February 23, 2026 • 22 mins
Jon Wilner of The San Jose Mercury News and Wilner Hotline joins Dick Fain and Hugh Millen to talk about the college basketball schedule, the amount of travel for the Huskies hoops team, the Demond Williams situation, UCLA playing in the Rose Bowl, and more.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's time for our weekly Pac twelve conversation with San
Jose Mercury News reporter John Wilner, brought to you by
Simply Seattle. Our friends at simply Seattle dot com have
the most amazing collection of all things Seattle Seahawks gear
u w hat some of the largest selection of Sonics
gear anywhere in the world. Learn more at simply Seattle
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Ah transitioning out of football into college basketball, though I'm
sure you and I will have some college football questions
for the great John Willner who joins us. Hi, John,
how are you? Oh? We got John underwater?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Let's try it again, ask him again?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Yes, John, are you there?
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Are you?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Are you drowning?
Speaker 4 (00:45):
I got you?
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Got got me?
Speaker 3 (00:47):
There we go.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
That's that's that's better.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Sometimes, you know, the phone's and the phone gets a little
it gets a little crazy. So, uh, you know, John,
we were we were talking earlier today to to Mike
de Coursey. We're kind of transitioning into the big games
in collllege basketball, moving towards March Madness, which, believe it
or not, is only three weeks away.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
I mean it is coming quick.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
And you talked about wanting to push the college basketball
season back a little bit later.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Talk about why you want to do that.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Yeah, this has been a a little project of mine
for years, is getting them to move. You know, the
season used to start Thanksgiving weekend with like the Great
Alaski Shootout and the Maui Invitational, and over time it
has moved up in next year. I think that the
season openers next year like November two, And I just
(01:36):
think there is too much overlap between college basketball and
the football season, both the college and the NFL. And
that's problematic for college basketball because it's a good product,
but it gets lost when football is rolling. And if
Roger Goodell gets his way and the NFL adds an
(01:59):
eighteenth game and they pushed the Super Bowl back another
week into February, there's going to be even a smaller
window for college basketball to kind of shine and be
on center stage. So my whole thing is start it later,
started in late November or early December, make it a
one semester sport, and move the start of the tournament
(02:21):
back to the end of March. You can still call
it March Madness, but that way you'd have more of
your premier product available when there's more eyeballs on it.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
So that's the John Wilner plan. Is there anybody talking
about that or where the roadblocks to it? What's that?
It is terrible?
Speaker 4 (02:45):
I mean, I haven't they There is very little. As
far as I know, there's very little movement to change it.
Part of that is because everybody in college basketball is
so you know, they like having March Madness. They just
the whole month, the way the tournaments, you know, conference
championship week and the two weeks of conference championships and
(03:06):
then the tournament. It's like college basketball is March. Okay,
that's fine, but you could also have early April because
there's still not that much going on in early April.
Right Opening Days is one day. I don't think that
MLB is a huge impediment to March Madness. As long
as you're done before the NBA playoffs start, I think
(03:29):
it's fine. A lot of people say, oh, well, you
know the Master, CBS wants the Final Four where it
is because the Masters and you can't play this, you know,
the earlier rounds. But the amount of time that the
Masters is actually on CBS on that Saturday and Sunday
is not all that much. The biggest issue would be advertising,
(03:49):
because I have been told that the TV advertisers they
block their spending in three month increments, and so you know,
they spend and a lot in March for the first quarter,
and then you'd have to convince them to hold some
money to also spend on the NCAA's in April when
(04:10):
they actually want to spend it on the NBA. So
that's like a business side obstacle. But you know, they
could move it back. They could still move it back
a couple of weeks.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
John, the Huskies are zero to four in games decided
by four points or less. I mean that this could
be a far different season if even two, let alone
three or four of those games go differently. And I'm wondering.
You wrote a piece and I think you alluded to
it last week when you were on about the compounding
(04:41):
factor of the UDUB and the other West Coast PAC
twelve former Pac twelve teams traveling in this big ten,
And I'm thinking, God, you look at the Huskies in
these close games. It might not only just be an
injured team, but a fatigued team that can't get over
the top of those close games. And instead of you know,
five and eleven. They can be eight and eight, nine
(05:03):
and seven and be right there.
