Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we discuss the chaos that has come to college sports, particularly the revenue producing ones, and consider whether the idea of amateurism still has a place in modernity.
Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keats and joining me today is a man who has been untouchable since at least 1997. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. You ready to make people smile for you now?
[00:00:39] Speaker B: Yeah, man, let's not talk about 97.
Can't bring that up.
[00:00:45] Speaker A: My bad.
[00:00:46] Speaker B: Long time ago.
[00:00:47] Speaker A: Yeah, say no more, say no more.
[00:00:49] Speaker B: With what's going on today, I say maybe I was on the island back.
[00:00:52] Speaker A: Then, you know, hey, right, well, all right, well before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe and like the show on YouTube or your podcast, appreciate doing so. Really helps to show up. Now recording on February 3, 2026 and Tunde. For a few years we've been in a new era for college sports with transfer and eligibility rules been loosened and nil payments, name, image and likeness payments, mainly from third parties going to college athletes, especially in the high profile and profit generating sports. But in the last year changes have gone further and we've seen actual revenue sharing, so money that from the actual schools to the college athletes be added to the pot.
And we've seen a lot of court decisions that keep loosening things further and making it so that you got, now you got players who have even been drafted in the pros. And this is happening in basketball in particular right now. People have been drafted into the pros or even there's a guy trying now we'll talk about that. That has been in the pros for a few games, coming back and trying to come back or coming back and to play in college and in many cases being deemed eligible.
So we're in uncharted waters completely. And it's led to some pretty jarring scenarios. And the ncaa, which has been the kind of guardian of all this and its ideal of amateurism, they've been rendered powerless basically because multiple court decisions have confirmed that they are a antitrust violation. Basically them trying to have collectively have all these schools restrict the labor market, so to speak, is against the law. It violates antitrust. So Tonde, you're a former D1 college athlete and what's been your reaction to seeing the trend we've seen with athletes like, I'm gonna name a few, James Najee and Charles Bidiaco, they've been, those are guys that have been drafted or that have played in the NBA's developmental league, attempting to go back to college. And in both of those cases, they are playing college basketball right now.
And now we have an escalation where you got this guy, Amari bailey, who's played 10 games in the NBA, filing a lawsuit trying to go back to college.
What's your reaction to seeing all this?
[00:03:02] Speaker B: That's a lot. So my reaction, the last part, on the guys who have already played professionally to some extent and want to go back to college, I do have a view on that, which we'll discuss.
I'm negative in terms of my view on it. So I know we'll get into that in detail later. But to answer succinctly now, just the first part is. Yeah, I think, you know, and actually preparing for today, there's a lot of moving pieces in this because I think part of this is that this system of athletics kind of entertainment. Sports is entertainment. I mean, we can go back to the Coliseum and Gladiators, that this isn't new, but the idea in the modern world, you know, the last 100, 150 years, it's all come together in a way that it was like the airplane was being built while it was flying. You know what I mean?
And so I don't sit here and say, oh, this is all sinister. And it's always, this is some big bad person who's trying to keep all this money away from these other people and all that. But I do think that and learning today and actually comes from an article you shared with me about amateurism.
It was a great reminder of the concept of amateurism in the Victorian age culture and what that represented and how.
[00:04:19] Speaker A: The NCAA took that, basically.
[00:04:20] Speaker B: Yeah, correct. But that's what I mean.
You can follow that through line to this, what you said, also opening up, which is about the kind of the struggle between what do you do with people? How do you compensate people for their labor? This is still this ongoing question. And so the idea, just real quick for the audience, the idea of an amateur back in the late 1800s, Victorian era, England, which was brought over into the aristocratic world of America, you know, the kind of cultures were very close. Was the idea that back then someone who was an amateur was someone who was actually from a wealthy enough family that they did not have to be a laborer so they could afford the time to play sports in a leisurely way and then compete.
[00:05:04] Speaker A: Yeah. So. And it was frowned money. It was frowned like.
[00:05:08] Speaker B: It was like, you can't be in.
