June 3, 2025 • 31 mins
In this episode we speak with returning guest, Ross Dellenger, Senior College Football Reporter for Yahoo Sports about the changing face of college football. We talk with Ross about
- the position of the NCAA House settlement Bill
- SEC moves to favour a 5+11 CFP Playoff format and what this does for the SEC/BIG10 “alliance”
- When will the SEC move to a 9 conference schedule?
- Private Equity involvement in CFB
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We're not going to comment on that. I'll get fine
for the rest of my life if I get comment
on that.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Natural Championships.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
That young girls.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Hey everyone, and welcome to the College Chaps podcast. On
our last episode, we talked a little bit about some
of the huge changes happening in college football. So for
this episode, we thought we'd bast get an expert to
help us understand it all. But before we get to
our expert, we have the College Chaps. I'm George, and
I am joined by all of our who is also
an expert. I'm not going to be disingenuous. Ollie, how
(00:51):
are you my friend?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I was going to say, George, that the nice plot
introduction you've ever done to me. I don't think you
have said anything. It is the nicest thing anyone said
to me today. To be honest, I.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Liking you to Aunt Deck last week. I think I
remember rightly that was I thought that was feast kind.
Our guest makes his third appearance on this podcast, and
what a step down it is from being on the
beach with Greg Zanki and Paul fine Bomb last week
in Florida. So it's a warm welcome back to Yahoo
Sports Senior college football writer Ross Dellinger, Hi, Ross, welcome back.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
How are you hey, George? Good to be on.
Speaker 4 (01:28):
Its good to see you, and we do appreciate you
hustling to get in to speak to So let's get
into it.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Ross.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
We know that you are in the middle of a
lot of this stuff, and I wanted to touch before
we got onto what happened in Destin last week. I
wanted to touch a little bit on the house settlement
because this is something that everybody thought was going to
come through in April, and the it was pushed to June,
and now it's been extended, I believe, to the twenty
(01:57):
seventy June, which is awfully close to the first of July.
What I've got a question, but what's your sense about
where this is all heiding? And I guess my my
doomsday question is, well, what happens if it's not all
signed and delivered on the twenty seventh of June, because
that that leaves schools in a better predicament.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, it's it's pretty shocking that it's June third, almost
exactly two months since the final hearing held in Oakland
that I attended. I don't think anybody thought that it
would it would be this long, that it would be
this extended. I think most people thought, certainly by the
(02:41):
end of April, that she would rule. But you know,
she had one issue with the settlement, the roster limits
that the settlement imposes on teams, and basically it would
lead to the elimination of over five thousand and as
(03:03):
much as probably fifteen thousand roster spots and athletes would
be cut and have been cut because of it, and
she kind of targeted that section as being an issue,
and so, without going into detail of each filing, it's
been basically two months or so of back and forth
(03:24):
between the judge and the plaintiff, attorneys and defendants, the
NCAAA and the power Conferences in the athletes that are suing.
It's been kind of a back and forth on how
to handle this roster situation. And the latest filing was
about a little over two weeks ago where the NCAAA
(03:44):
and the Power Conferences filed a response to these group
of people that are objecting to the settlement on the
grounds of the roster limits. And so it's kind of
been in the judge's hands now for over two weeks
and the Power conferences in the NCAAA have decided to grandfather,
(04:06):
and players who are currently on rosters that way, they don't.
They're not cut. The problem is a lot of them
I've already been cut. And the other problem is it's
a it's optional for schools to grandfather, so it's not mandatory.
So there's a question whether that the judge will take
exception to that. But it's yeah, it's been in her
(04:27):
hands for a couple of weeks now and kind of
mostly radio silence. You mentioned the June twenty seventh, so
there's a little bit of confusion this week Wednesday. So
June fourth, I believe was supposed to be the deadline
for each of the parties to file. I think it's
(04:50):
called summary judgment. I get the lingo attorney lingo a
little confused sometimes, but it's basically the start of going
to court for the for this case. And so she
just extended that deadline about three weeks, which you know,
you would think that she'll roll by that deadline, since
(05:12):
that's the deadline that the parties have to file now.
But I think a lot of people thought she would
roll by this deadline of June fifth, and she had
or June fourth, and she hadn't. So yeah, we're just
kind of in a state of waiting.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
And I'm a connected to saying that from one July
schools can should be paying athletes at that moment in time.
So what happens if there isn't a ruling because that
kind of throws things into a little bit of chaos
in that respect, isn't it, Because some schools will take
(05:49):
a decision to do it and some schools perhaps or
decide not to do it. And as you say, rosters
have already been you know, manipulated cut in that respect.
So what happens if we don't have a decision by
twenty seven?
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Yeah, you know, there there are a lot of problems
with the settlement. There are a lot of issues that
will be exposed. It's not a complete solution, obviously, but
it it is probably the better alternative then not having
a settlement at all. And so if it is denied,
(06:27):
I hate to use the word cataclysmic, but it could be. Uh,
it could be that. I think you'll have some schools
like you mentioned, begin to share revenue directly with athletes
under a system without a cap, completely unregulated, probably no
(06:53):
enforcement entity or no clearinghouse for third party booster deals.
