Ep. 115: College Sports, Congress, Brendan Sorsby and the Battle with the SEC and Big Ten, with Cody Campbell

Welcome to Sports Wise, a podcast about sports and the law with your host, me, Gabe Feldman, Director of the Tulane Sports Law Program and Co-Director of the Tulane Center for Sport. On this episode, I'm joined again by Cody Campbell to talk about the battle for college sports legislation in Congress, the Brendan Sorsby saga, and Cody's increasingly public fight with the SEC and Big Ten over the future of college athletics, and much, much more. Here we go. Welcome back to the podcast, Cody Campbell. Thank you so much for coming back on. Yeah, you bet. Thanks for having me, Gabe. All right. So many things to talk about. Start with Brendan Sorsby, 'cause you've talked about it a fair amount over the last couple of weeks. What's your postscript? On everything that happened with Brendan Sorsby? What's your takeaway point? I think it's a just a very sad situation. I'm not gonna try to, conceal the fact that we, we wanted him to play because he's a good football player, obviously. But I, I think that, People think that is our only motivation in all of this, and it's certainly not. And secondly I think people... and when I talk about people, I talk about these keyboard warriors that, are on Twitter and in some of the national sports media that just chooses to attract click, clickbait rather than, actually looking into the facts and understanding the situation. He knows he messed up. He knew he was breaking rules when he broke them. But that doesn't make it any more difficult to try to, talk him through it. And we felt a very strong obligation to do right by him, stand by him. Again, we want him to play, obviously, and I'm not trying to obscure that at all. But just doing the right thing by him personally was very important And we had no pushback at all- As we went through the process with the NCAA. And that is the way that we handled it is completely by the book. We declared him ineligible, Texas Tech declared him ineligible and then we applied for his reinstatement, which is typical course of action for any school where there is a kid that has a eligibility issue for any reason. And we went through that process. We're totally open book, cooperative with the NCAA, no issues there. And then the kid took exercised his own rights to go and sue the NCAA and he did so in the appropriate jurisdiction. He did it, The judge that was re- presiding over it was an out-of-town judge. He he was not a local guy. The local guy recused himself. And then he got a decision that I don't know that we necessarily expected him to get, which is that he was reinstated. And so then we had a problem to deal with. Not a problem, but, we had a, we had something we had to deal with, and it's, how do you handle it? We're a state institution. It was a state court that made a decision. The advice that we were given, is typically follow what the courts say, and that's typically what people do in all aspects of life and in business is, when a court makes a decision, you abide by that decision. And so we proceeded down that path, and we're s- we're shocked by the, just the incredible attention and blowback that came from it. The kid, had always planned if his court pursuit didn't go the right way, that he would go into the supplementary draft. There was a deadline for the supplementary draft, which was June the 22nd. And so he basically had to have the legal situation completely resolved by that time so that he would have the opportunity to go into supplementary draft. And when the Big 12 started doing what they were gonna do, which, I, I don't know if you read the letter that came from the attorney general of Texas and they- Yep had no real legal grounds to overrule a court in the state of Texas, especially as it pertains to a state institution. But they were gonna try to do and we were gonna have to wrestle with that, and it was gonna create more uncertainty. You never know what is gonna happen in court. And in, in talking with the kid, we just said, "Look, there's no way we're gonna get this thing wrapped up." This was, six days before he had to file his paperwork for the supplementary draft. There's no way we're gonna get not everybody would even be served within six days, much less you get a decision. You I think you just gotta do what you gotta do, and it's the right thing for you, and, this is something that we can't have hanging over the team for an extended period of time. And so while we may be legally right on all this just practically speaking, there was no way to proceed forward. And and so that's the decision that, was jointly made with us and Brendan and his family and his agent, and everybody that was involved. And it was a painful one. There's a lot said about how, the Big 12 crafted this just masterful pr- filing that just blew our case to pieces, and that's not the case at all. That's not even the situation. We didn't even read the proceeding. It was just basically there's no way to do this within the period of time that we have to do it for you to have an opportunity at the supplemental draft, and it's clear that this thing's gonna drag on for a really long time, so we just I think you gotta just move on. Fast-forward it was announced that he's not going to be eligible for the draft, for the supplemental draft. The NFL isn't gonna conduct one So what happens now is anybody's guess. I think that it's been reported that his attorneys are gonna try to work with NFLPA to have him allowed to play, to be picked up by a team. If that doesn't happen, I don't know where it goes from there because a lot of people did a lot of things that are very questionable from a legal standpoint. And, you can see that laid out in the different letters that have been written and the filings that have been made. But there's a lot of potential liability out there, and it could get. This thing could get extremely messy. And to be honest with you, Brandon was an idiot. He deserves a lot of blame in this and I'm frustrated with him. But at the same time I feel bad for him because I don't feel like he's been really given, I don't think he's been treated fairly under the law, as any other person would be in any other circumstance in life or in business. It's, he