Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

U.S. And Iran Race To Find Crew Member From Downed F-15 Jet; Catholic Church Sees Surge In Converts. Should College Athletes Get Paid? Aired 9-10a ET

Aired April 04, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:42]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Now that we're in it, we need to win it. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

Watching an American president who often mocks the foreign policy establishment now preside over the very kind of conflict that the establishment often warns against. Look, the administration never presented a clear, consistent, detailed risk of imminent harm to the United States before launching the attack on Iran on February 28th. It's important to remember how we got here before I explain what needs to occur before it all ends. In an eight minute address released via Truth Social that day, President Trump claimed the U.S. had obliterated Iran's nuclear programs at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan last June during Operation Midnight Hammer. He then argued that Tehran had since attempted to rebuild those capabilities while developing long range missiles capable of reaching our European allies, our overseas troops and eventually the American homeland.

And to the Iranian people, he issued an explicit invitation for regime change, quote, "When we are finished, take over your government." It was a line that blurred the line between military operation and revolutionary call to arms and it set the tone for the confusion that followed. The messaging was muddled almost immediately. Two days later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted this was not a so called regime change war. Speaking at the Pentagon, Hegseth argued that the Islamic Republic was using sophisticated conventional weaponry as a shield for its nuclear ambitions.

He said, quote, "Iran had a conventional gun to our head as they tried to lie their way to a nuclear bomb." That same day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered yet a third explanation before briefing congressional leaders. Rubio suggested the move was a proactive defense against an inevitable regional escalation. Israel was prepared to strike Iran, which would have triggered Iranian retaliation against both Israel and the United States.

There are good reasons why we should not be in Iran. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter permits preemptive self-defense only when a state faces an imminent attack. It follows the 19th century Caroline Doctrine. The necessity must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.

Does this set of facts that I've described clear that high bar or did we effectively redefine imminent to fit a preexisting political playbook? But that regret over entry fades against one overriding reality. Iran's 950 pounds of near bomb grade enriched uranium now unaccounted for amidst all the chaos.

And here's the important point for us today. Securing that uranium isn't optional. It's the red line that demands that we stay and we win, no matter the origin story. We are in Iran, and now that we're there, we cannot afford a premature exit. Iran has been a rogue actor for half a century.

President Trump hit on a powerful truth Wednesday night when he characterized the regime. He rattled off a long list of atrocities. The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, the deaths of U.S. service members via roadside bombs, the attack on the USS Cole, and the regime's brutal domestic record, including the recent killing of tens of thousands of Iranian protesters. His bottom line? A regime this violent cannot be allowed to operate behind a nuclear shield.

And he's absolutely correct. Is there any doubt that Iranian leadership, if given the chance now, will build a nuclear weapon and use it against us? And determining what we do now should not be a matter decided by partisan differences or one's view of President Trump. What we do or don't do now will someday have to be dealt with by President Vance or President Rubio or President Newsom or President Shapiro or President Rahm Emanuel.

So where do we go from here? Again, the administration has been inconsistent. The shifting rationales have remained a constant, even as the U.S. deployed two Marine Expeditionary Units and elements of the 82nd Airborne. If ground troops are fully committed, the mission likely shifts to seizing Kharg Island, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and or securing Iran's enriched uranium.

[09:05:08]

Secretary Rubio has since narrowed the scope on social media and interviews, articulating four military objectives. Destroying Iran's air force, destroying Iran's Navy, crippling its missile launch capabilities, and dismantling its defense industrial base. And notice what's missing from that recent list. Any mention of the nuclear material, the invitation for a civilian uprising, or the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been closed since the start of hostilities.

In his Wednesday address, the president doubled down on the nuclear threat, claiming the regime sought to rebuild its program at a new location and was, quote, "right at our doorstep with ballistic missiles." He echoed Rubio's military checklist, declaring that under Operation Epic Fury, the Iranian navy has been absolutely destroyed and their industrial base is being annihilated. What neither said is that we need that enriched uranium secured.

I wish the president would listen to Thomas Friedman. Writing in the New York Times this week, Friedman proposed a simplified two point plan. Iran surrenders its 950 pounds of nearly bomb grade uranium, and in exchange, the U.S. abandons the goal of regime change. No more blockades, no more rockets, and for darn sure, writes Friedman, no U.S. boots on the ground.