Speaker 4 (05:06):
Yeah, I mean, I'm they've only had four games decided
by that fuel points, you know, a lot, four conference games,
four conference games out of what has it been, fifteen sixteen,
you know, Yeah, so you know, fatigue to be a
factor with that, with the injuries. Oregon's had a ton
of injuries. Now, I'm not going to blame all the
(05:26):
injuries on the travel, but I do think when you're
going to the Eastern and Central time zones three four times,
it's harder each time. It takes more of a toll
each time, and then you've got to go back for
the conference tournaments, you know. And it's not just it's
just it's not just Washington. I mean, if you look
(05:47):
at how all four teams have played on the road
in the Big Ten over the course of what's almost
two years now, it's not very good. And you know
the other issue is and mc cronin, as much as
he complains about travel, he does have a good point.
(06:08):
Sometimes the way the Big Ten schedules is Washington will
come back from a trip or UCLA will come back
from a trip, and they'll play a Big Ten team
that has already been on the West coast, playing Oregon
or playing USC. Right, so Washington comes home after a
trip and they're playing say Nebraska, and Nebraska was just
in Eugene for three days. Nebraska's actually had less travel
(06:31):
than Washington in that case.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
John Wilner with US at Wilner Hotline on X and
John Dick may pull you back to basketball, but I'm
looking at your articles. One you wrote this weekend the
headline assessing the top offensive transfers for the PAC twelve
Legacy schools. Well, I know that's Washington that's involved in
us on the football side here just kind of tell us,
(06:56):
tell us to take away with a little bit of
a key towards the Huskies about that calm.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Well, that was actually authored by my buddy Brandon Hoffman
from twenty four to seven sports, and his big thing
was Jaden Lamar. Jaden Lamar is going to be a
big deal for the Huskies, right, And that's a Seattle
kid goes to Oregon, you know, reversus course, and now
he's coming home and he's gonna with with Coleman Levin
(07:27):
and Mohammed's leaving. You know, Lamar's probably gonna be the guy, right,
So that's a big He's a big deal for Washington's
success in the in the fall. I mean, I know
they've got several holes, they got a plug, but certainly
having a playmaker in the backfield, it would be a
big deal. And he's got a ton of talent. He
(07:48):
just didn't end up playing that much for Oregon down
the stretch because Oregon had so many good running backs.
So you know, like a lot of kids, he's he's
going home for a little bit of a second chance.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
John, you wrote a piece about DeMont Williams contract that
we didn't get to in yesterday's or in last week's
conversation entitled behind the Contract that stopped Demand Williams from transferring.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Give us some.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Of the lowdown in what you found out from that contract.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
Well, what I did is I reached out to so
you know, in case there's any any of your listeners
don't understand exactly what happened the contract. The revenue sharing
contract that Washington used with Demant Williams was based on
a template that was provided by the Big Ten office.
The Big Ten gave all eighteen schools a template and
(08:36):
you could adjust it to suit your specific situation with
a given player, but the basic framework was the same
for all eighteen schools. And that framework basically held the
players held Demon Williams to their word, and if he left,
(08:57):
he was, based on the terms of the contract, he
was going to have to, you know, basically pay back
the four million dollars. And so it was written in
a way by the Big Ten and I reached out
to the Big Ten's legal council, their their general counsel
about it. And the way it was written specifically was
to hold both sides accountable so that a player could not, say,
(09:22):
sign a repshare contract and then go to another school.
And that's exactly what we saw with Duke Darien Mensa,
Duke's quarterback, signed a revenue share contract, but it wasn't
as air tight as what the Big Ten did, and
so Mensa was able to negotiate his way out and
he's now at Miami. So Miami basically takes a quarterback
(09:43):
from Duke because the contract was not rock solid enough.
Williams had to stay in Washington because that contract was
air tight.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Airtight in the sense had he the only option he
would have had, let's just say in a hype pathetical
world wink wink. LSU had said to him after he
signed that, hey, we'll pay you a six million. So
then now he Demond is thinking, well, I can I
can play for six million and all the advantages there
(10:15):
at LSU. But based on the contract, I mean, Demon
Williams is now the four million. So LSU's gonna have
to pay four million to Washington plus the six million. Now,
all of a sudden, he becomes a ten million dollar quarterback.
