping. You know, there's really
three or four things they want in federal legislation. Number one,
they want a preemption of all these other nil state laws,
all these things different in al state laws. Number two,
they want an anti employment clause where college athletes are
deemed as students and not employees. And in number three
(06:57):
is they want kind of a codification and of the
House settlement. Yes, that protects them for the future enforcement right,
having rules and regulations, and so they're hoping to get
those things through Congress right now. You know, I live
in DC. My wife's a political reporter. There's nothing political reporter.
(07:20):
Where does Sherick's for the Hill.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
That's the most like nerdy political So there's nothing.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
So that's what I was going to ask.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
I mean, ultimately, again, it's been a while since I've
been a lawyer.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
But in order for for for.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Settlements to kind of deal with the future part of
what the worason. For instance, major League Baseball the players
Association can settle for future picks is because they do
collective bargaining. Obviously, the NCAA doesn't allow collective bargaining. So
just from a legal perspective, I have continued to think,
if they don't get a federal legislation out there, this
(08:00):
settlement is not going to save them in the future.
So there are they just praying, hey, Corey Booker, Ted
Cruz please pass something. Is that kind of where the NCAA.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Is yeah, and that's that's part of the reason why
they settled is because they thought that this agreement would
convince lawmakers to pass federal legislation that you know, does
all those things I just mentioned. The problem is is
it's though one party, you know, has control of Congress
(08:33):
in the White House, which is usually easier to get
legislation through. And that's the case, especially when it's Republicans
on this issue specifically. Though, despite all of that, you know,
it's a very divided in kind of a divisive time
in Congress with a lot going on. So right now,
although the five US Senators, as we reported a couple
(08:56):
of months ago, have been seriously talking and negotiat over
the last probably four months. It's Corey Booker, It's Richard Blumenthal,
it's Chris Coons. Those are the three Democrats, and then
it's Ted Cruz and Jerry Morian the Republicans, and they've
been talking and it's been serious discussions. I think it
(09:18):
would be the best described, but there's been nothing reached
in lately. I would say that they've reached a few hurdles,
and so I don't know that I would expect anything
to happen anytime soon, which means is with the point
you're getting at is the settlement is open to more lawsuits.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Being yeah, that's right, you know.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
So what are the hurdles, like, what are the things
you're hearing that are making it hard?
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Yeah? Well, I mean, first of all, you know, an
anti employment clause in a contract is something that Democrats,
many of who are backed by union labor unions, are
pretty hesitant to agree to. So that's probably number one.
Number two is giving the NCAAA or whatever entity anti
(10:10):
trust protection to enforce rules. Many of those rules the
courts have deemed illegal, so that's also a problem. And
the bigger problem there is what entity to bestow those
anti trust powers too. I think the NCAA, this new
power five conference entity or enforcement entity, some other government
(10:34):
entity that would manage all this. So it's kind of
like that's a question mark. And then the third kind
of hurdle is kind of this medical trust and this
has been an issue now for like five years, and
Democrats want a medical trust fund for the lower levels
of Division one and they want the power conferences to
(10:55):
pay into that medical trust fund.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
When people get hurt or something.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Is that what you mean, correct?
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yep, Yeah, that seems like just a lot of complicated factors.
Tarry Ross Dellnger, uh the expert on college football and
college basketball and just college sports realignment or just the restructuring.
Let me ask you, how did you end up? I
mean you work for you, I how did you end
up becoming in on this? I mean, how you're is it?
(11:24):
Because you've got these like government sources and like you
are my go to person on it?
Speaker 1 (11:30):
How did that end up happening?
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Yeah, it's I don't really know. Uh. You know, obviously
I moved up here with my wife again who's who's
in politics and uh, about six years ago, and it
was pretty good time to move to DC. It was
just before the NCAA began their lobbying effort up here.
(11:53):
Uh so it's been about five years five and a
half years of their lobbying effort, and so that that
did kind of coincide with my move to DC, So
that helped. But I've got just kind of a news
background in general. One of my first jobs out of
college was working for the Associated Press and news and
not sports actually, So I just have a news kind
(12:14):
of background and a lot of these off the field issues,
you know, caught my interest, and they're historic, right, their
historic changes to an entity that's evolving very rapidly.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Well, and you understand it. And I don't say this
to be rude to most sports reporters, but most sports
reporters when they talk about this stuff, have no idea
what they're talking about. And as a former lawyer, it
makes me cringe to hear the things they say. And
that doesn't do it with yours. Okay, so let's do
some practical things for listeners who care about college sports.
All these big schools are trying to add twenty million
(12:48):
dollars to their budget.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Did they have it?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
I think they'll get it right. We're seeing them get
it and it you know, you can only do that
with one of two ways. You need to generate more
revenue or cut expenses. I think there's probably a little
bit of both going on. I think there's probably plenty
of schools. You know, there's seventy Power Conference schools. So
if we just take that group, there's probably ten to
(13:16):
fifteen of those who already have it probably right.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
They don't your Texas.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Right, right, so they already have a big enough pool
of donate donors that they probably already have that that money.
I mean, Texas A and M fired football coach and
paid him seventy six million dollars. So I think.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
They'll find they'll do it.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Now.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
What's funny about that kind of is you know, their
new athletic director, trev Alberts, has cut significantly, you know,
and so that's been interesting. So he's doing it two
ways too, he's cutting expenses as well. We've seen that
around the country. Now, you know, the other Power Conference
schools outside of that ten or so that probably already
have it do have to find ways to get it.
(14:03):
And we've seen a lot of cuts in staffing. We've
seen a lot of cuts in salaries and just budgets
in general. But what we've also seen is a lot
of new ways that schools are generating revenue, which is,
for instance, naming rights stuff right on stadiums or fields
or things like that, you know, just the enhancements of
(14:28):
corporate sponsorships and new corporate sponsorships. You're seeing quite a
bit of that as well. So they might not all
have it right now, but they'll find a way to
get it, most of them.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
So I had someone who I'm pretty close with who
is involved with a university not in the SEC, but
a major one who is trying to figure this out.
And they said to me, I don't know if it's
going to be our school, but it might be. But
there's another school at least and maybe a bunch that
(15:01):
will start to basically take private money and basically take
investment money. And I think that's inevitable that these universities
are going to basically sell shares in their sports programs
to private investors. Do you think that's going to happen?
And if so, is it going to happen quickly?
Speaker 3 (15:21):
I do think it's going to happen. Yeah, it's too
prevalent in too many conferences in schools have gone so
deep on it that at some point somebody is going
to complete the process and do it, you know, And
there's different you know, I've seen different models, pe models.
(15:43):
You know, there's a model where as you mentioned, it
is private equity, and so an entity would buy ten,
twenty percent whatever and have control of part of a
school athletic department or a conference's athletic revenue.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
How do you think fans will deal with that? If,
like the University of you know, I'll just pick a
random one. Vermont were to be twenty owned by Toyota,
I mean, like or you know whatever, Like, do you
think fans are going to be cool with that?
Speaker 3 (16:15):
No, not at all. I do not, And it's part
of the reason that it had happened, you know. But
there's another model too, you know, where it's private capital
and it's basically just alone. And we've seen that when
we've seen some conferences go pretty deep, including the Big
twelve that about a month ago that kind of came
(16:36):
up for a vote I believe on a private capital
plan and it just didn't wasn't able to get across
the finish line. Big ten is looking at more of
an equity model that I mentioned earlier. So on the
conference level, I don't know that it happens as soon
as quick as it may happen on the school level. First,
(16:59):
because everybody is in a financial crunch.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
It's gonna be fascinating to me because politics and the
need for money are gonna quite so what if a
Saudi investment fund, a LA Live, decides they want to
invest in Auburn and football. I mean, there's nothing that
stops them from doing it. But then there might be
people in Alabama who are like, I don't want to
(17:24):
have a Saudi investment in the Tigers, Like.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
That's coming in it wry like that those questions are coming.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Yeah, maybe, you know. I think there was a story
maybe like a year ago, where a Colorado football assistant
had gone overseas to allegedly it was not at the
best of the school, like he did it on his own.