got a court ruling in the appropriate jurisdiction and, that should have taken care of it, and people should have, accepted that. But for whatever reason and I understand why, I'm not an idiot, but, gambling has always been this third rail. For us, the way we looked at it was that he never bet on a game he played in, never affected the outcome of any game. He never shaved points. He never threw a game, anything like that. The bets he made on his own team, which is what people like to point at, and that's the headline, he bet on his own team. He bet on his own team when he was a red shirt and he wasn't playing. He wasn't even suited up, he was he was a red shirt sitting in his dorm room. And, we have geolocation data and all that kind of stuff in terms of where the bets were placed, so we know- exactly what was going on. And and that, that's the kind of stuff that people don't know about and can't weigh. But he continued betting and, his betting became clearly a obsessive behavior. And he had a gambling problem and, he placed thousands and thousands of bets and I don't really know how he had time to do anything else, to be honest with you. And we handled things again the way they should be handled, which is to put the well-being of the athlete first and helped him to find a treatment facility that specializes in gambling addiction and he went to that facility I feel for people with mental health conditions he legitimately had a problem, and I feel like he is. He's on a good path to resolving it. I haven't spoken to him in the last 24 hours since the d- the submain- supplementary draft thing happened, but I have to think he's probably in a pretty low place right now. And I hate it for him, because again, going back to what I said at the beginning he may appear to be a grown man, but he's still a kid. And I j- I just, I feel for him. Yes, he made mistakes, but I can tell you that in my own life, I'm very thankful for the second chances that I got and without that redemption, I would not be where I am today, and I hate the fact that he wasn't able to get that. And it- Yeah it really authentically, bothers me that he's in the position that he's in right now. And you mentioned that things could get ugly or u- uglier. A- and can you just talk about that a little bit more? I- is that just in the way that other entities and conferences responded and there were- Yeah, I think anybody that's prevented him- threats of boycotts I think anybody that prevented him from pursuing in, in participating in football pursuing a professional career, I think anyone who colluded to, to do especially is... probably needs to have a- an attorney on retainer. I think it could get very nasty, and I think the numbers could be absolutely massive And the colluding you mean this is in the sort of the everything happened so quickly, but after the injunction was granted and looked like Swords View was gonna play, there were discussions that some schools may choose not to play or were directed not to play Texas Tech, and I just- Yeah the Big Ten came out first and they said, "Oh, we're... We've all talked." Is I think, I'm pr- paraphrasing their quote, "We've all talked and we're not gonna play Texas Tech." That's collusion. They went back on that and they said, "No, never mind. We're not gonna, we're not gonna openly tell everyone we're colluding against Texas Tech," 'cause that would be a, that would be an instant lawsuit. But e- but I, even in the Big 12 I was disappointed with how they handled it. And I just... I think there's a lot of hypocrisy in the system, I think on many different levels. I think that, I know that kids have played that have actually done things where they hurt people and then, they're they're reinstated. It would've been easier for us to get him on the field if he had committed manslaughter, than what he did, and no one was harmed in any way. No, the integrity of n- of zero games was affected by what he did. And there's no indication that he was going to compromise the integrity of any games. But yeah, he could have hurt someone, he could have beat his girlfriend up, he could have, gotten a couple d- DUIs. He coulda do- he could have done a lot of things and he would be playing this fall. He gambled and so that, that was, made into this, unforgivable sin. And I just had a hard time wrapping my head around that because, a- again, he never hurt anybody. And the bets he placed that, were on his own team, again, he didn't participate in those games, but they were on his own team that people really focused on, happened three and a half years ago when he was a true freshman, coming up on four years ago, when he was a true freshman at Indiana. I think that's the first point of hypocrisy. I think the second point is that we have a system now in, in college sports that profits handsomely off of gambling. And, we have gambling advertisements everywhere. You... if I were to turn on ESPN right now, chances are there's gonna be a, some kind of gambling advertisement, if not on the screen, like a, as a little at the bottom of the screen, but, in between during the advertisements. Folks are profiting off this. And then, indirectly they're profiting off of it just through increased viewership and interest because of gambling. And college sports doesn't wanna deal with it because they want it to continue to exist because the flow of money is there. But then when a kid falls into one of these traps that they've set for them effectively, because it's everywhere 'cause they all... That's what they watch is ESPN, and sports. It's everywhere. They fall into the trap, and then we just absolutely destroy them once they do. One of the gambling platforms said that 25% of current athletes and 75% of male college students overall are using these gambling apps. And this is just something that our system has to deal with because it is a real problem. When I was going through, 20 years ago, it was not that... It was not a situation where each of us had a casino in our pocket. You know what I mean? We... it was much more difficult- to place a bet. And so now if you're one of these kids that's, hypercompetitive and you're, y- a little bit of a compulsive personality or an addictive personality you're just so much more likely to fall into that trap because