And with revenue sharing, nobody's worth ten million. I mean,
Vernanda Mendoza isn't worth ten million. John Elway isn't worth
(10:37):
ten million? Is that generally the gist of it? Or
or is there some other item attendant to all of this?
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Well that's the plus one more thing, which is, according
to the rules of the revenue sharing LSU would then
have the amount of the buyout docked from their revenue
share allotment for next year. They would have had to
pay Washington, Hey Williams and then also been out the
(11:05):
four million. So it would have been a huge hurdle
financially for LSU or in Miami or whoever wherever he
would have gone. Because of that additional component in the
settlement on the house lawsuit. So it was an exorbitant
expense for LSU not worth it. And then of course
(11:28):
Williams and his inner circle were not going to want
to take the hit either, And that was the beauty
of the way the Big Ten wrote the contract. John.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
We found out over the weekend at UCLA will play
in the Rose Bowl in twenty twenty six for their
home games. Is this just kicking the can down the
road or is there a potential that could continue past
twenty twenty six.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
Well, I think it's going to continue.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Pass.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
It was a you know, a slight development in their
lawsuit with the city that favors favors Pasadena. Basically in
the long run here UCLA, it's simple, it's a money
issue for them. They think that they could get more
money for a home game because the suits at Sofi Stadium,
and they think that they could get you know, fifteen
(12:15):
to twenty million more per home games. So I think
that this is going to end up with them being
in the Rose Bowl, which to me is the right move.
I think that going to Sofi would further cast UCLA
into irrelevance in the LA sports market. To be honest
with you, I think that they have an identity with
(12:37):
the Rose Bowl and they would lose that. And plus
a lot of UCLA fans aren't gonna have any more
interest in going to SOFI than they are in going
to the Rose Bowl.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
John Wilder with us, John, I want you to imagine
you're in a bar. You're sitting with a bunch of
Husky fans, me and Dick and SOFTI and others, and
we got a purple hat. We're just with honking exactly
the Hanks, And we got our purple hats on and
our sweatshirts and all, and we're having a beer. And
you say, and you say at some point, you know,
(13:08):
I'm not sure if you guys are thinking about this,
but something I think you should be thinking about is blank.
What's the blank in that conversation out of the mouth
of John Wilner.
Speaker 4 (13:21):
Oh boy, that's a good question. I think that it
would be something that has to do with the Big
Ten and the future of the Big Ten and U
dubs place in the landscape. You know, and you guys
have probably thought about this stuff already, but you know,
(13:44):
to me, we are very close, much closer than people
think to the next chapter in college sports starting to unfold, right,
because the Big Tens TV deal ends in the after
the twenty nine football season. Well, you know, realignment and expansion,
that stuff doesn't just happen in the blink of an eye.
(14:06):
It happens the years in advance. And so I think
we're only this is early twenty six. We're probably eighteen
months twenty four months max away from the Big Ten
and its TV partners and the schools starting to have
quiet conversations about what's next. And you know, is Washington
(14:30):
going to be a part of what's next? And what
role is Washington gonna have? How is the Big Ten
gonna distribute its revenue over time? Is Washington and to
get to a one hundred percent share? Those are the
kind of things that have to be decided, and it's
going to happen. The decisions are going to be made
(14:51):
very quietly in back rooms long before we get to
twenty thirty, when the next contract cycle starts.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Why wouldn't Washington a part of what's next? I mean,
they're a top third program in the cunt in the
Big Ten.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
Well I would think that they will be, but I
don't think Washington should assume anything in terms of the
commitment to winning. Like Washington, and it's the same with
all the schools. You have got to do everything you
can win and be relevant in the next two or
three years. We don't know for sure that there will
be a Big Ten in the mid twenty thirties, right correct.
(15:29):
There's a chance that Ohio State and Michigan are gonna decide,
you know what, let's team up with Texas and Alabama
and Georgia and Notre Dame and we're going to form
a league of twenty four to thirty two teams. And
you'd think Washington would be in that group. You don't
know for sure. That's the thing, and that's not there's
(15:52):
a non zero chance of that happening, that's the thing.
It's not it's probably not likely, but the chance is
above zero. So Washington has got to take the mentality of,
you know, we cannot leave anything to chance in what
we do with our football program for the next three
or four seasons.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
And that that scenario, that that does not involve Michigan
and Ohio State and whatever the quote unquote blue bloods
of the Big Ten, that that's not joined in the SEC.
