Speaker 1: Welcome to the solid verbal Hell that for me. I'm
Speaker 1: a man, I'm.
Speaker 2: For I've heard so many players say, well, I want
Speaker 2: to be happy.
Speaker 1: You want to be happy for a day? Edith Steak
Speaker 1: is that woo woof? And then and Tie?
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the solid verbal Boys and girls, My
Speaker 2: name is Ty Hildenbrand, joining me as always over there
Speaker 2: in Chili, Chicago, Illinois. The one and only Dan Rubinstein sirs,
Speaker 2: how are you?
Speaker 1: Some wise words?
Speaker 2: Tie?
Speaker 1: When you try your best but you don't succeed, when
Speaker 1: you get what you want but not what you need, Ty,
Speaker 1: when you feel so tired but you can't sleep, stuck
Speaker 1: in reverse? You want me to continue?
Speaker 2: Are we doing the New Age version or are we
Speaker 2: doing the cold Play version? Because I think there's like
Speaker 2: a new version of that song.
Speaker 1: I just know, my boy Chrissy Martin.
Speaker 2: Actually no, I lie, it's not a new version of
Speaker 2: Fix You is a cover that I think I saw
Speaker 2: somewhere out on YouTube.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, well I remember it from the OC. That's
Speaker 1: that's where I go back to. So thematically, Tie, You're
Speaker 1: you're recovering and I'm trying to fix you. You know
Speaker 1: That's who I am. Also for this show. We get
Speaker 1: inundated throughout the season with playoff fixes, with individual game fixes,
Speaker 1: with schedule fixes, with conference fixes, and that's never really
Speaker 1: the right time. And I wanted to right now, as
Speaker 1: the season has ended, when all of those strong emotions
Speaker 1: are still fresh at our on our cortexes tie very fresh.
Speaker 1: I wanted to I wanted to fix you college football
Speaker 1: via verbaler's suggestions. I said, no, no, what's it called
Speaker 1: no postseason stuff? And you're gonna You're gonna give all
Speaker 1: of our fun solid verbal information here momentarily. But this
Speaker 1: is how I wanted to tie it all back together
Speaker 1: to Chris Martin and Marissa from the OC, and.
Speaker 2: I think that's an apt way to put it. Dan,
Speaker 2: we are the Soliverbol Thank you and me. My voice
Speaker 2: is recovering, recovering, although when we connect it up here
Speaker 2: it had a moment which I think was caused for
Speaker 2: alarm on both things.
Speaker 1: You got the black lung pop.
Speaker 2: But we're working through it. We're doing our best. To
Speaker 2: Soldier on Hello, welcome back, I'm Ty He's Dan. This
Speaker 2: is the Soliverble College Football Podcast. Just because there is
Speaker 2: no college football does not mean there is not a
Speaker 2: soliverable podcast. We'll be going twice a week Tuesday Thursday
Speaker 2: for the foreseeable future. At some point as we get
Speaker 2: closer to the season, maybe in like July, we're gonna
Speaker 2: ramp back up to three episodes per week. But got
Speaker 2: a couple of months here, We've got time to fill.
Speaker 2: Got stuff to talk about an on tonight's show. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we're talking some serious stuff in many regards, this is
Speaker 2: one of the more important shows that we've ever done.
Speaker 2: In this podcast, we're talking serious subjects. How do we
Speaker 2: fix college football? We went out there, we pulled our
Speaker 2: wise and all knowing verballerhood to get their suggestions. We
Speaker 2: got some good ones that we I think need to
Speaker 2: chew on here over the course of like the next
Speaker 2: forty minutes or so Verballers dot com is our Patreon.
Speaker 2: We've got bonus content that we're going to be dropping
Speaker 2: there all off season long. If you're interested again verballers
Speaker 2: dot com. You of course can follow along on all
Speaker 2: of our social media channels. We've got a Twitter and Instagram,
Speaker 2: a Facebook, a Twitch. All of it is at Solid Verbal,
Speaker 2: and we do have a YouTube channel where we post
Speaker 2: some of our clips as well. That is the the.
Speaker 1: Solid verbal by bonus content in the off season. You
Speaker 1: mean mainly the two of us playing Super Smash Bros.
Speaker 1: Mainly mainly, right, there is more to it than just that,
Speaker 1: But okay, it's an element, an element. Why don't we
Speaker 1: get to news before we do that? Fix things?
Speaker 2: I'm not doing the primal scream today, Dan breaking new
Speaker 2: That wasn't bad. You had a little bit of a
Speaker 2: of a vibrato. Yeah, yeah, going at the end there,
Speaker 2: which I appreciate. We've got a mess at Tennessee, don't we.
Speaker 1: I mean sort of status quo, but yeah.
Speaker 2: We've got well, a different kind of mess at Tennessee.
Speaker 2: Tennessee was conducting an internal investigation into its football program
Speaker 2: after I guess interviewing Jeremy Pruitt and finding what they found,
Speaker 2: they decided to get rid of him. Phil Fulmer, their
Speaker 2: ad is also stepping down. This presents a very unique
Speaker 2: circumstance on a number of different fronts, not the least
Speaker 2: of which is that Kevin Steele, who was just brought
Speaker 2: over from Auburn after losing his job down there. He
Speaker 2: is now reinstalled as an interim head coach at another
Speaker 2: program because they needed somebody who could fill the gaps.
Speaker 2: So Kevin Steele is in there dutyflee, trying to bring
Speaker 2: over guys from Auburn who he thinks might be good
Speaker 2: for the staff. I don't think he's going to get
Speaker 2: that job. There is some confusion over whether he even
Speaker 2: has the authority to make hires at this point. All
Speaker 2: the while, we've got this NCAA investigation, we've got the
Speaker 2: Tennessee self investigation. Jeremy Pruett and his lawyer are obviously
Speaker 2: pissed about this scenario, and presumably there is some sort
Speaker 2: of ongoing search for not only a new ad but
Speaker 2: also a head football coach.
Speaker 1: Jan what you would think?
Speaker 2: So, what a freaking mess in Knoxville.
Speaker 1: I was really hoping you were going to go to
Speaker 1: the point. And maybe you didn't read this, because it's
Speaker 1: the silliest part of this whole thing, and also the
Speaker 1: best part of this whole thing. Did you see the
Speaker 1: dan Patrick report about some of the brazen operations alleged
Speaker 1: by the recruiting staff and assistant coaches? Was this ledged?
Speaker 2: It was this, the thing about giving money out to
Speaker 2: recruits in McDonald's bags.
Speaker 1: I am infuriated by this allegation, and I'm not infuriated
Speaker 1: because of the money. And I'm not infuriated because of
Speaker 1: recruits getting money or family's getting whatever. Is McDonald's and
Speaker 1: their wrappings, their bags and the boxes that perhaps like
Speaker 1: a Big Mac comes in. Is that the best fast
Speaker 1: food solution for money donating payment? To me, it feels
Speaker 1: like Chipotle is the easy answer because of the shape
Speaker 1: of a burrito in foil. It would not that money
Speaker 1: in a brown bag would raise any eyebrows because you
Speaker 1: can't see the money through the bag. And perhaps if
Speaker 1: it's in a Big Mac stacked box whatever, I just
Speaker 1: maybe Chipotle's too obvious. I don't know how close to
Speaker 1: Chipotle is to the Tennessee campus if all of this
Speaker 1: is true, which who knows. But what I'm trying to think,
Speaker 1: but fast food bag and or box vehicle pizza's too
Speaker 1: easily found, right, Pizza box?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, look, it's not going to be in
Speaker 2: a Tennis Tennessee branded envelope.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, But but you just open a pizza box
Speaker 1: and you know every the food is naked to the eye.
Speaker 1: There's no unwrapping of a pizza after you open the box.
Speaker 1: But you could you could hide cash within a situation.
Speaker 2: So you're really you're going like you're you're going like
Speaker 2: deep cover with this thing you're talking about. Let's take
Speaker 2: the rolls of twenties, Let's position them accordingly, and then
Speaker 2: put the tinfoil around so it presents as a burrito.
Speaker 1: Honestly, I would find somebody, a friendly worker at Chipotle
Speaker 1: to actually make a burrito with rolls of twenties stuffed in.
Speaker 1: This is whatever.
Speaker 2: This is kind of like a Poyo situation. Yeah, at
Speaker 2: a breaking bad.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, I just I think you could have gotten
Speaker 1: more creative with the delivery mechanism than just the standard
Speaker 1: McDonald's bag.
Speaker 2: Like, eighty five percent of life is packaging, and they
Speaker 2: chose they chose McDonald's here allegedly, allegedly, which is one
Speaker 2: approach I have not given much thought to the best
Speaker 2: fast food packaging. Maybe this is something else that we
Speaker 2: can put to the verballer hood, because my guess is
Speaker 2: we're going to get some creative solutions here as well
Speaker 2: as for the mess at Tennessee beyond the packaging.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you want to go over coaching candidates.
Speaker 2: Well, have you earned some of the names that are
Speaker 2: being thrown about because it's not the latest certainly it's
Speaker 2: not as late as we saw at Michigan State a
Speaker 2: year ago, but it's still pretty late in the game.
Speaker 2: What are some of the names being thrown about at
Speaker 2: this juncture.
Speaker 1: There are a few Knoxville area Chipotle Mexican Grills, but.
Speaker 2: Oh, terrific great there are.
Speaker 1: So there are options. Some of the names the more
Speaker 1: Jamie Chadwell Coast Carolina Tennessee connections. Billy Napier from the
Speaker 1: state certainly has succeeded in the area. I know his
Speaker 1: name went up on campus on the famous giant Tennessee rock.