He went overseas to Dubai or wherever and was trying
(17:56):
to get emails head surfaced about that. So you know,
school staff members have gone to that length already, and
it's because of the need for.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Money.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
And you know, there's a lot of people who say, well,
these schools have plenty of money, right, These athletic departments
have plenty of money. They pay their coach eight million
dollars a year and their facility renovation they just built
is one hundred million dollars. Well, guess what, that's why
they don't have money. They pay their coach ten million dollars.
They've done this one hundred million dollar project. This is
(18:34):
why they don't have money.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
You think those salaries end up going down like I've
wonder do like those ten million dollar deals are done,
it's going to be like I.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Think more so, the salaries might not go down, they
may plateau off, but what will disappear is these guaranteed,
long time, long term, guaranteed buyouts in a contract. These
these guaranteed contracts that that will probably not be something
(19:04):
we'll see in the future. But it's hard to drop salaries.
But I think they may be somewhat plateau a little bit.
But in football, into a degree, in men's basketball, you know,
I wouldn't necessarily say that coaching salaries will drop or
even to a degree even plateau. But in Olympic sports,
(19:27):
you're probably going to see a drop or a plateau.
And you're not even at the highest level. I think
you're not going to see as much as of these
guaranteed contracts.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
So let me ask you a question from a Kentucky
and this would even affect Louisville.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Basket.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
So we're basketball schools in some ways, and in Kentucky's
play case playing in a football conference, and Mitch Barnhart
the AD said this week that they were going to
be quote flexible year in and year out as to
how much of the twenty million they allocated to each sport.
I know Georgia has go even set percentages they were
(20:01):
going to. But Kentucky Mitch was like, well, there might
be years that we have to do this and do this.
Do you think schools like Kentucky or North Carolina or
schools like that are gonna have to decide do we
sacrifice part of our football program to stay elite at basketball?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
Yes, to a degree. I think that when you you
know you got you got three different buckets coming here
for athletes as far as compensation. One is the one
they've had for a long time, which is scholarship. Two
is this school revshare, and three is outside nonschool nil
(20:46):
the deals they kind of get in a way. Now,
So if you're out of school with a big brand,
especially a basketball brand like a Kentucky, like a Louisville,
like a Kansas Duke, that third bucket that outside in
il you should be able to generate real corporate brand
(21:06):
type of business deals for your athletes or they could
generate it for themselves in all this outside.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
But it has to be real now, right, it has
to be real. Give is that in theory. It now
has to be real like a real endorsement.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Right, It probably you won't see that much any longer
coming from like a collective, a booster at least a
booster run collective. These booster deals, they all will have
to go through a clearinghouse to be vetted to make
sure that they fall into a fair market value compensation
range that Deloitte, which is running the clearinghouse, has come
(21:42):
up with. Not only that people forget too, is that
the second part of that these deals have to be
for business purposes as well, So the businesses have to
show that they are basically getting some kind of benefit,
that this is for a purpose for them.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
And you think that's real. It's going to get enforced.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Uh, sure, that's you know. I think you mentioned earlier
about about lawsuits, right, other lawsuits. This is one that
we'll probably see legal challenges to this fair market value
a logarithm in this clearinghouse.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Okay, so all right, so let me tell you another
worry I think of when I look at this money.
All right, So in theory, if you're Saint John's or
Villanova or Yukon, you don't have to worry about the
football side. Is there anything that stops Saint John's from
spending all twenty million on basketball, and like a Kentucky
(22:43):
or a Duke can't compete with that. Is there anything
in place beyond just the market that keeps that from happening?
Speaker 3 (22:51):
No, No, So I wrote about that during March Madness
because it was a lot of that was getting back
to me that this was a real issue that the
Power conferences we're concerned about is the non football playing
or the very low resource football schools spending you know,
as much as yeah, sure, twenty million. I don't know
(23:13):
that anybody's gonna be doing that, but they probably will
get to ten of ten million of REP share, and
ten million of revshare is going to be more than
pretty much all of the Power conference basketball programs will
have at their disposal, because you know, average wise, your
(23:34):
football program is going to get between thirteen and sixteen
million for its roster at the Power conference level, and
then your basketball is going to get in between two
and four million. Probably maybe some basketball schools might get
to five to six indirect revshare, like a Kentucky, Duke, Kansas,
and then everybody else is going to get the excess,
maybe a million to women's basketball, maybe five hundred thousand
(23:57):
to baseball. That's kind of how the bridge is gonna
be broken up. So if you're looking at the average
being around three or four million dollars for a basketball
program the Power conferences, and in Saint John's is gonna
spend ten to twelve million dollars because they don't have
a football program. Uh, that's problem, right, That's.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Yeah, it's a problem for us. We're not gonna like
it here.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
I know.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
Now there's a lot of you can try to make
up with that with the outside in IL. But that's
where it goes back to how real and restrictive is
the clearinghouse going to be.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
That's fascinating because you could see how Yukon or Saint
John's could just become an absolute dominant powerhouse if they
if they really wanted to do that.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Do you think there will be any.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
School that says, I'm just punting on football. I'm van Dy,
I'm Northwestern, I'm just not gonna care and I'm going
to I'm Northwestern and I'm gonna punt on football, and
then I'm gonna make it to where I got the
best women's basketball team, I've got the best baseball team.
(25:06):
I could see Vandy because they like baseball so much.
Is that Is that possible?
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Probably not? And I think because number one, right, football
is generating most of the revenue. Even at basketball schools,
say football is generating more of the revenue. And I
think if you if you do it too much and
(25:33):
you skew the numbers too much compared to some of
your conference colleagues, I think you run the risk of
real dissension within the conference.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
And I wondered about that there's any like you have
to spend this much on football, And.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
The SEC had actually gone down the road on doing
that they were going to and I had some of
the figures I can't remember. I know football was at
least thirteen point five million, ok, I can't remember any
of the other figures. Basketball may have been like two
point eight million. And the SEC had set some of
(26:15):
those standards. But you're not gonna be surprised by this.
But Kentucky did not in some others too, But Kentucky
basketball specifically was a pretty big voice in the room
to make sure that those standards weren't set as a
(26:37):
policy because Kentucky obviously wants to spend more.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Get some news.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
So that Kentucky was like, I mean, do you think
at a school like Kentucky, are you gonna have a
situation where the basketball and football coach are fighting each
other for how much money's gonna go into the program.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
I think that that's very possible. And we see it
now even within IL and even before in IL, just
sourcing to a program, Right, we've seen that. But it's
only gonna be exasper exacerbated.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
And it wasn't just you know, Kentucky that wanted to
spend more in basketball so raised concerns about the standards
that the SEC was talking about setting up. Think about
South Carolina women's basketball, right. They wanted to spend Arkansas baseball,
LSU baseball. Absolutely, So there were plenty of programs that
(27:28):
wanted to spend more than the standards sort of the
maximum standards at the SEC was talking about doing. And
so they kind of bailed on it for now. And
I've quoted Greg Sanki in a story or two about
that about how they could come back to that, you know,
(27:49):
and they could still a discussion topic so that everybody
would be on more of a even playing field.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Yeah, you know, I just I think about Okay, well,
let me put a different way that do you think
there are schools that if they don't punt on football,
they punt on something for instance. Do you think there
will be schools that punt on men's basketball?
Speaker 3 (28:11):
Yeah, I mean I think that you can't. You're not
gonna in this new kind of era everything. Yeah, you're
not gonna be able to be good at at or
you're not gonna be able to invest highly for rev
share and really to a degree for scholarships too, because
(28:34):
now we have kind of unlimited scholarships up to the
new roster sizes. You're not gonna be able to do
that beyond like three or four sports, maybe beyond two sports.
You know, you're not gonna be able to do it.