It would just be a completely unregulated market similar to now,
but schools will be directly paying athletes. You know, I
think some schools will have the advantage because their state
law allows them to do certain things that other schools
(07:15):
and other states can't do. I think you'll probably have
the NCAA begin the process of changing rules to allow
schools to do certain things like sharing revenue, like expanding scholarships.
As the settlement does, you'll probably have some of those
things have to be changed. And the settlement kind of
(07:43):
binds the Power Conferences to the NCAAA through the duration
of the settlement, which was ten years, because the NCAAA
in its lower level schools outside of the Power Conferences
are helping pay the tab. Basically, they're helping pay the
back damages. It binds everybody together. So that is a
(08:03):
separate conversation. But if the settlements not approved, that bind
doesn't exist, and there's probably a really good chance that
you'll have the Power Conferences breakaway and probably begin setting
their own regulation in roles in a separate governing entity.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
And I guess you know, in law you should never
assume anything but if there were real issues with this
settlement bill, then you would like to think that the
judge would have predicated any kind of outcome a negative
outcome by this point, and as you say, there has
been some doing and throwing on it, so it would
(08:52):
be it would be remarkable if there was a cliff
edge come the twenty seventh of Juna that doesn't feel
intuitively under should end up.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Yeah, I think that most people in college athletics believe
that she will approve it, and that she's taken a
while to either number one, write in order that stands
(09:22):
up to an appeal, or and she's making sure that
the objectors kind of know that they've been heard, and
she's given them time, you know, thoughtful kind of time
to think about their objections. So that's kind of like
(09:43):
the going theory. But there are certainly plenty of people,
some in college athletics, but many of them outside of
college athletics, that believes she's writing a denial order, you know,
and that's why it's taking a while, because she's denying
the settlement and needs to come up with reasons why
(10:08):
still would be I think that would be a surprise
to a lot of folks but you know, there's a
lot of speculational why she's taken so long and how
she'll rule and really, and I get asked every day,
maybe two, three, four times a day, when's the settlement
(10:28):
coming down? When's the ruling coming down? And there really
is only one person in the world that knows when
it's coming down potentially and how it will be ruled on,
and that is her, and maybe a clerk or two
in her office, but probably not even that. It's probably
(10:49):
just her. And as much as I've reported on the settlement,
I don't text with the judge, so she's not letting
me in on any.
Speaker 4 (11:03):
School how disappointing us.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
How settlement appears to be more lockdown than the NFL
drafters because you can find out days in advancages getting
away in the NFL draft these days. That is obviously
the house. Selbourn has been a major off field topic
of conversation throughout the off season and beyond really obviously
even in the SEC spring meetings, where there's also been
(11:30):
a lot of focus on what we're going to see
on the field in the postseason, not just this season,
but for the future of the college football playoffs as well.
The SEC Spring meetings is usually a good barometer for
the mood of how those decisions ultimately will pan out.
What's the feeling with the future of the college football
(11:53):
playoff for us off the back of those meetings is
the SEC SEC as it has done for a while,
still favoring plus eleventh format. Is there a wind of
change that blowing through that conversation.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Yeah, it's it's kind of like the House settlement. It's
very uncertain right now. The future of the playoff format,
you know, right now playoff format is twelve teams. You
have seven at large and five spots for conference champions,
the four Power conference champions and then one from the
(12:26):
group of six conferences. And the SEC and Big Ten
have authority on a future format. It was granted to
them by the other conferences last spring in order to
keep them in the CFP and keep them from breaking away,
actually they threaten to break away. In part of the
(12:48):
deal was to give them more money and distribution, which
they did and grant them the right to control future
access in format. So they've been meeting together a few
times over the last year of the SEC and Big
Ten and came especially for the Big Ten side came
(13:09):
to an agreement that they were going to change the
format to a sixteen team format that grants four automatic
qualifiers each to SEC and Big Ten, and two each
to the ACC and Big Twelve, and one group of
group of six champion and then three at large. That
was proposed by the Big Ten originally, and it was
(13:32):
made clear that the SEC was as well in support
of that format over the last several weeks in CFP meetings.
That got a lot of pushback from the Big twelve
and ACC from Notre Dame, from politicians in Congress, even
(13:53):
from ESPN as well, enough pushback that last week the
league decided against that, to the surprise of many in
the Big Ten. And kind of the last straw was
that the SEC had football coaches came out publicly against it,
(14:14):
actually while they were at their meetings, despite athletic directors
being fairly overwhelmingly for it. So it was it was
an interesting it was kind of a curveball throwned last week.
And I think it, you know, I think the pushback
from coaches was sort of a last straw when you
(14:39):
look at all the other pushback that the that this
was receiving. And so now the SEC more so back
to a model that is more at largest, whether that's
five or eleven that's what they specifically focused on last week,
or five to nine with five aqs and then eleven
at large or five aq in nine at large or
(15:01):
the current version five q's and seven at large. I
think I think that that's an issue for the Big Ten.
