Speaker 1: Welcome to the solid verbal. Call that for me. I'm
Speaker 1: a man, I'm forty. I've heard so many players say, well,
Speaker 1: I want to be happy.
Speaker 2: You want to be happy for a day?
Speaker 1: Edith State is that woo woom?
Speaker 2: And Dan and Tie Welcome back to the Solid Verbal
Speaker 2: Boys and girls, My name is Ty Hildenbrand. Joining me
Speaker 2: today Matt Brown from the Extra Points College Football newsletter.
Speaker 2: Dan is still taking some time off. Don't worry, he's fine.
Speaker 2: He mentioned to me this morning that he thought we
Speaker 2: secret verbaled him on the last show. He wasn't sure.
Speaker 2: Of course, I played ignorance, but he did seem to
Speaker 2: enjoy it. So good job, good effort. Team. You can
Speaker 2: call off the dogs now. Look, don't forget the subscribe
Speaker 2: to the show. If you haven't already, you can go
Speaker 2: to soliverbal dot com. That's the website upper right hand corner.
Speaker 2: You can find all the links for how to subscribe
Speaker 2: to the show. We're going twice a week all throughout
Speaker 2: the offseason. At some point, once we get closer to
Speaker 2: the season, we will switch back up to three episodes
Speaker 2: per week, but a couple months away from that actually
Speaker 2: being a thing. Look us up on social media. All
Speaker 2: the hotspots and check out our Patreon at verbolers dot com.
Speaker 2: Today's guest Matt Brown, a longtime friend of the show,
Speaker 2: never actually a guest on the show, so I wanted
Speaker 2: to change that because he's doing great work with his
Speaker 2: Extra Points Newsletter, an awesome source of information if you're
Speaker 2: just interested in how the college football sausage is made,
Speaker 2: top quality work, and he's just done some really detailed
Speaker 2: reporting now that I want to discuss with them in
Speaker 2: the wake of that EA Sports announcement about the game
Speaker 2: coming back, So we're going to chat a little bit
Speaker 2: about that. We'll wade a little bit into the territory
Speaker 2: about name, image and likeness, the stuff that we discussed
Speaker 2: with Andy Staples on Tuesday, and we're also going to
Speaker 2: talk about of the quirks of the twenty twenty season,
Speaker 2: maybe some of the lessons learned, and what we expect
Speaker 2: to see as an output of a really weird college
Speaker 2: football year. Without further ado, let's welcome Matt Brown of
Speaker 2: the show, all right, joining me now. It is the
Speaker 2: esteemed author of the Extra Points Newsletter, which you could
Speaker 2: find at extra points mb dot com. He's also got
Speaker 2: a new podcast called Going for two what he does
Speaker 2: with our friend Brian Fisher. It's Matt Brown. Welcome to
Speaker 2: the show. I don't, Matt, have we ever had you
Speaker 2: on the show?
Speaker 1: We haven't. I was just thinking about this. This was
Speaker 1: would have been on my career bucket list. I think
Speaker 1: when I started doing this all these years ago, right,
Speaker 1: it was what a god for us to call doing
Speaker 1: the Tonight show if you were a college football blogger.
Speaker 1: I'm glad to finally make my appearance.
Speaker 2: Well, it's great to have you. We've been friends for
Speaker 2: a long time, all the way back to the days
Speaker 2: when you were working for Espnation and I know, doing
Speaker 2: Ohio State content and other stuff for SBN. What is
Speaker 2: Extra Points?
Speaker 1: Sure? So? Extra Points is a newsletter that tries to
Speaker 1: really dig into all the stuff that shapes college athletics
Speaker 1: that we don't really see on the field. We talk
Speaker 1: about college sports, and for good reason, we spend a
Speaker 1: lot of time talking about the sports part and maybe
Speaker 1: not as much the college side. So this is a
Speaker 1: newsletter that talks about things like higher education policy and
Speaker 1: how athletic department finance budgets work, and how changing student
Speaker 1: demographic patterns impact the ability for universities to make athletic
Speaker 1: investments and all of these things that you only think
Speaker 1: about a whole lot, but it really does have a
Speaker 1: pretty big impact about what schools are actually good at.
Speaker 1: Sports publishes four days a week and doing that now
Speaker 1: for almost two years.
Speaker 2: With that being said, we started talking recently about the
Speaker 2: news that came out, obviously about the video game, because
Speaker 2: this is what we do now, the only important news,
Speaker 2: the only important news. It came out that Notre Dame
Speaker 2: said they don't want to be part part of the game,
Speaker 2: at least not until the whole NIL legislation gets sorted out.
Speaker 2: So we did a show on Monday. I talked Andy
Speaker 2: Staples about NIL. We got his hot takes on where
Speaker 2: things are headed in college football with respect to name,
Speaker 2: image and likeness. But I wanted to bring Mat on
Speaker 2: because we both feel like this got a bit misconstrued
Speaker 2: by what Notre Dame bant. A lot of people took
Speaker 2: it as Notre Dame doesn't want to be part of
Speaker 2: the game. They're cutting off their nose despite their face.
Speaker 2: I think you and I, if I understand, correctly, see
Speaker 2: things much much differently. Matt. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I think that is correct. For one I think
Speaker 1: it's premature for anybody to say at this point, at
Speaker 1: least for an FBS program, but they're not going to
Speaker 1: be in the game. The game isn't going to come
Speaker 1: out for two more years. There's a long time to
Speaker 1: get from A to B. But what Notre Dame said
Speaker 1: wasn't that they didn't want to be in the football game,
Speaker 1: was that they didn't want to participate in the game
Speaker 1: unless there was a mechanism to directly compensate the players
Speaker 1: that were going to be in the game. And there's
Speaker 1: a lot of time for that to happen. And I
Speaker 1: would imagine that Andy agreed here, but I would I
Speaker 1: would even I would be very surprised if when this
Speaker 1: game eventually comes out that current athletes likenesses are not used.