That's the creation of a new entity as you're describing, correct.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
Or No, I don't see them joining the SEC. My
thought all along has been that it would be the
top schools leaving to form something new, yes, and not
either cutting out like I don't see the Big Ten
booting Minnesota and Northwestern and Purdue. Right, it's not a
(16:48):
it's not a kicking out or an ex spelling. It's
we're going to leave you behind, and we are going
to form this very elite entity with the backing of
private equity and a couple of TV networks and maybe
even you know, on Netflix, and we're going to just
basically invite two dozen members to join us and leave
(17:12):
everybody be home, everybody behind behind.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
There's something just fundamentally wrong right down the spine of
that plan, because if you're talking about accumulating all the
blue bloods that have traditionally won for decades and decades,
for every win in a game that Ohio State has,
Minnesota who you describe they have a loss, well, Purdue
has a loss for every time Alabama has won a game,
(17:37):
Mississippi State or Vanderbilt has lost a game. So you've
got the all these fan bases that are used to winning.
You throw them all together, guess what, half of them
are going to be winners and half of them are
going to be losers. And how are those those teams,
those programs that have for decades, even a century or
more been winners all the time. Now they are after
(17:59):
a five or ten year period, they're in the bottom half,
or they are the losingess team in this new entity.
And then how is the support gonna be for them?
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Then?
Speaker 3 (18:08):
With with respects to nil and being able to be
you know, competitive on the field. I mean, I just
think there's a fundamental problem with this model.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
There's a lot of folks who do believe that the
Texas will not ever enter into any kind of agreement
where the chances are it's going to be six and
six every year. But I would say that the money
would be so enormous that a lot of them would
feel they have no choice because at that point, the
(18:41):
players have got a union, they have collectively bargained they
are getting forty to forty five percent of the revenue.
It's and a salary. It's a whole different model. That's
how you do that, well, that's how and the schools
will be forced to take this money because of the
change and the economic uh you know landscape, which is
(19:05):
you know, we're just in this is like the awkward
teenage years for college sports right now, this transition, it's
gonna become a mature entity. It's probably gonna take it
on their six or eight or ten years. But that
mature entity is going to be a professional business with
you know, like you said, contracts like the NFL Players
Association has, and the schools are gonna have to take
(19:28):
the money because it's gonna be an enormous amount of money.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yeah, I think you're exactly right, and and I think
Hugh is right to bring up that concern. I just
think I just think that is the way this is heading.
We're gonna have two college football championships. We're gonna have
the Division A College Football Championship. We're gonna have the
Division B College Football champions We're already staying that with
you know, the group of sixes is gonna you know,
(19:52):
it's gonna have a commissioner and they're gonna break away
at some point. But I think the salary cap and
the collective bargain agreement is the answer, John, because then
it's up to each individual school. You got to find
the coach that can coach the kids up the best,
and you got to find the general manager i e.
(20:12):
John Schneider at the college level that can get players
in and not go over the salary cap. That's how
you're not six and six every year because it's a
it's a totally different rule book that you're following.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
It is and the NFL, right, I mean, with the
draft and the schedule, the NFL is geared toward parody
and giving everybody a chance to go from you know what,
three and fourteen to fourteen and three. College football has
never been like that. But and I don't know that
it ever will necessarily even in a super league situation.
(20:50):
But you're right there. You're gonna have to just be
better at evaluating talent and developing talent than the other guys,
and it's gonna be are an incredible personnel department.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Yeah, I can see it happening. I Mean, the answer
to all your questions is money. I get it. Uh,
but I just think you know it's going to be
uh slapping the face guys. When you know all of
these winners, these traditional winners, they are built on the
backs of losers. And now Indiana the Hoosiers were one
of those losers, right and and and they flipped the
(21:22):
tail obviously, so you know, you can you can switch
it around. But at the end of the you know
a period of time, you know, there's gonna be some
team that's really done a lot of winning that's gonna
say what, we're the losing this team in this new
week over the last ten years. Yeah, and then do
you know do we want Are we getting all the
donations that we thought we would be getting.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
No, that's that's right, John. We gotta let you go.