it's so easily available, and it's constantly put in your face. We have to address just the fact that this is a thing that exists now, and that a lot of kids are doing it, and they're gonna continue to do it. And so where do we draw the line? Different pro leagues have done it at different places. Certainly, you shouldn't bet on your own games. But, how are we gonna handle discipline and just rules in general around this? Because it's just so available. It's like putting a drink in, on the table in front of an alcoholic for those who are inclined to be addicted to it. And that, that's a that's an unfair thing to do. And so there needs to be some consideration made for just the situation that we have in front of us now. Times have changed. Every problem that the NCAA has had legally has resulted from the fact that they've been am- unable to adapt to changing circumstances around the sports. And and that... this is an example of that. They have to understand that the penetration of sports betting has skyrocketed in the last few years and it's a big problem A- and th- this is where you mentioned athletes doing other things off the field that might have gotten them in trouble and they're still able to play, or they're able to get an injunction to continue playing even though it seemed like they might not be able to. And, regardless of the underlying offense or the underlying conduct, it seems like the... what went a little bit awry here is that even when the judge ruled, people said, "No, this is cra-" crazy. We can't follow this judge. We can't have this individual judge decide that his decision is more important than the centuries long view o- a- against gambling. And that's where it seemed to get into kind of new territory where some of the schools at least had discussed saying, "It doesn't matter what this judge... We have to agree not to play Texas Tech because-" Yeah. A- and that's the part that, that's where they lose me because we all have, we have a system of, justice in this country. Decisions that judges make, we have judges for a reason, right? And so we can't just say, "Oh, we're gonna ignore what a judge says because we don't like it." That's not how it works. There is a process. You can go appeal it, you can, do... but it's, just because you don't like a judge's opinion doesn't mean that you, it's not supposed to be followed, and that's especially the case when we're talking about a state institution and a state court. We are certainly bound by what that judge says. Now people could say you can choose not to play him," and yeah that's true. And we hadn't played him yet. And then there was a whole, there were a whole set of kind of conditions under which he would be able to play that everyone seemed to ignore. But we had a plan and, I think we did right by the kid, and I think we, did right by our university. And we did right in the eyes of the law. And so I'm not sure exactly what the vitriol aimed at Texas Tech, emerged from because all we did was just follow the law. And again, we had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Texas Tech was not a party to it. It was Brenden Shoresby versus NCAA. That's the that's the actual name of the case. So I don't know what, I di- I don't know what people were upset with Texas Tech about. We're, oh, you're gonna play a kid based on a valid court order in the appropriate jurisdiction? I... People, literally multiple teams are gonna do that this fall. So let's talk about the bigger picture now and your involvement with Congress and the Protect College Sports Act. And I wanna stay on that vitriol point you mentioned, 'cause I think that is a very good word. And I know that y- I imagine you've heard a lot of the vitriol directed towards Texas Tech and towards you specifically. One question before we get into the act itself. There, there seems to be, from the outsider's perspective, a fair amount of disagreement between your views and the views of Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti on the path forward, and I think we've seen that play out multiple ways. And in part so far, as I've seen as we record this on Wednesday, June 24th, there's not been full support from the Big Ten and the SEC for the Protect College Sports Act. Can you just give me a sense of where you think the heart of the disagreement is between you and the Big Ten and the SEC? And then my follow-up point 'cause I know you talked a lot about this, but my follow-up point is I'm genuinely curious. Th- there are some people who fight out on the public scene and seem to hate each other, and then they go and they have drinks or coffee the next day together. And the... maybe the most famous This of all time is Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, who very famously were very good friends, but also disagreed on almost everything politically, and made that clear in the public eye, and then were very good friends eh behind closed doors. So starting with the first part what do you think is the heart of the disagreement between you and Sankey and Petitti, and are you friends and collegial when the cameras or the typewriters aren't rolling? So I, I'd really... I'm not really sure what the heart of the disagreement is. The, those conferences were the ones that were initially, I think going back as far as seven years ago, asking for congressional intervention. They've gotten what they wanted. And I... And so I'm not really sure what they're mad about. There, there's, there are provisions in the, in this more comprehensive bill that do prevent them from continuing to expand and merge, which it toward the last minute of getting it through committee that threshold was moved down to where it also includes the Big 12 and ACC as well. You know- all the power conferences are basically gonna be static for a while. And that language, I think, needs to be cleaned up even a little bit more. We're probably in agreement on that. Us... and when I say we, the, all the power conferences and myself. I don't I don't really know what their problem is with the bill. And part of the challenge that we've had is that they've not been communicative or constructive. They, they want the SCORE Act because it'll, it allows them to do what they wanna do. It gives a very broad carte blanche employ... i'm