[00:05:09] Speaker A: A club if you're taking money. Yeah.
[00:05:11] Speaker B: So if so, sometimes it's about understanding those roots, right? To understand then why is this still an issue today? Just like understanding the root of this country was that Africans were property when it was founded. And because we haven't dealt with that yet, we still got these offshoots of this culture playing out today. Of what do you do?
How do we relate to each other in this country? And I think this amateur thing, learning about the culture of amateurism from its founding in the modern era is important because I think that then relates to how do we think about amateurs versus paid professionals.
And then this idea, like you're saying, of then we get into a hundred years after that, right? We got tv, we got all these other forms of bringing in money into these sports.
But the one thing that wasn't dealt with was, well, what about the kids who are playing that actually generate all this revenue while they're still amateurs? So I think that's, you know.
[00:06:05] Speaker A: Yeah. And I just to kind of take a step back because I do want to get. Dive into amateurism a little bit more. But to me, what really stands out about this one is that the money must be good. And then I think when we talk about this, we have to talk about the revenue sports and then separately from the rest of college athletics, because that's really. And this could create friction, and I think is creating friction because what's happening with college men's college basketball or even women's college basketball, which does pretty well also, and then men's football, what's happening in those sports is not the same thing that's happening in lacrosse or in swimming or in all these other. As far as the revenue that's being created with these sports, they don't. The money, if the money's not coming in like that, they don't have these problems, you know, like these decisions, these compromises, these trade offs. They don't have to make any of those. It is still a primarily academic endeavor for these places that aren't. That aren't revenue sports. But for the revenue sports, we've just entered a different world. It's a broken model for the revenue sports. And I have a concern actually that the model being broken for the revenue sports might end up causing breakage in the other sports as well. Because as you pointed out, nobody's ever taken a step back and say, okay, well, let's look at all the issues and try to figure out a fair solution. What's happened a lot of times is I do think actually people were sitting around saying, hey, how can we keep all this money. I think that was kind of the idea, you know, a lot of the times was which one person or one group of people individually doing that. It's understandable. But I think it kept happening over time. And so you end up in these revenue sports with things being in the non revenue sports. Things still kind of make sense. And the revenue sports was like, yeah, yeah, we're bringing in billions of dollars every year. But yeah, you guys can't get anything. It does. It seems crazy, you know, it's just like, okay, you guys, there's a disconnect there. And I think that's ultimately the money being so good though, that you have guys who have tried. People used to go professional, remember, to try to make money because they're like, yeah, the money's good and professional. I'm going to go there. So now the money's so good in these revenue sports in college football or in college or revenue sports in college, college football, college basketball, that guys who are marginal or struggling pros can make more going back to college. So that's the problem that we're seeing right here. And so, and that does put a lot of friction on the amateurism system. And the last thing I'll add before I take us to the next section though is that while I gave you names, particularly Betty Ako Najee, who are playing right now, Najee was declared eligible. He had never gone to college and had, you know, not in the NBA, but he'd been adjacent to the, to professional stuff. He played professionally in Europe and done some stuff adjacent to the NBA, got drafted but never played in the NBA game. The NCAA declared him eligible. Betty Ako was declared ineligible. He was in college, left college to go pro and then played in the developmental league for a little bit. And then now is back. He got a judge in Alabama to rule to shut the NCAA down temporarily while they, why they litigate the case. So he's in. And then the new, the other guy, Bailey, just that that saga just started. But the other thing I wanted to mention with this though is that the ncaa, just for fairness sake, has allowed young people who in the, in the college age, who played professionally in Europe before, it's been a while they've been able to come and play college here, you know, so playing in Europe, but Europe has a different model. They're not going to high school and playing high school like they're in academies getting paid at 16 and 15. So none of the guys from Europe will be able to play in college here if they Put on, you could, you could never have taken money if they put that requirement on the European. So and that's the logic behind the Naji guy is that, well, hold up, you know, low level professional in Europe is fine. So, you know, that should be okay here too. And so that's why the NCAA came to that. So my next question, I do want to hit amateurism directly. College athletics has long been defined by the concept of amateurism. But what really is being exposed here, in my view is that amateurism is dead, you know, at least that there's no longer consensus on what college sports, you know, or at least the revenue sports is for. Is it about amateurism? Well, everybody doesn't agree anymore on that, you know, like clearly. So from a. So from a college sports business and administration standpoint, what stands out to you from the fall of, of amateurism? And I want to get to the personal level second, I don't want to get to the personal level yet. What may be, what may be gained, what may be lost from, you know, from the players, you know, standpoint. But from a business and administration standpoint, what are you seeing with this apparent fall of amateurism?