It's clear that in the president's mind, time is running short to make a deal. The most striking part of the president's address on Wednesday to me was historical perspective. He rattled off the durations of our past conflicts. World War II at nearly four years, Vietnam at 19 years, Iraq at eight, and then contrasted them with the 32 days of this, quote, "brilliant military operation."

The president knows the American public is notoriously impatient. He even joked about it at an Easter lunch earlier that day. And it's a fascinating role reversal. A president often criticized for his own impulsivity, now the one preaching patience and longer term resolve.

This is not a time to be impetuous. We need to win a war, we may wish we hadn't started, but must now finish above all else by securing that enriched uranium. Which leads me to today's poll question at smerconish.com, should the U.S. seize Iran's enriched uranium before ending hostilities? You know how I'm voting.

Right now, the search continues for a missing crew member after a U.S. F-15E was shot down over Iran. One of the two service members on board has been rescued, but the status of the second remains unknown. This comes as new reporting confirms Iran hit a second U.S. aircraft on Friday, according to CNN reporting, an A-10 Thunderbolt 2 was struck, forcing the pilot to eject. That pilot was able to exit Iranian territory and was later rescued. The two incidents happening the same day, marking a significant escalation in hostilities.

And overnight new strikes near one of Iran's most sensitive sites. Iranian state media reporting a projectile hit the perimeter of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, killing one person. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog says there's been no reported rise in radiation levels but is warning against any attacks on nuclear facilities.

Joining me now is CNN Senior Military Analyst and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis.

Admiral, we always appreciate seeing you here. Two planes shot down in one day. What are the implications?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS, CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Let's all just pause and hope our missing airman is found as quickly and as safely as possible. Here are the implications, Michael. It's always tempting in a war to feel as though you have complete air superiority or air dominance. There's a nuance to that. Think of it in layers.

At high altitude we do our B-52s, our B1s, B2s, high altitude safe. Medium altitude, kind of next tier down. Generally speaking, quite safe.

Here's the bad news. When you get down close to the surface, the enemy really does get a vote. Think the Taliban in Afghanistan shooting down helicopters with MANPADs. All of that gets dangerous as you get close.

And here's the really bad news. We've absorbed a lot of the high level and medium level targets, the ones we would shoot from those altitudes. Now you're doing fine work toward the end of the campaign. Doesn't surprise me. We'll have some losses as this goes along.

Our crews are the best both at low altitude flying and also at search and rescue. I'll conclude there where I started. Our prayers ought to be with that airman.

[09:10:07]

SMERCONISH: There's a headline from the Times that is relevant to this part of our conversation. It says that Iran is quickly repairing its missile bunkers. Your thoughts on that development?

STAVRIDIS: The first thing that springs to my mind is in Washington, you have to encourage the intelligence community to be very, very honest at this point. There's always a temptation to make things look better than they actually are. And you must demand complete honesty from the intelligence community. That means if they bring you bad news, like, hey, it looks like not all of the ballistic missiles are gone, maybe it's only half of them. You have to absorb that bad news, adjust your plan and move forward.

And then secondly, we shouldn't be surprised that the Iranians are quickly reconstituted. This is a huge nation, 92 million people. It's totalitarian. They can demand service from everybody in the country, push them into this reconstruction. And above all, highly educated and probably been preparing for this moment for decades. So no surprise, we have to adjust our planning and our attack.

SMERCONISH: Admiral Stavridis, writing for Bloomberg this week, you advocated that our European allies move forward and take control of the Strait of Hormuz. What would that look like?

STAVRIDIS: I would say we should start by thinking about the Strait of Hormuz ultimately as an international asset. And perhaps what we need eventually is a Strait of Hormuz authority. Like we have a Panama Canal Authority or Suez Canal Authority. Those two are both under national control. Maybe the Strait needs international control.

What it would look like, at least initial phases, would be to the north of the strait you'd have a zone of control probably run by the Saudis and the Emirates. To the south of the strait in the North Arabian Sea, a zone patrolled by European, Canadian, hopefully some U.S. assets. And then escorting the tankers through the strait would need to be guided missile frigates for air defense, small craft to fend off the Iranians and minesweepers. So complex mission. Europe can do an awful lot of that.