It's gonna be hard. Now that cap twenty point five
million does raise, right, it increases every year. A lot
of folks think it all. You're gonna get the twenty
five to twenty eight million within three or four years,
(28:56):
so you're gonna have more money to play with, so
you're gonna.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Be able to everybody else though.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
I mean, like you know, yeah, you can get up
to forty, but if the other guy's got one hundred,
you're still kind of well, that's gonna be fascinating to me. Well,
let's switch gears for a second. Ross Dalenger here, Yahoo Sports.
Let me ask you about is realignment over or to
put another way, If I am in the SEC and
(29:21):
I have sixteen teams? Am I going to have eighteen
at some point? Do they still want and if so, Clemson,
Florida State, do Carolina Virginia? Like, what is the SEC?
Do you think they still have a glimmer in their
eye for anyone?
Speaker 3 (29:38):
I think that when you look at the years twenty
thirty to twenty thirty two, there's a span of three
or so years there that are probably pivotal to the
future of college athletics.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
You have.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Several contracts that come up over that span, and that
could lead to more expansion and changes. And so the
College Football Playoff contract comes open, the NCAA Basketball Tournament
contract comes open, Then the Big twelve TV deal comes open,
(30:15):
the Big ten TV deal comes open, you know. So
it's it's a really important stretch there where you could
have you know, the schools you mentioned certainly in the
ACC get out of the ACC. And we know that
the exit fee now has dropped because they settled this lawsuit,
(30:37):
which seems like more of a temporary solution for the
ACC and not a permanent one that you could see
those schools move on and leave for the SEC or
the or the Big Ten. I don't it doesn't strike
me that the SEC presidents are really hungry to add
(30:58):
any more schools. Yeah, but during that span of years
where all the deals come open, Now the SECS doesn't
come open, but but the Big twelve and Big Tens do,
and again you have all these championships has also come
up and could be remade in a lot of ways,
(31:19):
and you could have sort of a split of the
power conferences, or even of the two, you know that's
always been talked about. You could have a reshuffling where
you know, even if you don't want to, you kind
of have to. You're going to have to take schools
or your competitor, the Big Ten, may take the schools
that you you want. So I think that almost certainly
(31:43):
in that timeframe we will have more conference realignment.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
I sort of I look at it as a as
a fan, not so much. I try to not just
look at it as a business deal, but as a fan,
and I think the average fan is kind of okay
if college football doesn't include the little guy because the
little guys never really had much of a chance in
college football. I mean, I've the idea that parody will
(32:08):
get worse. It's always been.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Bad in football.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
But in basketball, I think part of what makes the
tournament is you've got to have Saint Peter's. You've got
to have Oakland or else. It's not the NCAA tournament.
Even in baseball, you've got to have Murray State having
the opportunity. Do you agree with that? And if you do,
do you think the powers that be in the SEC
and Big ten in the Power four conferences agree with
(32:32):
that about those two sports?
Speaker 3 (32:36):
Yeah? I think that in football we'll probably eventually see
the access from the Group of Six in the CFP
be eliminated. Yeah, THEP deal runs through twenty thirty one.
It's again, it's in those span of years where it
comes open, and so it would kind of surprise me
(33:00):
if the Group of Six kept its access spot.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
And I don't think people will care, do you, I mean, like,
do you think the average college football fan will care
about that?
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Well?
Speaker 3 (33:09):
I think you know, Greg Saiki actually said recently that
you know, we get into a room and we we
make political decisions referring to sort of that access spot.
So you you think about it from a politics standpoint.
We just talked about how the NCAAA and the Power
Conferences are lobbying for congressional legislation. Well, if you do
(33:33):
cut out that access spot, that could certainly impact decisions
for senators and congressman.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Went to those schools. Yeah, yeah, when.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
Schools are disadvantaged. So that's always something to keep keep
in mind. You know, for the basketball tournament, I think
the conference commissioners have said pretty firmly that they want
to keep some sort of access for the little guys.
As you mentioned there, Their issue is they probably don't
(34:06):
want to keep as much access for them as they
have now, right, which is one automatic qualifier for each
of the thirty two Division one conferences and so and
I think this is a conversation going on with tournament
expansion that's happening right now too, is do you pit
you know, those AQ teams that earn the lower level,
(34:30):
the sixteen fifteen, fourteen seeds, you pit them against one
another in playing games, and that way you create more
spots in an expansion for Power Conference teams. I think
that that's probably where we're headed.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
See. I get that.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I know that it makes sense from a business perspective,
but like nobody wants to see the thirteenth place team
in the I mean they just don't. I mean they
want to see. It's weird because I think in the
NCAA tournament Ross everybody loves the little guy until the sweet.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
Sixteen and then they want them out after that.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
But I do think though that first weekend, if you
got rid of those teams, you would screw it up somewhat.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
Do you agree, I do?
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Yeah, I do. You know, the NCAA Tournament as it
exists right now is a pretty awesome event.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
I think it's probably probably shouldn't be touched, you know.
I mean, do you need more than what is it,
thirty four thirty six at large as? Maybe so maybe
in some kind of small expansion the ones they're talking
about right now, maybe you can add and you know,
six to eight at larges. But what makes the tournament
(35:46):
great and the tournament's first two rounds great are are
these schools you've kind of never heard of that pull upsets.
But here's the thing about that. In the Revshaer era,
I don't believe we'll see as many of those upsets
as we have in the past, and I think we
saw some of that this past year as a pretty
(36:07):
good example of for the first time ever, I believe
every six Sweet sixteen team was from a power poly league.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
I do wonder though if that was uniquely you know,
there was also the COVID part of that, where guys
where teams had fifth and six year guys. I wonder
if that'll still be the case. But I remember two
years ago we lost to Oakland. Yeah, right, Like I
wasn't that long ago we lost and Auburn lost to Yale,
(36:37):
and I mean it wasn't like the nil was going then.
I often wonder what the rev share ross, if it'll
actually Okay. So you mentioned let's say two point eight
million dollars was the basketball number.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
I mean a school.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Like Oakland, maybe they can't find two point eight, Maybe
they can find one point five. And right now Kentucky
there are reports they're spending ten on this year's roster.
Maybe it actually brings the amount of money down in
college basketball a little bit, you.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
Know, maybe. Yeah, I think you know, one of the
big things this past year that really came to light.
I feel like was all the players on SEC teams
and other teams, but SEC specifically actually that were at
mid majors the year before or the two years before, right,
(37:29):
And it's just like a graduation up to the next
level that probably won't stop and probably we'll only get
more popular and increase more with the with the revshare era.
So that's the kind of the concern is you know,
(37:50):
is that but you're you know, you're right. Money doesn't
Money doesn't just buy obviously championships and wins. And we've
seen that, right, We've seen that through the years that
you can spend I mean, look at you know, honestly,
look at some of the things that Boise State has
done just even before the pre and I the NIL
(38:13):
era and the resources that they had and they were able.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
To get Zaga and basketball has created to where they're
basically a power program. All Right, I just want to
give you Ross Allender, Yahoo Sports. I'll just give you
a couple of things before you get out. If you
were an average fan, like, what are you what do
you think is the storyline of the next year from
a big picture college sports thing, is it watch this settlement?
(38:38):
Watch how these schools do with the twenty point two
million dollars. What are you watching for over the course
of the next year of news.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
You know, it's it's certainly the revshare and how it
is distributed among schools is really fascinating to me. And
that you mentioned earlier how much coaches are are going
to be kind of in fighting with one another a
little bit. And I think I think some of those
(39:11):
could be fights that are taken publicly at RISS conferences.
You know, you can imagine in a football game, uh
and I'm just throw out random SEC teams of Kentucky
right pulls an upset or I'm sorry, if Kentucky loses
to Auburn in a game football game, you could see
(39:34):
maybe Kentucky's coach just casually mentioning mentioning in the postgame
news conference that Auburn pays its football roster four million
dollars more.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Then if Cow was here still, you can guarantee they
would have been going He and Stoops would have been
going at each other. I don't love Hope and Stoops will,
but Ross if Cow was here, that would have definitely happened.