Speaker 1: There's given how quickly and how dramatically name image of
Speaker 1: likeness legislation is changing. I would I alould feel very confident
Speaker 1: in the next eighteen months that there's going to be
Speaker 1: a mechanism for that to happen. And so now a
Speaker 1: Notre Dame gets to say they're not really giving anything
Speaker 1: up by saying that they're not wanting to participate now,
Speaker 1: but they get to one look like a real player's
Speaker 1: program that they're willing to leave money on the table
Speaker 1: to advocate for the financial interests of their athletes, and
Speaker 1: they also get to put a little bit of extra
Speaker 1: political pressure because if they can kind of sneak out
Speaker 1: in the world, we'd like to be a part of
Speaker 1: this game. If X Y and Z happens, well, that
Speaker 1: makes it much easier for Notre Dame fans to start
Speaker 1: sending emails and letters asking well, why is an X,
Speaker 1: Y and Z happening? And if that means that they
Speaker 1: start putting a little bit of pressure on May maybe
Speaker 1: indianas two senators, then all the better here for one
Speaker 1: hundred Dame, and all the better for consumers of this
Speaker 1: video game.
Speaker 2: It is sort of a parlor trick to drum up
Speaker 2: some pr support, and I think too, as you said, rightly,
Speaker 2: make it look like a bit of a player's program.
Speaker 2: I think it's a wise move. I want to harken
Speaker 2: back though, to your last point about putting pressure on Congressman. Certainly,
Speaker 2: video games as a whole have been part of a
Speaker 2: larger societal conversation for years. That's not anything new. I
Speaker 2: can't think of any though that have cracked the sports
Speaker 2: realm like this one, Like you've got members of Congress
Speaker 2: openly talking about legislation specifically to get the video game
Speaker 2: back up and running. It seems like we've entered do
Speaker 2: territory with this thing where the game maybe kickstarted the
Speaker 2: whole debate. The demise of the game, pissed off enough
Speaker 2: people that they wanted it back and started talking about this,
Speaker 2: and now we're almost at the point where the game
Speaker 2: is the vehicle by which we're going to usher in
Speaker 2: this new era of nil and perhaps video gaming at large.
Speaker 1: It's it's so funny. I think you're You're absolutely right,
Speaker 1: and I think there's this huge gap in understanding between
Speaker 1: the individuals that are really making these decisions and the consumers, Like,
Speaker 1: you know, even among my audience and a lot of
Speaker 1: my readers are you know, athletic directors and conference commissioners
Speaker 1: and people who work in this industry along with regular fans.
Speaker 1: The demand when I write anyone, when I when I
Speaker 1: write about name image of likeness, which I've done often,
Speaker 1: the number one of the feedback I get from any
Speaker 1: fan is how does this impact the video game? Or great?
Speaker 1: You know, you can talk to me about the FTC
Speaker 1: and you can get in the weeds about all this
Speaker 1: antitrust stuff, but just tell me what it means for
Speaker 1: the video game. And it's it's interesting. I feel like
Speaker 1: some senate staffers aired and not letting their bosses know.
Speaker 1: Like list, if you come out in favor of a
Speaker 1: group licensing group license mechanism, there's not a single voter
Speaker 1: that's going to punish you. There's not a single conservative
Speaker 1: voter that's going to think, if we have a group
Speaker 1: license that's giving too much to athletes, I'm going to
Speaker 1: vote for another person. But it's the easiest layup in
Speaker 1: the world because if you are like twenty three to forty,
Speaker 1: this college video game was a transformational experience in your
Speaker 1: college football fandom. This is what connected you to all
Speaker 1: these different schools. It's what made you fall in love
Speaker 1: with your PlayStation. And there's an enormous rush to bring
Speaker 1: that back. I think it would be the biggest, the
Speaker 1: biggest layoup. And it is funny. Sometimes really significant political
Speaker 1: changes happen for maybe more superficial reasons, and it's entirely
Speaker 1: possible that we'll look back and realize that what really
Speaker 1: got the engine going, and some of these really big
Speaker 1: changes in how we define amateurism is in a large
Speaker 1: part because people want to bring Dynasty Mode back.
Speaker 2: It's crazy. It is crazy. Who doesn't want Dynasty Mode back.
Speaker 2: It's it's just been cool to see, of all things,
Speaker 2: the video game kind of driving the ship here. I
Speaker 2: feel like I've buried a little bit of the lead
Speaker 2: because when we exchanged emails and texts earlier, you mentioned
Speaker 2: the quote gazillion Foyer requests that you had been a
Speaker 2: part of. We have to talk about the Foyer requests.
Speaker 2: I feel like I feel like when I go through
Speaker 2: and produce this show, we're going to have to put
Speaker 2: Foyer Requests somewhere in the title or at least in
Speaker 2: the body the description of the episode, because people care
Speaker 2: about that stuff, and you did send out a gazillion
Speaker 2: of them. Why did you send out a gazillion of them?
Speaker 2: What are you trying to accomplish?
Speaker 1: Sure? So, I love the Freedom of Information Act, and
Speaker 1: I love all of the various versions of that that
Speaker 1: apply to every other state, because this is a great
Speaker 1: way to find out information when a school doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: want to tell you right. This is the tool that
Speaker 1: we use so we can look up coaching contracts and
Speaker 1: we can figure out what their buyouts are going to be,
Speaker 1: and you can get an idea for what you know.
Speaker 1: Boosters and other third parties are telling athletic directors or
Speaker 1: coaches in a way that you can't necessarily tease that
Speaker 1: out from a press conference, especially over the last year
Speaker 1: when we haven't had a chance to do as many
Speaker 1: press conferences or have that same level of access. So
Speaker 1: this has been a pretty consistent reporting tool for me
Speaker 1: when I run Extra Points. And as soon as that
Speaker 1: video game came out, I was really cure about the
Speaker 1: announcement of the new video game coming Back. I was
Speaker 1: I was curious. Well, you know, in the initial story
Speaker 1: with ESPN, the EA Sports mentioned that they have over
Speaker 1: one hundred teams signed up. Well, that's not one hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty. So clearly there's some team, there's some schools
Speaker 1: here that are aware of this video game and didn't
Speaker 1: immediately sign up. And there's a lot of other schools
Speaker 1: that would like to be in this video game and
Speaker 1: weren't mentioned in this in this press release. You know,
Speaker 1: if you go back, I think it was like two
Speaker 1: thousand and seven or so, there were SCS teams in
Speaker 1: the game. You know, I don't think all of them.