They wanted multiple aqs. And not only that, but the
SEC plays one fewer conference game, which in a way
(15:21):
is one fewer loss than the Big Ten. The Big
Ten plays nine, the SEC plays eight, And when you're
looking at at large selections and bids into the playoff,
the selection committee looks a lot at losses. So they're
kind of in a at an impasse, kind of that
a stalemate a little bit, you know. I think they
(15:43):
would move to a five to eleven if the SEC
and the ACC moved to nine conference games, which is
where the Big Ten and Big twelve are. They're both
at eight instead right now, like I mentioned earlier, and
but I don't know that they can get there. I
don't know that the SEC, which is and pushing back
on going to nine conference football games for a while,
(16:04):
I don't know if they can get to that point,
everybody kind of thought they were there, but last week
changed a lot of that because when you're not guaranteed
certain playoff spots, I think there's a resistance to add
another potential loss for half of your league. If you're
a you're adding another conference game. So it is sort
(16:26):
of it is sort of a stalemate right now, and
from what I'm led to believe is that the Big
Ten and SEC both need to agree on a format
for a format to be adopted.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
It struck me, and I'm clearly being off those males
of e Ross that listening to someone the head coaches
on TV, there was a there was a clear message
to the playoff committee about strength to schedule versus you know,
when the wins columns, and that to me was playing
very much into the nine game schedule right which I
(17:03):
think is just really what you said, which is SEC
not willing to move into that nine game SEC conference
schedule without really understanding how the College FOOTBA Playoff Committee
is going to interview that extra game?
Speaker 5 (17:20):
Is that?
Speaker 4 (17:20):
Do you think that's fair?
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (17:24):
I think so. You know, that was that was a
big topic last week at SEC meetings, was the selection
committee criteria, and you know what they look at. There
was a lot of talk from coaches and ads about
(17:45):
the right hand column, which is the lost column, and
in how the selection committee examines looks at that right
hand column too much and not the strength of schedule enough.
And and I think that, you know, I think that
if you look at the selection committee, there's in the
(18:12):
in the criteria they used to select the teams, there's
gonna be changes made in the Big Ten and SEC.
Not only do they control format, but they control the
selection committee. They controlled the selection committee criteria, who's on
the committee, how the committee works, all that stuff. So
(18:36):
I think, uh, I think you'll see the criteria change
to skew more toward the selection committee considering more of
strength the schedule and conference strength the schedule as well.
(18:58):
And I don't know how those that, I don't know
what kind of barometer they'll they'll use, but I think
that that's where it feels like it's headed.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Ross You you just going back to something you said before,
you talked about an impasse between the Big Ten and
the SEC. And obviously there's been this alliance between those
two conferences for quite a while now, and obviously this
conversation about their influence over the college football playoff format
(19:30):
going forward was designed to stop them from breaking away together. Now,
I guess I've got a bit of a two part question.
If these if the two conferences are at an impass
over the college football playoff format and what it means
these different formats for each conference, how big of an
issue is that the impass itself? And then if those
(19:55):
two conferences are at loggerheads, how does that play into
the rest of the breakaway. If the two conferences aren't
in goops as much as they don't agree on certain things,
surely that chance of a breakaway between the two is
kind of a little nullified.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
To a degree it is, I think. I think the
biggest thing that happened that it's going to come out
of last week at SEC meetings is the impact that
this sort of curveball reversal what everyone to call it,
has on the relationship between you know, the two giants
(20:40):
of of the of college Athletics, and you know they're
they're at their athletic directors have met jointly twice in
the last seven eight months or so. They're two commissioners, HM.
You know, they they talk often, they meet often, so
(21:07):
I think that when you look at some of the
things that the SEC and Big Ten were looking at
doing now all of a sudden, whether that's you know, uh,
this playoff format or some kind of schedule agreement between
the two or eventual breakaway, it does feel like that's
(21:31):
been put on sort of pause. It feels like it's
been impacted by by what happened last week. I think
that I think that the the Big Ten administrators were
pretty shocked, you know, and and so I don't know
(21:56):
where that leaves them in their relationship with the SEC.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
Do you think I'm trying to I'm trying to phrase
us appropriately. Do you think there's inevitability about the SEC
moving to a nine game at a conference schedule? They
will get to it at some point, or do you
legitimately think from what the head coaches in the eighties
are talking about just now, that there was a real
(22:24):
reluctance to move to that at this stage.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Yeah, there's been a reluctance now for a long time,
going on probably five years, for the SEC to move
to a nine game conference schedule. And part of that
reluctance has been, you know, the again, the impact that
an extra loss on half of the league would have
(22:49):
on playoff chances. But also the SEC has wanted more
money from ESPN to play an extra game, and so
I think that's also kind of at play. How much
money is ESPN going to really offer, and we know
(23:14):
it's probably about five million dollars per school per year
is what they're talking about. That's the discussions. It's kind
of what the number is, I think, but I don't
know if it's enough, especially in a format where you
have multiple aqs or where you don't have multiple aqs
(23:36):
for one league. You know, I think you're looking at
a It's it's hard because Greg Sinki has been in
favor of nine games pretty clearly for a while now,
and he just hasn't been able to move the room
that way for you know, this has been a topic
(23:59):
of discussion for at least four years or so, so
you know, it could be one of these things where
if they don't do this multiple AQ is four four
two two one that I mentioned earlier, and they don't
do it, partly because the coaches didn't want to do it,
(24:20):
because they think they can get more teams in, and
for other reasons as I mentioned earlier, just the political
pushback in general, then if you if you move to
five eleven, then it seems only right to then, you know,
play the same amount of conference games as other leagues.
