All That and a Bag of Mail

It’s Friday, time for the mailbag to help keep your day at work or school pass faster than it otherwise would have. 

Our beaver pelt trader of the week is Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards who decided to make it clear how substantial the budget crisis in his state was by threatening the college football season. 

Go check the above story out if you haven’t already. 

Can you imagine if this actually happened and Leonard Fournette was a college free agent next year?

On to the mailbag:

Anonymous writes:

“I have been faced with a moral decision & I would value your input.

Every year I bet during football season with an offshore account. At the end of each football season I always make a withdrawal if there is anything to be had & leave a little in the account for March madness and other random sporting events that I may find myself interested in until the next season’s kick off.

Well today, I went to make the withdrawal from my account using bitcoin for the first time. I entered in 0.8 bitcoins to be withdrawn, a customer service rep called me later to confirm that I was making a withdrawal, and two hours later I get an email stating that 8.0 bitcoins have been deposited into my account.

At this point I’m not sure what to do, keep the money & close the account, call them up & tell them what happened, or slowly give it back in the form of bad bets.

The 10 year earlier version of me would’ve already had the money at the strip club with all my buddies. But now I have a wife and two young kids, a good job, and I want to think of myself as a pretty good guy. With all that being said, what would you do if you were 10x overpaid?”

This is a moral dilemma of the highest magnitude. Because once you take that money out of your account I don’t think the offshore gambling company has any redress. That is, they can’t sue you in America because their business is illegal here. 

The flip side is also true, by the way. I get regular emails from guys with offshore betting disputes who want my help. The problem is these companies are outside of American jurisdiction. So what can you do if they aren’t being fair in paying off bets. Here it works to your benefit. 

Right now one bitcoin is equal to $380. (I looked this up. I read a 10k word article in the New Yorker a while back about bitcoin and still don’t really understand the specific details of how bitcoin works.) So assuming you were supposed to get around $300 and instead you got $3k we’re not talking about the offshore gambling company going bankrupt here. They make so much money it’s possible they never even notice their error. If they did, however, notice then they could clearly dock you on your offshore account in the future. But that’s only if you win money. Right now you don’t have enough money in there for them to take back what you owe.  

The best way to handle it — aside from contacting and giving it back which is the clear right decision from a moral perspective — is just to decide to wager this money in the new football season. If you win more, so be it, if you lose it back you’re basically operating on a free roll. 

Good luck. 

Grant writes:

“Here’s an election hypothetical for you – Cruz and Sanders get their respective nominations, and Bloomberg joins the field as an independent.  Nobody gets 270 Electoral votes, so it goes to the House to choose the President. 

Since even most Republicans hate Cruz, could they actually choose Bloomberg?  The Democrats could all vote for Bloomberg as a better alternative to Cruz (knowing Sanders would have no chance), and then it wouldn’t take that many anti-Cruz Republicans to join them.

Also, I just looked this up, and learned that the Vice President would be separately chosen by the Senate.  So you could easily see a President and VP from separate tickets take office together.  How nuts would that be?”

Okay, in the event the House of Representatives decided the election every state delegation gets one vote. The majority of the states select the president, so it only takes 26 states to pick the president. Given that there are 33 Republican states in the House of Representatives the Republican would win. If it came down to a state or two, I could see someone flipping their vote to flip the state delegation, but eight states with Republican majorities would have to flip to make this happen.

So as fascinating as this would be from a historical perspective, the Republicans would win the Presidency if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes.

By the way, the presidential election being decided by the House of Representatives has happened twice before. Read about it here if you’re interested.   

The only way Bloomberg could win the presidency would be if his route to the White House allowed him to win 270 electoral votes. That’s a steep challenge. But I can promise you that if Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders were the nominees that I’d be voting for Bloomberg. 

Rich writes:

“My wife and I always vote for opposite sides when it comes to political candidates. Is it wrong for us both to agree not to vote and save the time of voting?”