[00:10:24] Speaker B: I mean, I don't know. I think, I think what we're seeing is kind of the entropy, the going from the order that was the NCAA hierarchy, right.
To a disorder of kind of a wild west now where money and money tends to do that to things. Right? And I think that's.
[00:10:42] Speaker A: And then a new order conceivably would form, you know, like that kind of natural cycle, you know. That's a good point.
[00:10:47] Speaker B: Yeah.
And that's what my concern would be, would be that money tends to corrupt spaces in general. Right.
It creates different incentives, like you said. I mean, this is fascinating, right? We got guys who have played professional that are now incentivized to go back to playing amateur because they can make more money doing that. I mean that's so it kind of.
[00:11:11] Speaker A: It is college. It's a revenue sports amateur though, if they're making billion dollars, that's what I'm.
[00:11:15] Speaker B: Getting at is so for. I don't like any of it that the money got in. However, I recognize the dilemma that yeah, the kids who are the NCAA athletes in the big major sports, especially in the big conferences, are the ones generating their eyeballs and doing the work right, to get all this stuff, the money for everyone else. So could you have a compromise where the kids don't get paid and it doesn't create this, all these weird incentives at the moment, but maybe they have money put into a trust. They get access at 25 and then a little bit at 30 and kind of a spendthrift clause in a trust type of thing. So that a kid, like you said, like me, I would have to.
[00:11:55] Speaker A: What other scenario would you do that in in business? Like, would you pay somebody like that when you went and got a job?
Would you want to get paid like that where you don't get any of the money now and you have to, you know, like, wait for.
[00:12:06] Speaker B: That's the importance of culture, right? We have things like a progressive tax system. Who would sign up for that if you had a choice, right? Like you would say, nah, I just want to keep all the money and all that. So we do have.
[00:12:19] Speaker A: Tax system doesn't leave people without any money. The whole point of the progressive tax system is that as your capability to pay increases, your obligation to pay increases. Progressive tax system.
[00:12:30] Speaker B: Here's an example.
[00:12:31] Speaker A: People that have $0 or the people that have $10, we're going to tax you as high as we tax the guy who has a billion dollars.
[00:12:36] Speaker B: Here's an example. So we don't have to get into it. So we can have a show an example man. Some part of. Part of the revenue. Well, but I'm saying because I don't want to build a plane while I fly, right? Like when we're sitting here talking about ideas that I'm pulling out of my backside.
[00:12:48] Speaker A: So it could.
[00:12:49] Speaker B: An idea could be a spendthrift clause on some of the earnings from revenue of the games you played that last four years after you're done with school to actually help you as an adult. Right? So you didn't blow all your money as a kid.
But what do you get today? You still get a free education, free room on board, free meals, free housing. You know, those. Those could be the type of questions we could have.
[00:13:12] Speaker A: If you have collective bargaining and they agree to that, then fine. But that sounds. I mean, that's completely ridiculous in my opinion because no, no other place. If. And open a software company at 18, you don't have to then put all your money in a sprintlift. Cause like if they're generating. If they're this. I thought we believed in markets and capitalism and stuff. Like if they're generating all this money, then they should get a piece of that. Like that just period. Like it shouldn't be like so. But from an administration.
[00:13:36] Speaker B: Hold on, let me say this, James, because we've made this comment a lot on different shows. Pure free markets unfettered within. No Guardrails or regulation gives you Afghanistan, right?