(24:40):
But it's it's been a hard thing to push across
the finish line for for Greg Zank, and they've only
got about two more months to do it. They needed
they need to know by August if they're gonna do
eight or nine games next year, so they'll probably have
to make that decision before they make a decision on
(25:02):
the future of the college football playoff format in twenty
twenty six and beyond. That leaves you with a real
difficult kind of issue there, and I'm not sure you
know where it goes from here.
Speaker 4 (25:22):
It's it's fascinating because these are all pieces of the
same jigsaw puzzle that have to Everything we've talked about
today is all part of the you know, they all
have a knock on impact on the next decision. And
just as you said there that you know, it's almost
impossible for the SEC to make that that decision on
(25:44):
what their schedules look like without understanding what the college
people will play off. But then that all has you know,
kind of repercussions from many other aspects of the from
it from the outside looking at it's pretty it's pretty fascinating,
I'm sure for the college football administrators. As real pain
in the net.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
It is. It is. It's when you throw it in
with everything out that everything else that's going on, it
really it becomes just another thing on on everybody's plate,
sort of thing to sift through.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Let's talk about We started off talking about the house
settlement and obviously the financial implications of that one thing
there's been we haven't touched on on this podcast yet.
But the conversation that isn't going away is private equity.
The ACCM B twelve seeple have ruled out private equity
involvement at this stage, but a short.
Speaker 5 (26:45):
Term issue of not not looking at private equity or
is it sort of long term like the other the
a SEC and Big twelve kind of shy away from that.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Yeah, certainly at some point at some school or conference
is going to it's going to strike a deal with
private equity. There's too much money needed in this Repshire
era for schools and conferences not to take the dive
(27:19):
down this private equity or even private capital more of
like a loan type, you know, Big twelve and Big
ten as conferences have looked into it, probably deeper than
any It got to the Big twelve to four a
vote and was basically voted down. Not that in the
conversation will continue, but so you know, and plenty of
(27:45):
schools have looked into it, and many of them have
are still looking ato it very seriously. So I think
at some point you will have somebody somebody would will
do this.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
You know.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
I don't know if it's a real popular thing among
fans and certainly certain commissioners and college athletic officials. It's
it's probably not a real popular thing, and that that's
kept a lot of people, I think, from doing it.
You know, there's a lot of schools that have donors
(28:22):
who own banks and other companies that they can borrow
money from for one or two percent, not ten percent
plus like a lot of the private equity and private
capital is. So I think many of them have gone
down that road instead. But I do think we're going
to see it at some point. You know. In a
(28:43):
separate conversation, the private equity backed kind of super League
proposals that have been bantered about a little bit that
kind of emulate actually over in Europe, the Premier League,
some of those type of models, they're still kicking around,
at least one of them, it's still kind of kicking
(29:04):
around too. And as Smash Capital. It's called Project Rudy
and it's a nine billion dollar private equity backed sort
of idea. And they've had held serious conversations with the
Big Twelve, the ACC in a lot of the Group
of Six conferences and leaders at those levels, but the
(29:28):
SEC and Big Ten has been hesitant to do anything
with them or even speak to them really in a
formal manner. So I don't know where they go from here,
but they're still very active.
Speaker 4 (29:43):
I hope they stated as far away as possible. For
someone who spent a career dealing with private equity, it
scares them. Jesus out to me that they're hovering around
collegeshoo bow. And that's all the time we have for
on this episode of Ross. And really do appreciate you.
I know you literally ran in the door to have
a ch with us. You've been writing a little a
little bit about what you've just been talking about Ross.
(30:06):
But for those listeners who I am going to bed
to find you, where can to find you and what
have you got in the works that we can all
watch out for in the coming weeks.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Yeah, well, there's plenty of things happening. The college football
playoff stuff will continue to be a conversation point, and
obviously at some point we will get the House settlement
ruling and I can't imagine it again going past this week,
(30:37):
but I didn't think we would it would go this far.
So you have that happening, and then there's the NCAA
governance conversation where how the NCAA governs itself and the
role of the NCAA in the future as well. So
you have a lot of these big picture stories that
(31:00):
will unfold over the probably over the summer and into
the fall, and everything's just waiting kind of on the
first domino to drop with the with the settlement and
the ruling there, and that will kind of set off
a series of events with all this stuff.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
I think you're still in DC, so you're in the
right part of the world to keep on top of
all the all that's happening, and you appreciate you coming
along to chat to us. That's all from us on
this episode. Thanks to Ross and Oli for the excellent importent.