Speaker 1: Bill O'Brien, even though he has the Alabama job right
Speaker 1: now as offensive coordinator under consideration because now he's willing
Speaker 1: to coach in the SEC. Perhaps he wants a head job.
Speaker 1: Tom Herman, Gus Melson, I don't know. I mean, Kevin
Speaker 1: Steele's probably in that mix because he was in the
Speaker 1: mix at Auburn and he's on campus as the acting
Speaker 1: head coach. So a number of large names. It's a
Speaker 1: difficult job though, in terms of well, there's no athletic
Speaker 1: director right now, so we got to see who's hired
Speaker 1: and who that person might have connections to in the
Speaker 1: coaching world. But also you have two growing and now
Speaker 1: established powers. Florida was in the SEC championship game. Georgia
Speaker 1: has been recruiting on another worldly level and it has
Speaker 1: been playing in some big games. And Tennessee, while they've
Speaker 1: recruited very well, it's another situation in which what they
Speaker 1: lost their final five games by double digits, and there
Speaker 1: is now I think a bit of a stigma about
Speaker 1: coaching Tennessee, how you'll be treated at Tennessee being let
Speaker 1: go pretty quickly. You know, guys just keep getting fired
Speaker 1: and they haven't been the right answer for sure. But
Speaker 1: Jeremy Pruitt goes sixteen to nineteen and Tennessee searches, arguably
Speaker 1: successfully for a reason to get rid of him without
Speaker 1: paying him a buyout. And it just it seems like
Speaker 1: stability is the name of the game in terms of
Speaker 1: college football success, and Tennessee is whatever the opposite of
Speaker 1: stable is.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, in other news around college football, we'll we'll
Speaker 2: obviously stay on top of that one as best as
Speaker 2: we can. There are other openings around college football, not
Speaker 2: so much on that top line with the head coaching position,
Speaker 2: but big time defensive coordinator positions that are still open
Speaker 2: at LSU, at Oregon, at Washington as their guy went
Speaker 2: to Texas, your guy, mister Avelo set Oregon went back
Speaker 2: to Boise to be head football coach. So those are
Speaker 2: three big ones in particular that we could discuss. We've
Speaker 2: also had some assistant hires. I think we talked about
Speaker 2: the Marcus Freeman move on one of our show. I
Speaker 2: like the move, yeah, I really do. I really like
Speaker 2: the move to get Marcus Freeman from Cincinnati to be
Speaker 2: the Notre Dame defensive coordinator. Doug Marone, a name that
Speaker 2: many in college football and just football fans are familiar with,
Speaker 2: had a run with Syracuse, was recently with the Jacksonville
Speaker 2: Jaguars fired. Now he's going to Bama as an offensive
Speaker 2: line coach. Some other dan Enos dan Enos, the name
Speaker 2: who has been bounced around a bunch of times now
Speaker 2: over the last couple of seasons, had that stint at
Speaker 2: Miami and then he was with Cincinnati. He's going to
Speaker 2: Maryland as an offensive coordinator, which I think is an
Speaker 2: interesting high. Any other names to you that are of
Speaker 2: interest there?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, South Carolina retained and then lost Mike Bobo
Speaker 1: to Auburn and now Marcus Aderfield, who is a Matt
Speaker 1: Ruhle guy who he was with him at Baylor and
Speaker 1: I think he was with him at Temple and with
Speaker 1: him with the Panthers as an assistant offensive line coach.
Speaker 1: He is the new offensive coordinator at South Carolina. A
Speaker 1: lot of NFL to college moves. Jim O'Neill, who was
Speaker 1: the Raiders defensive backs coach, and I saw Roger Sherman
Speaker 1: tweet this out because Jim O'Neill is heading to Northwestern,
Speaker 1: is their new DC, replacing Mike Hankowitz. Jim O'Neil the
Speaker 1: architect of one of the all time worst NFL defenses
Speaker 1: for the forty nine Ers four years ago. I don't
Speaker 1: know enough about that stint, but that's a thing. Jesse Minter,
Speaker 1: the Ravens defensive backs coach, goes to Vanderbilt. So Clark Lee,
Speaker 1: we assume has a pretty good eye for defensive talent,
Speaker 1: so he's going to the NFL as well in search
Speaker 1: of his coordinator. Maurice Linguist, a Cowboys defensive backs coach.
Speaker 1: I don't know enough about the Cowboys defense because I
Speaker 1: don't watch the NFL, but he is going to be
Speaker 1: a co defensive coordinator with Mike McDonald, who Jim Harbaugh
Speaker 1: hired away from John Harbaugh at the Ravens as well.
Speaker 1: Doug Marone, which is wild was an NFL head coach,
Speaker 1: is now going to be the offensive line coach at Alabama,
Speaker 1: replacing Kyle Flood, one of the absolute best offensive line
Speaker 1: coaches in the country. If you watch what Alabama did
Speaker 1: this past year. He moves on to go to Texas
Speaker 1: and hang around with Sark, so moves all over the
Speaker 1: place there. That's just sort of a drop in the
Speaker 1: bucket because all sorts of position coaches, coordinators all over
Speaker 1: the sport. Those changes are happening every day. But those
Speaker 1: are some of the ones that stuck out to me.
Speaker 1: And Washington with a bunch of talent, organ with a
Speaker 1: bunch of talent, LSU with a bunch of talent. LSU
Speaker 1: thought they were getting a Saints coach in the way
Speaker 1: that they got Joe Brady a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: But Ryan Nielsen is returning to the Saints after it
Speaker 1: looked like he was going to go to LSU. So yeah,
Speaker 1: all sorts of movement that will keep happening, I'm sure
Speaker 1: even more after the full official signing day, so we'll
Speaker 1: see what happens.
Speaker 2: We will see what happens, all right? Shall we get
Speaker 2: to are more important business of the day.
Speaker 1: Our Chris Martin game.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we want to fix college football.
Speaker 1: We do. I like college football, but you know I'm
Speaker 1: open to ideas.
Speaker 2: Ty, How did how did we present this question to
Speaker 2: the verballer hood?
Speaker 1: We said, outside of the postseason, so bowls and playoff
Speaker 1: et cetera. What's your best idea to improve college football?
Speaker 1: The more out there the better. And I think between
Speaker 1: Twitter and email and wherever, we got about one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty ideas. I paired it down to I guess
Speaker 1: six pages worth on this document.
Speaker 2: But how many resplects? Just did we get to this?
Speaker 2: Like one hundred and fifty?
Speaker 1: So I think we should. I posted the ones that
Speaker 1: were most intriguing. And here's how I want this exercise
Speaker 1: to go. This is my plan for us. Please, I
Speaker 1: want to some of these are sillier than others, but
Speaker 1: I want to approach it considering the positive change that
Speaker 1: this idea from whoever, from whomever, would bring about, and
Speaker 1: then we can poke holes in it. I don't want
Speaker 1: to laugh at an idea for being silly. I want
Speaker 1: to look at what an idea addresses, what problem the
Speaker 1: idea addresses, talk about how it might result in a
Speaker 1: positive outcome for the sport, and then say, but this
Speaker 1: is also a consideration which makes it not make as
Speaker 1: much sense.
Speaker 2: Okay, there are three ideas that were sent to us
Speaker 2: that I would consider marrying over my wife whoa three
Speaker 2: ideas on here, and we can discuss them. I will
Speaker 2: make sure we discuss them. Three He don't tell her
Speaker 2: I said that I will not.
Speaker 1: I will not. She is not a patron. She's waiting
Speaker 1: to see more out of us before she fully commits.
Speaker 2: There are three ideas on here in particular that really
Speaker 2: would never work, but are things I had never previously considered.
Speaker 2: And I'm going let's talk about the problem they attempt
Speaker 2: to solve and evaluate. Okay, where do you want to start?
Speaker 2: Why don't we go first? You get to pick.
Speaker 1: I've seen this sentiment basically since the playoff came together
Speaker 1: in Alabama won their whatever number national championship, where people
Speaker 1: I've been saying, and I hate you know, that's sort
Speaker 1: of a straw man. People on Twitter are saying, but
Speaker 1: I have seen this from a number of a number
Speaker 1: of college football fans that something has to be done.
Speaker 1: Capital d about Alabama and the powers of the sport,
Speaker 1: Ohio State, Clemson, whatever, amassing too much talent, hogging all
Speaker 1: of the five star talent. Okay, so I'll start here.
Speaker 1: Kimmi Lynn long long, long, long, long long time for
Speaker 1: baller says, limit the number of five star recruits a
Speaker 1: program can sign based on where they finish for the year.
Speaker 1: If you make the playoff, you cannot sign more than
Speaker 1: three five stars in the top ten outside of the
Speaker 1: college football plaoff, no more than five five stars and
Speaker 1: similar sentiments from both Bobby and Aquila Aquila, you know,
Speaker 1: lowering a scholarship limit and making all teams relevant and
Speaker 1: recruiting more balanced. Ty, what say you about approaching that
Speaker 1: perceived problem head on and making actual changes to how
Speaker 1: a program can build its roster.
Speaker 2: It's very difficult. It certainly would impose a new challenge
Speaker 2: on the likes of Nick Saban and Dabo Sweeney. So
Speaker 2: I think let's put this way. If your goal, so.
Speaker 1: What are we talking twenty four to seven composite five stars?
Speaker 2: I'm assuming so we're basically putting the future of the
Speaker 2: sport in the hands of Bud Elliott, which I'm fine
Speaker 2: with because I love Budd.
