Now that there are really has to be one defined primary owner and that primary owner has to be able to put up 30% of the total purchase price in cash. And when teams cost a half $1 billion or a $1 billion or even a billion and change, that was a doable number for America's most wealthy people. When you start to get into the four or 5, 6, $7 billion range, we're talking about something else entirely. And it becomes more difficult to find people, not that are worth that much, but people that have that much liquid that have that much and have it have the cash on hand and ready to spend on an NFL franchise. So one of the things that was discussed this week in Minnesota was whether or not a rules changes afoot, whether or not this is the turning point. Of course, if you want to go back a couple of years and you look at the panther sale to David tepper, that price is a little over a third of what the price for the commanders is going to be if you go back to last year. The Broncos as sort of a special case. We're talking about the waltons, American royalty, a family that has more money than almost any family in America. And where the commander sale is now is we're talking about a more conventional buyer and Josh Harris with a larger group than the NFL is used to. And the questions of whether or not the rules need to be changed. So that's what's holding it up. You know, there's some question as to whether or not they were going to change the rules every owner I talked to, commissioner Roger Goodell reiterated this and saying that the rule isn't going to change. The rule has served them well. I do think they're going to wind up getting there. They're going to wind up getting to a point where they're able to put something in front of the finance committee that finance committee can approve. My guess would be that maybe that happens in three or four weeks. I would also say that it's likely that in late July early August, we do get a vote on Josh Harris becoming the commander's owner. So I think all this is going to be in place well before the season, but there are bigger questions to ask here as far as the future of NFL team sales and as they creep closer to $10 billion, whether or not there's just simply the pool of buyers out there to support a bidding war and whether or not one team president calls me was the NBA NBA of the NFL has to happen where you have more consortiums. You have more corporate ownership. To justify or to support the price points that we're going to see in the coming years and decades. So I would say the commander sale is going to happen. You might have to be a little patient with it. And for football fans, it doesn't really matter anyway because we're talking about, you know, the difference between a team being sold at the end of May and the middle of July end of July. It's tough on the people in the building because you're kind of your hands are tied from a spending standpoint. It's hard to finalize sponsorship deals until all of this is in place. But for the fans, I mean, your team is pretty much in place now, Sam hall is going to be your quarterback Ron Rivera is going to be your coach. And the big box decisions that a new owner was going to make aren't going to come until January anyway. The second thing that I would take away from that owner's meeting is that the kick-off rule is something that is a major part of Roger Goodell's agenda. But just because it was passed doesn't mean this issue is going to go away. I think it's going to continue to be a talking point because the coaches were so unified against it. I can tell you 32 out of 32 special teams coaches did not like the kick-off rule. They felt like it was a weak band aid and something that would actually make the play in the long run more dangerous than safer. More dangerous rather than less dangerous. And what they see is more squib kicks, more corner kicks, directional kicks, to put the return team in a tough spot, and that will create more unsettled football for those who don't know the rule itself is actually if you feel the ball and fair catch it inside the 25 that it gets moved out to the 25. That's just one of a list of unintended consequences that could arise from this. Those coaches got the players involved, 32 teams, 34 players representing those 32 teams were on a conference call that they had last week to discuss and organize. So those coaches, those players are organized against this. They had four head coaches behind them and Bill Belichick, Sean Payton, John Harbaugh and Dan Campbell, three Super Bowl winning coaches and a fourth who played over a decade in the NFL. And yet they couldn't move the needle on this. And where the vote was, I'm told, like, barely 16 to 16 back in March, they needed to be 2048 for it to pass. Where it was 18 to 13 to one on Monday, they get the vote 26 to 5 to one on Tuesday after Roger Goodell lobbied and flipped 18 from nose to yeses to get this thing through and it was done on the premise that, you know, I was done in the premise that owners wouldn't want to open themselves to any more legal liability than they've already opened themselves to. And that after an uptick in concussions on kick-offs from ten, two years ago to 14 in 2021 to 19 and 2022, they needed to