Speaker 3 (39:57):
Yeah, And that's and that's why the SEC spent so
much time on having a maximum sort of standard of
resshia per sport. But again it was kind of kind
of derailed, and so now it's kind of anything you want.
Speaker 2 (40:14):
What's the coaches, what's the team with the most likely
to do that? I'm gonna just off the top of
my head say Bruce Pearl versus Hugh Free.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
I could see that.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
Wouldn't bean one where they are fighting over. Can you
think of one that makes.
Speaker 3 (40:26):
Well, I look at someone, Yeah, I look at some
of the programs with that we've kind of discussed already
that have really big, kind of historic success, championship level
success and a really aggressive coach at sports that aren't
football in basketball. So again, like a baseball program at
(40:49):
LSU or women's basketball program at South Carolina, you know,
those sports are going to have to, you would think,
to stay competitive, have to get a pretty large majority
of the revenue share, which then takes away from other sports.
You know, Mississippi State just hired Virginia's coach Brian O'Connor,
(41:12):
and part of the hire was certainly a promise of
significant revenue share for the baseball program. Well, that comes
at somebody of other sports, it has to.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
That's interesting because Misissippi State is another perfect example. You
could see them skimping on one of the other sports,
and the SEC dynamic of it is is fascinating. So
who do And then I mean my last question, who
are the forward thinkers? Like? You know, who are the
people if you were to say this is the Ross Dellinger,
(41:44):
these are the five people that are going to have
the biggest impact on what college sports look like in
twenty thirty and are kind of the leaders of the pact.
They could be college presidents, it could be conference commissioners,
it could be senators. Who are the people that you think,
I think are really going to be deciding where we
are in twenty thirty.
Speaker 3 (42:03):
M Well, certainly one is Greg Sank. Yes, he's commissioner,
He's probably he's probably the top one, you know, if
you have to pick somebody in politics, Uh, you know,
there's obviously there's one person who's been more outspoken on
on this stuff, which is Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
Why do what he cares so much?
Speaker 3 (42:28):
I'm guessing just in a football sports type of state
like Texas, I think it's probably also good for your
constituents to stick up for athletics and sort of preserve
college athletics. So I would say.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
His colleagues hate him.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Of all the he's like the least popular senator, So
it's weird that he if he's the one saying it,
I wonder if it makes people just want to argue
with him.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
Just because another another politician, I would say, is the president.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
You know, that's interesting. What role do you think Donald
Trump will haven't if any.
Speaker 3 (43:02):
Well, He's toyed with the idea of obviously issue in
executive order and potentially creating a presidential commission over college sports,
and right now I think that stuff's on pause, but
I would expect him to to take a reinterest in
it soon enough. So I think I think he would
(43:22):
be potentially on that on that list you know of
folks that could really influence going forward. And then you know,
you look at the other commissioner from the Power Conference
Power too. You know, is Tony Pettitia the Big ten
and the influential maybe presidents in his league, in in
(43:44):
Greg Sanki's league, as you know, moving the moving college
sports forward in a different way.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
The Trump factor is an interesting one to me because
I feel like he would be much more of a
hindrance than a help no matter what he does, because
since he is such a figure that people either line
up for or against, if you're trying to create consensus,
which I think they're going to have to pass sixty
senators in the filibuster. That's why I thought that Ted
(44:14):
Cruz Corey Booker thing was an interesting idea because you
get the two of them together, you probably can get
it passed. I wonder if Trump win in would only
make things worse.
Speaker 3 (44:23):
Well, there's a reason that the Presidential Commission that they
had thought about launching is now paused.
Speaker 1 (44:30):
Okay, you think that's why.
Speaker 3 (44:32):
I think that's part of the reason why.
Speaker 2 (44:34):
Yes, interesting, Yeah, I can tell you have more to
say on that, but you may have to be careful
because Nick Saban was supposed to be in charge of it,
and then he said they didn't think they needed.
Speaker 3 (44:45):
It, right right right. I just I'll say this. I
say that the leader of who was supposed to be
the leader the Presidential Commission, a man named Cody Campbell,
was a big Texas businessman and a Texas Tech Board member.
You know, his ideas were a lot of similar ideas
(45:06):
to a lot of the Super League ideas that you've seen,
kind of flooding around, which is a consolidation of media
rights for all the FBS or all the the power
conference schools, and spreading the distribution, spreading the revenue out
a little more evenly. Well, if you're the SEC in
Big ten and you have an advantage in revenue, you
(45:28):
have an advantage right now, why would you want to
blow all that up? And so I think the SEC
in Big ten probably didn't quite like the idea of
Cody Campbell, this this man running the Presidential Commission when
he had these ideas, And so I think partly that
(45:49):
and partly the impact that the president's involvement would have
on the Senate negotiations, like we talked about earlier over
a bill, are reasons why it probably got paused.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
Mitch McConnell is probably the reason Louisville is in the
a CEC. So sometimes it can be one senator or
one whoever in the right spot that makes the difference. Ross,
you really do do an awesome job on this. And
if you're listening Ross Ellinger on on Twitter, I'm not
calling it x but on Twitter you can follow him
(46:21):
and his writing. On Yahoo, keep it up and every
time your one of your things comes up, I go,
uh oh, what's the next thing that's that's happened.
Speaker 1 (46:30):
And I do wish Cal.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
I do think it'd be funny to watch Cal and
mark student's fight over revenue. Appreciate the time and your cat,
your big cat guy.
Speaker 3 (46:38):
I know my good cat is lurking around there.
Speaker 1 (46:40):
All right. Well, thank you for your time. Appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
Yeah, absolutely, thanks Matt,
All right, it's Matt Jones Show, episode five.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
And you know, everybody listening, Kentucky fans, Louisville fans, college
sports fans. You know that the college sports environment is
changing by the minute. And Ross Dellinger might be the
best person, might be he is the best person at
knowing what's happening in the national landscape of college sports.
I'm not sure there's any story that breaks Ross that
(00:27):
you're not the first one to have said it. Thank
you very much for coming on and sort of catching
us up on this.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Yeah, no problem, Matt, it's going to be on.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
So Ross, let's just start with this.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Going into the twenty twenty five college football season. How
where would you say college athletics is going into would
you say this will be like the most tumultuous change
in a year of all time?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Yeah, yeah, probably so. And we've that's saying a lot,
because we've certainly had a lot of changes the last
few years. Uh. You know, I like to often say
that college sports uh doesn't run or jog, but it crawls.
But we've been moving a little faster lately, and the
(01:14):
changes have have come much quicker than than they have
in the past. When you look at and you know
they're all Most of these changes are are all driven
by athlete groups, advocacy groups, by state lawmakers, and by
(01:35):
court court rulings, and they're all based around providing athletes
with more benefits in compensation. And the biggest one yet, obviously,
has been this onset of of rev share that will
start expected to start at least on July one.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
So July first, as I understand it, and if anything
I say here is wrong, at least correct me. Twenty
point five million dollars each university. They can, but they
don't have to do. Am I correct about that?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
That's right? It's a it's kind of permitted. The rev
shar is permitted, but it's it's not required. And I
think you'll probably have I don't know it, Probably sixty
to seventy percent of the Power Conference schools probably get
to that twenty million mark.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Oh you don't think it'll be all of them, only
sixty to seven.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
I know for sure it won't be all of them.
They just you know, financially, there are some schools that
won't get there.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Can you give me an example of one like that
won't or maybe you can't, But are there schools you
know that can't or won't.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Yeah, there's schools I know that will not and they
haven't announced it yet, and I hate to say it,
but there's plenty that that will not. And I would say,
you know, it's as many as twenty to as few
as ten. I guess maybe they probably won't get there. Now,
they'll probably get close fifteen seventeen million, but they probably
won't get to twenty twenty one million, but I think
(03:08):
the vast majority will SEC.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Do you think everyone in the SEC does it?