Thanks to you for listening and supporting us, stay with
stay from we OW, and catch all the next time.
We're not going to comment on that. I'll get fine
for the rest of my life if I get comment
on that.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Natural Championships.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
That young girls.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Hey everyone, and welcome to the College Chaps podcast. On
our last episode, we talked a little bit about some
of the huge changes happening in college football. So for
this episode, we thought we'd bast get an expert to
help us understand it all. But before we get to
our expert, we have the College Chaps. I'm George, and
I am joined by all of our who is also
an expert. I'm not going to be disingenuous. Ollie, how
(00:51):
are you my friend?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I was going to say, George, that the nice plot
introduction you've ever done to me. I don't think you
have said anything. It is the nicest thing anyone said
to me today. To be honest, I.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Liking you to Aunt Deck last week. I think I
remember rightly that was I thought that was feast kind.
Our guest makes his third appearance on this podcast, and
what a step down it is from being on the
beach with Greg Zanki and Paul fine Bomb last week
in Florida. So it's a warm welcome back to Yahoo
Sports Senior college football writer Ross Dellinger, Hi, Ross, welcome back.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
How are you hey, George? Good to be on.
Speaker 4 (01:28):
Its good to see you, and we do appreciate you
hustling to get in to speak to So let's get
into it.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Ross.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
We know that you are in the middle of a
lot of this stuff, and I wanted to touch before
we got onto what happened in Destin last week. I
wanted to touch a little bit on the house settlement
because this is something that everybody thought was going to
come through in April, and the it was pushed to June,
and now it's been extended, I believe, to the twenty
(01:57):
seventy June, which is awfully close to the first of July.
What I've got a question, but what's your sense about
where this is all heiding? And I guess my my
doomsday question is, well, what happens if it's not all
signed and delivered on the twenty seventh of June, because
that that leaves schools in a better predicament.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, it's it's pretty shocking that it's June third, almost
exactly two months since the final hearing held in Oakland
that I attended. I don't think anybody thought that it
would it would be this long, that it would be
this extended. I think most people thought, certainly by the
(02:41):
end of April, that she would rule. But you know,
she had one issue with the settlement, the roster limits
that the settlement imposes on teams, and basically it would
lead to the elimination of over five thousand and as
(03:03):
much as probably fifteen thousand roster spots and athletes would
be cut and have been cut because of it, and
she kind of targeted that section as being an issue,
and so, without going into detail of each filing, it's
been basically two months or so of back and forth
(03:24):
between the judge and the plaintiff, attorneys and defendants, the
NCAAA and the power Conferences in the athletes that are suing.
It's been kind of a back and forth on how
to handle this roster situation. And the latest filing was
about a little over two weeks ago where the NCAAA
(03:44):
and the Power Conferences filed a response to these group
of people that are objecting to the settlement on the
grounds of the roster limits. And so it's kind of
been in the judge's hands now for over two weeks
and the Power conferences in the NCAAA have decided to grandfather,
(04:06):
and players who are currently on rosters that way, they don't.
They're not cut. The problem is a lot of them
I've already been cut. And the other problem is it's
a it's optional for schools to grandfather, so it's not mandatory.
So there's a question whether that the judge will take
exception to that. But it's yeah, it's been in her
(04:27):
hands for a couple of weeks now and kind of
mostly radio silence. You mentioned the June twenty seventh, so
there's a little bit of confusion this week Wednesday. So
June fourth, I believe was supposed to be the deadline
for each of the parties to file. I think it's
(04:50):
called summary judgment. I get the lingo attorney lingo a
little confused sometimes, but it's basically the start of going
to court for the for this case. And so she
just extended that deadline about three weeks, which you know,
you would think that she'll roll by that deadline, since
(05:12):
that's the deadline that the parties have to file now.
But I think a lot of people thought she would
roll by this deadline of June fifth, and she had
or June fourth, and she hadn't. So yeah, we're just
kind of in a state of waiting.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
And I'm a connected to saying that from one July
schools can should be paying athletes at that moment in time.
So what happens if there isn't a ruling because that
kind of throws things into a little bit of chaos
in that respect, isn't it, Because some schools will take
(05:49):
a decision to do it and some schools perhaps or
decide not to do it. And as you say, rosters
have already been you know, manipulated cut in that respect.
So what happens if we don't have a decision by
twenty seven?
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Yeah, you know, there there are a lot of problems
with the settlement. There are a lot of issues that
will be exposed. It's not a complete solution, obviously, but
it it is probably the better alternative then not having
a settlement at all. And so if it is denied,
(06:27):
I hate to use the word cataclysmic, but it could be. Uh,
it could be that. I think you'll have some schools
like you mentioned, begin to share revenue directly with athletes
under a system without a cap, completely unregulated, probably no
(06:53):
enforcement entity or no clearinghouse for third party booster deals.