[00:13:45] Speaker A: So this is an example of no regulation. I'm saying that people who work get paid, period. You're saying that. That we should break that.
[00:13:52] Speaker B: So all I'm saying is, an example would be part of your compensation for working today is you get to go to Harvard for free or Duke or UNC or whatever.
[00:14:02] Speaker A: You get to go for free today. How about this?
[00:14:03] Speaker B: Hold on, let me finish. Let me just finish.
That's compensation, right? That you get free room.
[00:14:08] Speaker A: They pay for free. Not really, because you don't pay taxes.
[00:14:10] Speaker B: Housing.
Well, my point is today it's considered compensation for the. I used to get meal money and stuff like that.
[00:14:17] Speaker A: The point is, is that compensation, though, you don't believe in.
[00:14:19] Speaker B: What I'm saying, James, is that if, again, I'm okay with collective bargaining and all that.
[00:14:24] Speaker A: If it's collective bargain, then fine.
[00:14:26] Speaker B: You know, like, what I'm saying is.
[00:14:27] Speaker A: You, from the top would be completely. Again, that's against the law.
[00:14:31] Speaker B: But what I'm saying is, just conceptually, if I generated a million dollars in income over my four years playing college sports because of the way it worked out with TV and all that, but that income to me was deferred, like a deferred compensation plan in any big corporation. I'm still getting compensated for my work. It's just deferred for.
[00:14:49] Speaker A: But who decides whether it's deferred or not? Is.
[00:14:51] Speaker B: But let me finish here. That's. That's one example for me to say how you could potentially bring this money into it without the corrupting influence that concerns me about giving kids all these money and the hangers on and all these. So should we do that stuff that comes into it?
[00:15:07] Speaker A: Should we do that with pro sports? Should we do that with pro sports, too?
[00:15:10] Speaker B: Yeah, I do think that actually, there's an argument to be made with that, that guys like Allen Iverson, who declared bankruptcy in his 30s, maybe he wouldn't have had some of his income, though.
[00:15:18] Speaker A: Defer to do what you want with the money that you earn. So should we. Like, we should do that with everybody, then in your mind, like, again, I just don't think what you're saying.
[00:15:25] Speaker B: Well, we do in a sense. What do you think a deferred compensation plan or a pension plan is? Right?
[00:15:30] Speaker A: Those are not compulsory. What?
[00:15:32] Speaker B: Well, not all pension plans are voluntary. What you're saying up at a job, they put some of your money away without your choice, and then you don't get that money? I'm just saying it does Work like that in some places. That's all.
[00:15:41] Speaker A: No, no, no. What I'm saying is that these things are the paternalistic mindset that, hey, you're earning all this money for us. We're going to get the money now, and then we may kick something to you later is one. It's against the law to do that, to impose that collectively. This is what the Supreme Court said. This is why the NCAA's House of Cards has fallen apart, because they were doing all this stuff on behalf of all these competitors, these schools that compete, and saying, okay, we're going to fix all your labor prices to the price of a scholarship. Which is ridiculous on its face in the sense that this would be like, you know, you're a wealth manager, you have employees. This would be like you trying to pay your employees with the services you already provide. Like, yo, I can't give you any money, but you know, I'll do your financial planning for you. Like, that's not. You're not. That's not a true compensation, so to speak.
[00:16:24] Speaker B: I'd sign up for that.
[00:16:26] Speaker A: You sign yourself up for it. Don't sign somebody else up for it.
[00:16:29] Speaker B: Maybe I'll build a town they can live in, too, and buy from the general store. So sounds good to me.
[00:16:35] Speaker A: Sounds great to the cashless.
[00:16:37] Speaker B: Sounds great.
[00:16:38] Speaker A: And hey, you can have a third of your workforce Protestant, a third of your workforce be Catholic, and a third of your workforce be black. And then you could pit them against each other the whole time. So.
[00:16:47] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, exactly. And then they'll never know that I'm the one making all the money. It's great.