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Yeah, it'd be surprising if anybody in the SEC wasn't
able to get to twenty And the same goes for
the Big ten. Probably two, I would think most are.
I would think all, if not a large large group
will in the Big ten will be able to reach
the twenty million. It's obviously the Big twelve in the
(03:33):
ACC and certainly all those schools below it. Right the
group of six schools, you know, I doubt there'd be
any school in the group of six that gets to twenty.
Only one I could think of is maybe like a Memphis,
Maybe maybe Boise gets close to there. But it would
(03:54):
kind of surprise me if any of those schools would
get to twenty because I think the average is probably
in the three to five million range for those schools
that are allowed.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
That's a huge, huge discrepancy.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Okay, so this all starts because of a court settlement
at least that has as of this taping has not
been approved yet, but it is expected to be. I
think where you know that this is part of a
player suing for rev share, and this is part of
the settlement. But as I understand it, Ross, I mean this,
(04:33):
it still is the case to me looking at it
from a legal perspective, that this doesn't foreclose, like a
court could still say down the road like this, Okay,
yeah you had this, but we don't think this. Actually
this class represents future athletes, I mean, and without congressional legislation,
(04:54):
aren't these schools still vulnerable no matter what?
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Yeah, very much.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
The settlement it is as you said, it's a settling
of three antitrust cases that are all over more athlete compensation.
And so instead of going to court and losing, as
the NCAA has done quite a bit lately in it
costing them probably ten plus billion, they settled for two
(05:19):
point eight billion in back pay to former athletes that
are suing, and then the revshare is part of the
settlement going forward. And so they've settled these three lawsuits.
But while the settlement I think it's best described, I
(05:41):
think the settlement as kind of a step in down
the path of reaching eventually solution in stability in college athletics.
And I think one of the big reasons this settlement
was made, outside of that a loss in court would
(06:01):
probably bankrupt everyone, one of the other big reasons is
that they they being the college executives and leaders and
commissioners and the NCAA executives, thought that settling and then
starting to pay athletes through this REA share would trigger
Congress to act in the passages.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Their hope is that Congress will see this and say, hey,
these terms of the settlement were good for some athletes.
Let's make this the basis of the legislation going forward.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Is that their.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Hope right right, and they're hoping. You know, there's really
three or four things they want in federal legislation. Number one,
they want a preemption of all these other nil state laws,
all these things different in al state laws. Number two,
they want an anti employment clause where college athletes are
deemed as students and not employees. And in number three
(06:57):
is they want kind of a codification and of the
House settlement. Yes, that protects them for the future enforcement right,
having rules and regulations, and so they're hoping to get
those things through Congress right now. You know, I live
in DC. My wife's a political reporter. There's nothing political reporter.
(07:20):
Where does Sherick's for the Hill.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
That's the most like nerdy political So there's nothing.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
So that's what I was going to ask.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
I mean, ultimately, again, it's been a while since I've
been a lawyer.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
But in order for for for.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Settlements to kind of deal with the future part of
what the worason. For instance, major League Baseball the players
Association can settle for future picks is because they do
collective bargaining. Obviously, the NCAA doesn't allow collective bargaining. So
just from a legal perspective, I have continued to think,
if they don't get a federal legislation out there, this
(08:00):
settlement is not going to save them in the future.
So there are they just praying, hey, Corey Booker, Ted
Cruz please pass something. Is that kind of where the NCAA.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Is yeah, and that's that's part of the reason why
they settled is because they thought that this agreement would
convince lawmakers to pass federal legislation that you know, does
all those things I just mentioned. The problem is is
it's though one party, you know, has control of Congress
(08:33):
in the White House, which is usually easier to get
legislation through. And that's the case, especially when it's Republicans
on this issue specifically. Though, despite all of that, you know,
it's a very divided in kind of a divisive time
in Congress with a lot going on. So right now,
although the five US Senators, as we reported a couple
(08:56):
of months ago, have been seriously talking and negotiat over
the last probably four months. It's Corey Booker, It's Richard Blumenthal,
it's Chris Coons. Those are the three Democrats, and then
it's Ted Cruz and Jerry Morian the Republicans, and they've
been talking and it's been serious discussions. I think it
(09:18):
would be the best described, but there's been nothing reached
in lately. I would say that they've reached a few hurdles,
and so I don't know that I would expect anything
to happen anytime soon, which means is with the point
you're getting at is the settlement is open to more lawsuits.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Being yeah, that's right, you know.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
So what are the hurdles, like, what are the things
you're hearing that are making it hard?
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Yeah? Well, I mean, first of all, you know, an
anti employment clause in a contract is something that Democrats,
many of who are backed by union labor unions, are
pretty hesitant to agree to. So that's probably number one.
Number two is giving the NCAAA or whatever entity anti
(10:10):
trust protection to enforce rules. Many of those rules the
courts have deemed illegal, so that's also a problem. And
the bigger problem there is what entity to bestow those
anti trust powers too. I think the NCAA, this new
power five conference entity or enforcement entity, some other government
(10:34):
entity that would manage all this. So it's kind of
like that's a question mark. And then the third kind
of hurdle is kind of this medical trust and this
has been an issue now for like five years, and
Democrats want a medical trust fund for the lower levels
of Division one and they want the power conferences to
(10:55):
pay into that medical trust fund.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
When people get hurt or something.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Is that what you mean, correct?
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yep, Yeah, that seems like just a lot of complicated factors.
Tarry Ross Dellnger, uh the expert on college football and
college basketball and just college sports realignment or just the restructuring.
Let me ask you, how did you end up? I
mean you work for you, I how did you end
up becoming in on this? I mean, how you're is it?
(11:24):
Because you've got these like government sources and like you
are my go to person on it?
Speaker 1 (11:30):
How did that end up happening?
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Yeah, it's I don't really know. Uh. You know, obviously
I moved up here with my wife again who's who's
in politics and uh, about six years ago, and it
was pretty good time to move to DC. It was
just before the NCAA began their lobbying effort up here.
(11:53):
Uh so it's been about five years five and a
half years of their lobbying effort, and so that that
did kind of coincide with my move to DC, So
that helped. But I've got just kind of a news
background in general. One of my first jobs out of
college was working for the Associated Press and news and
not sports actually, So I just have a news kind
(12:14):
of background and a lot of these off the field issues,
you know, caught my interest, and they're historic, right, their
historic changes to an entity that's evolving very rapidly.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Well, and you understand it. And I don't say this
to be rude to most sports reporters, but most sports
reporters when they talk about this stuff, have no idea
what they're talking about. And as a former lawyer, it
makes me cringe to hear the things they say. And
that doesn't do it with yours. Okay, so let's do
some practical things for listeners who care about college sports.
All these big schools are trying to add twenty million
(12:48):
dollars to their budget.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Did they have it?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
I think they'll get it right. We're seeing them get
it and it you know, you can only do that
with one of two ways. You need to generate more
revenue or cut expenses. I think there's probably a little
bit of both going on. I think there's probably plenty
of schools. You know, there's seventy Power Conference schools. So
if we just take that group, there's probably ten to
(13:16):
fifteen of those who already have it probably right.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
They don't your Texas.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Right, right, so they already have a big enough pool
of donate donors that they probably already have that that money.
I mean, Texas A and M fired football coach and
paid him seventy six million dollars. So I think.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
They'll find they'll do it.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Now.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
What's funny about that kind of is you know, their
new athletic director, trev Alberts, has cut significantly, you know,
and so that's been interesting. So he's doing it two
ways too, he's cutting expenses as well. We've seen that
around the country. Now, you know, the other Power Conference
schools outside of that ten or so that probably already
have it do have to find ways to get it.