sorry, antitrust exemption. It, it addresses this employment issue which is actually not even necessary. And we can go into the legalities of that. But, this... There is not a path, and I'm just gonna make this as clear as possible. There is not a legal path for a national players' union to be formed. There's a law passed in 1935, Franklin Roosevelt signed it, Private e-employees of private sector companies are treated differently than employees of state entities. And the employees of state entities are subject to state labor law. And so in, in a state like Texas, it's actually illegal for a state entity to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with an athlete. Furthermore, in that state, it's a right-to-work state, meaning that you can't force any-anyone to be a member of a union. There's no way they can ma- get all the players to join a union like they can in the NFL, and, the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, they're all subject to different rules because they are private entities. And so that's the thing that I think, finally got through to everybody, is that, look, we've been arguing about this employment part of the bill forever, but it's not really even relevant in a college sports sense. So every I think people think there's this, we can always just unionize and collective bargain and, if we don't get legislation, that's fine. We'll be able to set rules and all that kind of stuff through collective bargaining. There, there's not a there is not a legal path to do that, so forget about that. The other thing that's been brought up a lot when, you know, as the SEC gets mad for whatever reason or the Big, Big Ten does, "Oh, we're just gonna secede from college sports." Th- if they secede that's fine, but they're gonna have the exact same rules enforcement problems that the NCAA, College Sports Commission, others have had up to this point because they also will not have an antitrust exemption. Because again they cannot collectively bargain with their athletes. SEC is a great example. There is only one state in the SEC that is not a right-to-work state and that's Missouri. And so in every single state, they would have to get every single state law changed to allow for collective bargaining with public employees with state employees. Or come up with some kind of weird structure that has never been invented before to where they're not state employees somehow. But- I think that would be substance over form. There, there's no way to do it. And so it-- this is all just an imaginary thing. Our only hope is to get legislation passed, and the thing I can say is that if this bill doesn't go w- and I recognize that there's gonna have to be compromise and, we need to work with everyone, and we don't wanna hurt anyone. We want this bill to help big conferences, small conferences. Football that makes all the money, all the way down to, tennis that loses money. Every other sport loses money other than football. But we want it to benefit all those athletes, and we want it to benefit big schools and small schools big conferences, small conferences. If we're gonna do that, if we're gonna save college sports, we have to have legislation. If this legislation doesn't go through, we're not getting any for a long time. Because I can tell you that the amount of time that has been spent on this by the senators that matter, on the Congress committee, which are primarily Cruz and Cantwell that time is not gonna be... We're not gonna do that again. That... it just won't happen again. They don't have the bandwidth to do it. They have other problems that they have to deal with, and they spent an incredible amount of energy and effort to come to a compromise solution where, the thing can pass. And I think that's been the hardest thing for folks outside of outside of the Hill to really understand, is that not only do you have to think about what solution works to solve the problem, but you also have to think about what solution works to actually pass. Because this has to pass. We have to get 60 votes on this thing in order for it to pass the Senate, which means that it has to be bipartisan. And so you can't just, try to ram down some bill that you wrote that you think does it because people are gonna have... they're different kind of political triggers that are gonna be flipped by different things that you do. And you have to walk a delicate tightrope on many of those and make compromises And I think the senators did a great job of doing that. I think we have a bill that actually works and is passable. And the only problems that... The only real problems that we've had is, have been just subversion is the best way I could put it by the bigger conferences in, in trying to get their representative senators to vote against it. For the most part everyone else is pretty happy with it, and we don't really have any major political issues, ideological issues special interest issues. It's all just about, people being mad about the bill because it's not theirs, I think. I don't know why they're upset with it because it effectively does everything that they wanna do. And the things that they've actually vo- actually voiced, the changes they wanna make are not unreasonable, and they can be worked through. But there has to be open dialogue and conversation and compromise and cooperation and we're just... we just haven't seen that as of yet. But I'm hopeful that we will get there. So that was my next question is in terms of y- you me- I think you used the word subversion, but that- To see is not their bill and th-they have, for whatever reason or many reasons, they have, they're pushing back against it. But w-what are the big compromise points? What is it that you see that's not in there that they want in there, or that's in there that they don't want in there? Because, when it comes to the pooling of broadcast rights whatever one might think about that, y-you at least have to admit that this is voluntary and it's optional, and there has to be a certain threshold- Yeah so no one's gonna be- And if we need to make it more clear that it's opt- that it's voluntary, we can make it more clear. If we, if, someone introduced what... I think Senator Wicker introduced an amendment to where, schools would be protected from liability