[00:16:50] Speaker A: Never know. But now we got to get back.
[00:16:53] Speaker B: Too bad I can't get on that side of the game in my life. You know, I got to deal with this worker shit.
[00:16:58] Speaker A: But no, I think I get the confusion. It shocks me that on one hand, you recognize that we're in the entropy phase. Entropy phase right now. And in that phase, following that phase, once we get a handle on the problems as a society, ideally, we will then come up with a solution and there'll be a new order that more fairly compensates all of the actors and all the stakeholders. That's what's coming next. And so to me, for you to recognize that we're in that phase and then say, I want to short circuit that phase and start putting handcuffs on everybody. So we can't go through this. I can't take this entropy anymore. We got to put order back on anything without letting it play out and people to understand all of the stuff. Money doesn't have to be a corrupting influence. Pro sports are popular. The people who said, then we'll have the piece on amateurism from the New York Times in the show notes. The people who said amateurism has a virtue was because they said money would corrupt. They said money would corrupt Pro sports too, 100 something years ago. Nobody's saying that now anymore. They said money would corrupt the Olympics. All of, all of the. They said this at each step of the way. And actually, one of the interesting pieces from that New York Times piece was about a tennis player. I'm sorry, I don't have her name right now, but again, it'll be in the show notes. But a tennis player from the early 1900s that's basically recognized the game. Like, they're selling all these, they're selling all these tickets for this match and I got to show up and play for free. And then the people that are organizing this stuff are all rich. And so it's like. And then, so she goes professional at that point, and then that it starts chipping away at this facade that amateurism is the only way to have purity in sports. But again, that's. That facade is over. Like, the super bowl is coming up and, or, you know, the super bowl is happening, you know, in this month, and nobody's saying that it's not pure because the athletes are getting paid. Nobody's saying, oh, I'm not watching that. Nobody's getting. Or these athletes are getting paid, you know, saying. So from a business and administrative standpoint, we're in the sausage making period now. Yes, you're going to have some results that don't seem right. You're going to have some outcomes that don't seem fair. But this process is part of the process to get to something better. And so, like I said, I'm amazed that you recognize the first part but don't recognize the second part. And we don't have to then come down with an iron fist now. We just have to deal with a little discomfort from the disorder and then it'll work itself out. And hopefully it'll work itself out in a way that's more equitable than what we came from, not just putting on the inequitable stuff that was already there before, that has already been again, deemed illegal. So I do want to get. I know we got.
[00:19:22] Speaker B: All right, well, hold on. I just want to say this. Since I'm an honest human, I don't like disorder and I don't like all that. So I want to Put my hands on and control.
[00:19:30] Speaker A: That's the natural impulse. That's why people are disorderly. That's it democracy. That's why people are discomfort in markets and want monopolies. Like. Yes, you're right. That is the natural impulse.
[00:19:39] Speaker B: And her name was Langlan. I was looking while you were talking.
[00:19:42] Speaker A: Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you.
But I know, actually if you guys think Tunde had something there, wait till you hear this, because this is where he's really passionate about.
So I want to look at it from a personal level, the personal level on how the money right now is influencing the way that college sports is happening. This gets into the. The transfers. You know, we've seen the numbers that say basically, like in college football right now, every. At the end of each season, everybody's a free agent. Everybody can just start jumping around here and there trying to get, you know, a new. New deal for this amount of money, that amount of money, nobody staying, you know, nobody or very few less people want to even think about staying in their school, working through adversity and stuff like that. So setting aside the business stuff, just. And you're. Again, I appreciate that you feel strongly about this as a former D1 athlete. On a personal level, what's your reaction to seeing this unfold and this kind of how money has changed the experience that the players kind of have and what their expectations are and so forth?
[00:20:45] Speaker B: Well, you got me a little too excited because that wind up. I thought we were going to talk about the pen files, but I'll stay on this. We were starting to talk about money and people taking advantage of stuff, so. And elite stuff.
[00:20:56] Speaker A: But.