(14:03):
And we've seen a lot of cuts in staffing. We've
seen a lot of cuts in salaries and just budgets
in general. But what we've also seen is a lot
of new ways that schools are generating revenue, which is,
for instance, naming rights stuff right on stadiums or fields
or things like that, you know, just the enhancements of
(14:28):
corporate sponsorships and new corporate sponsorships. You're seeing quite a
bit of that as well. So they might not all
have it right now, but they'll find a way to
get it, most of them.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
So I had someone who I'm pretty close with who
is involved with a university not in the SEC, but
a major one who is trying to figure this out.
And they said to me, I don't know if it's
going to be our school, but it might be. But
there's another school at least and maybe a bunch that
(15:01):
will start to basically take private money and basically take
investment money. And I think that's inevitable that these universities
are going to basically sell shares in their sports programs
to private investors. Do you think that's going to happen?
And if so, is it going to happen quickly?
Speaker 3 (15:21):
I do think it's going to happen. Yeah, it's too
prevalent in too many conferences in schools have gone so
deep on it that at some point somebody is going
to complete the process and do it, you know, And
there's different you know, I've seen different models, pe models.
(15:43):
You know, there's a model where as you mentioned, it
is private equity, and so an entity would buy ten,
twenty percent whatever and have control of part of a
school athletic department or a conference's athletic revenue.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
How do you think fans will deal with that? If,
like the University of you know, I'll just pick a
random one. Vermont were to be twenty owned by Toyota,
I mean, like or you know whatever, Like, do you
think fans are going to be cool with that?
Speaker 3 (16:15):
No, not at all. I do not, And it's part
of the reason that it had happened, you know. But
there's another model too, you know, where it's private capital
and it's basically just alone. And we've seen that when
we've seen some conferences go pretty deep, including the Big
twelve that about a month ago that kind of came
(16:36):
up for a vote I believe on a private capital
plan and it just didn't wasn't able to get across
the finish line. Big ten is looking at more of
an equity model that I mentioned earlier. So on the
conference level, I don't know that it happens as soon
as quick as it may happen on the school level. First,
(16:59):
because everybody is in a financial crunch.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
It's gonna be fascinating to me because politics and the
need for money are gonna quite so what if a
Saudi investment fund, a LA Live, decides they want to
invest in Auburn and football. I mean, there's nothing that
stops them from doing it. But then there might be
people in Alabama who are like, I don't want to
(17:24):
have a Saudi investment in the Tigers, Like.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
That's coming in it wry like that those questions are coming.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Yeah, maybe, you know. I think there was a story
maybe like a year ago, where a Colorado football assistant
had gone overseas to allegedly it was not at the
best of the school, like he did it on his own.
He went overseas to Dubai or wherever and was trying
(17:56):
to get emails head surfaced about that. So you know,
school staff members have gone to that length already, and
it's because of the need for.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Money.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
And you know, there's a lot of people who say, well,
these schools have plenty of money, right, These athletic departments
have plenty of money. They pay their coach eight million
dollars a year and their facility renovation they just built
is one hundred million dollars. Well, guess what, that's why
they don't have money. They pay their coach ten million dollars.
They've done this one hundred million dollar project. This is
(18:34):
why they don't have money.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
You think those salaries end up going down like I've
wonder do like those ten million dollar deals are done,
it's going to be like I.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Think more so, the salaries might not go down, they
may plateau off, but what will disappear is these guaranteed,
long time, long term, guaranteed buyouts in a contract. These
these guaranteed contracts that that will probably not be something
(19:04):
we'll see in the future. But it's hard to drop salaries.
But I think they may be somewhat plateau a little bit.
But in football, into a degree, in men's basketball, you know,
I wouldn't necessarily say that coaching salaries will drop or
even to a degree even plateau. But in Olympic sports,
(19:27):
you're probably going to see a drop or a plateau.
And you're not even at the highest level. I think
you're not going to see as much as of these
guaranteed contracts.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
So let me ask you a question from a Kentucky
and this would even affect Louisville.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Basket.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
So we're basketball schools in some ways, and in Kentucky's
play case playing in a football conference, and Mitch Barnhart
the AD said this week that they were going to
be quote flexible year in and year out as to
how much of the twenty million they allocated to each sport.
I know Georgia has go even set percentages they were
(20:01):
going to. But Kentucky Mitch was like, well, there might
be years that we have to do this and do this.
Do you think schools like Kentucky or North Carolina or
schools like that are gonna have to decide do we
sacrifice part of our football program to stay elite at basketball?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
Yes, to a degree. I think that when you you
know you got you got three different buckets coming here
for athletes as far as compensation. One is the one
they've had for a long time, which is scholarship. Two
is this school revshare, and three is outside nonschool nil
(20:46):
the deals they kind of get in a way. Now,
So if you're out of school with a big brand,
especially a basketball brand like a Kentucky, like a Louisville,
like a Kansas Duke, that third bucket that outside in
il you should be able to generate real corporate brand
(21:06):
type of business deals for your athletes or they could
generate it for themselves in all this outside.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
But it has to be real now, right, it has
to be real. Give is that in theory. It now
has to be real like a real endorsement.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Right, It probably you won't see that much any longer
coming from like a collective, a booster at least a
booster run collective. These booster deals, they all will have
to go through a clearinghouse to be vetted to make
sure that they fall into a fair market value compensation
range that Deloitte, which is running the clearinghouse, has come
(21:42):
up with. Not only that people forget too, is that
the second part of that these deals have to be
for business purposes as well, So the businesses have to
show that they are basically getting some kind of benefit,
that this is for a purpose for them.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
And you think that's real. It's going to get enforced.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Uh, sure, that's you know. I think you mentioned earlier
about about lawsuits, right, other lawsuits. This is one that
we'll probably see legal challenges to this fair market value
a logarithm in this clearinghouse.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Okay, so all right, so let me tell you another
worry I think of when I look at this money.
All right, So in theory, if you're Saint John's or
Villanova or Yukon, you don't have to worry about the
football side. Is there anything that stops Saint John's from
spending all twenty million on basketball, and like a Kentucky
(22:43):
or a Duke can't compete with that. Is there anything
in place beyond just the market that keeps that from happening?
Speaker 3 (22:51):
No, No, So I wrote about that during March Madness
because it was a lot of that was getting back
to me that this was a real issue that the
Power conferences we're concerned about is the non football playing
or the very low resource football schools spending you know,
as much as yeah, sure, twenty million. I don't know
(23:13):
that anybody's gonna be doing that, but they probably will
get to ten of ten million of REP share, and
ten million of revshare is going to be more than
pretty much all of the Power conference basketball programs will
have at their disposal, because you know, average wise, your
(23:34):
football program is going to get between thirteen and sixteen
million for its roster at the Power conference level, and
then your basketball is going to get in between two
and four million. Probably maybe some basketball schools might get
to five to six indirect revshare, like a Kentucky, Duke, Kansas,
and then everybody else is going to get the excess,
maybe a million to women's basketball, maybe five hundred thousand
(23:57):
to baseball. That's kind of how the bridge is gonna
be broken up. So if you're looking at the average
being around three or four million dollars for a basketball
program the Power conferences, and in Saint John's is gonna
spend ten to twelve million dollars because they don't have
a football program. Uh, that's problem, right, That's.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Yeah, it's a problem for us. We're not gonna like
it here.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
I know.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
Now there's a lot of you can try to make
up with that with the outside in IL. But that's
where it goes back to how real and restrictive is
the clearinghouse going to be.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
That's fascinating because you could see how Yukon or Saint
John's could just become an absolute dominant powerhouse if they
if they really wanted to do that.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Do you think there will be any.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
School that says, I'm just punting on football. I'm van Dy,
I'm Northwestern, I'm just not gonna care and I'm going
to I'm Northwestern and I'm gonna punt on football, and
then I'm gonna make it to where I got the
best women's basketball team, I've got the best baseball team.
(25:06):
I could see Vandy because they like baseball so much.
Is that Is that possible?