do something. Some sort of action needed to be taken to protect themselves in the case of future lawsuits coming as a result of concussions on kick-offs. And so roger gets what he wants there. I do feel like the coaches and the players feel like they weren't hurt on this at all. They're still pissed off about it. And I think it's going to lead to a really interesting situation on those sorts of plays in the fall. It was the NFL moves closer and closer to eliminating the kick-off altogether. And then the third thing would just be the Thursday night flex. This again comes down to money. The same way the kick-off rule came down to money except in this case is about making money rather than protecting money. The issue that the NFL has right now is the value of that Thursday night package to streaming partners needs to remain high. And they need to placate Amazon first, but they also need to make sure that they show value in that package. And they show value in all of their products for streaming partners. Why? Well, a, that's where things are going. B, those streaming partners don't need live sports. At least for right now, the way that ABC or CBS or NBC or fox do. Because if you think about it, a Netflix and Amazon, you know, an Apple TV, they don't need live sports to float their boat. It could help. And if it's popular, it would be something certainly that will get more people to subscribe. But they don't need it the same way, the over the air live television networks need it to keep themselves viable. And so they need the NFL sees is we need to go the extra mile. To keep Amazon happy and to make Amazon's investment look like a good one. So come the end of the decade, we have Apple TV. We have Netflix. We have all the different streaming partners competing for different broadcast packages along with the over the air networks. So they push that thing through, it's despite some player safety concern on it. It's despite what it'll mean for fans. And I got to tell you, this is a shot at the most avid of NFL fans. Those are the people who traveled to games. Those are the ones who are really going to get screwed here. But it's another sign of course that the NFL is first and foremost to television product. That's where the money comes from. That's where the most people watch. That's what the league is going to protect. And it will look the other way on player safety. It will look the other way on the experience that the fan in the stadium has to make sure that it's maximizing what it's putting on television. And so that gets pushed through the other thing is with the player safety element of it, the kick-off rule gives you a shiny object to say, see, look, we care about player safety. Even though they're pushing that one through at the same time, they are, they are at the same time they are moving forward with the Thursday Night Football initiative. Question, what if you could make analyzing a big bank's data? No big deal. Well, you could partner with IBM and Red Hat use a hybrid cloud solution to connect data across multiple systems globally than analyze all that data with Watson. All while you address your security and compliance standards. Now your analysts get insights in real time to make quick decisions. That's the hybrid cloud solution IBM and a global bank created. What will you create? Learn more at IBM dot com slash hybrid cloud, IBM. Let's create. He'll forget about the video game you gave him on his birthday. Wow, thanks, grandpa. But he'll never forget how you invested in his future with the unesp. Wow. Thanks, grandpa. Don't just give them any gift. Give them a gift that can grow with them. Invite grandparents and family friends to contribute to your child's future with the U nest app. You nest is an investment account for kids that makes it easy to gift funds that can be used for college tuition, their first home, and more. Just by sharing the link. Or include a unes QR code on party invitations for birthdays and holidays. For a limited time, download the U nest app and use the code iHeart 50 at sign up to receive a $50 bonus when you fund your account. That's code I hard 50 when you sign up at you and EST dot CO. For a $50 bonus. See terms and conditions at unes dot CO. Hi, I'm David eagleman. I have a new podcast called inner cosmos on iHeart. I'm a neuroscientist and an author at Stanford University, and I've spent my career exploring the three pound universe in our heads. On my new podcast, I'm going to explore the relationship between our brains and our experiences by tackling unusual questions so we can better understand our lives and our realities. Like does time really run in slow motion when you're in a car accident or can we create new senses for humans or what does dreaming have to do with the rotation of the planet? So join me weekly to uncover how your brain steers your behavior, your perception and your reality. Listen to intercosmos with David eagleman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, so we'll get to your questions now. And I asked for questions on Twitter, not the same volume that I get for the Wednesday mailbag. You guys can check out the Wednesday mailbag on the website. But I got a few to fire through here before we get you guys out