It would just be a completely unregulated market similar to now,
but schools will be directly paying athletes. You know, I
think some schools will have the advantage because their state
law allows them to do certain things that other schools
(07:15):
and other states can't do. I think you'll probably have
the NCAA begin the process of changing rules to allow
schools to do certain things like sharing revenue, like expanding scholarships.
As the settlement does, you'll probably have some of those
things have to be changed. And the settlement kind of
(07:43):
binds the Power Conferences to the NCAAA through the duration
of the settlement, which was ten years, because the NCAAA
in its lower level schools outside of the Power Conferences
are helping pay the tab. Basically, they're helping pay the
back damages. It binds everybody together. So that is a
(08:03):
separate conversation. But if the settlements not approved, that bind
doesn't exist, and there's probably a really good chance that
you'll have the Power Conferences breakaway and probably begin setting
their own regulation in roles in a separate governing entity.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
And I guess you know, in law you should never
assume anything but if there were real issues with this
settlement bill, then you would like to think that the
judge would have predicated any kind of outcome a negative
outcome by this point, and as you say, there has
been some doing and throwing on it, so it would
(08:52):
be it would be remarkable if there was a cliff
edge come the twenty seventh of Juna that doesn't feel
intuitively under should end up.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Yeah, I think that most people in college athletics believe
that she will approve it, and that she's taken a
while to either number one, write in order that stands
(09:22):
up to an appeal, or and she's making sure that
the objectors kind of know that they've been heard, and
she's given them time, you know, thoughtful kind of time
to think about their objections. So that's kind of like
(09:43):
the going theory. But there are certainly plenty of people,
some in college athletics, but many of them outside of
college athletics, that believes she's writing a denial order, you know,
and that's why it's taking a while, because she's denying
the settlement and needs to come up with reasons why
(10:08):
still would be I think that would be a surprise
to a lot of folks but you know, there's a
lot of speculational why she's taken so long and how
she'll rule and really, and I get asked every day,
maybe two, three, four times a day, when's the settlement
(10:28):
coming down? When's the ruling coming down? And there really
is only one person in the world that knows when
it's coming down potentially and how it will be ruled on,
and that is her, and maybe a clerk or two
in her office, but probably not even that. It's probably
(10:49):
just her. And as much as I've reported on the settlement,
I don't text with the judge, so she's not letting
me in on any.
Speaker 4 (11:03):
School how disappointing us.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
How settlement appears to be more lockdown than the NFL
drafters because you can find out days in advancages getting
away in the NFL draft these days. That is obviously
the house. Selbourn has been a major off field topic
of conversation throughout the off season and beyond really obviously
even in the SEC spring meetings, where there's also been
(11:30):
a lot of focus on what we're going to see
on the field in the postseason, not just this season,
but for the future of the college football playoffs as well.
The SEC Spring meetings is usually a good barometer for
the mood of how those decisions ultimately will pan out.
What's the feeling with the future of the college football
(11:53):
playoff for us off the back of those meetings is
the SEC SEC as it has done for a while,
still favoring plus eleventh format. Is there a wind of
change that blowing through that conversation.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Yeah, it's it's kind of like the House settlement. It's
very uncertain right now. The future of the playoff format,
you know, right now playoff format is twelve teams. You
have seven at large and five spots for conference champions,
the four Power conference champions and then one from the
(12:26):
group of six conferences. And the SEC and Big Ten
have authority on a future format. It was granted to
them by the other conferences last spring in order to
keep them in the CFP and keep them from breaking away,
actually they threaten to break away. In part of the
(12:48):
deal was to give them more money and distribution, which
they did and grant them the right to control future
access in format. So they've been meeting together a few
times over the last year of the SEC and Big
Ten and came especially for the Big Ten side came
(13:09):
to an agreement that they were going to change the
format to a sixteen team format that grants four automatic
qualifiers each to SEC and Big Ten, and two each
to the ACC and Big Twelve, and one group of
group of six champion and then three at large. That
was proposed by the Big Ten originally, and it was
(13:32):
made clear that the SEC was as well in support
of that format over the last several weeks in CFP meetings.
That got a lot of pushback from the Big twelve
and ACC from Notre Dame, from politicians in Congress, even
(13:53):
from ESPN as well, enough pushback that last week the
league decided against that, to the surprise of many in
the Big Ten. And kind of the last straw was
that the SEC had football coaches came out publicly against it,
(14:14):
actually while they were at their meetings, despite athletic directors
being fairly overwhelmingly for it. So it was it was
an interesting it was kind of a curveball throwned last week.
And I think it, you know, I think the pushback
from coaches was sort of a last straw when you
(14:39):
look at all the other pushback that the that this
was receiving. And so now the SEC more so back
to a model that is more at largest, whether that's
five or eleven that's what they specifically focused on last week,
or five to nine with five aqs and then eleven
at large or five aq in nine at large or
(15:01):
the current version five q's and seven at large. I
think I think that that's an issue for the Big Ten.