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Probably not? And I think because number one, right, football
is generating most of the revenue. Even at basketball schools,
say football is generating more of the revenue. And I
think if you if you do it too much and
(25:33):
you skew the numbers too much compared to some of
your conference colleagues, I think you run the risk of
real dissension within the conference.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
And I wondered about that there's any like you have
to spend this much on football, And.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
The SEC had actually gone down the road on doing
that they were going to and I had some of
the figures I can't remember. I know football was at
least thirteen point five million, ok, I can't remember any
of the other figures. Basketball may have been like two
point eight million. And the SEC had set some of
(26:15):
those standards. But you're not gonna be surprised by this.
But Kentucky did not in some others too, But Kentucky
basketball specifically was a pretty big voice in the room
to make sure that those standards weren't set as a
(26:37):
policy because Kentucky obviously wants to spend more.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Get some news.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
So that Kentucky was like, I mean, do you think
at a school like Kentucky, are you gonna have a
situation where the basketball and football coach are fighting each
other for how much money's gonna go into the program.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
I think that that's very possible. And we see it
now even within IL and even before in IL, just
sourcing to a program, Right, we've seen that. But it's
only gonna be exasper exacerbated.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
And it wasn't just you know, Kentucky that wanted to
spend more in basketball so raised concerns about the standards
that the SEC was talking about setting up. Think about
South Carolina women's basketball, right. They wanted to spend Arkansas baseball,
LSU baseball. Absolutely, So there were plenty of programs that
(27:28):
wanted to spend more than the standards sort of the
maximum standards at the SEC was talking about doing. And
so they kind of bailed on it for now. And
I've quoted Greg Sanki in a story or two about
that about how they could come back to that, you know,
(27:49):
and they could still a discussion topic so that everybody
would be on more of a even playing field.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Yeah, you know, I just I think about Okay, well,
let me put a different way that do you think
there are schools that if they don't punt on football,
they punt on something for instance. Do you think there
will be schools that punt on men's basketball?
Speaker 3 (28:11):
Yeah, I mean I think that you can't. You're not
gonna in this new kind of era everything. Yeah, you're
not gonna be able to be good at at or
you're not gonna be able to invest highly for rev
share and really to a degree for scholarships too, because
(28:34):
now we have kind of unlimited scholarships up to the
new roster sizes. You're not gonna be able to do
that beyond like three or four sports, maybe beyond two sports.
You know, you're not gonna be able to do it.
It's gonna be hard. Now that cap twenty point five
million does raise, right, it increases every year. A lot
of folks think it all. You're gonna get the twenty
five to twenty eight million within three or four years,
(28:56):
so you're gonna have more money to play with, so
you're gonna.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Be able to everybody else though.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
I mean, like you know, yeah, you can get up
to forty, but if the other guy's got one hundred,
you're still kind of well, that's gonna be fascinating to me. Well,
let's switch gears for a second. Ross Dalenger here, Yahoo Sports.
Let me ask you about is realignment over or to
put another way, If I am in the SEC and
(29:21):
I have sixteen teams? Am I going to have eighteen
at some point? Do they still want and if so, Clemson,
Florida State, do Carolina Virginia? Like, what is the SEC?
Do you think they still have a glimmer in their
eye for anyone?
Speaker 3 (29:38):
I think that when you look at the years twenty
thirty to twenty thirty two, there's a span of three
or so years there that are probably pivotal to the
future of college athletics.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
You have.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Several contracts that come up over that span, and that
could lead to more expansion and changes. And so the
College Football Playoff contract comes open, the NCAA Basketball Tournament
contract comes open, Then the Big twelve TV deal comes open,
(30:15):
the Big ten TV deal comes open, you know. So
it's it's a really important stretch there where you could
have you know, the schools you mentioned certainly in the
ACC get out of the ACC. And we know that
the exit fee now has dropped because they settled this lawsuit,
(30:37):
which seems like more of a temporary solution for the
ACC and not a permanent one that you could see
those schools move on and leave for the SEC or
the or the Big Ten. I don't it doesn't strike
me that the SEC presidents are really hungry to add
(30:58):
any more schools. Yeah, but during that span of years
where all the deals come open, Now the SECS doesn't
come open, but but the Big twelve and Big Tens do,
and again you have all these championships has also come
up and could be remade in a lot of ways,
(31:19):
and you could have sort of a split of the
power conferences, or even of the two, you know that's
always been talked about. You could have a reshuffling where
you know, even if you don't want to, you kind
of have to. You're going to have to take schools
or your competitor, the Big Ten, may take the schools
that you you want. So I think that almost certainly
(31:43):
in that timeframe we will have more conference realignment.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
I sort of I look at it as a as
a fan, not so much. I try to not just
look at it as a business deal, but as a fan,
and I think the average fan is kind of okay
if college football doesn't include the little guy because the
little guys never really had much of a chance in
college football. I mean, I've the idea that parody will
(32:08):
get worse. It's always been.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Bad in football.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
But in basketball, I think part of what makes the
tournament is you've got to have Saint Peter's. You've got
to have Oakland or else. It's not the NCAA tournament.
Even in baseball, you've got to have Murray State having
the opportunity. Do you agree with that? And if you do,
do you think the powers that be in the SEC
and Big ten in the Power four conferences agree with
(32:32):
that about those two sports?
Speaker 3 (32:36):
Yeah? I think that in football we'll probably eventually see
the access from the Group of Six in the CFP
be eliminated. Yeah, THEP deal runs through twenty thirty one.
It's again, it's in those span of years where it
comes open, and so it would kind of surprise me
(33:00):
if the Group of Six kept its access spot.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
And I don't think people will care, do you, I mean, like,
do you think the average college football fan will care
about that?
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Well?
Speaker 3 (33:09):
I think you know, Greg Saiki actually said recently that
you know, we get into a room and we we
make political decisions referring to sort of that access spot.
So you you think about it from a politics standpoint.
We just talked about how the NCAAA and the Power
Conferences are lobbying for congressional legislation. Well, if you do
(33:33):
cut out that access spot, that could certainly impact decisions
for senators and congressman.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Went to those schools. Yeah, yeah, when.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
Schools are disadvantaged. So that's always something to keep keep
in mind. You know, for the basketball tournament, I think
the conference commissioners have said pretty firmly that they want
to keep some sort of access for the little guys.
As you mentioned there, Their issue is they probably don't
(34:06):
want to keep as much access for them as they
have now, right, which is one automatic qualifier for each
of the thirty two Division one conferences and so and
I think this is a conversation going on with tournament
expansion that's happening right now too, is do you pit
you know, those AQ teams that earn the lower level,
(34:30):
the sixteen fifteen, fourteen seeds, you pit them against one
another in playing games, and that way you create more
spots in an expansion for Power Conference teams. I think
that that's probably where we're headed.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
See. I get that.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I know that it makes sense from a business perspective,
but like nobody wants to see the thirteenth place team
in the I mean they just don't. I mean they
want to see. It's weird because I think in the
NCAA tournament Ross everybody loves the little guy until the sweet.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
Sixteen and then they want them out after that.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
But I do think though that first weekend, if you
got rid of those teams, you would screw it up somewhat.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
Do you agree, I do?
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Yeah, I do. You know, the NCAA Tournament as it
exists right now is a pretty awesome event.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
I think it's probably probably shouldn't be touched, you know.
I mean, do you need more than what is it,
thirty four thirty six at large as? Maybe so maybe
in some kind of small expansion the ones they're talking
about right now, maybe you can add and you know,
six to eight at larges. But what makes the tournament
(35:46):
great and the tournament's first two rounds great are are
these schools you've kind of never heard of that pull upsets.
But here's the thing about that. In the Revshaer era,
I don't believe we'll see as many of those upsets
as we have in the past, and I think we
saw some of that this past year as a pretty
(36:07):
good example of for the first time ever, I believe
every six Sweet sixteen team was from a power poly league.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
I do wonder though if that was uniquely you know,
there was also the COVID part of that, where guys
where teams had fifth and six year guys. I wonder
if that'll still be the case. But I remember two
years ago we lost to Oakland. Yeah, right, Like I
wasn't that long ago we lost and Auburn lost to Yale,
(36:37):
and I mean it wasn't like the nil was going then.