We gotta run to a break. But great stuff, man,
We appreciate it, and we'll chat at you next week.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
That's good.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Thanks guys, Thanks man, Johnny Willner. As always, we'll come back,
get jump on the Seahawk train again and talk a
little at JSN when we come back on ninety three
point three k j R f N
It's time for our weekly Pac twelve conversation with San
Jose Mercury News reporter John Wilner, brought to you by
Simply Seattle. Our friends at simply Seattle dot com have
the most amazing collection of all things Seattle Seahawks gear
u w hat some of the largest selection of Sonics
gear anywhere in the world. Learn more at simply Seattle
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Ah transitioning out of football into college basketball, though I'm
sure you and I will have some college football questions
for the great John Willner who joins us. Hi, John,
how are you? Oh? We got John underwater?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Let's try it again, ask him again?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Yes, John, are you there?
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Are you?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Are you drowning?
Speaker 4 (00:45):
I got you?
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Got got me?
Speaker 3 (00:47):
There we go.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
That's that's that's better.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Sometimes, you know, the phone's and the phone gets a little
it gets a little crazy. So, uh, you know, John,
we were we were talking earlier today to to Mike
de Coursey. We're kind of transitioning into the big games
in collllege basketball, moving towards March Madness, which, believe it
or not, is only three weeks away.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
I mean it is coming quick.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
And you talked about wanting to push the college basketball
season back a little bit later.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Talk about why you want to do that.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Yeah, this has been a a little project of mine
for years, is getting them to move. You know, the
season used to start Thanksgiving weekend with like the Great
Alaski Shootout and the Maui Invitational, and over time it
has moved up in next year. I think that the
season openers next year like November two, And I just
(01:36):
think there is too much overlap between college basketball and
the football season, both the college and the NFL. And
that's problematic for college basketball because it's a good product,
but it gets lost when football is rolling. And if
Roger Goodell gets his way and the NFL adds an
(01:59):
eighteenth game and they pushed the Super Bowl back another
week into February, there's going to be even a smaller
window for college basketball to kind of shine and be
on center stage. So my whole thing is start it later,
started in late November or early December, make it a
one semester sport, and move the start of the tournament
(02:21):
back to the end of March. You can still call
it March Madness, but that way you'd have more of
your premier product available when there's more eyeballs on it.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
So that's the John Wilner plan. Is there anybody talking
about that or where the roadblocks to it? What's that?
It is terrible?
Speaker 4 (02:45):
I mean, I haven't they There is very little. As
far as I know, there's very little movement to change it.
Part of that is because everybody in college basketball is
so you know, they like having March Madness. They just
the whole month, the way the tournaments, you know, conference
championship week and the two weeks of conference championships and
(03:06):
then the tournament. It's like college basketball is March. Okay,
that's fine, but you could also have early April because
there's still not that much going on in early April.
Right Opening Days is one day. I don't think that
MLB is a huge impediment to March Madness. As long
as you're done before the NBA playoffs start, I think
(03:29):
it's fine. A lot of people say, oh, well, you
know the Master, CBS wants the Final Four where it
is because the Masters and you can't play this, you know,
the earlier rounds. But the amount of time that the
Masters is actually on CBS on that Saturday and Sunday
is not all that much. The biggest issue would be advertising,
(03:49):
because I have been told that the TV advertisers they
block their spending in three month increments, and so you know,
they spend and a lot in March for the first quarter,
and then you'd have to convince them to hold some
money to also spend on the NCAA's in April when
(04:10):
they actually want to spend it on the NBA. So
that's like a business side obstacle. But you know, they
could move it back. They could still move it back
a couple of weeks.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
John, the Huskies are zero to four in games decided
by four points or less. I mean that this could
be a far different season if even two, let alone
three or four of those games go differently. And I'm wondering.
You wrote a piece and I think you alluded to
it last week when you were on about the compounding
(04:41):
factor of the UDUB and the other West Coast PAC
twelve former Pac twelve teams traveling in this big ten,
And I'm thinking, God, you look at the Huskies in
these close games. It might not only just be an
injured team, but a fatigued team that can't get over
the top of those close games. And instead of you know,
five and eleven. They can be eight and eight, nine
(05:03):
and seven and be right there.