In theory, yes, this is wrong. You should both vote because — insert cliched language about the fabric of American democracy here. 

In practice, everyone is busy and voting takes a decent amount of time. Since you immediately cancel each other out what’s the point? (This is assuming, by the way, that you both vote party line all the way through.) 

Two caveats:

1. You have to both agree not to vote and actually follow through without voting. If one of you is pump faking here and will end up voting this is pretty diabolical and evil. You definitely support Ted Cruz. 

2. If you have kids, I think the value of taking your kids in to see the voting process far exceeds the fact that your different votes cancel each other out. It’s pretty cool to take your kid into the voting booth and let him or her see what voting actually looks like.  

Jared writes:

“If you could compare Calipari and Saban’s recruiting, how would you do it and who’s better? Last 10 years I suppose would be a good measure.”

There’s no doubt that Nick Saban’s a vastly superior coach and recruiter. That’s because it’s much harder to put together a top recruiting class every year in football than it is in basketball.

Just think about it, you only need to sign, at most, four or five guys in every basketball class. That means you only need to recruit and analyze a handful of players. In football you have to put together 25 guys in every class. It’s infinitely more complicated. 

Football talent is also much more specific based on scheme. Any team in the country can use a top basketball player no matter what his particular skill set is, the same isn’t necessarily true in football at all. Just think about quarterbacks, the most important player on the field. A great point guard can work in any offense, the same isn’t true of a top quarterback.   

What’s more, you know who the top basketball players are and there are rarely total busts. After all, there are only so many guys in the country who are that tall and that athletic and most of the top basketball recruits have all played against each other for years in high school.

Plus, the top basketball players arrive pretty much ready for the NBA already. Witness the number of one and done players who show up at Kentucky for six months and become first round draft picks. That doesn’t happen in football, you have to develop everyone over multiple years. And there are still tons of busts in football.

Finally, look at success. Saban has won four national titles with his recruits. Calipari has just one title. So Saban’s players are paying off with championships, Cal’s aren’t.

Honestly, if Cal coached football, he’d be like Ron Zook. A phenomenal recruiter who rarely, if ever, got top results from his players.   

Lizzy writes:

“After watching a recruit jump from a perfectly good airplane to announce his intentions to play at Ole Miss after landing safely on the ground, I can’t help but wonder if this will become some new phenomenon to outdo another recruit with a grander gesture. It’s like when guys think that they have to ask a girl to prom in some gigantic fashion and now marriage proposals are becoming mega show stopping flash mobs (please don’t do this). Will student athletes who simply pick a hat of their university of choice from a row in front of them be mocked, ridiculed or even worse… be considered basic?”

I don’t think there is any way to really be unique about the way that you announce your commitment now. 

But here’s what I think is going to start happening soon — top recruits are going to start doing Periscope or Facebook videos where they come on weekly and discuss their recruiting decisions. That way they develop the fans over the course of the process.

Really, when you think about it, Rivals, Scout and 247 owe their entire businesses, by and large, to recruiting updates. A decent number of rabid fans are willing to pay nearly $10 a month to receive recruiting updates for their favorite schools and the 15, 16, and 17 year old boys they are recruiting. (Which sounds so incredibly creepy when you type it out. Imagine if cheerleading recruiting was covered this same way that football and basketball recruiting is now. “Kailtyn is just 15, but this class of 2019 member has a stellar future and is already getting a lot of recruiting attention from major programs. Her mom has great natural boobs and really long legs and a tiny waist. We feel like she has a great body for the future even if she hasn’t fully developed yet.”). Sure, you might like the message board too, but ultimately that business is a function of serving the most rabid fans possible recruiting information.

So why couldn’t a company sign an exclusive deal with these recruits and pay them to chronicle the recruiting process through videos and written stories? We’d also link all the footage from their high school games so people could watch every game online if they wanted to do so. Instead of talking to these recruiting analysts at various team sites, why couldn’t the player be part of a syndicate that charges fans for updates on all the recruits?  