Speaker 1: Totally good by me, totally totally good.
Speaker 2: Bud's smart dude, he knows what he's doing. Yeah, if
Speaker 2: the goal of this we are first to consider the
Speaker 2: positive change that this would bring about. Yes, m hmm.
Speaker 2: If the goal, the intended desire of this rule is
Speaker 2: to curb how much talent the have currently have on
Speaker 2: their roster, this would accomplish that very quickly. This would
Speaker 2: accomplish that within you know, a couple of years. I
Speaker 2: think for sure, at least at the top level, it
Speaker 2: wouldn't solve at all because I don't see anything here
Speaker 2: about four stars and three stars. But in terms of
Speaker 2: five star talent, for sure, the teams the top would
Speaker 2: get fewer of those. The teams at the bottom would
Speaker 2: at least have more access to some of those five
Speaker 2: stars that you know wouldn't find favor with the likes
Speaker 2: of an Alabama, Clemson, Georgia.
Speaker 1: So we're talking essentially, we're talking if guys are unable
Speaker 1: to go to teams at the top of the sport,
Speaker 1: and it trickles down so all of a sudden, a
Speaker 1: team like Iowa State or Northwestern right, or exactly Oklahoma State,
Speaker 1: suddenly they're getting five star defensive linemen, they're getting a
Speaker 1: top top national quarterback most years or some years as
Speaker 1: opposed to never a team like NC State getting the
Speaker 1: number one running back in the country, and all you
Speaker 1: game changing players at individual positions, not necessarily dramatically changing
Speaker 1: the complexion of their roster overall, but pieces they normally wouldn't.
Speaker 2: Have exactly, so like Northwestern could have ruined Hunter Johnson
Speaker 2: as a freshman, not as a transfer, that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's I don't want to say it's silly
Speaker 1: because I appreciate the problem it's trying to solve, and
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's a fixable problem. You can't
Speaker 1: just you have to let kids go where they want
Speaker 1: to go, right, because there are reasons, real reasons that
Speaker 1: you know, if they go to this power, they're going
Speaker 1: to be developed in a better way for the NFL.
Speaker 1: They're going to be practicing against higher level competition that
Speaker 1: better prepares them for both games and for their NFL goals,
Speaker 1: especially if they're top level recruits. What do you do
Speaker 1: to discourage or even a playing field one. I don't
Speaker 1: know that the playing field needs to be even that
Speaker 1: has never really been a feature of the sport. It's
Speaker 1: never like how many national championships have those schools that
Speaker 1: I just rattled off one, I don't know if they've
Speaker 1: won any. And that's okay, because it's just a very
Speaker 1: strange sport. What I will say, though, ty, if we
Speaker 1: went down a certain number of scholarships, and I'm I
Speaker 1: hear me out because I think the number of scholarships
Speaker 1: should remain the same. But if we went down the
Speaker 1: number of acceptable scholarships to say seventy five, and then
Speaker 1: for every scholarship you issue over seventy five, you have
Speaker 1: to pay some sort of luxury tax.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you're going Major League Baseball at this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, NBA does this, and there's like the repeater tax.
Speaker 1: And let's say we kill two birds with one stone
Speaker 1: and say that tax. Say it's twenty thousand dollars for
Speaker 1: every scholarship this is over seventy five. Continue, and then
Speaker 1: at the end end of the season, that all gets
Speaker 1: split to like the twenty four players who play the
Speaker 1: most snaps.
Speaker 2: Oh man, Okay, so.
Speaker 1: I want to include special teams. That's why I said
Speaker 1: twenty four and not twenty two, so we can include
Speaker 1: a specialist. Okay, well who dominates there.
Speaker 2: Look, the problem with this is that it doesn't say
Speaker 2: anything about four stars. And if you're Alabama, if you're Alabama,
Speaker 2: if you're Clemson, for sure you get a ton of
Speaker 2: five stars, but you get more four stars and you
Speaker 2: even get some really high level three stars there where
Speaker 2: they are because of their ability to develop.
Speaker 1: Talent, right, you're holding something against them for working hard
Speaker 1: and being talented exactly.
Speaker 2: So you know, just because you can pick a five
Speaker 2: star off the vine doesn't mean it's going to ripen
Speaker 2: into a superstar. And I think those schools in particular
Speaker 2: have proven very very good at doing that for a
Speaker 2: variety of reasons, coaching, just philosophy. We could talk about
Speaker 2: that until we're blue in the face. So I don't
Speaker 2: think this actually addresses the problem. I think furthermore, to
Speaker 2: punish teams that do really well in the playoff or
Speaker 2: bowl season, whatever, that's not a sustainable system. If you're
Speaker 2: looking to try and raise the floor in a sense,
Speaker 2: then I think you have to respond not by taking
Speaker 2: away at the top, but maybe by adding at the bottom.
Speaker 2: So building in some incentives for those teams at the bottom,
Speaker 2: so that they could find ways to level the playing field,
Speaker 2: or maybe if you want to tie it back into
Speaker 2: the name, image and likeness thing, by improving the perks
Speaker 2: that you can offer outside of that upper echelon to
Speaker 2: try and a tract talent. But as it stands right now,
Speaker 2: and I love the suggestion, but I just I don't
Speaker 2: think this actually achieves what it's supposed to.
Speaker 1: Also, we've had schools, arguably just as many schools recruit
Speaker 1: on a super high level and squander and not succeed,
Speaker 1: hook them, fight on, et cetera, et cetera. Next top
Speaker 1: So next topic, okay, next, next idea to fix college
Speaker 1: football every blue blood. That this is from Brian Fremo,
Speaker 1: who does a great job with some analytics with college
Speaker 1: football BCF toys, by the way, it does a great job. Yeah, FBI,
Speaker 1: he's your boy, you love, he's my guy. Points for
Speaker 1: play or points for drive, points per drive, every blue
Speaker 1: blood goes independent Ooh okay, So what this addresses, I'm
Speaker 1: assuming because this is the entirety of his idea. What
Speaker 1: this addresses is the fact that the top schools, both
Speaker 1: in terms of size, scope, success money, are doing more
Speaker 1: for their conferences than their conferences are doing for them.
Speaker 1: Schools like Ohio State, Oklahoma, Alabama, Clemson, I mean blue
Speaker 1: bloods I guess are more traditional. That includes Ohio State, Michigan,
Speaker 1: all those types of schools that they are bringing value
Speaker 1: to the conferences without the conferences. And we've seen some
Speaker 1: shaky leadership from conferences lately. We've seen some shaky realignment
Speaker 1: Maryland and Rutgers lately. No offense but kind of offense.
Speaker 1: And so this allows schools to maximize their own value,
Speaker 1: like Notre Dame has going out and getting their own
Speaker 1: TV deal, you know, keeping all the revenue from bowl games,
Speaker 1: that kind of thing that schools, these types of schools
Speaker 1: are leaving money on the table by agreeing to share.
Speaker 1: And you know some of some of the conferences have
Speaker 1: more unequal splits with payouts. But this would allow schools
Speaker 1: to maximize their own ability. It's yeah, it's an interesting model.
Speaker 1: I mean, I like it from a really high level.
Speaker 2: I like.
Speaker 1: So much of what we talk about is also they
Speaker 1: just keep winning those conferences, so there's less drama.
Speaker 2: They just keep winning the conferences. So much of what
Speaker 2: we talk about here is like Notre Dame joining a conference.
Speaker 2: Why haven't they joined the ACC or the Big ten
Speaker 2: or wherever, right, And it's fun to kind of think
Speaker 2: about this from a different perspective and have all the
Speaker 2: other teams go to the Notre Dame route.
Speaker 1: I like it from ZAG.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is a ZAG. I like it from the
Speaker 2: perspective of it would certainly promote some really interesting scheduling.
Speaker 2: And you know, though I'm fine with the SEC schedule,
Speaker 2: it's obviously a gauntlet to make it through that, and
Speaker 2: sure Alabama did so wonderfully this year, but it would
Speaker 2: definitely produce some interesting matchups that we wouldn't otherwise see.
Speaker 2: So I like that. We actually got another suggestion a
Speaker 2: couple of them that referenced maybe having a number of
Speaker 2: teams build in an automatic open date in week ten
Speaker 2: or eleven where they have to schedule another Power five team,
Speaker 2: which is Yeah, we got a lot of scheduling ideas,
Speaker 2: which which is cool and not on my top line
Speaker 2: that I would marry, mind you, but it's still an
Speaker 2: interesting concept. So I like this idea from a scheduling standpoint.
Speaker 2: Where I guess I would poke some holes is in
Speaker 2: that notion that they're gonna make more or could make
Speaker 2: more on their own outside of the conference structure, because
Speaker 2: I think at least some of what we've seen with
Speaker 2: respect to Notre Dame over the last few years points
Speaker 2: in the direction that over the course of time, it
Speaker 2: will make more financial sense for them to join a conference.
Speaker 2: They're not quite able to maximize their own profit the
Speaker 2: way they did. What before some of these conferences were
Speaker 2: pulling down such big bucks from networks.
Speaker 1: What if teams went the modern Notre Dame route. What
Speaker 1: if we'll use Ohio State for this? Because Ohio State
Speaker 1: has done really, really well in terms of TV ratings
Speaker 1: these past few years. They're like, if you want a
Speaker 1: highly rated game, it's a really good idea to have
Speaker 1: the Buckeyes playing that game. An enormous fan base nationally.