Speaker 4 (05:06):
Yeah, I mean, I'm they've only had four games decided
by that fuel points, you know, a lot, four conference games,
four conference games out of what has it been, fifteen sixteen,
you know, Yeah, so you know, fatigue to be a
factor with that, with the injuries. Oregon's had a ton
of injuries. Now, I'm not going to blame all the
(05:26):
injuries on the travel, but I do think when you're
going to the Eastern and Central time zones three four times,
it's harder each time. It takes more of a toll
each time, and then you've got to go back for
the conference tournaments, you know. And it's not just it's
just it's not just Washington. I mean, if you look
(05:47):
at how all four teams have played on the road
in the Big Ten over the course of what's almost
two years now, it's not very good. And you know
the other issue is and mc cronin, as much as
he complains about travel, he does have a good point.
(06:08):
Sometimes the way the Big Ten schedules is Washington will
come back from a trip or UCLA will come back
from a trip, and they'll play a Big Ten team
that has already been on the West coast, playing Oregon
or playing USC. Right, so Washington comes home after a
trip and they're playing say Nebraska, and Nebraska was just
in Eugene for three days. Nebraska's actually had less travel
(06:31):
than Washington in that case.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
John Wilner with US at Wilner Hotline on X and
John Dick may pull you back to basketball, but I'm
looking at your articles. One you wrote this weekend the
headline assessing the top offensive transfers for the PAC twelve
Legacy schools. Well, I know that's Washington that's involved in
us on the football side here just kind of tell us,
(06:56):
tell us to take away with a little bit of
a key towards the Huskies about that calm.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Well, that was actually authored by my buddy Brandon Hoffman
from twenty four to seven sports, and his big thing
was Jaden Lamar. Jaden Lamar is going to be a
big deal for the Huskies, right, And that's a Seattle
kid goes to Oregon, you know, reversus course, and now
he's coming home and he's gonna with with Coleman Levin
(07:27):
and Mohammed's leaving. You know, Lamar's probably gonna be the guy, right,
So that's a big He's a big deal for Washington's
success in the in the fall. I mean, I know
they've got several holes, they got a plug, but certainly
having a playmaker in the backfield, it would be a
big deal. And he's got a ton of talent. He
(07:48):
just didn't end up playing that much for Oregon down
the stretch because Oregon had so many good running backs.
So you know, like a lot of kids, he's he's
going home for a little bit of a second chance.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
John, you wrote a piece about DeMont Williams contract that
we didn't get to in yesterday's or in last week's
conversation entitled behind the Contract that stopped Demand Williams from transferring.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Give us some.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Of the lowdown in what you found out from that contract.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
Well, what I did is I reached out to so
you know, in case there's any any of your listeners
don't understand exactly what happened the contract. The revenue sharing
contract that Washington used with Demant Williams was based on
a template that was provided by the Big Ten office.
The Big Ten gave all eighteen schools a template and
(08:36):
you could adjust it to suit your specific situation with
a given player, but the basic framework was the same
for all eighteen schools. And that framework basically held the
players held Demon Williams to their word, and if he left,
(08:57):
he was, based on the terms of the contract, he
was going to have to, you know, basically pay back
the four million dollars. And so it was written in
a way by the Big Ten and I reached out
to the Big Ten's legal council, their their general counsel
about it. And the way it was written specifically was
to hold both sides accountable so that a player could not, say,
(09:22):
sign a repshare contract and then go to another school.
And that's exactly what we saw with Duke Darien Mensa,
Duke's quarterback, signed a revenue share contract, but it wasn't
as air tight as what the Big Ten did, and
so Mensa was able to negotiate his way out and
he's now at Miami. So Miami basically takes a quarterback
(09:43):
from Duke because the contract was not rock solid enough.
Williams had to stay in Washington because that contract was
air tight.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Airtight in the sense had he the only option he
would have had, let's just say in a hype pathetical
world wink wink. LSU had said to him after he
signed that, hey, we'll pay you a six million. So
then now he Demond is thinking, well, I can I
can play for six million and all the advantages there
(10:15):
at LSU. But based on the contract, I mean, Demon
Williams is now the four million. So LSU's gonna have
to pay four million to Washington plus the six million. Now,
all of a sudden, he becomes a ten million dollar quarterback.
And with revenue sharing, nobody's worth ten million. I mean,
Vernanda Mendoza isn't worth ten million. John Elway isn't worth
(10:37):
ten million? Is that generally the gist of it? Or
or is there some other item attendant to all of this?