Speaker 1: I don't think the Patriot League was in it, but
Speaker 1: there were a lot of other scs insteaditutions. And you
Speaker 1: can still find people who are still playing the original
Speaker 1: PlayStation too, so they can keep playing as like Morgan
Speaker 1: State or Portland State or something. Right, So I filed
Speaker 1: an open records request for about one hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: FBS and FCS institution.
Speaker 2: How long did that take?
Speaker 1: You know, normally, if you'd asked me like two years ago,
Speaker 1: it would have taken me a week. But I've built
Speaker 1: a gigantic spreadsheet and my old business partner, Daniel little Bit,
Speaker 1: helped me with this. He's over at Sportico now that
Speaker 1: has the correct records keeper for every single FBS institution,
Speaker 1: so I could now BC see them and send out
Speaker 1: really big batches relatively quickly. You know. It's funny. It
Speaker 1: still took me a couple of hours because a lot
Speaker 1: of schools have individual forms you have to fill out,
Speaker 1: but I got every public school that I'm allowed to
Speaker 1: foil them for FBS and FCS. Try to understand who's
Speaker 1: in the game, and if they're not in the game,
Speaker 1: are they communicating why they're not in the game, and
Speaker 1: what some of those communications are like. And you know
Speaker 1: already I found out I got something back from Murray State,
Speaker 1: which sent me a communication from the CLC, which is
Speaker 1: the licensing organization that works with most colleges, not everybody,
Speaker 1: that said, hey, as of right now, you know a
Speaker 1: lot of people are asking about it. We're not planning
Speaker 1: on including SCS programs at launch. We might include them
Speaker 1: later on, So you know, given to this as EA,
Speaker 1: don't be surprised if there's a DLC package a couple
Speaker 1: of months after launch, so you could play with your
Speaker 1: HBCUs and your Patriot League and your Missouri Valley teams.
Speaker 1: And then I also found communications from some other institutions
Speaker 1: that either expressed reservations or did not immediately jump on board,
Speaker 1: like Notre Dame. So I honestly would not be surprised
Speaker 1: if in the next week or two we saw an
Speaker 1: institution give a similar statement to the press that under
Speaker 1: Dame did, saying that we're not going to participate unless X, Y,
Speaker 1: or Z happen. Some of those are going to be
Speaker 1: really big names like Notre Dame. Some of them might
Speaker 1: not be, because I've seen documents to suggest that there
Speaker 1: are some Mountain West in common Diference USA teams that
Speaker 1: are not excuse me, not Conference American Athletic Association teams
Speaker 1: that are not immediately on board.
Speaker 2: You mentioned before two years for the game. Where does
Speaker 2: that two years number come from.
Speaker 1: Well, it's come from a couple of places. One, this
Speaker 1: is the timeline that the CLC itself is telling member
Speaker 1: institutions right that they're again that there's this licensing organization.
Speaker 1: I have the actual email that I've written about here
Speaker 1: at extra points saying, look, we know that some fans
Speaker 1: are going to expect that we're just going to reskin
Speaker 1: the NCAA twenty fourteen game and rush this thing out
Speaker 1: in a couple of months, But that was multiple console
Speaker 1: cycles ago. Like the code isn't just a copy and
Speaker 1: paste job. That development team has been they're not with
Speaker 1: the company anymore, or they've been moved on to other projects.
Speaker 1: We want to do this right, and that's going to
Speaker 1: require some substantial changes. So I want to say the
Speaker 1: exact language in the CLC email was it may take
Speaker 1: several years for this to come out. Even EA Sports
Speaker 1: right after that teaser was saying like this, you know
Speaker 1: this is going to take a little while, So my
Speaker 1: expectation is that you'll probably see some kind of teaser
Speaker 1: or some additional information about this game, maybe in next
Speaker 1: year's you know, you know, major consumer electronics exposed. But
Speaker 1: I would not expect to be able to sit down
Speaker 1: with my PlayStation and play it probably until twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: And you know, we've talked about it on the show
Speaker 2: for a while. They definitely got in that cycle where
Speaker 2: they were kind of remaking the older version of the game.
Speaker 2: The difference between twenty thirteen and twenty fourteen, let's say,
Speaker 2: wasn't that drastic. A couple tweaks here and there they
Speaker 2: made it better, but ultimately it was kind of the
Speaker 2: same deal. But you're right, like we have now pretty
Speaker 2: much skipped an entire generation of consoles. There was never
Speaker 2: a version made for the PS four, and with the
Speaker 2: PS five now being more and more available, you would
Speaker 2: assume that they're going to have to do a complete
Speaker 2: step change in order to make the thing better. What
Speaker 2: I'm curious to see, and I tend to agree with
Speaker 2: you that we're going to see players in the game,
Speaker 2: But a lot has changed on the EA side over
Speaker 2: the course of time, where the model has geared a
Speaker 2: lot more towards micro transactions. What does that mean? You
Speaker 2: can buy stuff in the game, and they've done that
Speaker 2: really well with Madden, They've done that really well with FIFA.
Speaker 2: I think there was an old Ultimate Team mode, I
Speaker 2: know it was there in the twenty fourteen version of
Speaker 2: the game, where they could probably use that in a
Speaker 2: newer version and they could steer more into that micro
Speaker 2: transaction thing to make money, because let's face it, when
Speaker 2: this game drops, there's going to be a gazillion people
Speaker 2: that want to buy it. It's going to be one
Speaker 2: of their top selling titles almost instantly. So I guess
Speaker 2: I'm just curious the balance between what does it mean
Speaker 2: for them to have current players in the game versus
Speaker 2: what does it mean to just have a game where
Speaker 2: people can go in there, play it again for the
Speaker 2: first time in a in a eternity, and start buying
Speaker 2: stuff and making them money.
Speaker 1: It is. It's such a weird dynamic because I feel
Speaker 1: like the college football game had a really different experience
Speaker 1: if you're playing it on a one player mode. You know,
Speaker 1: I think we've taken this for granted because it's been
Speaker 1: so many years since we've had this game. But online
Speaker 1: gaming for consoles wasn't nearly as mature of an industry
Speaker 1: back in twenty thirteen times, oh.
Speaker 2: My god, not even close as is now.