Speaker 1: What if Ohio State did the five Big Ten game
Speaker 1: thing and then scheduled the rest of their schedule themselves. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's cool. That'd be great. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's rotating or you have, you know, a
Speaker 1: pseudo pod where every year Ohio State plays Michigan, Michigan State,
Speaker 1: Penn State. I don't know what game outside of those
Speaker 1: three feels necessary on an Ohio State Big Ten schedule.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm forgetting somebody, but I don't think I am.
Speaker 1: Those feel like the biggies. If you're just a national
Speaker 1: college football fan and who you want to see Ohio
Speaker 1: State play, and who that fan base wants to see play,
Speaker 1: I think maybe pseudo is the move. It gets us
Speaker 1: more interesting games. Now, all of these schools are still
Speaker 1: gonna want a path to a playoff. As it stands now,
Speaker 1: Notre Dame has a fantastic path in a normal year
Speaker 1: in that they can probably go eleven to one, and
Speaker 1: if they win a couple of those big games impressively,
Speaker 1: they're in a pretty good spot. Notre Dame is they
Speaker 1: don't have to play a conference championship game in a
Speaker 1: normal year, so it makes sense to me. And plus
Speaker 1: we'll see Ohio State games on I don't know CBS,
Speaker 1: we'll see that. You know, we'll get some sort of
Speaker 1: network TV deal. Because it's an enormous, enormous program. I'm
Speaker 1: kind of okay with it because it especially if if
Speaker 1: we really really want and I'm not sure that I do,
Speaker 1: but if we really really want as a college football society,
Speaker 1: if we want a more competitive Big ten Ohio State
Speaker 1: now playing in that conference championship game. I think gets
Speaker 1: us there. It seems win win, though there is just
Speaker 1: something to me like if we had all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: seven huge pseudo independent schools, it would throw me. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'm just old and I like am setting my ways.
Speaker 1: It would throw me in that we are not all
Speaker 1: in this together kind of thing with college football, which
Speaker 1: I know is the reality, but then it's sort of
Speaker 1: too baldly face.
Speaker 2: I sort of like the possibility of the Big Ten
Speaker 2: signing Ohio State to like a three year deal to have.
Speaker 1: Like so like NBA superstar free agents doing the like
Speaker 1: they have a player option.
Speaker 2: Interesting. Okay, I like it. Where we go.
Speaker 1: Next, Let's go with the silly one, which I absolutely love. Punts.
Speaker 1: Every punt that a team kicks themselves now cost one point.
Speaker 1: This is this is one of them. I would marry
Speaker 1: this idea.
Speaker 2: Okay, I I love it well. I love this idea
Speaker 2: with all my heart. I love this idea with all
Speaker 2: my heart. So we have been hearing Gosh for as
Speaker 2: long as we've done this show, for as long as
Speaker 2: we've had any advanced analytical bent to this show, we
Speaker 2: have been hearing teams need to go for it more
Speaker 2: on fourth down, we need to go for it more
Speaker 2: and fourth down. And I don't know to what end
Speaker 2: that's really materialize. Somebody smarter than I and you and
Speaker 2: whoever would would probably need to tell us our team's
Speaker 2: going for it more and fourth down. I don't think
Speaker 2: they are, but it's it's long been the darling of
Speaker 2: the advanced analyst universe that this should be a thing. Certainly,
Speaker 2: if you make punts a deduction like in figure skating
Speaker 2: for a botched to loop, it would encourage you to
Speaker 2: go on out there and try to go forward and
Speaker 2: fourth down. I think it would also discourage the up
Speaker 2: tempo play that we've come to know over the last
Speaker 2: decade or so, because the more times your offense is
Speaker 2: out there, the more opportunity you have to punt and
Speaker 2: potentially lose lose points. Yeah, I do wonder if like
Speaker 2: an arm punt counts here, that could be the loophole
Speaker 2: to get around this, Like just get get your dude
Speaker 2: out there fourth and everybody go deep. Yeah, just get
Speaker 2: Joe Milton out there and try to heave the ball
Speaker 2: as far as you can and you know, right, the
Speaker 2: defense could obviously try to knock it down, but you
Speaker 2: still got to cover the guys because otherwise they could
Speaker 2: go for a touchdown. So we have a lot to
Speaker 2: work out with this rule, I think, But I like
Speaker 2: it from a really high level.
Speaker 1: I can tell you this. In twenty eleven, Duke led
Speaker 1: the nation with thirty six fourth down attempts three per
Speaker 1: game twelve games, thirty six if my math ads up,
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen thirteen and thirty nine thirteen games thirty nine
Speaker 1: attempts for army three a game. So has it necessarily
Speaker 1: you know, twenty eighteen twelve attempt twelve games, forty four
Speaker 1: attempts for FAU. It's all sort of within thirty eight
Speaker 1: to forty four. On the air, there's no to me
Speaker 1: statistical outlier. Teams don't seem to be going for it
Speaker 1: all that much more on fourth down. They should be,
Speaker 1: especially if you're midfield ish and it's fourth and short.
Speaker 1: Mathematically believe it makes a ton of sense to so
Speaker 1: I love this idea. I would not. I mean, points
Speaker 1: are so important, Dan said, obviously unless you're within like
Speaker 1: inside your own fifteen or twenty. I don't think if
Speaker 1: this were a rule, I don't think teams are punting. Yeh,
Speaker 1: I think this would encourage more active football twenty five
Speaker 1: percent more plays going fourth on fourth down, it's twenty
Speaker 1: five percent, I think, So.
Speaker 2: I think we could modify this rule to make it like,
Speaker 2: if you are inside the forty yard line and you punt,
Speaker 2: then it costs a point. I don't think you want
Speaker 2: to put other teams forty Yeah. Yeah, I don't think
Speaker 2: you want to put teams in a situation where they're
Speaker 2: on their own five and they have to go for
Speaker 2: it otherwise they'll lose a point because think of the
Speaker 2: opportunity costs there. You can punt it away, or you
Speaker 2: could throw a long interception and maybe still get a stop,
Speaker 2: as opposed to turning it over on your own four
Speaker 2: and giving a team an easy six.
Speaker 1: So I think, I mean, you're just giving up a point.
Speaker 1: You can make it up.
Speaker 2: Well, you're giving up a point, and then if you
Speaker 2: turn it over on your own four, you give it
Speaker 2: to the other team they walton for a touchdown. Suddenly
Speaker 2: that's a pretty big swing.
Speaker 1: No, no, I'm saying that's when you go for a
Speaker 1: punt when you're that backed up, I guess take the
Speaker 1: point off. Yeah, all right, I love this.
Speaker 2: It is a great idea. Andrew. This is I don't
Speaker 2: know what Andrew does for a living, but he should
Speaker 2: be doing more than he is.
Speaker 1: The real weave revert back to pre alignment conferences. The problem,
Speaker 1: of course with that this addresses is we've lost rivalry games.
Speaker 1: Teams are sort of operating out of a desire, a
Speaker 1: more selfish desire than the good for the sport necessarily.
Speaker 1: And that's okay, that's understandable, but that is an issue,
Speaker 1: and teams have made moves that have probably set their
Speaker 1: program back just in terms of getting lost in the
Speaker 1: shuffle and a jumbo size conference.
Speaker 2: Can I can I issue? Can I can I issue
Speaker 2: a bit of a zag here on this one?
Speaker 1: Okay? And I'll say my interpretation of this is like
Speaker 1: two thousand and five college football, Yeah, because there were
Speaker 1: multiple steps of realignment.
Speaker 2: Here's what I want to see. And you you jog
Speaker 2: my memory talking about what problem? You think? This solves
Speaker 2: every single rivalry in college football, the rivalry rivalries that
Speaker 2: we've come to know and love. I'll use Penn State, Pit,
Speaker 2: I'll use Texas, Texas, and m there are a thousands
Speaker 2: that we could list, yep, But inevitably, like we saw
Speaker 2: with Texas, Texas, A and M. You have this kind
Speaker 2: of cold war between programs when a rivalry stops being
Speaker 2: played as frequently, where each side wants to blame the other, right,
Speaker 2: we need to come up with some system where it
Speaker 2: is very clear who is to play for the rivalry ending.
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean A and M leaving the conference is
Speaker 1: a reason. But the reason they left is Texas and
Speaker 1: the Longhorn Network. So I don't know how you accurately
Speaker 1: point to the aggrieved party there.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking we need to have some sort of like
Speaker 2: publicly televised mediation session where it is very clear after
Speaker 2: hearing out both sides either who is at fault or
Speaker 2: that who decides or that they're a mutual Obviously, Bill Hancock,
Speaker 2: he's a decider for everything. But we need to have
Speaker 2: some sort of very transparent process by which we decide
Speaker 2: is this rivalry going to continue? Is it one of
Speaker 2: us to blame, both of us to blame. Are we
Speaker 2: going to mutually part ways? Are we just going to
Speaker 2: continue this thing into perpetuity? Because rivalries, rivalries are the
Speaker 2: fabric of college football. Outside recruiting and outside rooting for
Speaker 2: your alma mater, it is rivalries that really are the
Speaker 2: engine behind this sport that make it so special. So
Speaker 2: the more I guess just hate that we could pump
Speaker 2: into that process, the more raw emotion that we can
Speaker 2: pump into rivalries, I think, the greater the health of
Speaker 2: college football in the long term. So whatever we can
Speaker 2: do on that front, I'm all about it.
Speaker 1: I think we just need to put a bunch of
Speaker 1: money on a table, ty. I think that's how we
Speaker 1: get these games happening again. And you mentioned a name
Speaker 1: in Bill.
Speaker 2: Hancock, which is obviously very funny.