of here for the weekend. My first question is coming from Tom Marshall. It's at a red zone knock. At a red zone knock, a, UK at the end. If teams don't spend up to the cap, why should a quarterback take any dollars less than he fully deserves? Tom, it's a great question. I think it's one that Patrick Mahomes and Joe burrow and Justin Herbert and Trevor Lawrence in a year are all confronting. And I think in a lot of these cases, the price of quarterbacks has gotten to the point where we can legitimately say how much is enough. It's 45 enough is 50 enough. And I just know personally if it was me and I was doing that to make sure that I was getting that my teammates were getting rewarded that I was going to be surrounded by the best team. I would use that to hold the team's feet to the fire. And we've seen this before. You know, with Tom Brady, if you remember in 2005, he signed a new contract. It was his first mega contract who's a pro in a year later, the Patriots let David givens go, then they got into a contract dispute with Dion branch and wound up trading Deion branch that September, and the lack of receivers wound up costing the Patriots when it mattered most in the AFC title game might have cost them a Super Bowl championship that year they blew a big lead in the AFC championship game in part because the offense at the end of that year wasn't close to where it had been the year before or certainly the year before that. And so Brady publicly criticized the team for not doing what it took to hang on to Deion branch, the team a year later wound up going and getting Wes Welker and Dante stallworth and of course Randy Moss to build one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history. We go 16 and O and the rest of that, you guys all know it was a case where Brady was able to use his contract as leverage and say, if I'm going to do this, you got to do everything else. You got to go and get the receiver, the left tackle, the running back, this is going to allow me to perform at the highest level possible. So I think if you're paying a quarterback at the top of the market, the quarterback himself doesn't have as much place to take that sort of equity in the team. If you're asking a quarterback to take last year implicitly asking him, hey, I want you to invest back in us. That extra 5, $10 million. I want you to take that and invest it back into our team. And allow us to build around you a different way in a smarter way in a more aggressive way because you did that for us. And if you don't do that for that player, then you're going to have a big problem on your hands, which puts pressure on the team, a good kind of pressure on the team and gives that quarterback some leverage. So that's sort of the position that Patrick Mahomes is in right now as I see it. And I think that would be the benefit for a burrow or a Herbert or a Lawrence, you know, to create that sort of situation where you could say for yourself you're now in a partnership with me, I took care of you. Now you got to take care of me. Question number two from Mitch biter that's at Mitch spider 91. Why are post draft rookie trades not more of a thing? Doesn't make much sense that players seem locked into their teams after the draft. EG, a player slides the fourth round where a team, a pixie. Team B at a second round grade on him, so why not give team a a future third form? Mitch, I think the reason why is because everyone's strap board looks very different than the next teams. And so I may have a guy who's off someone's trap board as a third round pick on my board. And so it's hard to ascertain which teams might see things, the exact same way that you do. And when you start to get into the third and fourth and 5th round, things kind of get jumbled. So, you know, I know we all look at the first 50 pixels so and we all created a consensus as to the way the league sees them. The truth is, once you get past that this middle of the second round, the grades that each team has very wildly. So you'd be taking a pretty big risk if you took a player that you didn't really like in the fourth round just because you think other teams have think highly of him because there's a really good chance that you're going to wind up getting stuck with that player. And oh by the way, like the future traffic once you get past the draft, they sort of become gold. It's like the new car effect. Once you drive a car off the lot, it loses its value. And each year the new car, the new model coming out is going to have added value because it's new. So once you get into that draft here, we're now under the 2024 draft cycle. Those picks become more valuable. In the 2023 draft picks, well, you've already driven those off the lot. So they have already lost some value. So I think that's sort of what goes into it. You know, and it's just the amount of time that teams put into scouting and developing these players. Now, as for your idea, that does happen. That's why you do see sometimes a team trading a future third to get a fourth round pick so they can pick a guy who's falling through they really like who they think shouldn't be on the board anymore. So those things do happen in real time, but they wouldn't happen after the draft. Again, because of that