if it chose not to opt in. I don't even think that's necessary. It's very clear that it's op- it's voluntary. And if they don't wanna do that, it's fine. And that, this isn't even an issue that we're gonna deal with for 10 plus years. The ACC's current contract extends to that period, and there's a provision in the bill that says we're not gonna interrupt any existing any existing TV contracts. This isn't even something that's an immediate threat. But yeah that, that has been aggravating to them. They just didn't wanna see it. I don't know why. Because it, it is gonna make more money. It would make more money for them, too, and they know it. But they just don't wanna necessarily admit it. And I, I think most people in sports media will admit that if you were to put them all together or a large set of them together, you could make a lot of money, a lot more money than we are. I think they felt singled out by the super conference language in there. We tried to resolve that again by lowering the threshold of revenue to... so that the ACC and the Big 12 were in the same boat again, that needs to be cleaned up because I think that, there are some schools in the G6 that would still have aspirations to join a Power Four conference. We probably need to give them the opportunity to do that. And we just need to think about, think that through a little bit more and make sure that it's as clean as possible. But it's been very clear out, goal of the senators to prevent super conferences from happening. Because if that happens, then it will truly destroy the rest of the system and take opportunity away from hundreds of thousands of kids, and we can't have that happen. And is there anything else that the S10 that, that said, "Look, if you add this we'll, we can live with this or, or-" Yeah, and there, there are other kind of, nits and gnats, but it's not really anything that is significant that can't, obviously can't be, clarified. I think that's the whole process of making a bill that's good as you go through. It's initially drafted. Inevitably there are gonna be things that are unclear or, it could be worded in a different way or a better way. They pick some of those out. Great. Let's fix them, let's talk about it. Let's work together. I-- my-- Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti have my phone number, they have Randy Levine's phone number. They have Ted Cruz's phone number and Maria Campbell's phone number. They can call any of us anytime, and we are more than happy to talk on the phone, more than happy to jump on a plane and meet in person, whether it's Birmingham, Chicago, DC, wherever. We will get together and we will work this thing out with them. We-- It, it-- We're not-- There's-- Nobody's trying to shut them out in any way. This is not a bill that is aimed at taking them down. This is a bill that is, is aimed at trying to preserve the entire system they have my phone number, they have my phone number too just in case. Just- Yeah I wanna be offensive declare. But but so w- what do you think is... what's next? Do you what do you think the chances are of it getting through the Senate? And then folks have said that the House might be a bigger obstacle and Representative Scalise here in Louisiana has come out pretty strongly against it. W- how do you get this from where you are now to actually getting it across the president's desk? Yeah I think that it has a very good chance of passing the Senate. I would say a high probability of passing the Senate. It came out of committee pretty, in a pretty strong way, pretty bipartisan way. There are... it'll be, a scramble just like they always are to make sure all the votes are there. But I think it'll pass pretty strongly in the Senate. And then we'll go to the House and, there are gonna be some Republicans that are opposed to it on just ideological grounds. We've heard things that are not at all germane to the bill that people would wanna throw in there. Some people continue to be obsessed with this employment issue, which again, I... It's, if they are, it's just because they don't fully understand labor law and how it applies in this case. We're just gonna have to talk to them about that. The transgender athlete thing has come up quite a bit. I don't think that's something that needs to be tackled in this legislation because it makes... It's just divisive. Not to say that, I personally have a view on it one way or the other, but I think that, it needs to be... I do have a view on it one way, but I don't really wanna get into it. But- Yeah it's just not something that needs to be addressed in this bill. We have other fish that we're trying to fry and without, trying to alienate people. The House moves a little bit differently than the Senate does. They have their caucuses and their groups and we just need to make sure that we're in communication with all of them and talking to them and then, working with Leader Scalise and and the others in the House Speaker Jordan, that, have... I'm sorry, Speaker Johnson, who have, been interested and engaged here and I think that can be done. I'm... they're reasonable people and, they wanna see legislation as well. I think we'll get there with them. But the vote is not gonna look like a normal vote does, I don't think. It's gonna be a much more bipartisan, p- vote where some of those at the fringes on each side of the aisle may have, some kind of issue with it, but that it'll pass with a, with a coalition of strange bedfellows, I think. And at this point would you say... I- is it fair to say that the biggest sticking point for the Big Ten and the SEC is the super conference limitation and potentially the pooling of rights and- Yeah, and I don't... and again, I, I don't... The pooling of rights, if we need to clean up the language to make it extra super clear that it's not, that it is voluntary, that's fine, and we'll do that. And I think that we have reached a compromise on the super conference thing that is reasonable but, I've not gotten that confirmation yet. And so would you expect though then that the Big Ten and SEC would support this a- at this point? I think they should. I don't know if they will. They made it pretty clear at the 11th hour just before it went to vote in the committee that they were... the Big Ten at