Speaker 1: I've got another name, ty. Do you remember who was
Speaker 1: willing to put up money for a plus one playoff game?
Speaker 1: Way back when? Do you remember who was going to
Speaker 1: put up the money. I'm almost positive it was Michael Dell.
Speaker 1: I'm almost positive I could be making that completely up.
Speaker 2: I forget what year it was. Let's just go with it.
Speaker 2: Let's just go with Michael Dell. We're going with Michael Dell.
Speaker 2: He's got the money, he's a billionaire, he's in Texas,
Speaker 2: which is a football rich state.
Speaker 1: And basically, if he says I'm going to put up
Speaker 1: ten million dollars and it's going to go to whoever
Speaker 1: wins this game, and it's going to go specifically to
Speaker 1: a scholarship fund for underprivileged kids to attend that school.
Speaker 1: And then and then we will learn who actually is
Speaker 1: chicken shit, We'll actually learn which school because we've got
Speaker 1: an amazing cause with an amazing amount of money tied
Speaker 1: to it via Michael Dell, who I assume has a
Speaker 1: ton of cash.
Speaker 2: Should we should we secret verbal Michael Dell about this?
Speaker 1: Michael Dell does he have a Twitter account?
Speaker 2: His Twitter account is Michael Dell and it's got the
Speaker 2: blue check mark, So I'm fairly serry it's him. But
Speaker 2: what do we what do we see still had a
Speaker 2: fifty five He's got a lot of money for a
Speaker 2: fifty five year old dude. What How do we make
Speaker 2: our approach here virtually without getting people on the bad
Speaker 2: side of Michael Dell because we're I think we're looking
Speaker 2: for a diplomatic approach as opposed to the usual confusion
Speaker 2: that we're trying to create.
Speaker 1: Correct worth twenty seven B. I think you just tweet
Speaker 1: him and ask him can you put can you put
Speaker 1: ten million annual dollars on the table to get Texas
Speaker 1: and Texas A and M to play every year? He
Speaker 1: went to UT.
Speaker 2: He did go to UT. I'm looking, I'm looking at it.
Speaker 1: But he's from Houston, which is a and M country.
Speaker 2: So he's got a vested interest here.
Speaker 1: He does have a vested interest.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't totally be opposed to Michael Dell taking over
Speaker 2: college football.
Speaker 1: I don't know enough about Michael Hotel, Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 2: I probably need to do a little bit more research.
Speaker 2: But makes a good monitor and a decent laptop, right right,
Speaker 2: I mean that's already better than Bill Hancock. Right.
Speaker 1: His brother Adam is the longtime boyfriend of Pad Malakshmi. Okay,
Speaker 1: he's a prime This is a primetime family.
Speaker 2: This is a trimetime family.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Michael Dell on Twitter.
Speaker 1: I don't know where we started revert to revert back
Speaker 1: to pre alignment conferences and we ended up with Pad Malakshman,
Speaker 1: which is I think.
Speaker 2: We've got to go. We've got a suggestion here, okay,
Speaker 2: to get rid of the fumble out of the back
Speaker 2: of the end zone rule. Now, okay, we saw this
Speaker 2: recently in the NFL playoffs with the Browns. It happened
Speaker 2: to the Browns, and you know, every time it happens,
Speaker 2: we see just this explosion of activity on Twitter and
Speaker 2: social media. Get rid of the rule. Don't get rid
Speaker 2: of the rule. Frankly, it's more people saying get rid
Speaker 2: of it than otherwise. I have always been okay with
Speaker 2: the rule, and I understand the argument against it. I
Speaker 2: understand that the offense drives the field to get down
Speaker 2: in the end zone.
Speaker 1: And if that same thing happens anywhere before, then any
Speaker 1: of those one hundred.
Speaker 2: Yards right anywhere else. I totally understand the argument against
Speaker 2: the rule. I just think it is and I think
Speaker 2: it was Bill cal when I was watching the post
Speaker 2: game for that for the Browns game, he was the
Speaker 2: one who brought it up. I think it was a
Speaker 2: halftime actually, and he said, look, this, this would be,
Speaker 2: by any other standard, the most significant penalty levied against
Speaker 2: a team. Period. We don't see a twenty yard penalty
Speaker 2: for pretty much anything else outside of pass interference. And
Speaker 2: it's just wrong to penalty possession.
Speaker 1: It's full possession, not.
Speaker 2: Just in possession, and full possession. Sure, yeah, so I
Speaker 2: take that point. I think it's valid. I guess the
Speaker 2: reason that I'm okay with it is because it is
Speaker 2: such a quirk. It is such a quirk And you
Speaker 2: know me, I'm all about the quirks. I want. I
Speaker 2: want to spring football because of the quirkiness of it. Yeah, so,
Speaker 2: I you know, that's not a compelling argument for I
Speaker 2: understand that people are yelling at their at their audio
Speaker 2: player right now. You're not making a case for it. No,
Speaker 2: I'm not, of course I'm not. I like the fact
Speaker 2: that it is so quirky, and it is such a
Speaker 2: steep punishment that I think I'm in favor of keeping it.
Speaker 2: Maybe there's like a sadist quality to that, but I'm
Speaker 2: just I understand it okay with it.
Speaker 1: I understand where you're coming from, because what you're doing
Speaker 1: is you're punishing somebody for making a killer mistake where
Speaker 1: it matters the most. So you're saying, right, this part
Speaker 1: of the field is the most important part of the
Speaker 1: field to not fumble it. So if you do fumble it,
Speaker 1: tough luck. Everybody knows the rule going in, and so
Speaker 1: I understand the severity of it is not in line
Speaker 1: with anything else in the sport. Man, when it happens
Speaker 1: to your team though, and it happened to Oregon in
Speaker 1: a key moment in two thousand and seven when it
Speaker 1: looked like they were on a national championship path, and ultimately,
Speaker 1: if they had won out after losing a game the
Speaker 1: way they did against Cal with I think it was
Speaker 1: Cameron Colvin fumbling it out of the end zone, they
Speaker 1: still would have gone to the national championship even with
Speaker 1: that move. So what happens to your team's brutal, But
Speaker 1: it's even for everybody. I would be okay with. Did
Speaker 1: you ever play twenty one tie like the Driveway basketball
Speaker 1: game you'd play with your friends? Sure, And I think
Speaker 1: you have to get some way it goes for some
Speaker 1: iterations the game. You have to get exactly twenty one,
Speaker 1: so you get two points if you make it out
Speaker 1: on the court, you get one point when you make
Speaker 1: the free throw, and if you get to whatever it is.
Speaker 1: If you get to twenty and miss a free throw,
Speaker 1: obviously there's no way to get exactly twenty one, so
Speaker 1: you go back to twelve or something like that. I'm
Speaker 1: okay with that too. I'm okay with being punished the
Speaker 1: twenty yards but maintaining possession. You fumble it out of
Speaker 1: the end zone on a scoring attempt, you have to
Speaker 1: go back to the twenty. I think I'm okay with that.
Speaker 1: I'm okay with it. I understand the appeal of the
Speaker 1: wrinkle where the stakes are just higher in this one
Speaker 1: by one foot area of the field. Yeah, I appreciate
Speaker 1: the quirk of the rule. And you know, I was
Speaker 1: thinking about this looking over this list, But I may
Speaker 1: be more of a dick than I thought.
Speaker 2: I know, I don't really appreive that our next shirt. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I know, I don't really present as one. But one
Speaker 2: rule that I wanted to add to the list here
Speaker 2: is to reinstitute some use for margin of victory. I
Speaker 2: have long held the belief.
Speaker 1: And I've thought about this continue.
Speaker 2: I set it on our live stream during the National
Speaker 2: Championship when I lost my voice when we were talking
Speaker 2: to Michael Felder that and I've said this to you, Gosh,
Speaker 2: more times than I could ever count over the last
Speaker 2: twelve years. The art of the blowout is very much
Speaker 2: like a dying breed, and a good blowout sometimes just
Speaker 2: as a palette cleanser, as a way to assert dominance,
Speaker 2: like it sucks when it happens to your team, but
Speaker 2: sometimes when you see a team like a Wisconsin drop
Speaker 2: eighty on another school, there is a certain show of
Speaker 2: force there that need not be overlooked. So I don't
Speaker 2: know how we do that. I know that margin of
Speaker 2: victory has been boiled out of a lot of the
Speaker 2: advanced stuff that we like to look at, and for
Speaker 2: good reason.
Speaker 1: I mean, could you cap it. Could you say, let's
Speaker 1: take margin of victory into account, but we're not going
Speaker 1: to take it into account above thirty five.
Speaker 2: I think that's a possibility.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think thirty five points is the maximum number
Speaker 1: that we would take into account your average margin of victory,
Speaker 1: and so you can blow out a team like old
Speaker 1: Big twelve Oklahoma Kansas style, Texas UCLA style. I think
Speaker 1: that went the UCLA way when I think about it.
Speaker 1: But where it's like seventy seven to six on the
Speaker 1: bottom line, you're like, ooh, yeah, it's definitely a week one.
Speaker 1: I like a good blowout.
Speaker 2: I love it.
Speaker 1: It's much it's a much better way to lose as well,
Speaker 1: no doubts.
Speaker 2: It's a quick death. And yeah, I could very easily
Speaker 2: see on some of those Tuesday night ranking shows or
Speaker 2: the reveal show at the end of the year talking
Speaker 2: about how many thirty five plus point victories a team
Speaker 2: like a.
Speaker 1: Well, it's also a very specific metric. It's not like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, this guy was missing, but they really showed
Speaker 1: out in the second half. No, like that is a
Speaker 1: number that is a specific number that can be pointed to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's maybe not great for a team like Bama.