Speaker 1: No, Like I remember when I had the Xbox three sixty,
Speaker 1: I had to buy like an external USB dongle to
Speaker 1: play online, and most a lot of games didn't play
Speaker 1: online at all. Like what made the NCAABLELIEU football franchise
Speaker 1: so attractive and so men's amerizing you for me, and
Speaker 1: I think for you, and I think for most people
Speaker 1: was the Dynasty mode. It was this idea to go
Speaker 1: pick you know, take Middle Tennessee State, or take Acron,
Speaker 1: or take some imported team that we made up and
Speaker 1: guide them from essentially a Division two program to a powerhouse.
Speaker 1: And that's a more solo experience. Now, I think you
Speaker 1: can customize that experience with micro transactions. Like I mean,
Speaker 1: they obviously can't do this because they need to have
Speaker 1: some school licenses, but you can imagine a world where
Speaker 1: it's like, well, I'm trying to recruit this player, spend
Speaker 1: five ninety nine to drop a bag and make it
Speaker 1: more likely to bring that player.
Speaker 2: On, right, Well, what you see in.
Speaker 1: Micro transactions, I think with both EA and with two
Speaker 1: K I play NBA two K. A lot is that
Speaker 1: you use those micro transactions to skip ahead in that
Speaker 1: grinding process. So if you're doing like a solo player
Speaker 1: campaign like they used to have for EA Sports, maybe
Speaker 1: you or for at college football, maybe you can drop
Speaker 1: a little bit of money to automate some of those
Speaker 1: practice sessions or to boost your characters attributes a little
Speaker 1: bit or I don't know. I don't even really know
Speaker 1: if we're going to have an Ultimate Team mode in
Speaker 1: the same way you have for the other EA Sports games,
Speaker 1: or even if it does exist, if it would be
Speaker 1: as popular. I do think it's a pretty safe assumption though,
Speaker 1: that is going to try and to find ways for
Speaker 1: you to spend money beyond the seventy bucks. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: to actually get the game.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well there, Dan and I talked about this before
Speaker 2: they could somehow merge the Ultimate Team with the Dynasty Mode,
Speaker 2: Because you're right, the Dynasty Mode that was like a
Speaker 2: seminal moment for a lot of us when that became
Speaker 2: a thing, certainly throughout college for me. I mean, that
Speaker 2: was what we did when we weren't you out and
Speaker 2: about the town. So it strikes me as something that's important,
Speaker 2: and I think if they're going to try and retain
Speaker 2: the luster of the game, they need to make sure
Speaker 2: that they incorporate that. But again, you know, the bigger
Speaker 2: question remains the players in the game. Are they actually
Speaker 2: going to have real likenesses? Are they not? I feel
Speaker 2: like that's a huge selling point for a lot of people,
Speaker 2: though I do think if they put a game out
Speaker 2: tomorrow and they didn't have that, people would still play
Speaker 2: it just to kind of get back in the swing
Speaker 2: of things. I guess the biggest barrier to entry then
Speaker 2: is that licensing component that you mentioned earlier, And there
Speaker 2: are bills in Congress now, some have group licensing, some don't.
Speaker 2: What do you see as the eventual future state that
Speaker 2: gets this deal done. How do they structure it for
Speaker 2: something like college football, which is not like the NFLPA,
Speaker 2: where you've got a players association that bargains on behalf
Speaker 2: of the players, at least not yet. How does this
Speaker 2: eventually happen when it happens.
Speaker 1: It's a really good question, and I've talked to a
Speaker 1: couple of antitrust experts who actually who have suggested that,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe you really can't do this without a union,
Speaker 1: and that is that is the reason why NCAA administrators
Speaker 1: and school administrators right now have been so reticent to
Speaker 1: embrace group licensing because what they would the name image
Speaker 1: like is the idea of an athlete making a couple
Speaker 1: hundred bucks for an autograph session or from selling some
Speaker 1: Instagram ads. That really doesn't bother most athletic directors. Some
Speaker 1: coaches might complain about it, because coaches complained about literally everything,
Speaker 1: but that alone is not a existential threat. But the
Speaker 1: idea that that might open the door for codifying an
Speaker 1: employee employer relationship, that's the existential threat. And I believe
Speaker 1: the a couple months ago when they were first talking
Speaker 1: about this, Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman was saying like,
Speaker 1: this is why we don't think we can do group licensing.
Speaker 1: The entity that can force them to do it as Congress,
Speaker 1: And I mean, there was actually another name image likeness
Speaker 1: bill introduced today from a Senator from Kansas that was
Speaker 1: much more expansive than what had been proposed six months ago.
Speaker 1: What I imagine that's going to happen is we're going
Speaker 1: to see a federal sweeping college athletics reform bill that's
Speaker 1: going to be signed probably in Q three or Q
Speaker 1: four of this year, and it's going to produce some
Speaker 1: kind of national standard for name, image, you likeness legislation,
Speaker 1: so you won't have thirty six different states doing things.
Speaker 1: It's not going to make athletes employees, and there's going
Speaker 1: to be a group licensing component, and then the event
Speaker 1: everyone's going to haggle over what kind of medical obligations
Speaker 1: are school is going to have, What is this going
Speaker 1: to mean for transfer rules? What is this going to
Speaker 1: mean for anti trust exemption? I suspect that eventually the
Speaker 1: NC DOUBLEA will concede to allowing a group licensed mechanism,
Speaker 1: whether that's through the NFLPA, whether that's through the College Athletes,
Speaker 1: the organization that had been in organizing athletes to protest
Speaker 1: but before the beginning of the season, whether that's another entity.
Speaker 1: I think that that's going to be an easy thing
Speaker 1: to say yes to, to maybe take some of the
Speaker 1: more scary things to the NC DOUBLEA off the board,
Speaker 1: and that's probably where we're headed.
Speaker 2: You mentioned the NC double A, and I know you've
Speaker 2: reached out to athletic directors and folks within the business
Speaker 2: of college football, but have you had a chance to
Speaker 2: get anyone from the NC double A to comment on this,
Speaker 2: either put their name to it or on background, like
Speaker 2: how do they feel about this asteroid that's headed towards
Speaker 2: college football?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean specifically about the video game. The number
Speaker 1: one bit of feedback I've gotten is I cannot believe
Speaker 1: so many people care so much about this, which speaks
Speaker 1: speaks to this, to this generational divide right where I
Speaker 1: think if you're over fifty five, it just does not compute.