least made great efforts to try to get it stopped, and they weren't successful in doing so. And then we saw Tommy Tuberville's presentation the day before that didn't seem to move a whole lot of people, but I think that he's... coach Tuberville's one that we're gonna have to go talk to. And again, it's a matter of practicality, and I think that Ted Cruz refuted Tommy's Tommy's presentation fairly well. He said, "Do you... look, I'll, I'd vote for your bill right now. I agree with you." Yeah. But, but that's not a bill that could pass. Do you want a bill that's gonna pass, and do you wanna solve, the core problems here, or do you want nothing? And that is the thing that we've tried to get through to people throughout this process, is that you have to be practical Right. And then o- on the House side, you mentioned the employment issue. I know that some Republicans have come out pretty strongly saying they're not gonna sign anything or vote for anything that doesn't have a categorical ban on employee classification. Is it your sense, based on what we've talked about today, that there's some education that needs to happen there, that the employment threat is not as large as they think it is? Or do you think this is just gonna need to be some more horse trading, or do you think that could actually prevent something from becoming- I really think that people need to un- understand the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and how it works. I think that is the bottom line. If people understand, again, that state employees are not subject to federal law when it come... that spec- that state employees and their status and their rights are specifically reserved to the states in that law, which has been around for, you know- Yeah nearly 90 years, or 91 years, people have to understand that. And and I'm happy to walk him, I'm happy to walk him through it, but it's as clear as day in that bill, in that law. And that law has been around a long time. It's been... there's tons of case law on it. It's not... There's no question about it, and if there was a way around it, I can promise you that the groups like the Texas teachers would have found a way to form a union by now. Right it just doesn't it just doesn't apply, but what about the other aspect of labor law where you've got the Johnson case and the possibility that athletes would be declared employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which would give them minimum wage and overtime? I think there are plenty of schools that are fearful of that. Yeah. And I would say do the math on, how much you're paying them under their scholarships versus the number of hours that they are allowed to participate in sports, which is 20 hours a week and see if you're better off paying them a minimum wage or giving them a scholarship, even in the highest minimum wage states in the country It's not an issue And so there it's the employment fear is o- on that view overstated that it's not such a bad thing. Yeah, absolutely. The threat is that, you're gonna have to pay employment taxes on them. But on the other side of the coin, you have to ask yourself, do the athletes really wanna be employees? Because again- for 98% of these people they're... these young people, they're not getting big NIL deals, they are getting a scholarship, and they're really happy to get that scholarship, and if they become an employee, they're gonna have to pay taxes on the value of that scholarship if they're an employee. And so why in the world would they ever choose to do that? Let's be practical here, let's think about this in terms of how it would actually work out. And, the women's volleyball team is not gonna choose to be employees because none of them are making a whole bunch of money on NIL. And, it... there's just no real advantage to being an employee. Being a student athlete's better than being an employee. And and I think that's just... A- again, that's just... it becomes this ideological kind of trigger for people. And and it's on both sides. And so if you make it too much of an issue in the bill then organized labor comes out, and they wanna make a statement, and they wanna get involved. If you don't address it enough, people on the right who are ideologically driven, want them not to be employees because they feel like that's a crack in the door to unionization again, which is not possible. So I don't... I just feel like- A-a-and to be honest with you, I didn't understand it. I've had employees for years, but I'm in a state with pretty... I employ people in a state with pretty simple labor laws. Perhaps it's just that, that I've never had to deal with these things. But I would say that the vast majority of folks don't understand how these things actually work and what the practicalities of them are, and that those words are almost just semantic. It's it doesn't really matter. A-and that's not unique to college sports where people have very strong feelings about things without necessarily knowing what those things are or how they work, but- Yeah the... couple other quick questions. The pooling of broadcast rights if there isn't the 75% vote, what, what happens? Part of this, and now you've been talking about- Nothing happens. We keep doing things the same way we've been doing them. But that's what I mean. And Yeah. But you've been talking about for a while the value of pooling and Smash Sports has talked about the value of pooling and the necessity of it. But if you don't get the pooling, then h-how is the system sustainable in the long run if you're not getting that additional revenue? It's probably not, and so that's... I think that's the thing that, the... I think that's the... What we hope is that, the collective rationality of the system will come together, over the next nine years, which is the term of this Future of College Sports committee or whatever it's called that's in the bill- to study these things in depth and get everybody educated on it and, come up with a solution that works. Because that's the period of time under which, you know we... the House settlement is in place. That's the period of time under which the last of the existing media contracts will expire. How are we gonna move forward into the future and, try to find a way to keep everybody alive in the