Speaker 2: Bama's probably the worst example. But I'll say a team
Speaker 2: like Bama looking to get in the subs and build depth.
Speaker 2: But presumably they could build up that lead early and
Speaker 2: then but.
Speaker 1: They didn't lose this year. It didn't matter what their
Speaker 1: market didn't true and they don't think they won any
Speaker 1: of their games by single digits as well until the
Speaker 1: Florida Games.
Speaker 2: If they wanted to beat teams by thirty five, they
Speaker 2: very well could have right exactly the ones that they.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's typically not the teams that have to
Speaker 1: worry about it that if they want to win by
Speaker 1: thirty five, they could. They're going to get in regardless
Speaker 1: if it's a choice at that point, they're going to
Speaker 1: get in. DIRP step pay the players more, pay the
Speaker 1: coach is less fine with this? Do you tie bonuses
Speaker 1: to both coaches and players something like, I mean, obviously
Speaker 1: a higher paid coach is going to do better in
Speaker 1: the way of bonuses than an entry level coach. But
Speaker 1: do you tie you know, a coach getting one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars for winning the conference and then two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars more for making the playoff and two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand dollars more for winning a playoff game,
Speaker 1: and five hundred thousand dollars more for winning the national championship.
Speaker 1: Do we peel off some Do we peel off some
Speaker 1: bonus money for the players who play the most snaps.
Speaker 2: I'm all in favor of giving some of the power
Speaker 2: back to the players to change the balance of power,
Speaker 2: because right now it's all.
Speaker 1: Well, it's also incentive to go to those games as well.
Speaker 2: It's incentive based. Yeah, I you know, saying pay the
Speaker 2: players more. That's a lot to unpack. This isn't an
Speaker 2: actual idea. This is more of just a hope, just
Speaker 2: a hope. I do think that the way we are
Speaker 2: headed with this name, image and likeness legislation is a
Speaker 2: good approach. I think it's a good approach. I don't
Speaker 2: know how the hell you regulate it, but I think
Speaker 2: it's a good approach because it essentially takes out of
Speaker 2: the equation schools having to pay the players, and it
Speaker 2: it's more of an Olympic model, right where you can
Speaker 2: go out and you can use your name and benefit
Speaker 2: off of off of whatever brand equity you have.
Speaker 1: Also, but it also passes off the responsibility, which I'm
Speaker 1: not a huge fan of that. Like, if you're not
Speaker 1: a big personality, if your left guard is incredible. I
Speaker 1: don't know what Quentin Nelson's personality was like at Notre Dame.
Speaker 1: I think he is like a fairly decent presence about
Speaker 1: him behind a microphone from what I've seen, But he
Speaker 1: wasn't a big, flashy, showy social media guy. But he
Speaker 1: was the most important player arguably on that team. Right right,
Speaker 1: If he's not keen on doing a car commercial or
Speaker 1: going on Instagram and selling some sort of like soap
Speaker 1: for big men kind of thing, I don't think he
Speaker 1: should be punished financially. It's tough. I understand the quandary,
Speaker 1: and it's I think it's an entry point, a fairness
Speaker 1: entry point for players to take advantage of name, image
Speaker 1: and likeness. But I'm okay with that generally.
Speaker 2: I'm okay with trying to shift that balance of power
Speaker 2: away from coaches. We got a couple here suggestions for
Speaker 2: rules changes. Okay, so Johnny says, change the targeting rule
Speaker 2: two levels one in a two. This reminds me of
Speaker 2: like a flagrant one and two in basketball. He says,
Speaker 2: one is a twenty yard penalty no ejection. Two is
Speaker 2: a twenty yard penalty with an ejection for a clearly
Speaker 2: blatant district ard for a defenseless player. So that's that's
Speaker 2: one suggestion. We got another one here from Jack who
Speaker 2: says no penalty for celebrations, which I love. This is
Speaker 2: one of the other ones. Yeah, I just look, football
Speaker 2: is a sport. It's fun. We watch for entertainment, and
Speaker 2: I'm as long as there are not players out there
Speaker 2: doing physical harm to their opponents defenselessly, I'm all about
Speaker 2: the celebration. Let them celebrate, let them have fun.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 2: We have another one here to say that overtime drives
Speaker 2: should start at the forty, which I'm we talking about
Speaker 2: the targeting first, let's talk about tari go ahead.
Speaker 1: My only thing with the targeting is it needs to
Speaker 1: be an absolute rule. It either needs to not exist
Speaker 1: at all, and the game goes back to the level
Speaker 1: of violence. Good or bad depending on your worldview where
Speaker 1: they lived before, or it has to be a no nonsense,
Speaker 1: leave no doubt about anything close to targeting, you're out
Speaker 1: of the game. The problem is when you compare it
Speaker 1: to the NBA. Is somebody running full speed and launching
Speaker 1: themselves with a helmet at the jugular of a slot
Speaker 1: receiver is different than somebody hitting somebody's arm really hard,
Speaker 1: going up for a layup on a fast break, or
Speaker 1: even hitting somebody mid air fast break. It's different. It's
Speaker 1: much more violent, and so that's why there are levels
Speaker 1: that sometimes somebody's just going for a block in an
Speaker 1: NBA game and it just it gets it's too much
Speaker 1: and you got to call it. But it's not worth
Speaker 1: kicking them out. Football wise, we're talking knocking somebody out
Speaker 1: cold and saying, well.
Speaker 2: It's fifty yarder.
Speaker 1: The move is there to discourage that level of violence,
Speaker 1: and so what's to stop on a hail mary to
Speaker 1: decide a game just tackling a receiver just using the
Speaker 1: extreme level of targeting to make sure he doesn't come
Speaker 1: down with it, because you know you're only gonna be
Speaker 1: penalized fifteen yards and not kicked out of a game
Speaker 1: that there's no actual serious repercussion or you're knocking you know,
Speaker 1: DeVante Smith, you're only gonna get fifteen yards, And some
Speaker 1: rogue safety says, well, I'm not getting kicked out of
Speaker 1: the game. I'm going to absolutely obliterate him in a
Speaker 1: clearly illegal way and knock him out of the game. Well,
Speaker 1: the I hear what you're saying, Like it doesn't. The
Speaker 1: rule is there to discourage extreme levels of violence and
Speaker 1: dirty plays. And I understand that kids are getting kicked
Speaker 1: out of games because they make mistakes that are not dirty.
Speaker 1: But then you're leaving it on referees who don't necessarily
Speaker 1: have the best reputation to just decide something subjective that's
Speaker 1: going to change the tenor that's the entire ross's that's
Speaker 1: the issue. I like the spirit of this idea. I
Speaker 1: think the spirit of this idea is right on.
Speaker 2: Like what happened against James Skalsky and the justicelear start
Speaker 2: hit targeting by the rule that to me would qualify
Speaker 2: as like the twenty yard penalty no ejection.
Speaker 1: But isn't it also to protect him? It's to protect
Speaker 1: he put it m self in danger by lowering his
Speaker 1: head like that.
Speaker 2: I like the spirit of this rule. I think the
Speaker 2: hole if we're gonna poke it is you're leaving this
Speaker 2: up to the opinion of the referees. What is blatant
Speaker 2: disregard versus what isn't And that's where you get into
Speaker 2: that ugly gray territory. So next rule. Next rule.
Speaker 1: Here you mentioned overtime starting from the forty that would
Speaker 1: give us some long ass games.
Speaker 2: This one from Ken. Only the person who scores the
Speaker 2: touchdown can kick the extra point.
Speaker 1: It works for me.
Speaker 2: I would marry this rule. I love this rule so much.
Speaker 1: It absolutely works for me, especially because your mind immediately
Speaker 1: goes to running backs or a tight end or a
Speaker 1: quarterback running in about whatever. There are touchdowns that involve
Speaker 1: defensive tackles is so good falling on the ball. There
Speaker 1: are touchdowns involving an offensive lineman scooping up a fumble
Speaker 1: at the two and running it in whatever. I think
Speaker 1: large men kicking is an element to college football that
Speaker 1: we have not embraced enough. So yeah, this is all
Speaker 1: for it.
Speaker 2: This this has decided hack a shack feel to it. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean it's not a direct line of site, but
Speaker 2: like there the notion that you would have a guy
Speaker 2: like a DeVante Smith and your team who is awesome
Speaker 2: at creating in the open field, scoring touchdowns, being electric
Speaker 2: on the field, and then just can't kick for crap
Speaker 2: exactly right. That to me is very interesting. I could say, like,
Speaker 2: let's institute this rule in the NFL. Instead of moving
Speaker 2: the kicks back, let's put it. Let's put it back
Speaker 2: to where it was before. It's eighteen nineteen yard kick,
Speaker 2: and let's just whoever scores a touchdown gets to kick it.
Speaker 2: I love what I mean.
Speaker 1: Weren't there like way way back when, like quarterback slash punters.
Speaker 1: I think Sammy bad Norm Van Brocklin. Yeah, so it
Speaker 1: forces players to learn more skills. It also, let's say
Speaker 1: Minnesota is playing Indiana. Minnesota is down twenty seven to twenty.
Speaker 1: Minnesota is on the one yard line with a few
Speaker 1: seconds left. We're talking make or break, do or die
Speaker 1: all of the sudden. PJ. Fleck has to decide down seven,
Speaker 1: is it worth kicking an extra point after I score?