Speaker 1: And now I think that those individuals are getting some
Speaker 1: education here right now. I've talked to a lot of
Speaker 1: the administrators from smaller conferences and smaller schools that say, like, honestly,
Speaker 1: I'm tired of talking about this, Like let's just allow it.
Speaker 1: It's really not going to be a big like a
Speaker 1: big deal for most of our athletes. And all the
Speaker 1: time and meetings that we spend haggling over something that's
Speaker 1: going to impact a couple of kids at Clemson and
Speaker 1: Ohio State, it's time that we're taking away from you know,
Speaker 1: supporting our academic mission or helping our people graduate, or
Speaker 1: you know, figuring out how we're going to keep Olympic sports.
Speaker 1: I think if you talk to some administrators at FCS
Speaker 1: leagues or even some G five leagues, that's what the
Speaker 1: feedback that you're going to get. But you have a
Speaker 1: couple of leaders some really big schools that are are
Speaker 1: still kind of really hardliners against any kind of named
Speaker 1: image of likeness. And there's one thing that I think
Speaker 1: scares everybody in the Power five. It's this idea of
Speaker 1: schools getting recruiting advantages, and like, it doesn't really make
Speaker 1: sense to me because I know, and you know, and
Speaker 1: God knows, and Mark Emmer knows that this is not
Speaker 1: a like a completely fair recruiting playing field anyway. Ohio
Speaker 1: State and Alabama and Notre Dame are going to have
Speaker 1: advantages over Oregon State forever. They've had that for one
Speaker 1: hundred years. But that is what is keeping these administrators
Speaker 1: up at night, is this idea that somehow if you
Speaker 1: codify the ability for a recruit to make a little
Speaker 1: bit of money, then that will throw everything into disarray.
Speaker 1: And I don't think the data supports that, but that's
Speaker 1: definitely the concern.
Speaker 2: It just seems like with the amount of revenue schools
Speaker 2: are able to generate off of these kids, that they
Speaker 2: should get a little bit something in return. I know
Speaker 2: they get scholarships in a lot of cases, but I
Speaker 2: think the value for what they provide far exceeds that
Speaker 2: in many cases. So if we are trying to build
Speaker 2: a case for this beyond the moral argument that they
Speaker 2: should get something for it, what is the data?
Speaker 1: Well, I look at this way. So let's say that
Speaker 1: I'm wrong and the worst case scenario is correct, and
Speaker 1: that if we allow a name image and likeness marketplace,
Speaker 1: that the largest, best financed institutions will have an even
Speaker 1: stronger recruiting advantage over the others. And to that, I'd say,
Speaker 1: look at the recruiting rankings. Now, you're only allowed to
Speaker 1: sign twenty five kids in Alabama's signing twenty four blue Chippers,
Speaker 1: Like you've had the same six schools monopolizing the talent
Speaker 1: acquisition since we've really been measuring it in earnest. So
Speaker 1: let's say, Okay, name image, you like this because Alabama
Speaker 1: an advantage, how much better can that recruiting class realistically get?
Speaker 1: Like one school's not going to sign literally the top
Speaker 1: twenty five recruits. You know, four of them are going
Speaker 1: to be quarterbacks. I don't know if there's really a
Speaker 1: meaningful way for like the top six schools to separate
Speaker 1: themselves even more from a parody perspective. So that means, Okay,
Speaker 1: it's either worst case is going to stay the same,
Speaker 1: or it might get better. And this is what I've
Speaker 1: heard from economists is that if you are a program
Speaker 1: in a more rural market that has a really defined
Speaker 1: fan base, you're in a position now to make literally
Speaker 1: make a better financial pitch. I could definitely see a
Speaker 1: world where somebody could make more money playing at Nebraska
Speaker 1: or at Mississippi State or even East Carolina. Then they
Speaker 1: might add a more prestigious institution because they have a
Speaker 1: market that's more willing to let them have other commercial opportunities.
Speaker 1: I feel like a lot of the detractors are kind
Speaker 1: of talking at both sides of their mouth when it's
Speaker 1: this will either this will ruin competitive balance, which has
Speaker 1: never existed, or nobody will. Only three people are going
Speaker 1: to take advantage of this. And while like, I don't
Speaker 1: really think there's going to be a ton of football
Speaker 1: players that are going to be making six figures, you
Speaker 1: go again, coming back to the video game, if there's
Speaker 1: a if there's a group license, literally every single football
Speaker 1: player in FBS will get some money from participating in
Speaker 1: this game. That means your name, image of likeness value
Speaker 1: is greater than zero. That payoff might be one hundred
Speaker 1: bucks on a copy of the game, but it's it's
Speaker 1: not nothing.
Speaker 2: Well, and a lot of kids would take that. A
Speaker 2: lot of kids would be fine with that.
Speaker 1: Unquestionably, I think I've never talked to an athlete that said,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm glad the game went away. This was
Speaker 1: something you know, they grew up playing it too. They
Speaker 1: want to be able to say that they were in
Speaker 1: the game. I don't think I'd be very surprised if
Speaker 1: in the near future somebody says, you know, I'm going
Speaker 1: to hold out for more money. I really want six
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. I think the individual amount of money really
Speaker 1: probably isn't going to be very much. The schools themselves
Speaker 1: don't get paid very much for the license, Like Notre
Speaker 1: Dame's not getting a three hundred thousand dollars check for
Speaker 1: being in this football game.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and hey, I mean, look in this Brave New world.
Speaker 2: EA could use some of these players to endorse the game.
Speaker 1: Unquestionably, you know, they could use some of these players
Speaker 1: not just to do commercials for the game, but to
Speaker 1: to help promote the game as an esports product and
Speaker 1: to tie that into you know, licensed sponsored organized collegiate esports,
Speaker 1: which is was blowing up all over the country. And
Speaker 1: part of the reason why it hasn't been a very
Speaker 1: good commercial television product is, you know a lot of
Speaker 1: those games that are really popular now are inaccessible. But
Speaker 1: you know, you could put college football on TV, and
Speaker 1: we know people understand it. Some of these athletes themselves
Speaker 1: might want to do it. There's there's so many commercial
Speaker 1: opportunities tied to this particular product that are out there.