effect, I think, of turning the page to the next year and that the next year becoming more valuable and the effect of driving that new pick off off the lot, so to speak. Question number three is from ricker 81 at D underscore ricker 81. How do you feel about the Giants off season and chances in the NFC this year? What do you think happens with Barkley? It feels to me like Barkley may be plays in the tag right now. And I don't think that's the worst deal for anybody. You know, I think saquon could put himself in a position because stay healthy for another year to get a nice contract next year and he's pulling down 8 figures as it is. And that's really rare for running back and so like you'd be looking at saquon Barkley in the 6th year pulling down 8 figures and having his freedom in the 7th year to go do a new deal somewhere else. I don't mind that for him and I think for the Giants it allows them to maintain some flexibility. As further off season globally, I just really like what Joe Shane and Brian da ball are doing there. It feels logical. It feels reasoned. It's patient. They're not overreacting to having one good year. Yes, Daniel Jones was expensive to keep. Yes, the sake won tag isn't cheap. But what they've done, I think, is they've allowed for the players who are already in house to prove themselves. And I think they've come out of that with a nice core players in Jones and Barkley and Dexter Lawrence, who they just signed. In a Leonard Williams, who was a holdover who had been signed, so you have this core players Andrew Thomas and another one. To build around and you're not overreacting and thinking all of a sudden you're on the doorstep of the Super Bowl, you're still building steady. And you're cleaning out your salary cap, which I think they've been able to do effectively. And so they go forward now with the outlook of a team and it's sort of like the bills, you know, and those guys were in Buffalo. It's sort of like the bills and going 2017 to 2018. So this year they reset a little bit again. And they'll come out of 2023 with a clean cap with a full complement of picks and with a good core to build around. And so I really like where the Giants are. I like how they added some speed to their offense and bringing in Paris Campbell and drafting Jalen Hyatt. I think Deontay banks has a chance to be a difference maker for them in the secondary so they continue to add good players. They're sticking to the plan. They're not overreacting. I bullish about the future for Joe Shane and Brian da ball. They were the Giants. A question number four from CJ Broussard that's at mister Broussard 18. Should the forty-niners trade Elijah Mitchell CMC as Christian McCaffrey is a viable running back for the foreseeable future. So why not trade Mitchell while he holds value? Because the running back position is important in San Francisco. More important than it is for other teams and particularly with their quarterback situation being what it is. And so much of their identity, I think, is going to be built about their ability to run the ball, both with McCaffrey with Mitchell and with Steve-O Samuel. Having Mitchell allows you to move Christian McCaffrey around a little bit more, which is a benefit. But more than anything else, this is about being able to maintain your identity no matter what happens. And I remember talking to giants people about this, you know, going back to their championship years, that window when they won the two championships. And if you remember, they continued to draft defensive lineman. It was, I mean, they had Michael Strahan. They draft Justin tuck. They draft mathias kiwanuka, they draft OCU in New York. They pay those guys. They draft Jason Pierre Paul. They kept replenishing that defensive line. Why did they do that? Well, because if there was an injury or someone got banged up or someone missed a month, they wouldn't lose their identity. They would be able to maintain their identity. You want to keep feeding your strength. And wherever your identity flows through, you need to make sure that you still have that. So when the unforeseen circumstances that arise for every team come up, you're more ready to deal with them. So no, if I'm the niners, what are you gonna get from Elijah Mitchell anyway? Like a third or fourth round pick tops. I don't see the value in doing something like that when it could put you in a real bind. In a year in which you're smack dab in the middle of a championship window. And I believe that's the last question for the week. My buddy Kevin Clark sent me one that I don't even know if I want to address because cap and I am not worried about Ohio State losing a receiver when Brian Hart lines our offensive coordinator and Ryan day is our head coach. So no, I am not sweating yet. But I think that'll be it for this week. I appreciate you guys coming out. We'll be happy to do more of these mailbag shows. Going forward, me and Connor did one a couple of weeks ago too. Conor, I'll be back next week. Appreciate our producer Shelby Royce and you guys have any feedback for me. You guys know where to find me. You can be on social media at Albert pure on Twitter at Albert arbor on Facebook at Albert breer on Instagram. We will see you guys next week.