Speaker 1: Perhaps with Tanner Morgan more going for two? Or you
Speaker 1: or die go for two? Or you like a good wrinkle,
Speaker 1: you like a good zag putting in his kicker at running.
Speaker 2: Back oh oh yeah, and have to.
Speaker 1: And just chance punching it in with a sneak or
Speaker 1: a hand on your quarterback, right, I mean it's at
Speaker 1: quarterback likely because why would you waste Everybody knows the
Speaker 1: kicker is going to be getting the ball. But then
Speaker 1: you also have a decoy element.
Speaker 2: With the kicker. There. Can you put like an eye
Speaker 2: formation of kickers?
Speaker 1: You absolutely could. Yeah, all of a sudden, you have
Speaker 1: to do end of game calculus in a way that
Speaker 1: nobody thought possible. You have your punter, your kicker, your
Speaker 1: backup kicker, your red shirting kicker in some sort of
Speaker 1: crazy formation.
Speaker 2: James Franklin would so screw this up. Yeah, of course
Speaker 2: he would.
Speaker 1: I love this rule so much. So now you have
Speaker 1: three choices. Chance Moe Ibrahim kicking the ball, chance giving
Speaker 1: it to your kicker on the goal line to score,
Speaker 1: or going for two in a.
Speaker 2: Do or die.
Speaker 1: Situation.
Speaker 2: This is so good, I think. What are Ron Dane
Speaker 2: scored something like seventy one touchdowns in his college career
Speaker 2: four years, obviously a storied career at Wisconsin. Of those
Speaker 2: seventy one touchdowns, how many kicks does Ron Daye make? Well?
Speaker 1: Going in? Does Ron Dane know that he is going
Speaker 1: like the summer before the or the summer when the
Speaker 1: rule is instituted, does he have to you know, does
Speaker 1: he have the warning to kick five hundred extra points
Speaker 1: that summer? Well, yeah, he's not thrust into it.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, it's not like it just happens in
Speaker 2: the first quarter and it's like, hey, Ron, we have
Speaker 2: breaking news. He knows he can plan for it, he
Speaker 2: can practice it. But of those seventy one attempts, how
Speaker 2: many does Ron Daye make? Does he make more than
Speaker 2: fifty percent?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: I think he does.
Speaker 1: Now you're also talking about somebody who's taking a bunch
Speaker 1: of hits, who's going to have tired legs at the
Speaker 1: end of a year the way that kickers don't. Right,
Speaker 1: So seventy one Ron day tremendous athlete. Could he learn
Speaker 1: to make eighty percent of his point afters? So you're
Speaker 1: talking about the timing of snap step step step, kick,
Speaker 1: kick it high enough, kick it down the middle. You
Speaker 1: probably have more blocks. You definitely have more blocks. You're
Speaker 1: gonna have more shanky line drive situations that don't go
Speaker 1: anywhere near the uprights.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of those seventy one touchdowns, scored. I think if
Speaker 1: he had a summer ahead of time.
Speaker 2: I say he makes fifty five of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's where I'm leaning. I don't know what that
Speaker 1: number works out, two percentage wise, it's over fifty.
Speaker 2: It's over fifty percent.
Speaker 1: This.
Speaker 2: If I'm going to bat for any of the rules
Speaker 2: that we have listed off here, this is the one
Speaker 2: I would love it. We have another one here. We're
Speaker 2: running out of time and my voice is dying. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's do two more. Yeah, we have a bunch of
Speaker 2: the scheduling stuff. That couple of those. Yeah, I wanted
Speaker 2: to talk about the one that talked about Where was
Speaker 2: it about the on side kicks? Here we go, no
Speaker 2: more overtime, starting at the twenty five yard line after
Speaker 2: a coin toss. Start it with an on side kick
Speaker 2: from the kicking team's forty. If the kicking team recovers
Speaker 2: and scores the game and scores, the game ends. Repeat
Speaker 2: until one team scores, recovers the kick, or holds their
Speaker 2: opponent from answering. I love this rule. I think on
Speaker 2: side kicks are only recovered like less than ten percent
Speaker 2: of the time. It's certainly less than twenty percent.
Speaker 1: Also, a violent play, you just violid play, throwing haymakers
Speaker 1: back and forth, don't worry about the safety.
Speaker 2: Just forget about that, all right. But I like this
Speaker 2: again as one of those wrinkles. It to include on
Speaker 2: side kicks because on side kicks are fun. They rarely
Speaker 2: work out, but they are fun to watch, So from
Speaker 2: a fans perspective, there's a lot upside there.
Speaker 1: I didn't put this one in there. Yeah, that doesn't
Speaker 1: do as much for me. I didn't put this one
Speaker 1: in there. Somebody suggested almost a shootout style after three overtimes.
Speaker 1: It's just a kick does a kickoff? Kick versus no
Speaker 1: kick versus yeah, kick off, not a kick a kickout.
Speaker 1: Just keep out, moving back, key, moving back five or
Speaker 1: ten yards at a time. It's not football deciding the game,
Speaker 1: but neither is it in hockey really when you're just
Speaker 1: doing a shootout or soccer.
Speaker 2: So that's interesting. Give me like a quick scheduling one
Speaker 2: or two.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we have a lot of them. Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, somebody said eliminate overtime, which I kind of love.
Speaker 2: I kind of love that one because the system, Yeah
Speaker 2: it's not the worst, not the worst.
Speaker 1: Does does the complexion of this past year change. If
Speaker 1: Notre Dame and Clemson in South Bend End in a tie,
Speaker 1: I don't think it does. They're both still making the
Speaker 1: playoff and ultimately losing.
Speaker 2: So if Notre Dame doesn't beat Clemson the first time,
Speaker 2: I think there's a chance that losing to Clemson in
Speaker 2: the a SEC Championship game knocks them out of the playoff.
Speaker 1: You think that would be enough to give A and
Speaker 1: M the NOD hypothetical?
Speaker 2: I think I think so hypothetically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have a lot of people calling for the
Speaker 1: normalization of schedules, which I mixed on. I would be
Speaker 1: okay with it if it meant pods Bill Connolly's system
Speaker 1: by which teams and I'm definitely paraphrasing and shortening all
Speaker 1: of this where you basically have three annual opponents in
Speaker 1: your conference that you know have the most tradition and
Speaker 1: zazz behind you know, Alabama would have Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, right,
Speaker 1: and then everything else within the conference rotates and you
Speaker 1: end up playing more teams more often. I love that
Speaker 1: you play eight games total within the conference. What people
Speaker 1: have suggested is based on that Coastal Carolina BYU game
Speaker 1: is building in a flex week at some point we've
Speaker 1: got a lot of these pitches building in a flex
Speaker 1: week somewhere during the season and say player two or
Speaker 1: three non conference games early, then halfway through the conference
Speaker 1: part of the schedule you randomly play, or it's like
Speaker 1: a select it's a thirty two team tournament the top
Speaker 1: thirty two teams, or it's just a whatever. However many
Speaker 1: teams EI. There's a Power five version, a G five version.
Speaker 1: You have conference matchups Big ten, Pac twelve, and you
Speaker 1: just you rank everybody and you have you have teams
Speaker 1: play each other as sort of a challenge midyear to
Speaker 1: say okay, and maybe you flop who gets to play
Speaker 1: at home in certain years whatever, but you say, okay,
Speaker 1: Alabama's number four and Oklahoma states number I'm doing my
Speaker 1: math real quickly here that it's a four and a
Speaker 1: thirteen or something like that in an NCAA tournament style
Speaker 1: seed pairing, and they're just going to play each other
Speaker 1: on October nineteenth and it's decided the week before. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I like the real time scheduling flex scheduling twist because again,
Speaker 2: like you could argue, the best game we saw a
Speaker 2: year was BYU Coastal and that happened as I like
Speaker 2: to say, sixty hours before kickoff. So anything that we
Speaker 2: can do, especially from our standpoint, Dan, what do we
Speaker 2: see as the year progresses? Inevitably the downloads go down
Speaker 2: and Hm, I don't think it's because of the show
Speaker 2: gets worse. I think it's because people lose interest. Their
Speaker 2: teams are out of it, they don't have as much
Speaker 2: reason to watch. If suddenly you give folks a reason
Speaker 2: to watch in week twelve a game that we only
Speaker 2: found out about a week prior or some period prior.
Speaker 2: That's interesting. That injects new life into the sport. It
Speaker 2: certainly makes it harder for something.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the ticket market.
Speaker 2: But the ticket market, like, there's so much upside there
Speaker 2: from a fans perspective that I would want that absolutely.
Speaker 1: Imagine being a season ticket holder and you see the schedule,
Speaker 1: you see the like the Oregon schedule is you know,
Speaker 1: cal and UCLA and Arizona State. But then right there
Speaker 1: in late October wild Card.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well you could. I'm assuming charge much higher rates
Speaker 2: for ticket prices if you've got a random Wildcard game
Speaker 2: in there.
Speaker 1: We'll think about the speculation involved in that ticket market.
Speaker 1: Earlier on in the season, Obama coming Eugene.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I love this, I really love Let's let's
Speaker 2: put our name behind this one as well, so we'll go,
Speaker 2: we'll go.
Speaker 1: What do you think anything needs to be done about
Speaker 1: FCS scheduling. I've been all over the place with this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't. I used to be staunchly anti FCS.