Speaker 1: It's just involves, you know, some some administrators being willing
Speaker 1: to take the take the risk or give up a
Speaker 1: little bit to make it happen.
Speaker 2: Maw let me shift gears a little bit. We've been
Speaker 2: talking a lot about out the game, Nil your crazy
Speaker 2: Foyer requests, which is just madness. If you ask me,
Speaker 2: I love it. What did we learn from the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty season? What do you think will be the ultimate
Speaker 2: output from this grand experiment that we just walked through,
Speaker 2: Because we had all sorts of stuff that I would
Speaker 2: imagine was pretty high up on your radar, right, We
Speaker 2: had the influence of TV money in making a season happen.
Speaker 2: We had the influence of frankly, being in a conference
Speaker 2: versus not being in a conference for a school like
Speaker 2: Notre Dame, we had the opt outs. What is your takeaway?
Speaker 1: That's a great question. I've been thinking about this a lot,
Speaker 1: because you know, normally during this time of year we
Speaker 1: were considering off season planning, we're thinking about next year,
Speaker 1: and we feel like we have a data set that
Speaker 1: we just watched where you would show comfortable making extrapolations
Speaker 1: about what next season might look like. And one big
Speaker 1: takeaway for me is that I think a lot of
Speaker 1: the data that we saw doesn't make any sense at all,
Speaker 1: and it was it was honestly surprising to me to
Speaker 1: see schools still pay out enormous buyouts to let their
Speaker 1: coaches go in large part based off that data, where
Speaker 1: very few Power Five teams played with the completely full
Speaker 1: roster for extended for extended weeks, games got cancel and
Speaker 1: postponed all of the time, nobody had any kind of
Speaker 1: of of of practice continuity. Like my impulse, as honestly
Speaker 1: is to throw out most of that data at all,
Speaker 1: but a lot of schools didn't. And that's I honestly,
Speaker 1: I think an important takeaway because if there was, if
Speaker 1: the coaching salary and buyout and that marketplace couldn't be
Speaker 1: reset after last year, where these so many of these
Speaker 1: athletic departments are facing such a significant financial crunch, and
Speaker 1: there's all of these great, I mean great like in
Speaker 1: terms of stuff stantial, you know, reasons to to take
Speaker 1: it slow. If schools are still willing to pay that money,
Speaker 1: I don't think anything's going to slow that down short
Speaker 1: of like federal law in an anti trust exemption that
Speaker 1: that limits salaries. The business of college football doesn't really
Speaker 1: stop for anybody. It doesn't. It didn't stop for for athletes.
Speaker 1: I know we had some of the beginning of the
Speaker 1: season where athletes tried to organize and bargain for uh
Speaker 1: for for changes and what they're given in this as
Speaker 1: far as as medical rights.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, athletes in the PAC twelve tried to tried
Speaker 1: to bargain for revenue shares and mostly they got steamrolled.
Speaker 1: And I think we've seen the athletes can wield political
Speaker 1: and social pressure on campus, but when they try to
Speaker 1: or at least have tried to kind of integrate across
Speaker 1: teams or as a conference and and and push for
Speaker 1: change that way when they arguably had some real leverage
Speaker 1: this year, it didn't happen, which makes me, honestly think
Speaker 1: more skeptical. But that's going to happen again in the
Speaker 1: near future. Even so, there's there's other commentators that seem
Speaker 1: to be more bullish about it. We're gonna see some changes,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of in terms of how teams schedule
Speaker 1: and what they spend money on, and those are gonna
Speaker 1: last for you know, more and more. But I think
Speaker 1: we're gonna look at this way. We do a look
Speaker 1: at football seasons back in like nineteen forty two, and
Speaker 1: we look at the record books and just think, well, clearly,
Speaker 1: none of this makes sense. We know Alabama was good,
Speaker 1: we know Notre Dame was good during the World War
Speaker 1: two years, we know Army was good, and we just
Speaker 1: have to you know, throw the records out because all
Speaker 1: the other all the other data basically doesn't make any
Speaker 1: sense to me.
Speaker 2: Do you have any thoughts on what we saw with
Speaker 2: Notre Dame at a conference, because obviously that was a
Speaker 2: pretty big storyline for me, for Notre Dame fans, for
Speaker 2: college football as a whole, it made sense for Notre
Speaker 2: Dame to jump ship from the independence that it enjoys
Speaker 2: enjoying the ACC on a one time, one time only basis.
Speaker 2: I would have to believe at some point in time,
Speaker 2: I'm Notre Dame will again be forced to make that
Speaker 2: decision to either reaffirm its independence or join a conference.
Speaker 2: Do we have any data, any thoughts around the economics
Speaker 2: of that and whether or not it will make sense
Speaker 2: maybe five years in the future versus what we see presently.
Speaker 1: You know, I do feel pretty confident that this is
Speaker 1: going to be a reoccurring storyline this summer, even if
Speaker 1: Notre Dame fans really don't want it to be. And
Speaker 1: the major reason for that is that right now, if
Speaker 1: Notre Dame joins any conference, as of right now, they
Speaker 1: are contractually obligated to join the ACC, and the ACC,
Speaker 1: unlike the other major leagues, right now, is locked into
Speaker 1: their Tier one television deal for the foreseeable future. The
Speaker 1: vig TAM is going to go to market I think
Speaker 1: next year. The PAC twelve and the Big twelve have
Speaker 1: new deals coming up. The SEC just signed just signed theirs.
Speaker 1: The a SEC is locked up with ESPN, for another decade,
Speaker 1: and they're going to get lapped revenue wise by probably
Speaker 1: everybody else by the end of the decade. And the
Speaker 1: only way that they're going to be able to get
Speaker 1: ESPN to renegotiate is if they meaningfully change their conference membership.
Speaker 1: And the big fishp obviously is going to be Notre Dame,
Speaker 1: and their new commissioner, Jim Phillips, is a Chicago guy.
Speaker 1: He was at Notre Dame before he was at Northwestern.