Let’s say, for instance, that Outkick signed the top 100 football recruits to exclusively provide written and video content for our premium site. We charge $10 a month to rabid fans for subscriptions and only if you’re paying can you follow our updates. Our guys agree not to talk to any other writers and only announce their commitments on our site. 

Why couldn’t that be a multi-million dollar business instantaneously?

It’s not an improper benefit because these guys aren’t in college yet and I’m be paying them for their written stories and video content. Just like I could be paying any other high school student to work for Outkick now.

Tell me why this wouldn’t work.  

In other words, I think smart recruits may realize they can monetize their recruitments instead of letting everyone else make money off of them. 

Susan writes:

“I recently got into a debate with my coworker, a proud and enthusiastic Michigan alum, over college football head coach salaries. In the midst of waxing poetic on Jim Harbaugh’s virtues as head coach, he also claimed that Michigan was the top job in all of college football (I know) and that Michigan was the ONLY school in college that could match NFL head coach salaries. Forget that Saban is being paid the same at Alabama, I immediately said, no way, there are many schools that could pay in the $7 mil range (Bama, Florida, Texas, immediately jumped to mind), but many don’t because the market doesn’t demand such a high average salary yet. He disagreed. With 16 school already paying their  ‎head coaches over $4 mil a year, how many universities in college football today do you believe have the ability to match the Harbaugh/Saban/NFL head coach salaries?” 

Your friend is an idiot. 

With the success of the SEC Network every SEC school could afford to pay a coach $7 million a year. That is, if you told every SEC school that Nick Saban was available to them for $7 million a year, I think every school would pay that for him. In fact, I have zero doubt they would. 

I suspect half of the Big Ten could afford it as well. Certainly Texas, Oklahoma, and USC could afford that as well. There are at least 25 programs that could afford to pay a coach $7 million or more. 

Here are the 20 most profitable college football teams in the country if you’re interested in that data. All of these schools could afford to pay a coach $7 million a year.

I think the big question here is what would be an amount of money that no school could top.

$10 million? That’s doable. $12 million? I’m not so sure. I’d love to see what the top of the market would be. Especially because these guys are employees of non-profits. Already the salaries paid to top college coaches are at least as good as the salaries paid to NFL coaches.

For instance, and this makes me want to cry, just about every SEC school is paying its coach more than the Tennessee Titans pay Mike Mularkey.  

Scott writes:

“With national signing day over what percentage of recruits do you think received money or benefits from the school they went to? Also what school in SEC do you think most likely cheats. Your thoughts?”

I think every school in the SEC cheats with the exception of Vanderbilt. 

I would say that at least half of all top recruits received some money or benefits before signing day. The higher level of a recruit you are, the more likely you got improper benefits.   

Dan writes:

“I am father of 2 young boys and I’m seeking affirmation that I’m not the only crazy one who thinks Legos are a toy from the devil. I really see no upside in this toy being brought into your house. They are a disaster to clean up, a choking hazard for younger siblings or guests, like assembling a nuclear missile, and dear God I pray nightly I don’t step on a rogue piece while barefooted. It’s a special kind of pain. Anyways, as a father of boys yourself I wondered if anyone else feels similar or I’m just the asshole who wants to ban Legos from our house. It’s getting to the point where I feel like people who buy Legos for my kids actually hate me secretly and it’s their passive aggressive way of sticking it to me. I’ll hang up and listen.”

See, I’m in disagreement here because I think Legos are fantastic for developing minds. My eight year old can build things with Legos that I can’t. That’s not even hyperbole. He’s working on the Lego Deathstar right now and there’s no way I’m ever completing that myself. (Side note, one of the awesome things about having kids is when they have skills that you don’t. My oldest son is a tech wizard. He already asks science questions that I can’t answer. He has zero interest in sports too. Come to think of it, this kid might not be mine.)