And final thought here, Michael, the British have already convened over 30 nations to begin that process of planning. I think ultimately that's what we're going to end up with, some kind of a Strait of Hormuz authority. SMERCONISH: And finally, you heard my opening thoughts relative to the enriched uranium and the need to prioritize its control. I don't want to make it sound as simple as FedEx picking up a package. What would that operation look like?

STAVRIDIS: It wouldn't be mission impossible, but it would be mission really hard. You'd have to start with cyber, knock out the electric grid in and around there. You'd have to have an airstrip that you could control completely. You'd need hundreds of combat troops on the ground. You'd need a very significant Special Forces detachment, probably 100 plus there.

And the really hard part would then start, which is this 900 pounds in canisters in gaseous form, very technical to pick it up, get it out of there in one piece. You'd need technicians. You need to bring people who are specially trained to do that. You have to protect them. Then you have to get it out of there.

Not mission impossible, mission really, really hard.

SMERCONISH: Admiral James Stavridis, 37-year military career, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Thank you, Admiral, we appreciate you.

What are your thoughts at home? Hit me up on social media and I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, Donald Trump can't declare victory until the uranium is either secured or destroyed, period.

That's my view. And my view is that we ought not to be basing our opinions on what's going on today and what needs to happen solely based on our perception of the president. We're beyond that now. What happens today is going to last well beyond this administration. And I think to make it all worthwhile, we need to stick to the original objective, which is the nuclear threat that was presented by a rogue nation.

But I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question because that's the focus. Should the U.S. seize Iran's enriched uranium before ending hostilities? I'm mindful of what Admiral Stavridis just said in terms of the difficulty.

Up ahead, President Trump says paying college athletes has created a mess. Nick Saban, Urban Meyer joined him at the White House for a big meeting last month as the final four gets ready to play tonight. Was it still the right decision to pay the players or has it harmed the college experience?

[09:15:15]

Also, a new generation is looking for connection, for discipline, even dating, and they're finding it. So is this a real revival or something more complicated?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you're wondering why there's so many people walking up 6th Avenue, it's because we're all going to mass. All going to mass.

As soon as I pulled up to St. Joe's the priest recognized me. So he showed me the Adoration Chapel and told me 90 percent of the parishioners are in their 20s or 30s. And I'm not kidding when I say this. If you don't show up 10 minutes early, you're going to be standing in the back.

And that's not even the coolest part. After the 6:00 p.m. Sunday Mass, they have wine, cheese and chatting for all the young adults.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So it's like 5:30. Heading over early to church. So coming to church with me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:11]

SMERCONISH: This weekend, as millions mark holy days across faiths, Passover and the Easter, there's a new and somewhat unexpected story emerging inside American churches. Not decline, but growth. According to the New York Times, Catholic diocese across the country are reporting a sharp increase in adult conversions with some seeing their highest numbers in years. In Detroit, more than 1400 new Catholics expected this Easter, a 21-year high. In Washington, nearly 1,800 will join, also up from last year.

And it's not just happening in one region. The Times reports this trend is showing up in large and small diocese alike. Meanwhile, the Washington Post takes us inside one parish in New York City where attendance has jumped 20 percent in just the last six months with services now so packed that people are turned away at the door. And this is not limited to Catholicism. According to another New York Times report, Orthodox Christian churches also seeing a surge, with priests describing record numbers of new converts, many of them young men.

So across different traditions, a similar pattern is emerging. But before we call this a religious revival, there is a reality check. According to Pew Research, for every person joining the church, many more have left in recent years. So this may not be a broad return to religion, it may be something more specific, a targeted shift.

So what are we really seeing? Joining me now is Katie McGrady, CNN Vatican analyst, host of the Katie McGrady show on Sirius XM's "The Catholic Channel," which is operated by the Archdiocese of New York.

Katie, in the '60s, we had Vatican 2, right? We had the church so called, you know, coming up to date. There hasn't been a change in the approach by the church that accounts for this resurgence. So what do you think explains it? KATIE MCGRADY, HOST, "THE KATIE MCGRADY," SIRIUSXM: I think it's a combination of isolation leads people to want to, I believe your favorite buzzword is mingle. We are searching for community.