Speaker 1: I would be shocked if that scenario did not come
Speaker 1: up during his interview process. And that's going to be
Speaker 1: a storyline because, especially as we get a better idea
Speaker 1: of how much more money the Big Ten and maybe
Speaker 1: some of these other leagues will potentially be able to
Speaker 1: get in their TV deal and lap the ACC. I
Speaker 1: don't know if necessarily Notre Dame is going to be
Speaker 1: forced into it. The only way I can think of
Speaker 1: what that might happen would be if for some weird reason,
Speaker 1: the College Football Playoff changed their selection criteria and locked
Speaker 1: Independence out. Notre Dame is the only school that has
Speaker 1: the flexibility and the other revenue streams where I think
Speaker 1: they can still dictate terms a little bit. I think
Speaker 1: we both recognize that there are some forces here outside
Speaker 1: of just pure money that are in play, because you know,
Speaker 1: there's a whole lot of older Notre Dame grats and
Speaker 1: donors and people connected that university that come hell or
Speaker 1: high water, don't want them to join a league, even
Speaker 1: if maybe that isn't so important to the school's identity
Speaker 1: for people around our age. I'd be a little bit
Speaker 1: surprised if it happened. I think it made sense for
Speaker 1: this year, gave us some good football games, it was
Speaker 1: good for Notre Dame schedule, it made sense for COVID.
Speaker 1: I'm sure we're going to keep talking about it. I'd
Speaker 1: be surprised if it happens in the immediate future.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't see it happening. Everyone that I've spoken
Speaker 2: with seems pretty adamant about independence woven into the fiber
Speaker 2: of Notre Dame. I've said this time and again on
Speaker 2: this show. I would be very surprised. I've always been
Speaker 2: in favor of it. But also twenty twenty was such
Speaker 2: a quirky season. And keep using this word quirky, but
Speaker 2: it's true. I think Jack Swarbrick had the right idea.
Speaker 2: He knew that in order to carry on, have a
Speaker 2: competitive season, maybe have a chance for a national championship
Speaker 2: or even a playoff. Berth they were going to have
Speaker 2: to do something drastic, and that move was to join
Speaker 2: the ACC to become team number fifteen. So it made
Speaker 2: sense in context to do it during COVID. I'm just
Speaker 2: curious to see what eventually comes of it, because you're right,
Speaker 2: having Notre Dame in the conference for one year was
Speaker 2: an interesting test case. It certainly had more eyes on
Speaker 2: the ACC, a conference which right now is very lopsided
Speaker 2: at the top with Clemson. There are a whole lot
Speaker 2: of contenders outside of Clemson in the ACC, so to
Speaker 2: bring Notre Dame in there, it was an infusion of
Speaker 2: attention and infusion of eyeballs that care about the conference.
Speaker 2: And now to bring over a Chicago guy, somebody who
Speaker 2: knows Notre Dame. I know it's been written about and
Speaker 2: talked about an awful lot online, but it makes sense
Speaker 2: to me that he's got Notre Dame in Jack Swarwick
Speaker 2: on speed dial trying to see what kind of agreement
Speaker 2: they can come up with, because the alt'm a question
Speaker 2: here outside of the whole image and the identity that
Speaker 2: Notre Dame has formed around independence. Eventually, someone's going to
Speaker 2: put an offer on the table that's too good to
Speaker 2: pass up. What does that offer look like? Is my question?
Speaker 2: What is it going to take. Because everyone's got a price,
Speaker 2: what is it going to take to change Notre Dame's
Speaker 2: mind in a way that it's it's too good to
Speaker 2: pass up?
Speaker 1: It would take a lot of money. And you know, honestly,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be shocked if, heading into this decade, if
Speaker 1: rather than the ACC coming up there and we're working
Speaker 1: with ESPN and throwing a gigantic money pot, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be shocked if, on the other hand, NBC starts thinking,
Speaker 1: you know, we had this good thing going here with Underdame,
Speaker 1: and I wonder if we could get USC to do
Speaker 1: something similar. If USC is frustrated with the direction of
Speaker 1: their programming, and if NBC thinks, like, look what if
Speaker 1: we got two or three teams that are all major
Speaker 1: brands and we can we can control their entire television inventory,
Speaker 1: we can try to do this entire thing somewhere else.
Speaker 1: I almost think that's that might be more likely than
Speaker 1: Notre Dame jumping into the league. What'll we be looking
Speaker 1: at a you know, Notre Dame would have to pull
Speaker 1: in fifty five sixty million dollars at least, I think
Speaker 1: as per per school distribution to make a jump into
Speaker 1: the ACC. And that's hard for me to see that
Speaker 1: immediately happening. But you know, who knows who decides to
Speaker 1: enter the television world later this decade or what other
Speaker 1: membership changes the league might potentially make.
Speaker 2: Well. I know that the likes of Google, Facebook, those
Speaker 2: types of platforms were bidding on PAC twelve rights, and
Speaker 2: you would assume that they could afford to pay more
Speaker 2: than almost any network. So, especially now as streaming has
Speaker 2: become much more of a mainstay, that some of those
Speaker 2: other platforms might have a stake in the game. Here.
Speaker 2: The question is does that make sense for conferences? Does
Speaker 2: that give them the visible ability that they want? If
Speaker 2: you're the PAC twelve, visibility is not something you've been
Speaker 2: very good at, and so maybe it's worth thinking outside
Speaker 2: the box to try and figure out, all right, how
Speaker 2: can we get this product that we have in front
Speaker 2: of as many people as possible. Maybe it takes a
Speaker 2: platform like a Google to help you do that. But
Speaker 2: if you're a more traditional conference that you know is
Speaker 2: on in the Eastern time zone and is more marketable
Speaker 2: in the Midwest like the Big Ten. Maybe it doesn't
Speaker 2: make sense, so I don't know. I just think we're
Speaker 2: at a really interesting place right now, not just with
Speaker 2: Notre Dame, but with how people consume media, how people
Speaker 2: watch football. Fewer people have cable now than ever before.
Speaker 2: The dynamics have just changed so drastically.
Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting your frame it that way.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: My understanding is that one of the reasons that talks
Speaker 1: between Apple TV or some of these other fang companies
Speaker 1: in the PAC twelve didn't progress more was for exactly
Speaker 1: that concern about exposure, because yeah, a lot of people stream,
Speaker 1: but there are still a lot more people that have
Speaker 1: cable television or access to cable linear cable television that
Speaker 1: have Apple TV, no matter how good of a show
Speaker 1: ted Lasso is, and that that is a factor for
Speaker 1: coaches and for kids because they want to be You
Speaker 1: want to be able to say you know me and
Speaker 1: while can watch you, Grandma can watch you on TV
Speaker 1: without having to futs around with three other apps. It's
Speaker 1: why coaches are terrified to not be on ESPN, even
Speaker 1: if someone else is going to pay them more money
Speaker 1: because they want to be able to say that they
Speaker 1: have that same access. But we're already seeing right now
Speaker 1: colleges you be willing to step outside of the traditional
Speaker 1: framework in the hopes of maximizing revenue. You know, the
Speaker 1: Colonial Athletic Association, which is a pretty good SCS football league,
Speaker 1: if not, you know, it's probably one of the top three.
Speaker 1: They have, they signed an agreement with Flow Sports and
Speaker 1: it's all streaming outside of local cable and they Flow
Speaker 1: pays them a rights fee far and above what they
Speaker 1: would have been able to get had they know reupt
Speaker 1: with CBS or ESPN plus. Now, Flow is not cheap
Speaker 1: and a lot of their fans aren't crazy about it,
Speaker 1: but that you know, moves to a platform that then
Speaker 1: was able to maximize their revenue. And so that's going
Speaker 1: to be a question for Notre Dame and for the
Speaker 1: PAC twelve and for the Sun Belt and for everybody else.
Speaker 1: Do you go with what gives you the most exposure?
Speaker 1: Do you go with what gives you the most revenue?
Speaker 1: Do you want to bet on what you think will
Speaker 1: give you the most exposure. We'll still will still give
Speaker 1: you the most exposure. A couple of years. And because yeah,
Speaker 1: and because this has such an outsized role in budgets,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's an enormously important question for college athletics
Speaker 1: because you know, for Power five teams, you're making more
Speaker 1: money from your television, your conference distribution, then you're making
Speaker 1: from donations, then you're oftentimes you're making from ticket sales.
Speaker 1: Like you have to get this right.
Speaker 2: If you were the Pac twelve and you had an
Speaker 2: offer on the table at this point. Now they may
Speaker 2: have had one in the past, but at this point
Speaker 2: in time, if Google comes to you and they say,
Speaker 2: we will pay you far away more than any other suitor.
Speaker 2: We will put all of your games available on YouTube,
Speaker 2: We'll do it via apps, will make it as omnipresent
Speaker 2: as possible. It's a compelling case. It's a compelling case
Speaker 2: knowing the era of Pack twelve football that he just
Speaker 2: left behind, where despite all of Larry Scott's efforts, whatever
Speaker 2: they were, it didn't really work to raise the profile
Speaker 2: of the conference. So I think the time is right
Speaker 2: for them to think outside the box and maybe do
Speaker 2: something that that wouldn't necessarily be the cookie cutter way
Speaker 2: to go about it. But I am clearly not in
Speaker 2: charge of that conference, and why would they listen to me?
Speaker 1: You know, and listen if we were, we would both
Speaker 1: have much nicer home offices you've got right now?
Speaker 2: I bet for sure, for sure. All right, Well, his
Speaker 2: name is Matt Brown. He has so graciously giving us
Speaker 2: a lot of his time. Let's talk real quick again
Speaker 2: about the newsletter Extra Points mb dot com going for
Speaker 2: two the new podcast. You can follow Matt at Matt
Speaker 2: Brown EP on Twitter. What is on the radar over
Speaker 2: on the Extra Points newsletter? What is it that you're
Speaker 2: working on now?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have a couple of stories that I'm working
Speaker 1: on right now. One thing I've been fascinated with and
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get more information about, is to really
Speaker 1: dig into explaining how college athletic systems are different in
Speaker 1: different countries. We have Canadian college football, we have Japanese
Speaker 1: college football. My family is from Brazil and American football
Speaker 1: has been growing there and some universities have kicked around
Speaker 1: starting programs. But if you're starting it now, you don't
Speaker 1: have one hundred and fifty years of amateurism baggage, or
Speaker 1: you wouldn't kind of you wouldn't do things the same
Speaker 1: way that we do. So I've sent out a bunch
Speaker 1: of interview requests and I've got through some books, and
Speaker 1: that's something I'm hoping to dig into. I think over
Speaker 1: the next couple of months, I have a couple of
Speaker 1: other stories coming up with some academics who have been
Speaker 1: doing some research about college athletics and the sort of
Speaker 1: things that help you promote athletic achievement and student achievement.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you if you're just curious about
Speaker 1: what goes on off the field, and I want to
Speaker 1: under really understand the nuts and bolts that shape this
Speaker 1: business because it is business, then I think you would
Speaker 1: enjoy extra points.
Speaker 2: Well that's cool because we've got a lot of folks
Speaker 2: who listen overseas. So here's hoping that maybe they find
Speaker 2: a new home over an extra points.
Speaker 1: MP's that sounds great. I've been joking as soon as
Speaker 1: I get this vaccine, my sister lives in Sampallo and
Speaker 1: I'm going to I'm going to go visit her, and
Speaker 1: I want to go start bugging as many people as
Speaker 1: we can to learn more about about what's going on
Speaker 1: with American football down there, and if nothing else, I'll
Speaker 1: get to do it with some better weather than we
Speaker 1: got here.
Speaker 2: All right, Matt Brown again, Extra Points is the newsletter
Speaker 2: going for two is the podcast? Come back anytime? Man?
Speaker 2: This is fun. Good to catch up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's always good to chat with you. Next time
Speaker 1: we'll talk about woodworking or something something a little bit less.
Speaker 1: You're a different kind of nerdy, right.
Speaker 2: Something I know even less about.
Speaker 1: For sure, we're gonna we're gonna get you into power
Speaker 1: tools one way or another. It's gonna be great.
Speaker 2: All right again, big thanks to our guest of honor
Speaker 2: Matt Brown from the Extra Points newsletter. Don't forget. We
Speaker 2: will be back next week. Two more episodes coming your
Speaker 2: way on Tuesday and Thursday in the meantime, for myself,
Speaker 2: Ty Hildebrand, for Dan Rubisty, wherever he may be. Thank
Speaker 2: you so much for downloading, for listening, for supporting the show.
Speaker 2: Stay healthy, stay happy, Stay solid,