[00:20:57] Speaker B: I'm just joking. But. But no, it's. It's interesting, man. I think that.
So here's my concern, even more so than just the kind of money and individuals getting paid. Because. Because to me, like, we just had our back and forth in the earlier section just now. That can all be worked out, right. And. And you know, collective bargaining, the entropy, part, order will form from this.
My concern is that it may end up being order. That still doesn't help the young people that are doing it. But in any case, we'll see how it plays out. What I do have a bigger issue with actually whether money is part of this or not, is this idea that a guy like this guy Bailey, I believe his name was, who played 10 NBA games, that he gets to come back to college.
[00:21:45] Speaker A: Well, he's not there yet, to me is a big issue to try to come back. He has.
[00:21:49] Speaker B: Yeah, because. And here's why.
First of all, everything we talked about is true and great. All that, part of the mechanics and logistics of how we got here with the NCAA in the last hundred plus years and all that. But I want to say something, and this is where I say there's a lot of things I would say, like kind of soft power for a nation or an empire versus the hard power. There's like a soft power with some of this stuff too, that is not as easy to recognize, but I think it has real tangible outcomes for our society. I think one of the things that the 20th century saw, which was great with NCAA athletics especially probably Post World War II, was the ability for young people who were otherwise maybe didn't have a shot to go to get a higher education at all, a degree at a university, a bachelor's, or even get to a master's, that they were good at some sport in their high school in some town, somewhere in West Virginia, in Ohio, and somewhere in Appalachia, in California, wherever. And they didn't come from some high society family with a bunch of money, but they got a scholarship to a University in 1973 or 1985, and they were the first person in a family to go to college.
And there's millions of Americans alive today that that's their story. And they never played professional. That's kind of my point. I'm not here to talk about getting, being a pro athlete and making the money.
It's the ability to leave where you're from, especially if you have lower means, lower income, type of kid and family. You didn't have a chance to go see the world on vacation and all that stuff when you were growing up and you get to go to some other town, other state, meet a bunch of new people. You know, these colleges are like petri dishes of kids meeting each other and networking.
And I think when you multiply that by millions of Americans, that's why it's hard to quantify it. But I think that's an important part of our cultural soft power domestically.
And that to me is what happens when I see a guy who played 10 games in the NBA trying to go back to college. I feel like he's taken away a scholarship from a kid who's a senior in high school today, who could be going to that school. This kid made a choice. He left the university, NCAA system as a freshman and he wanted to play professional.
That was his choice. Now he needs to not come back to college. He needs to go figure out where he's going to Play pro. That's really my attitude with that. That has nothing to do with the money.
[00:24:18] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I can understand that. Yeah, I can understand that. Here's where I would like. There's two issues here, and I'll throw the second one out just because I know you'll get there. But I just want to make sure we set these tent poles in one. Is what you just talked about taking away a spot, or potentially not just a spot, but taking away a scholarship.
Now I would question is it that's taking away the spot or the scholarship? Because that could be accounted for. If you've earned money before, you can't get a scholarship. Like there's ways to deal with that, especially if you can get paid anyway, whether you get a scholarship or not, that can be something that can be worked out. But taking away a spot, scholarship, and then also people transfer a lot, transfer, hey, I'm here. You may not learn to deal with adversity in the same way, which is something we want in college, is to learn to deal with adversity and so forth, and also not building lasting relationships with either the place that your college is in or the people around you in your college. So I think both of those issues are worth kind of discussing in this part. I tried not to take a paternalistic view on any of this stuff, but I do recognize the benefits of those types of things and that we do want to set up systems that encourage the kind of values that we want to have in our society.