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Well that's the plus one more thing, which is, according
to the rules of the revenue sharing LSU would then
have the amount of the buyout docked from their revenue
share allotment for next year. They would have had to
pay Washington, Hey Williams and then also been out the
(11:05):
four million. So it would have been a huge hurdle
financially for LSU or in Miami or whoever wherever he
would have gone. Because of that additional component in the
settlement on the house lawsuit. So it was an exorbitant
expense for LSU not worth it. And then of course
(11:28):
Williams and his inner circle were not going to want
to take the hit either, And that was the beauty
of the way the Big Ten wrote the contract. John.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
We found out over the weekend at UCLA will play
in the Rose Bowl in twenty twenty six for their
home games. Is this just kicking the can down the
road or is there a potential that could continue past
twenty twenty six.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
Well, I think it's going to continue.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Pass.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
It was a you know, a slight development in their
lawsuit with the city that favors favors Pasadena. Basically in
the long run here UCLA, it's simple, it's a money
issue for them. They think that they could get more
money for a home game because the suits at Sofi Stadium,
and they think that they could get you know, fifteen
(12:15):
to twenty million more per home games. So I think
that this is going to end up with them being
in the Rose Bowl, which to me is the right move.
I think that going to Sofi would further cast UCLA
into irrelevance in the LA sports market. To be honest
with you, I think that they have an identity with
(12:37):
the Rose Bowl and they would lose that. And plus
a lot of UCLA fans aren't gonna have any more
interest in going to SOFI than they are in going
to the Rose Bowl.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
John Wilder with us, John, I want you to imagine
you're in a bar. You're sitting with a bunch of
Husky fans, me and Dick and SOFTI and others, and
we got a purple hat. We're just with honking exactly
the Hanks, And we got our purple hats on and
our sweatshirts and all, and we're having a beer. And
you say, and you say at some point, you know,
(13:08):
I'm not sure if you guys are thinking about this,
but something I think you should be thinking about is blank.
What's the blank in that conversation out of the mouth
of John Wilner.
Speaker 4 (13:21):
Oh boy, that's a good question. I think that it
would be something that has to do with the Big
Ten and the future of the Big Ten and U
dubs place in the landscape. You know, and you guys
have probably thought about this stuff already, but you know,
(13:44):
to me, we are very close, much closer than people
think to the next chapter in college sports starting to unfold, right,
because the Big Tens TV deal ends in the after
the twenty nine football season. Well, you know, realignment and expansion,
that stuff doesn't just happen in the blink of an eye.
(14:06):
It happens the years in advance. And so I think
we're only this is early twenty six. We're probably eighteen
months twenty four months max away from the Big Ten
and its TV partners and the schools starting to have
quiet conversations about what's next. And you know, is Washington
(14:30):
going to be a part of what's next? And what
role is Washington gonna have? How is the Big Ten
gonna distribute its revenue over time? Is Washington and to
get to a one hundred percent share? Those are the
kind of things that have to be decided, and it's
going to happen. The decisions are going to be made
(14:51):
very quietly in back rooms long before we get to
twenty thirty, when the next contract cycle starts.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Why wouldn't Washington a part of what's next? I mean,
they're a top third program in the cunt in the
Big Ten.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
Well I would think that they will be, but I
don't think Washington should assume anything in terms of the
commitment to winning. Like Washington, and it's the same with
all the schools. You have got to do everything you
can win and be relevant in the next two or
three years. We don't know for sure that there will
be a Big Ten in the mid twenty thirties, right correct.
(15:29):
There's a chance that Ohio State and Michigan are gonna decide,
you know what, let's team up with Texas and Alabama
and Georgia and Notre Dame and we're going to form
a league of twenty four to thirty two teams. And
you'd think Washington would be in that group. You don't
know for sure. That's the thing, and that's not there's
(15:52):
a non zero chance of that happening, that's the thing.
It's not it's probably not likely, but the chance is
above zero. So Washington has got to take the mentality of,
you know, we cannot leave anything to chance in what
we do with our football program for the next three
or four seasons.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
And that that scenario, that that does not involve Michigan
and Ohio State and whatever the quote unquote blue bloods
of the Big Ten, that that's not joined in the SEC.