SMERCONISH: Mingle.

MCGRADY: We are looking for people who -- to mingle. We're looking for people to actually be able to connect with. And there's no atheists in a foxhole. And so in a world that feels very unstable, in a world that feels like it's constantly changing around us, how can I find something to hold onto? I feel like that's the question a lot of Gen Z, especially now.

I'm a millennial. So my generation wholly rejected religion for a long time. And now as we're having kids and buying houses, perhaps we're finding a way back to well, what's going to help me raise those kids with some sort of moral upbringing or find some sort of stability as a family? With Gen Z, they're looking around and they're saying, well, where are some -- not just like-minded people, but where are people who seem to be happy, to seem to be filled with joy, who are living for something more than just their next paycheck and they're finding it at church.

SMERCONISH: So Robert Putnam, who wrote "Bowling Alone" 20 years ago and speaks of societal disconnect and the need for social capital, when I've interviewed him and said, I get it. Now, what do we do about it? We'll offer a litany of solutions. And always at the top of that list is religion. Because you might have religion in common, but very little else with someone you're seated next to in a church or a synagogue or a mosque.

I agree with you. People are yearning for that level of connectivity.

MCGRADY: That's kind of the best part of church too. And especially in the Catholic Church, it's a big tent. There's a lot of people in there. There's a lot of people from different backgrounds. Where we go to church on Sunday, we are sitting next to people who have different jobs, different houses, different homes, but we share something in common, which is this, for us as Catholics, love of the Eucharist.

And I think what you're especially seeing in New York City, which is a town of, OK, I need to figure out what I'm doing on Friday night, where am I going on Saturday morning for brunch. And I'm, you know, I'm being a little facetious here, but there's especially among young adults, this need for where am I going? Who am I with?

And when you're scrolling on your phone and you feel isolated and you feel alone and you see people doing these church things, well, there's very little pressure to just go and see what's going on, to go and check it out. At that particular parish in the village, they then have that conversation in the evening that leads to, well, what are some of those big questions you have? Maybe the church has answers. So it's this combination of, look, it's low pressure to come try. And then I think what we're really going to see when revival can really be proven is do these people stick around? Do they get married in the church? Do they baptize their children in the church? Do they maybe even go pursue a religious vocation? Are we going to see a seminary increase? The data shows the numbers of converts are up in all of the dioceses across the country.

How does that translate after this year into how much commitment those people are making? That's really what the church has to figure out right now.

[09:24:59]

SMERCONISH: Katie, what about the celebrity factor? We'll start at the top, right? We have an American pope, Pope Leo. Is that causing some of this?

And I have to say something else. I see the Hallow commercial so often, and I think it's very -- if Mark Wahlberg and Chris Pratt and Jonathan Roumie, I got to be honest, I downloaded the app because. Because I just -- I don't know, I just found it so compelling. And right there, there, there. You've seen it.

Everybody has seen it. And is this playing a role?

MCGRADY: Well, in full disclosure, I work with Hallow. My husband and I have a weekly podcast on there for Catholic families. I think, yes.

SMERCONISH: OK. I did not know that.

MCGRADY: I think there is this -- well, and I didn't tell you that, so I'm letting you know it now, they're friends of mine. And I love what they're doing, which is, hey, people know Chris Pratt. He's got a new movie out right now. We know Mark Wahlberg. We know Jonathan Roumie.

Well, if they're using it, maybe I can use it. So, yes, I think that's an initial introduction. I think that's an initial attractant. And then it has to go deeper. What's going to happen?

And this is the ministry brain of mine turning on. Somebody scrolls Hallow. Somebody uses Instagram and sees, oh, I can go to this church. Who's greeting them on the other side? And that's the next question the church has to really answer.

And I think we won't see the stickiness of this until there is a, you showed up because this seemed interesting. Now, here's how we're going to form you. And that -- that's any organization, right? There's that initial interest in something. How do we keep that person invested and connected?

Beautiful thing about the church is, right? This is 2000 years old. This is -- this is the tradition of the faith. I think all of that is playing a role at the same time that we're experiencing so much, oh, nothing matters, and just scroll your phone and live this passive life that's not satisfying to people anymore.