Speaker 2: Mm hmmm. We've actually gotten some good FCS games over
Speaker 2: the last couple of years. The overwhelming majority of them aren't,
Speaker 2: but you know, like it's good for the sport. We've
Speaker 2: seen North Dakota State contend and win. It is a
Speaker 2: good exception. They're an exception. It is good for the sport.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, I'm I'm very mixed on it
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: I think the big loser in this is obviously the fan,
Speaker 1: a fan playing paying to see a SOSO FCS opponent
Speaker 1: take on a paycheck game, you know, traveling to wherever,
Speaker 1: to Texas or to USC whatever. I know USC hasn't
Speaker 1: played a lot of these games, but you know, that's
Speaker 1: just an example of a team that would probably lay
Speaker 1: waste to Northern Arizona or whatever. But it's good for
Speaker 1: the sport and that it gets money in the lower
Speaker 1: levels of the sport, and that's a positive thing. You
Speaker 1: want football to be popular on all levels if you're
Speaker 1: into the sport. Also, it's good for a team to
Speaker 1: have that opening week to sort out some kinks. We
Speaker 1: like to talk about the biggest improvement coming between week
Speaker 1: one and week two. And I know people we have
Speaker 1: some other ideas about scheduling. Okay, take all the you know,
Speaker 1: the top fifteen, the top twenty five teams from the
Speaker 1: previous year, and schedule them all in Week one and
Speaker 1: random matchups whatever. All of the sudden, we have a
Speaker 1: Week one that should filled with TCU, Wisconsin and Minnesota,
Speaker 1: Florida State and we just get all these like incredible
Speaker 1: matchups week one. I don't love that because I don't
Speaker 1: think teams are anywhere near where they're going to be
Speaker 1: week one. So what I like is if we're going
Speaker 1: to have a normalized schedule, everybody in Week one gets
Speaker 1: an FCS opponent, work through some kinks, money gets paid.
Speaker 1: You know, it's good for the health of the sport. Yes,
Speaker 1: fans lose, but at the same time, you get to tailgate,
Speaker 1: you get to go outside. It's still warm out everywhere,
Speaker 1: it's it's Okay, you get to watch college football, people
Speaker 1: are still excited even if the game ends thirty five
Speaker 1: to three. You're eating brought worst, you're with your buddies
Speaker 1: in a normal year. I think it's okay. I think
Speaker 1: we can get over it.
Speaker 2: Let's close out with this one from Ryan. Okay, I
Speaker 2: think this is something everyone can agree on. No clock
Speaker 2: stoppage after first downs except for the last two minutes
Speaker 2: of each half, because we need to try and keep
Speaker 2: game times closer to three hours. Some games drag on forever.
Speaker 2: Can we just do this one by unanimous consent?
Speaker 1: Dan, Yeah, I mean, this doesn't really change anything about
Speaker 1: the game, It just makes it shorter by keeping the
Speaker 1: clock going. I think I'm okay with it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I generally speaking, the games that get really out of
Speaker 1: hand are the ones on you know, the CBS games,
Speaker 1: because they go to commercial every few minutes. It has
Speaker 1: nothing as much to do with the first down clock
Speaker 1: as its much as it's like, Okay, there was a
Speaker 1: punt right there, there was a first down play and
Speaker 1: it went out abound, right, you need that, thank you
Speaker 1: very much. I think I'm alright with this one. And
Speaker 1: it's also the air raid games it's when we had
Speaker 1: those Sunny Dykes Mike Leach games out West that went
Speaker 1: four and a half hours because of all the passes
Speaker 1: and you guys going out of bounds or in complete passes, whatever.
Speaker 1: So I think I'm okay with this game. I don't
Speaker 1: think it would appreciate I don't think it would change
Speaker 1: the way the rhythm of a game in an appreciative way.
Speaker 2: So I don't think it would change the game that much.
Speaker 2: And I think think it would be a much better
Speaker 2: fan experience, much better fan experience because some of these games.
Speaker 2: He's right, come on, you.
Speaker 1: Want you want to maddox these games. You just want
Speaker 1: to Let's keep it roll. Let's keep it roll.
Speaker 2: Let's streamline this stuff. Man. You know it's if you're
Speaker 2: down twenty, you're probably not gonna win. Let's go, let's
Speaker 2: keep this, Let's get this show in the road.
Speaker 1: I think I don't know if there was any I'm
Speaker 1: looking through here. I don't know if it was any
Speaker 1: we have like the bracketbus ideas oh Davis says, this
Speaker 1: is the final one. The spring games should be scrimmages.
Speaker 1: They don't need to be against huge teams, but make
Speaker 1: it like a preseason game. Plenty of high schools do
Speaker 1: it. It would increase viewership and attendance.
Speaker 2: What do they when they vote?
Speaker 1: So maybe this is the FCS match but no, But
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 2: Know when they vote in like the Senate or Congress.
Speaker 2: What is it? I I when they agree nay, yeah,
Speaker 2: can we just go?
Speaker 1: And a who we just go?
Speaker 2: I on this one too.
Speaker 1: So the reason you do it is because you get
Speaker 1: a real game in the spring. It's a it's a
Speaker 1: nice little treat. It's a friendly, right, It's it doesn't
Speaker 1: have you know, it doesn't have the stakes of a
Speaker 1: regular season game, but it's still the sport. The reason
Speaker 1: why I don't think it would be fully successful is
Speaker 1: why would you try play Trevor Lawrence in a late
Speaker 1: April game if you're colepsing, it's not going towards your record.
Speaker 1: It's fun to see early enrollees and red shirts and
Speaker 1: those types of people, but.
Speaker 2: You're you're assuming that the friendly is going to have
Speaker 2: normal football rules. What if you can't hit the quarterback?
Speaker 2: You know, what if it's essentially spring football but you're
Speaker 2: protecting What.
Speaker 1: If overtimes consists of only on side kicks?
Speaker 2: What if punts cost one point. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, you risk somebody, you know,
Speaker 1: an outside linebacker, tearing their acl but that spring practice anyway. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that anyway.
Speaker 2: So as long as as long as you've got some
Speaker 2: protections in place here to make sure that these guys
Speaker 2: aren't out drilling each other and you're hurting your top talent,
Speaker 2: I don't see why you can do it.
Speaker 1: So the only reason why I think teams wouldn't be
Speaker 1: into it is I don't think guys are in game
Speaker 1: shape during the spring like there they go through winter conditioning.
Speaker 1: I think spring is a lot more for seeing what
Speaker 1: you have depth wise, installing new systems, getting new coaches ready,
Speaker 1: and it's just it's shaking off some rust. But it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily getting guys game ready. And so that's that
Speaker 1: could be the issue where it's sort of counterintuitive to
Speaker 1: what spring football actually is. It's a series of practices
Speaker 1: for the sake of practice, not for the sake of
Speaker 1: preparing for a game. Fall camp is very different from
Speaker 1: spring camp. So that's that's the only reason why not.
Speaker 1: But I guess they are scrimmaging at the end and
Speaker 1: if everybody's on the same playing field, But man, then
Speaker 1: you're you're rarely talking about installing a new fall camp
Speaker 1: in the spring.
Speaker 2: At that point, I'm okay with this. I'm totally okay
Speaker 2: with this, But.
Speaker 1: I would understand why they're not, but I would be going.
Speaker 1: But especially if we are talking about, say, you know,
Speaker 1: a Scout team red shirt. You know it's guys wearing
Speaker 1: the uniform, it's guys that are contributors. But you know
Speaker 1: you're gonna get a bunch of guys sitting and maybe
Speaker 1: they're playing a D two school, local D two school,
Speaker 1: a way to get some money to other schools in
Speaker 1: the area. Oregon's playing willam At College. Shippensburg football has
Speaker 1: taken on Penn State and State.
Speaker 2: Well, now that we've got Mike Rsich, that's obvious Shippensburg connection.
Speaker 1: Oh man, I think I'm okay with it. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I it would be very strange to May still.
Speaker 2: By the way, I don't think we've talked about like
Speaker 2: your sitch taking over for.
Speaker 1: Replacing Kirk Shrock.
Speaker 2: Yeah, kind of came out of the blue. Rock.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I really didn't anticipate all sorts of crazy changes
Speaker 1: to coaching staffs, which just shows how dumb I am,
Speaker 1: But yeah, it obviously didn't work out. We don't know
Speaker 1: the nature of what occurred in the Penn State Football
Speaker 1: office and whether or not people got along or didn't.
Speaker 1: But no, apparently James Franklin wanted to hire Mike You're
Speaker 1: Sick last year and got beaten out by Texas and
Speaker 1: Tom Herman. So took advantage of his opportunity. Got a
Speaker 1: local smart football mind. And I think he played in
Speaker 1: PA as well. Right, yeah, I think he played college
Speaker 1: football there. He's a PA dude.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Good for Penn State. I hope it works out for him.
Speaker 2: Follow us on social media at solid Verbal. Also check
Speaker 2: out our patreon at for Bowlers dot com. As they
Speaker 2: said at the top, two episodes a week for the
Speaker 2: foreseeable future. At some point in July, will scale back
Speaker 2: up to three to get you ready for the season.
Speaker 2: But for the time being, catching her breath, letting her voices, heal,
Speaker 2: getting back on the horse every Tuesday Thursday.
Speaker 1: That's the sky, sir, simple as that.
Speaker 2: Stay warm out there, a right, man.
Speaker 1: I woke up and it said negative zero on my
Speaker 1: I don't even know what that means.
Speaker 2: That's a singular. You're in the singularity Yeah, isn't there
Speaker 2: for that guy over there, my good friend Dan Rubenstein,
Speaker 2: for myself, Tie Hill, the brand. We will talk to
Speaker 2: y'all next week. In the meantime, stay safe, stay healthy,
Speaker 2: stay happy, enjoy your weekend.
Speaker 1: Stay soft, please,