Now the taking away at spot thing is where I'm going to, because that's where you were also, you know, but to me, I can appreciate this, but I wonder if the same outrage happens, like if a janitor is 30 years old and decides he wants to go to college or go back to college. We don't have people saying, oh, you can't do that, you know, yada, yada, yada, like it. A lot of this comes down to what is this for? You know, like if college athletics is going to be a entertainment again, this is why we don't have this. Nobody's doing this in lacrosse, you know, nobody. We don't have these issues outside of the revenue generating sports, you know, or at least in terms of the level of concern that we're expressing in society. Like, so if a janitor who's been working as a janitor for eight years, 10 years wants to go to college, nobody's objecting if that person wants to go to college, even though if he gets, if he's admitted or hey, he takes the sat, does a great job, gets some scholarship money, he's taking away a spot from somebody else. Objectively, it's a zero sum game, so to speak. So if people don't object to that. But what we understand the educational aspect being for is for anybody, anybody who wants to go, we understand that as well. Like it's great for, for, for people of college age, so to speak. But if anybody wants to go, we're generally okay with that. So we're coming down to. And this is, I think, this is the question I don't think as a society we've resolved yet. For the revenue sports in college, what is it for? And the problem that we have is that for the past 30 years or so, 30 or 40 years, the schools have behaved as if it's about making money and it's about winning games at all costs, so to speak. This is why the schools are going to get Najee or Bediaco or whatever. And why if Bailey gets ruled by the court that he can play, some school's gonna bring him in. Because it's been about making money and winning at all costs, so to speak.
So maybe the problem we should be looking at, the kids are reacting to the incentives. The people who are setting the incentives are the schools. So maybe we should be looking at the schools in terms of having them clearly lay out what is this for? And then the people will then react to those incentives. Because right now what you have is a problem with incentives. Yes, a low level pro can make more money in college and can get a spot in college because they want to win and they got money, you know, so. But if it's not going to be about money and win and winning at all costs, then those incentives and changes and these kind of problems magically go away. But you don't have to put rules on the kids. How about we look at the adults and have the adults lay out what this is for and then live up to what they lay out?
[00:27:52] Speaker B: Because adult adults don't like taking accountability. So we're going to push it back on the kids.
[00:27:57] Speaker A: He was cutting through the heart of things, man. I was going to leave that part unsaid.
[00:28:02] Speaker B: Now let me get my kids on this microphone as I tell you how I parent.
[00:28:05] Speaker A: Hey, man, call it like you see it, man. Come on, let's go.
[00:28:09] Speaker B: Nothing's my fault in this house.
That's how a parent take no responsibility for anything. When you grow up, guys, it's gonna be all your kids fault. My grandkids.
No, but now here's the thing, and this is where I'm not here to debate your point. I think it's fair. I think this is exactly what we're saying, right? This is the entropy phase. We're in the disorder phase. And it's kind of weird. But I'll say this just to challenge you on your janitor point, because that 30 year old janitor, if they go back to school, they're just sitting in a classroom and they're sitting at a desk learning, right? They're not competing with an 18 year old physically for that spot. And I think that's the big thing for me too. And I think this, this goes into your question, right? What are we doing here? Because for me, the what are we doing here with college sports is like I said, taking young people out of high school, kind of incubating them for this kind of four year period or so along with the education.
And then they go out into society and do something else. So they either go play pro with that skill or like me, they don't get to play pro because I wasn't good enough. But I got, you know, an education I had. So, you know, I made some friends and networked and I got to a new city, right. I live in South Florida because I went to university down here. I'm from Washington D.C. so it's, I'm, I'm an example of, of a college student athlete that didn't make pro but still benefited from the experiences, all that soft power kind of stuff I talked about.
So that's my concern is that, you know, if a guy is like this NBA player, you know, he's in his 20s, I mean, the guy. You sent me an article about the guy who's, who's now 8, in his eighth year in college. That means he's probably about 26.
[00:29:45] Speaker A: Yeah. And he's been deemed eligible by the.
[00:29:48] Speaker B: NCAA, because that's what I'm saying. And here's an interesting, just anecdotal thing of recently because my wife doesn't really watch much sports and she definitely doesn't watch really much.
She doesn't watch any college football and sometimes will catch an NFL game. Right?