They wanted multiple aqs. And not only that, but the
SEC plays one fewer conference game, which in a way
(15:21):
is one fewer loss than the Big Ten. The Big
Ten plays nine, the SEC plays eight, And when you're
looking at at large selections and bids into the playoff,
the selection committee looks a lot at losses. So they're
kind of in a at an impasse, kind of that
a stalemate a little bit, you know. I think they
(15:43):
would move to a five to eleven if the SEC
and the ACC moved to nine conference games, which is
where the Big Ten and Big twelve are. They're both
at eight instead right now, like I mentioned earlier, and
but I don't know that they can get there. I
don't know that the SEC, which is and pushing back
on going to nine conference football games for a while,
(16:04):
I don't know if they can get to that point,
everybody kind of thought they were there, but last week
changed a lot of that because when you're not guaranteed
certain playoff spots, I think there's a resistance to add
another potential loss for half of your league. If you're
a you're adding another conference game. So it is sort
(16:26):
of it is sort of a stalemate right now, and
from what I'm led to believe is that the Big
Ten and SEC both need to agree on a format
for a format to be adopted.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
It struck me, and I'm clearly being off those males
of e Ross that listening to someone the head coaches
on TV, there was a there was a clear message
to the playoff committee about strength to schedule versus you know,
when the wins columns, and that to me was playing
very much into the nine game schedule right which I
(17:03):
think is just really what you said, which is SEC
not willing to move into that nine game SEC conference
schedule without really understanding how the College FOOTBA Playoff Committee
is going to interview that extra game?
Speaker 5 (17:20):
Is that?
Speaker 4 (17:20):
Do you think that's fair?
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (17:24):
I think so. You know, that was that was a
big topic last week at SEC meetings, was the selection
committee criteria, and you know what they look at. There
was a lot of talk from coaches and ads about
(17:45):
the right hand column, which is the lost column, and
in how the selection committee examines looks at that right
hand column too much and not the strength of schedule enough.
And and I think that, you know, I think that
if you look at the selection committee, there's in the
(18:12):
in the criteria they used to select the teams, there's
gonna be changes made in the Big Ten and SEC.
Not only do they control format, but they control the
selection committee. They controlled the selection committee criteria, who's on
the committee, how the committee works, all that stuff. So
(18:36):
I think, uh, I think you'll see the criteria change
to skew more toward the selection committee considering more of
strength the schedule and conference strength the schedule as well.
(18:58):
And I don't know how those that, I don't know
what kind of barometer they'll they'll use, but I think
that that's where it feels like it's headed.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Ross You you just going back to something you said before,
you talked about an impasse between the Big Ten and
the SEC. And obviously there's been this alliance between those
two conferences for quite a while now, and obviously this
conversation about their influence over the college football playoff format
(19:30):
going forward was designed to stop them from breaking away together. Now,
I guess I've got a bit of a two part question.
If these if the two conferences are at an impass
over the college football playoff format and what it means
these different formats for each conference, how big of an
issue is that the impass itself? And then if those
(19:55):
two conferences are at loggerheads, how does that play into
the rest of the breakaway. If the two conferences aren't
in goops as much as they don't agree on certain things,
surely that chance of a breakaway between the two is
kind of a little nullified.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
To a degree it is, I think. I think the
biggest thing that happened that it's going to come out
of last week at SEC meetings is the impact that
this sort of curveball reversal what everyone to call it,
has on the relationship between you know, the two giants
(20:40):
of of the of college Athletics, and you know they're
they're at their athletic directors have met jointly twice in
the last seven eight months or so. They're two commissioners, HM.
You know, they they talk often, they meet often, so
(21:07):
I think that when you look at some of the
things that the SEC and Big Ten were looking at
doing now all of a sudden, whether that's you know, uh,
this playoff format or some kind of schedule agreement between
the two or eventual breakaway, it does feel like that's
(21:31):
been put on sort of pause. It feels like it's
been impacted by by what happened last week. I think
that I think that the the Big Ten administrators were
pretty shocked, you know, and and so I don't know
(21:56):
where that leaves them in their relationship with the SEC.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
Do you think I'm trying to I'm trying to phrase
us appropriately. Do you think there's inevitability about the SEC
moving to a nine game at a conference schedule? They
will get to it at some point, or do you
legitimately think from what the head coaches in the eighties
are talking about just now, that there was a real
(22:24):
reluctance to move to that at this stage.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Yeah, there's been a reluctance now for a long time,
going on probably five years, for the SEC to move
to a nine game conference schedule. And part of that
reluctance has been, you know, the again, the impact that
an extra loss on half of the league would have
(22:49):
on playoff chances. But also the SEC has wanted more
money from ESPN to play an extra game, and so
I think that's also kind of at play. How much
money is ESPN going to really offer, and we know
(23:14):
it's probably about five million dollars per school per year
is what they're talking about. That's the discussions. It's kind
of what the number is, I think, but I don't
know if it's enough, especially in a format where you
have multiple aqs or where you don't have multiple aqs
(23:36):
for one league. You know, I think you're looking at
a It's it's hard because Greg Sinki has been in
favor of nine games pretty clearly for a while now,
and he just hasn't been able to move the room
that way for you know, this has been a topic
(23:59):
of discussion for at least four years or so, so
you know, it could be one of these things where
if they don't do this multiple AQ is four four
two two one that I mentioned earlier, and they don't
do it, partly because the coaches didn't want to do it,
(24:20):
because they think they can get more teams in, and
for other reasons as I mentioned earlier, just the political
pushback in general, then if you if you move to
five eleven, then it seems only right to then, you know,
play the same amount of conference games as other leagues.