meantime is gonna be the key. Because right now these budget deficits are a huge problem. They're a big enough problem they're an issue for the entire institution, when we talk about a university, not just the athletic department. If you're Rutgers and you run a $90 million budget deficit in your athletic department, that's a problem for the whole university. And so the idea being that even though it's optional over whatever period of time, the schools will realize that this is the better route to take, and then they have the ability to do it. That's right. Or they find another route, and that's great too. And, our committee, our round table that the president formed came up with a whole bunch of ideas, not just on the revenue side, but also on the cost side. We need to find ways to be more frugal and to be more efficient. And so I think both of those, both the cost and the revenue side, just like with any business, need to be studied, addressed, and and I think they will be. And that, that's a part of it that is gonna be necessary, over the next decade is just like, all right, how do we make this thing work for everybody? A- and is private equity or private capital and Smash Sports, they And they've been on this for a while and come up with different plans. Are they part of this push as well, in terms of the pooling of broadcast rights and the legislation? So I wanna make it really clear, because it's been said, several times. I, I have no association with them or affiliation with them at all. I c- I've been doing this entirely, just on a altruistic basis. I have no profit motive. I stand to make no money off of anything that's gonna happen or not happen. I'm doing it because college sports has been very important to me in my life. It's done a lot for me. Allowed my dad to go to college. He's the first and only person in his family to do I have a son who's a recruit now. I want him to have, a college sports system to play in. And so I'm doing it, just because I wanna give back, right? And so I don't have any part in what Smash or any of these other groups are trying to do. I have met the guys, I know them. And yeah, they've been out there talking about the pooling, but I think that their motivations are different than mine. I wanna do it so that the thing's sustainable and can break even. I think they have the idea that the thing can be- become wildly profitable, and that they can have some cut of that profit. I just, I don't see how that's gonna work as a business model. What i- they, they, just like any other business entity, can go and say what they wanna say. And yeah, pooling has been part of, one of the things they've been, they've pushed. And they're not the only group that's done that. There have been others in the past that have that have tried to push this idea. Because when you talk to, people who are s- a lot smarter than I am in terms of in terms of sports media it is very clear that a lot more money could be made if College Sports Act is one negotiating unit instead of, multiple different ones that are forced to compete with each other. And same thing goes for, how they schedule the games and, cannibalization of viewership, and all those types of things that the NFL has figured out how to not do. And I think it, it's something that over time a lot of ideas are gonna come to the surface, and this bill gives the college sports system the legal protection and right to actually go out there and do what makes commercial sense. Which they have to do if they're gonna survive. All right, last couple of very quick questions. What's in there, or excuse me what's not in there that you wish was in there? And maybe it's because it was just practical reality, political compromise, whatever it might be that if you had a chance to just add something what would it be in, in the act? I think that the conferences should be regionalized. I don't think that it makes any sense for us to have these transcontinental conferences. I think that we've lost rivalries. I think that we've had declining attendance at games because people aren't as interested in them because, you don't care about somebody you've never played before. I, I just, I think that we need to move back toward regionalizing the conferences. Yeah. And my hope is that, through these discussions that we're gonna have over the next 10 years or whatever, that we move more that direction. But if I could, if I were, king for a day and could wave a magic wand, that's something that would be in this bill is, I... It would be let's change up how things are and let's try to restore some of these historical rivalries and let's play schools in our area. And- And that even makes sense from a- Yeah from a cost standpoint, from a travel standpoint both for the schools themselves and for the fans Talk about, I, I know there's been some changes in terms of protecting Olympic sports and men's sports about providing more incentives for schools to carry these sports, not just require them but actually Give them a bigger sort of pool or shared revenue or something so that the, it makes sense for the school to carry 30 sports rather than 18 sports. Yeah. Yeah, and I think that would be the goal would be for Olympic and women's sports to grow over time. But that's entirely gonna be a focus be a function of how good of a job we do in figuring out ways to save money and generate revenue. You know- right now, we don't have more sports than we do, and we're, and sports are being cut because there's, the money isn't there to pay for them, and these things cost money. So that- that's that's something that, that's part of the point of this bill, and I think the main thrust, and honestly from a political standpoint, is the issue the American public cares about the very most. Okay last last two questions. Chances of success, timeline, all that, everything you've been asked 1,000 times. I want to hear your current thinking of that. And then I do wanna go back to my question before. It's just sincere personal curiosity. Are you and some of your more vocal critics, are you friends behind the scenes? I- is this the sort of thing where you're just playing your roles but you and Sankey are then going to play 18 holes and smoking a cigar or whatever it is you might do for pleasure? N- no, we're