Anyway, if I compare Legos with the other things that my oldest boys love — watching other kids play toys and video games on YouTube, seriously, this drives me insane — Minecraft video games — even worse than Minecraft, watching that fucking British dude play Minecraft I HATE HIS VOICE — Legos are the best toy they like. (Aside from light sabers, which are awesome. My one year old even gets involved in our light saber battles now. Which is maybe the cutest thing possible).

The key is only buying Legos that your kids can do without your help. Also, restricting the lego area to one where the younger kids can’t go. Because otherwise that’s a disaster.

Hope y’all have great weekends.

We’ll be live with Outkick the Show at 3 eastern.  

Here’s an election hypothetical for you – Cruz and Sanders get their respective nominations, and Bloomberg joins the field as an independent.  Nobody gets 270 Electoral votes, so it goes to the House to choose the President.  Since even most Republicans hate Cruz, could they actually choose Bloomberg?  The Democrats could all vote for Bloomberg as a better alternative to Cruz (knowing Sanders would have no chance), and then it wouldn’t take that many anti-Cruz Republicans to join them.
 
Also, I just looked this up, and learned that the Vice President would be separately chosen by the Senate.  So you could easily see a President and VP from separate tickets take office together.  How nuts would that be?
Here’s an election hypothetical for you – Cruz and Sanders get their respective nominations, and Bloomberg joins the field as an independent.  Nobody gets 270 Electoral votes, so it goes to the House to choose the President.  Since even most Republicans hate Cruz, could they actually choose Bloomberg?  The Democrats could all vote for Bloomberg as a better alternative to Cruz (knowing Sanders would have no chance), and then it wouldn’t take that many anti-Cruz Republicans to join them.
 
Also, I just looked this up, and learned that the Vice President would be separately chosen by the Senate.  So you could easily see a President and VP from separate tickets take office together.  How nuts would that be?
Here’s an election hypothetical for you – Cruz and Sanders get their respective nominations, and Bloomberg joins the field as an independent.  Nobody gets 270 Electoral votes, so it goes to the House to choose the President.  Since even most Republicans hate Cruz, could they actually choose Bloomberg?  The Democrats could all vote for Bloomberg as a better alternative to Cruz (knowing Sanders would have no chance), and then it wouldn’t take that many anti-Cruz Republicans to join them.
 
Also, I just looked this up, and learned that the Vice President would be separately chosen by the Senate.  So you could easily see a President and VP from separate tickets take office together.  How nuts would that be?
Here’s an election hypothetical for you – Cruz and Sanders get their respective nominations, and Bloomberg joins the field as an independent.  Nobody gets 270 Electoral votes, so it goes to the House to choose the President.  Since even most Republicans hate Cruz, could they actually choose Bloomberg?  The Democrats could all vote for Bloomberg as a better alternative to Cruz (knowing Sanders would have no chance), and then it wouldn’t take that many anti-Cruz Republicans to join them.
 
Also, I just looked this up, and learned that the Vice President would be separately chosen by the Senate.  So you could easily see a President and VP from separate tickets take office together.  How nuts would that be?
Here’s an election hypothetical for you – Cruz and Sanders get their respective nominations, and Bloomberg joins the field as an independent.  Nobody gets 270 Electoral votes, so it goes to the House to choose the President.  Since even most Republicans hate Cruz, could they actually choose Bloomberg?  The Democrats could all vote for Bloomberg as a better alternative to Cruz (knowing Sanders would have no chance), and then it wouldn’t take that many anti-Cruz Republicans to join them.
 
Also, I just looked this up, and learned that the Vice President would be separately chosen by the Senate.  So you could easily see a President and VP from separate tickets take office together.  How nuts would that be?

Written by Clay Travis

OutKick founder, host and author. He's presently banned from appearing on both CNN and ESPN because he’s too honest for both.