I often wonder what the rev share ross, if it'll
actually Okay. So you mentioned let's say two point eight
million dollars was the basketball number.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
I mean a school.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Like Oakland, maybe they can't find two point eight, Maybe
they can find one point five. And right now Kentucky
there are reports they're spending ten on this year's roster.
Maybe it actually brings the amount of money down in
college basketball a little bit, you.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
Know, maybe. Yeah, I think you know, one of the
big things this past year that really came to light.
I feel like was all the players on SEC teams
and other teams, but SEC specifically actually that were at
mid majors the year before or the two years before, right,
(37:29):
And it's just like a graduation up to the next
level that probably won't stop and probably we'll only get
more popular and increase more with the with the revshare era.
So that's the kind of the concern is you know,
(37:50):
is that but you're you know, you're right. Money doesn't
Money doesn't just buy obviously championships and wins. And we've
seen that, right, We've seen that through the years that
you can spend I mean, look at you know, honestly,
look at some of the things that Boise State has
done just even before the pre and I the NIL
(38:13):
era and the resources that they had and they were able.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
To get Zaga and basketball has created to where they're
basically a power program. All Right, I just want to
give you Ross Allender, Yahoo Sports. I'll just give you
a couple of things before you get out. If you
were an average fan, like, what are you what do
you think is the storyline of the next year from
a big picture college sports thing, is it watch this settlement?
(38:38):
Watch how these schools do with the twenty point two
million dollars. What are you watching for over the course
of the next year of news.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
You know, it's it's certainly the revshare and how it
is distributed among schools is really fascinating to me. And
that you mentioned earlier how much coaches are are going
to be kind of in fighting with one another a
little bit. And I think I think some of those
(39:11):
could be fights that are taken publicly at RISS conferences.
You know, you can imagine in a football game, uh
and I'm just throw out random SEC teams of Kentucky
right pulls an upset or I'm sorry, if Kentucky loses
to Auburn in a game football game, you could see
(39:34):
maybe Kentucky's coach just casually mentioning mentioning in the postgame
news conference that Auburn pays its football roster four million
dollars more.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Then if Cow was here still, you can guarantee they
would have been going He and Stoops would have been
going at each other. I don't love Hope and Stoops will,
but Ross if Cow was here, that would have definitely happened.
Speaker 3 (39:57):
Yeah, And that's and that's why the SEC spent so
much time on having a maximum sort of standard of
resshia per sport. But again it was kind of kind
of derailed, and so now it's kind of anything you want.
Speaker 2 (40:14):
What's the coaches, what's the team with the most likely
to do that? I'm gonna just off the top of
my head say Bruce Pearl versus Hugh Free.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
I could see that.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
Wouldn't bean one where they are fighting over. Can you
think of one that makes.
Speaker 3 (40:26):
Well, I look at someone, Yeah, I look at some
of the programs with that we've kind of discussed already
that have really big, kind of historic success, championship level
success and a really aggressive coach at sports that aren't
football in basketball. So again, like a baseball program at
(40:49):
LSU or women's basketball program at South Carolina, you know,
those sports are going to have to, you would think,
to stay competitive, have to get a pretty large majority
of the revenue share, which then takes away from other sports.
You know, Mississippi State just hired Virginia's coach Brian O'Connor,
(41:12):
and part of the hire was certainly a promise of
significant revenue share for the baseball program. Well, that comes
at somebody of other sports, it has to.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
That's interesting because Misissippi State is another perfect example. You
could see them skimping on one of the other sports,
and the SEC dynamic of it is is fascinating. So
who do And then I mean my last question, who
are the forward thinkers? Like? You know, who are the
people if you were to say this is the Ross Dellinger,
(41:44):
these are the five people that are going to have
the biggest impact on what college sports look like in
twenty thirty and are kind of the leaders of the pact.
They could be college presidents, it could be conference commissioners,
it could be senators. Who are the people that you think,
I think are really going to be deciding where we
are in twenty thirty.
Speaker 3 (42:03):
M Well, certainly one is Greg Sank. Yes, he's commissioner,
He's probably he's probably the top one, you know, if
you have to pick somebody in politics, Uh, you know,
there's obviously there's one person who's been more outspoken on
on this stuff, which is Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
Why do what he cares so much?
Speaker 3 (42:28):
I'm guessing just in a football sports type of state
like Texas, I think it's probably also good for your
constituents to stick up for athletics and sort of preserve
college athletics. So I would say.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
His colleagues hate him.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Of all the he's like the least popular senator, So
it's weird that he if he's the one saying it,
I wonder if it makes people just want to argue
with him.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
Just because another another politician, I would say, is the president.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
You know, that's interesting. What role do you think Donald
Trump will haven't if any.
Speaker 3 (43:02):
Well, He's toyed with the idea of obviously issue in
executive order and potentially creating a presidential commission over college sports,
and right now I think that stuff's on pause, but
I would expect him to to take a reinterest in
it soon enough. So I think I think he would
(43:22):
be potentially on that on that list you know of
folks that could really influence going forward. And then you know,
you look at the other commissioner from the Power Conference
Power too. You know, is Tony Pettitia the Big ten
and the influential maybe presidents in his league, in in
(43:44):
Greg Sanki's league, as you know, moving the moving college
sports forward in a different way.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
The Trump factor is an interesting one to me because
I feel like he would be much more of a
hindrance than a help no matter what he does, because
since he is such a figure that people either line
up for or against, if you're trying to create consensus,
which I think they're going to have to pass sixty
senators in the filibuster. That's why I thought that Ted
(44:14):
Cruz Corey Booker thing was an interesting idea because you
get the two of them together, you probably can get
it passed. I wonder if Trump win in would only
make things worse.
Speaker 3 (44:23):
Well, there's a reason that the Presidential Commission that they
had thought about launching is now paused.
Speaker 1 (44:30):
Okay, you think that's why.
Speaker 3 (44:32):
I think that's part of the reason why.
Speaker 2 (44:34):
Yes, interesting, Yeah, I can tell you have more to
say on that, but you may have to be careful
because Nick Saban was supposed to be in charge of it,
and then he said they didn't think they needed.
Speaker 3 (44:45):
It, right right right. I just I'll say this. I
say that the leader of who was supposed to be
the leader the Presidential Commission, a man named Cody Campbell,
was a big Texas businessman and a Texas Tech Board member.
You know, his ideas were a lot of similar ideas
(45:06):
to a lot of the Super League ideas that you've seen,
kind of flooding around, which is a consolidation of media
rights for all the FBS or all the the power
conference schools, and spreading the distribution, spreading the revenue out
a little more evenly. Well, if you're the SEC in
Big ten and you have an advantage in revenue, you
(45:28):
have an advantage right now, why would you want to
blow all that up? And so I think the SEC
in Big ten probably didn't quite like the idea of
Cody Campbell, this this man running the Presidential Commission when
he had these ideas, And so I think partly that
(45:49):
and partly the impact that the president's involvement would have
on the Senate negotiations, like we talked about earlier over
a bill, are reasons why it probably got paused.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
Mitch McConnell is probably the reason Louisville is in the
a CEC. So sometimes it can be one senator or
one whoever in the right spot that makes the difference. Ross,
you really do do an awesome job on this. And
if you're listening Ross Ellinger on on Twitter, I'm not
calling it x but on Twitter you can follow him
(46:21):
and his writing. On Yahoo, keep it up and every
time your one of your things comes up, I go,
uh oh, what's the next thing that's that's happened.
Speaker 1 (46:30):
And I do wish Cal.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
I do think it'd be funny to watch Cal and
mark student's fight over revenue. Appreciate the time and your cat,
your big cat guy.
Speaker 3 (46:38):
I know my good cat is lurking around there.
Speaker 1 (46:40):
All right. Well, thank you for your time. Appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
Yeah, absolutely, thanks Matt,
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.