friendly, but we're not friends. I, and and I just, I don't I haven't known him all that long. And I haven't had a whole lot of opportunities to, to become friends with him. I've worked with him, interacted with him. I've, I don't... But no, we're not friends. And, Okay they've said some things at me, and I about them, and so I would say that there are certainly some hard feelings on both sides. And that's not productive to the process, and I would try to, I'd like to find a way to defuse some of that. But last point or last question, wh- where do you... i- How optimistic are you that gets, this gets to the Senate and then the House and becomes- I'm very optimistic in the Senate. I, I would say, 70-plus percent. Again, there's a lot of work to be done, but I think there's, a very high probability that it passes the Senate. The House is maybe slightly less, but still high. I think we're gonna get there with them. Everybody wants to get this done. The President, definitely it's a huge priority to him. And so I think that, just with all the folks that have joined behind it, it's gotten so much momentum. You see the number of conferences who have signed letters of support. USOPC, you see the NFLPA, the NBAPA. These different groups that, I never really expected to be behind it. There, there is a very broad spectrum of folks who are supportive of it. And I... So I, I think that there is enough momentum at this point that we will get something done. Now, will it look exactly like it looks today, in its current form? No. Compromises will have to be made. I always say, a good deal is when everybody walks away from the table equally unhappy. And I think that's the place we're gonna end up on this thing, and I think we'll get something done. And I think it'll happen- And- I think it'll happen before, I think it'll happen this summer. Okay. A- and then is there a, is there an indicator, i- if you hear that Scalise or someone has signed on? What's your- What going on next in terms of influence to try to get this to happen? 'Cause again, it sounds like you're in tape in the Senate, the House is gonna be more of a challenge. Where given you're so involved and so on the inside, what- who's the sort of you think target or most likely chip to fall your way? Oh I don't... I think it's, there, there are a lot of people involved, so there are a lot of chips that have to fall. I know Steve Scalise. I, and I'm friends with him. You asked about being friend. I I'm very friendly with Steve. Yeah. A- and with all, honestly, all the leadership in the House. Like I've, I- I'm ha- they pick up the phone when I call and, we have good convers- productive conversations. The, I'm, I think those folks, we'll be able to work something out with them, and there are others that I don't have as good of relationships with, but certainly with those, the leadership that you've referenced the door is open, the con- the lines of communication are open and I think something will be able to get worked out. So you think it's more on the left that'll be the problem? I don't even know that's the case. I, but they have so many other things going on, right? The Congressional Black Caucus came out against the SCORE Act because of redistricting, and that's, those, those- two issues are not related to one another. And so we kinda have to get through that and figure out how, to communicate and work with them. And we certainly don't want them to feel like they're left out or ignored. And so the engagement, transparent conversation those are the keys to any deal. And this one is no different than, than- Yeah Than any other type of situation. Whether it's an argument with your wife or it's a, a business deal- got it whatever it is. You just gotta talk about it yeah. Some play out more publicly than others, but, That's right. All right now truly my final question. You've at least some of this stuff, but Paul Finebaum said that you are annoying. There are others who've said things about you. What's the one thing that's made you laugh the most? The kind of insult- I think Paul Finebaum is a... i'd love... I- In fact, I've been continuing to reach out to him. I'd love to go on his show. Yeah. 'Cause the... It's... He's made it a very personal thing with me, and I don't understand or appreciate that at all. And I would honestly like to have him say that to my face. Yeah. It's pretty easy to be a, a tough guy behind a microphone or whatever. Yeah. But yeah, that... it just... The in- the personal insults and things like that are ridiculous, and questioning my motivations or, my knowledge of the topic or anything like that it's... At this point it is absurd. And why not be constructive? Instead of just insulting me, like, why not talk about ways that we can get this thing done? Let's- Yeah. I think that... I know, Paul abs... absolutely depends on the health of college football, especially in order to make a living, and so he should want this as bad as anybody and- name calling and, acting like I'm some kind of a, bad person or, that I'm acting with some kind of motive. He's one of the ones that said that I'm associated with private equity and trying to make money off the steal. That's just absolutely false, and so yeah I probably need to, get my folks to reach out to him. I'd love to go on his show and talk about it. If he's got a problem with me- Right then he ought to probably talk to me about it. I'm pretty easy to reach, and I'm very open and transparent and happy to talk anytime. So i'll see if I can call Paul and we'll get the three of us and we can hash this out. Yeah I'd love that. Yeah. Anytime. Yeah. A- and I do very much appre- you coming on. And I will say the tough guy behind the keyboard, th- this is where I make it easy, tough in front of or behind the keyboard. So it's- I don't have to worry about these issues. But Cody I can't thank you enough for coming back on for all the work you do. I know not everybody agrees with what everybody does, but appreciate your persistence and your passion for this. And I will be back reaching out, with Paul Feinbaum or not to talk about some more developments as they occur. That sounds good. It's always good to talk to you, Gabe. All right. Thanks, Cody. Be well. Thank you. And thank you for listening. See you next time on Sports Wise