That's the creation of a new entity as you're describing, correct.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
Or No, I don't see them joining the SEC. My
thought all along has been that it would be the
top schools leaving to form something new, yes, and not
either cutting out like I don't see the Big Ten
booting Minnesota and Northwestern and Purdue. Right, it's not a
(16:48):
it's not a kicking out or an ex spelling. It's
we're going to leave you behind, and we are going
to form this very elite entity with the backing of
private equity and a couple of TV networks and maybe
even you know, on Netflix, and we're going to just
basically invite two dozen members to join us and leave
(17:12):
everybody be home, everybody behind behind.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
There's something just fundamentally wrong right down the spine of
that plan, because if you're talking about accumulating all the
blue bloods that have traditionally won for decades and decades,
for every win in a game that Ohio State has,
Minnesota who you describe they have a loss, well, Purdue
has a loss for every time Alabama has won a game,
(17:37):
Mississippi State or Vanderbilt has lost a game. So you've
got the all these fan bases that are used to winning.
You throw them all together, guess what, half of them
are going to be winners and half of them are
going to be losers. And how are those those teams,
those programs that have for decades, even a century or
more been winners all the time. Now they are after
(17:59):
a five or ten year period, they're in the bottom half,
or they are the losingess team in this new entity.
And then how is the support gonna be for them?
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Then?
Speaker 3 (18:08):
With with respects to nil and being able to be
you know, competitive on the field. I mean, I just
think there's a fundamental problem with this model.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
There's a lot of folks who do believe that the
Texas will not ever enter into any kind of agreement
where the chances are it's going to be six and
six every year. But I would say that the money
would be so enormous that a lot of them would
feel they have no choice because at that point, the
(18:41):
players have got a union, they have collectively bargained they
are getting forty to forty five percent of the revenue.
It's and a salary. It's a whole different model. That's
how you do that, well, that's how and the schools
will be forced to take this money because of the
change and the economic uh you know landscape, which is
(19:05):
you know, we're just in this is like the awkward
teenage years for college sports right now, this transition, it's
gonna become a mature entity. It's probably gonna take it
on their six or eight or ten years. But that
mature entity is going to be a professional business with
you know, like you said, contracts like the NFL Players
Association has, and the schools are gonna have to take
(19:28):
the money because it's gonna be an enormous amount of money.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yeah, I think you're exactly right, and and I think
Hugh is right to bring up that concern. I just
think I just think that is the way this is heading.
We're gonna have two college football championships. We're gonna have
the Division A College Football Championship. We're gonna have the
Division B College Football champions We're already staying that with
you know, the group of sixes is gonna you know,
(19:52):
it's gonna have a commissioner and they're gonna break away
at some point. But I think the salary cap and
the collective bargain agreement is the answer, John, because then
it's up to each individual school. You got to find
the coach that can coach the kids up the best,
and you got to find the general manager i e.
(20:12):
John Schneider at the college level that can get players
in and not go over the salary cap. That's how
you're not six and six every year because it's a
it's a totally different rule book that you're following.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
It is and the NFL, right, I mean, with the
draft and the schedule, the NFL is geared toward parody
and giving everybody a chance to go from you know what,
three and fourteen to fourteen and three. College football has
never been like that. But and I don't know that
it ever will necessarily even in a super league situation.
(20:50):
But you're right there. You're gonna have to just be
better at evaluating talent and developing talent than the other guys,
and it's gonna be are an incredible personnel department.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Yeah, I can see it happening. I Mean, the answer
to all your questions is money. I get it. Uh,
but I just think you know it's going to be
uh slapping the face guys. When you know all of
these winners, these traditional winners, they are built on the
backs of losers. And now Indiana the Hoosiers were one
of those losers, right and and and they flipped the
(21:22):
tail obviously, so you know, you can you can switch
it around. But at the end of the you know
a period of time, you know, there's gonna be some
team that's really done a lot of winning that's gonna
say what, we're the losing this team in this new
week over the last ten years. Yeah, and then do
you know do we want Are we getting all the
donations that we thought we would be getting.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
No, that's that's right, John. We gotta let you go.
We gotta run to a break. But great stuff, man,
We appreciate it, and we'll chat at you next week.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
That's good.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Thanks guys, Thanks man, Johnny Willner. As always, we'll come back,
get jump on the Seahawk train again and talk a
little at JSN when we come back on ninety three
point three k j R f N
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @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.