Steamboat Willie

Exactly. That's really the whole point. National rules don't accomplish much if nobody has the authority to enforce them and the penalties don't stick. Give college sports one set of rules and real enforcement behind them. That's where Congress can actually help. It's when they start trying to manage conference expansion, TV rights and the entire economics of the sport that they lose me.

I'm not against a bill. NIL, the portal, enforcement, that stuff needs a federal fix. You can't run college sports under 50 different state laws with nobody able to actually enforce anything. But we started out trying to fix that, and now Congress is setting spending caps, deciding who's allowed to expand, and rewriting how TV rights can be pooled. That's not cleanup anymore. At that point they're writing the operating manual for the whole sport, with everybody in the room lobbying for their own piece. And the funny part is the SEC and Big Ten opposed the committee bill and now look like they're getting a lot of what they wanted anyway. Not exactly shocking. Those two conferences cover 26 states, that's 52 senators, and you need 60. If a compromise ends the chaos, fine, I'll take it. I just can't shake the feeling that we're not fixing college sports so much as creating the next mess we'll all be back here arguing about in five years.

The added depth at center alone would be priceless.

A Longhorn football jersey with a small silver Apple logo patch would generate enormous attention. Apple rarely places its logo on third-party apparel, so such a partnership would be perceived as exceptionally exclusive. Combined with UT's academic reputation, Austin's tech ecosystem, and the Longhorn brand, it would likely become one of the most recognizable sponsorships in college sports. NVIDIA or Oracle would be cool as well.

Maybe?

Couple of biscuits shy of a TE.

I really think we received the worst seeding in Omaha we possibly could have gotten.

Current odds Brenden Sorsby is giving: Outcome IImplied Odds Current version passes largely intact +600 to +900 (10–15%) Passes after significant amendments +150 to +250 (30–40%) Fails, stalls, or gets pushed to a future Congress -120 to -180 (55–65%)

I don't disagree that the hardest part is still ahead. At this point, the bill's supporters have proven they can move legislation. The SEC and B1G still have to prove they can stop or significantly reshape it. Given their resources and influence, I wouldn't bet against them. But today is a reminder that political power and market power aren't always the same thing.

Why are the SEC and B1G issuing statements after the fact explaining why the bill is flawed instead of shaping the bill before it got this far?

The SEC and B1G may still win the war (and we all hope they do), but they clearly lost the opening rounds. The anti-expansion language survived, the TV pooling language survived, and the conferences publicly acknowledged that their key concerns were not addressed. That's not what winning looks like. Maybe, the SEC and the B1G throw their weight around and stop it. But if that happens, it will be because they finally engaged after the bill gained traction, not because they were ahead of it from the beginning.

The question is whether the SEC recognized the political threat early enough. Right now, the scoreboard says Campbell got his bill through committee and the SEC is issuing statements about why it doesn't like the result.

You're not wrong. Usually, when competitors team up and share control of something valuable, the law may see that as unfair. The difference here is that Congress may give them special permission to do it.

The Protect College Sports Act isn't so much about better governance as it is about limiting the schools that drive college athletics while protecting programs that have struggled to keep up. It's less about fairness and more about redistributing influence, wealth and leverage within the sport. That's one reason Cody Campbell has become one of its most vocal champions.

Well sh*t, sometimes the baseball gods just don’t smile on you.

If the Big 12 wins this lawsuit, Sorsby could still be allowed to play because of the Texas court order. What the Big 12 would win is the right to punish Texas Tech for choosing to play him. At that point, the question isn't can Sorsby play, it is whether Tech values having him on the field more than whatever penalties the conference decides to impose.

The most intersting aspect of the Big 12's filing is that it isn't asking the court whether Brendan Sorsby should be punished. The conference is asking a broader question: does the Big 12 have the right to govern itself and enforce its own bylaws? Courts are usually receptive to protecting the authority of a private membership organization to manage its internal affairs than they are to directly deciding a player's eligibility. That's why I think the conference's legal position may be stronger than Texas Tech supporters realize. At its core, this case is becoming less about one quarterback and more about whether a conference has the authority to police conduct that its members believe is harmful to the league.

Poor Sorsby, it is society’s fault.

3 since the weekend and 4 in total outstanding?

I could easily see a future where the SEC and Big Ten don't completely leave the NCAA, but instead create a separate football governance structure with: Their own eligibility rules Their own NIL framework Their own enforcement staff Their own gambling investigations and penalties Their own arbitration process outside of NCAA enforcement At some point, the question becomes: if the NCAA can't consistently enforce eligibility rules, gambling rules, or its own disciplinary decisions without courts stepping in, what exactly is it governing? The more that perception grows, the easier it becomes for the SEC and Big Ten to argue that they need their own football governance structure with their own rules, enforcement, and appeals process.

So do we need a catcher out of the portal?

He (Glasco) is hard to listen to in a press conference, but I did gain a measure of respect based on how he handled himself in a difficult situation.

I agree, the players aren't responsible for Campbell or McGuire. Any schadenfreude I might have is directed at rival programs and fan bases, not 20-year-old athletes who just poured everything they had into a season. If anything, hearing the players speak afterward usually increases my respect for them. Losing a championship on that stage and then sitting in front of microphones minutes later takes a lot of composure.

So, Texas wins the title, I am excited. My first thought wasn't "Let's watch the celebration." It was, "Where's the Texas Tech press conference?" Obviously, this may be the sports version of schadenfreude. I'm not talking about enjoying personal pain or attacking players. That's different. Not hatred. Not wishing bad things on anyone. Just a morbid curiosity to see what the losing side has to say when the season ends one game short. There's a raw honesty that comes out when people are dealing with disappointment. Sometimes you learn more about the game from the team that lost than from the team that won. You hear the respect they have for their opponent. You hear the regret. You hear the pride in what they accomplished despite the loss. And sometimes you hear the pain of knowing they were so close to a championship that can never be recovered. I can't decide if this makes me a terrible person or a completely normal sports fan.

To be fair, I would have walked Stewart every time she came to the plate.