So we watched though, because you know, it's University of Miami down here and we got friends all connected with the U and the unfortunate loss when they lost to Indiana just recently in the college finals. And I remember the first thing, like literally putting on the game of the first minute or two. One of the first things my wife says is, oh, wow, this looks really different than the Pros in the NFL.
And she said both the size of the kids and the skill, she could just tell already. And I just said, Yeah, I said NFL's grown man stuff. I go, that's why you don't see kids going from high school to the pros in the NFL like they do in baseball and hockey and basketball, which.
[00:30:42] Speaker A: Is a collectively bodies just to kind of bring that back. That's a collectively bargained thing. That's okay with antitrust because they bargain that with the players. But go ahead.
[00:30:49] Speaker B: But I'm just making the point that is it fair to bring. Cause really these kids are out of high school, they're kids. Is it fair to bring someone who's 26 back to play with those kids? Like that's all I'm saying is that it begins to change the dynamic. To your point, what are we doing here?
[00:31:04] Speaker A: No, no, I agree, I agree. Well, here's. And we agree on that. And here's where we have a disconnect. I think like you're more bothered by. And this probably makes sense because you know, you were an athlete in that I never played past high school of anything, any sports. So you were an athlete in D1 college. So you're looking at the kids and saying, okay, this is where the problem is. To me, I would say, I would sign up for your vision. You know, you go, you're doing this at college age, you know, 18 to 24, let's say. And then that's it. I would sign up for that. But what the disconnect I see is that, that's, that is what part of billion dollar TV contracts and gambling companies, advertising and all this other stuff, what part of that is this? Bringing kids from small towns to the like I, that's the disconnect to me. Once if you're. And this is why I don't think you have the problem in the other sports, the non revenue sports. I think once you put it on TV and I've said this in other shows, I know, but once you put it on tv, it's an entertainment product. You're no longer just a sports product. You are an entertainment product. And so I consider college athletes that go on TV more just as much so as performers in a movie or a play or a TV show. As they are athletes, they're athletes and that can do, they can do that. They can do that stuff in the stadium for a scholarship, in my opinion. But if you can put them on TV then the scholarship is not enough anymore. You know, like, so if the schools are going to step away from the TV stuff and say, okay, no, we're going to go back to our mission of educating kids and turning kids into well rounded adults. Then none of that needs to go on tv, you know, but once you can put it on TV and the TV wants it, you know, like there's a market for it, you know, the college football from a TV standpoint is second in the, in the country of all TV shows, second only to the NFL, you know, like, they draw more than any kind of linear shows, any of that stuff. College football hit 20 million viewers easily, you know, for the big games. So that's the disconnect is the administrators have been wanting to professionalize it from an entertainment product standpoint, yet keep their labor in an amateur world that has broken. So now we're in this phase after that. And so what comes after it? Well, look, pick a link. College sports would be my thought. So, I mean, I do, I am optimistic that things will. There's enough eyes on this and as long as we, like, I don't know if the country, our country, United States is going to still follow laws, you know, forever, but as long as we follow laws, there are laws in place to kind of prevent it from going back the way it was. So hopefully they got to find a new way would be my thoughts. So any last thoughts before we wrap it up?
[00:33:34] Speaker B: No, that was great.
[00:33:35] Speaker A: All right, cool, man. Well, we appreciate everybody for joining us.
[00:33:37] Speaker B: You know what we should do? Last thought will be in, in a year to two years. We should revisit this and see.
[00:33:44] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, we talked about it. We hit it about every, you know, quarter or every half year. So that, that's, yeah, we'll, we'll see what's going on. But, yeah, so. But we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. Hold on.
[00:33:54] Speaker B: My last one is maybe let's see if in a year I'm back in college playing basketball.
[00:34:01] Speaker A: Hey, man, that money is high enough, man. You better.
[00:34:04] Speaker B: You bet.
[00:34:04] Speaker A: You might not want.
[00:34:05] Speaker B: I'll be out there getting in shape.
Yeah, so.
[00:34:09] Speaker A: But no. All right. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I see. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think, send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
I'm.
All right, we'll talk soon.