(24:40):
But it's it's been a hard thing to push across
the finish line for for Greg Zank, and they've only
got about two more months to do it. They needed
they need to know by August if they're gonna do
eight or nine games next year, so they'll probably have
to make that decision before they make a decision on
(25:02):
the future of the college football playoff format in twenty
twenty six and beyond. That leaves you with a real
difficult kind of issue there, and I'm not sure you
know where it goes from here.
Speaker 4 (25:22):
It's it's fascinating because these are all pieces of the
same jigsaw puzzle that have to Everything we've talked about
today is all part of the you know, they all
have a knock on impact on the next decision. And
just as you said there that you know, it's almost
impossible for the SEC to make that that decision on
(25:44):
what their schedules look like without understanding what the college
people will play off. But then that all has you know,
kind of repercussions from many other aspects of the from
it from the outside looking at it's pretty it's pretty fascinating,
I'm sure for the college football administrators. As real pain
in the net.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
It is. It is. It's when you throw it in
with everything out that everything else that's going on, it
really it becomes just another thing on on everybody's plate,
sort of thing to sift through.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Let's talk about We started off talking about the house
settlement and obviously the financial implications of that one thing
there's been we haven't touched on on this podcast yet.
But the conversation that isn't going away is private equity.
The ACCM B twelve seeple have ruled out private equity
involvement at this stage, but a short.
Speaker 5 (26:45):
Term issue of not not looking at private equity or
is it sort of long term like the other the
a SEC and Big twelve kind of shy away from that.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Yeah, certainly at some point at some school or conference
is going to it's going to strike a deal with
private equity. There's too much money needed in this Repshire
era for schools and conferences not to take the dive
(27:19):
down this private equity or even private capital more of
like a loan type, you know, Big twelve and Big
ten as conferences have looked into it, probably deeper than
any It got to the Big twelve to four a
vote and was basically voted down. Not that in the
conversation will continue, but so you know, and plenty of
(27:45):
schools have looked into it, and many of them have
are still looking ato it very seriously. So I think
at some point you will have somebody somebody would will
do this.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
You know.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
I don't know if it's a real popular thing among
fans and certainly certain commissioners and college athletic officials. It's
it's probably not a real popular thing, and that that's
kept a lot of people, I think, from doing it.
You know, there's a lot of schools that have donors
(28:22):
who own banks and other companies that they can borrow
money from for one or two percent, not ten percent
plus like a lot of the private equity and private
capital is. So I think many of them have gone
down that road instead. But I do think we're going
to see it at some point. You know. In a
(28:43):
separate conversation, the private equity backed kind of super League
proposals that have been bantered about a little bit that
kind of emulate actually over in Europe, the Premier League,
some of those type of models, they're still kicking around,
at least one of them, it's still kind of kicking
(29:04):
around too. And as Smash Capital. It's called Project Rudy
and it's a nine billion dollar private equity backed sort
of idea. And they've had held serious conversations with the
Big Twelve, the ACC in a lot of the Group
of Six conferences and leaders at those levels, but the
(29:28):
SEC and Big Ten has been hesitant to do anything
with them or even speak to them really in a
formal manner. So I don't know where they go from here,
but they're still very active.
Speaker 4 (29:43):
I hope they stated as far away as possible. For
someone who spent a career dealing with private equity, it
scares them. Jesus out to me that they're hovering around
collegeshoo bow. And that's all the time we have for
on this episode of Ross. And really do appreciate you.
I know you literally ran in the door to have
a ch with us. You've been writing a little a
little bit about what you've just been talking about Ross.
(30:06):
But for those listeners who I am going to bed
to find you, where can to find you and what
have you got in the works that we can all
watch out for in the coming weeks.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Yeah, well, there's plenty of things happening. The college football
playoff stuff will continue to be a conversation point, and
obviously at some point we will get the House settlement
ruling and I can't imagine it again going past this week,
(30:37):
but I didn't think we would it would go this far.
So you have that happening, and then there's the NCAA
governance conversation where how the NCAA governs itself and the
role of the NCAA in the future as well. So
you have a lot of these big picture stories that
(31:00):
will unfold over the probably over the summer and into
the fall, and everything's just waiting kind of on the
first domino to drop with the with the settlement and
the ruling there, and that will kind of set off
a series of events with all this stuff.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
I think you're still in DC, so you're in the
right part of the world to keep on top of
all the all that's happening, and you appreciate you coming
along to chat to us. That's all from us on
this episode. Thanks to Ross and Oli for the excellent importent.
Thanks to you for listening and supporting us, stay with
stay from we OW, and catch all the next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!