SMERCONISH: So two things, Happy Easter. And secondly, I'm not here to proselytize. I just -- I like people getting together, people having real encounters with one another, whatever the faith may be, or even if it's not a matter of faith. Thank you, Katie. I appreciate it.

Let's see what everybody is saying via social media. What do you got? From the world of X. Seems like it's a logical extension of the Mingle Project. Yes.

By the way, what is the Mingle Project? The Mingle Project is my effort to make people appreciate the societal disconnect that has been so fueled by technology. It's not an original thought of mine, it's just something that I'm a proponent of each and every day on Sirius XM Radio, trying to encourage people to get out of their bubble and to reintegrate in a community and to be what our parents were, joiners, whatever that form that might take. The Elks Club, the Moose Lodge, being a coach on a Little League basketball team, supporting local media, supporting student exchange programs. I could go on and go into a bingo night if they still have them. Like find your place in the world.

And maybe it's through religion or not.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com, where, by the way, you can click on a tab for the Mingle Project and you can learn a great deal more and see all the interviews that I've done that are -- that are related to this subject. Robert Putnam and Gene Twenge and Bill Bishop, who wrote the "Big Source Stewart" and Jonathan Haidt with the "Anxious Generation." They're all connected.

OK, thanks for allowing me to say that. Poll question today. Should the U.S. seize Iran's enriched uranium before ending hostilities?

Still to come, more of your social media reaction today's program and it's March Madness. Tonight, the final foreplay. Many of these college athletes are now finally raking in the big bucks. Is it the right thing to do, or has it harmed the game and the experience? Sign up for my newsletter when you're smerconish.com you'll get the work of some prized illustrators like Eric Allie.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:33:12]

SMERCONISH: Hey, follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel, and maybe I will read your comment during the course of the program.

You said it. Inconsistent messaging. How can anyone make a sound vote when the goal post is constantly changing?

Well, not only has the goal post -- look, the rationalization for the attack and the goal post for what need to happen before we can exit, before we can leave, absolutely have been fluid, in a state of flux, inconsistent.

I made all of that clear. I was very careful in the way that I -- in the way that I wrote my commentary today, hoping that it would enhance my credibility. Instead of coming on and saying, we need to get that enriched uranium, I wanted to make very clear all the misgivings that I've had as to how we get here, hoping that it would actually enhance the argument that I was making.

Here's somebody who thinks, because this sums me up. Here's somebody who thinks we probably shouldn't have gone in, who nevertheless now wants to finish the job. That's my bottom line.

And why do I say that? Because I think that the president was correct on Wednesday night when he articulates, you know, the laundry list of Iran's record. They are -- and I reference the leadership, the regime, not the Iranian people. They're dangerous. They've proven it. They can have a nuke. They want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. And only because Israel is an easier target than the United States, they would want to do the same about us.

So, I'm uncomfortable with how it all began but believing that it needs to end with us in control of the enriched uranium. And I understand I'm not a military strategist. I get to play one on television and radio. Admiral Stavridis is with his 37-year career and having been the steward of NATO.

[09:35:01]

And he says it's damn close to mission impossible what I'm describing. I, at least, want to know that we've set back that ambition. If the enriched uranium, if the 950 pounds, are buried somewhere, Mr. President, please explain that to us before there's a wind down of these hostilities. Because you convinced me that they're dangerous and they want to use a nuke against us, what are we doing about it? And not just reducing the shield that could protect their nuclear capabilities?

I like the way that Tom Friedman said it. It's an easy switch. We're not going to switch your regime. We're not going to come after your regime, but you're going to -- you're going to surrender control of the enriched uranium, and then it ends.

Sorry, I monopolized all the time on one comment, but it's what's top of mind for me this week. Make sure you're voting at Smerconish.com on the poll question of the day. Should the U.S. seize Iran's enriched uranium before ending hostilities? Register for the daily newsletter while you're there.

Still to come, college sports, big business. And now the athletes are getting a piece of the action. Some, like Arch Manning and Livvy Dunne, are taking in millions. It's a recent innovation. Is it a smart one?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL): They're not graduating. Hell, they're not even going to class.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right.

TUBERVILLE: It's a disaster.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right. TUBERVILLE: And that's what we've got to distinguish here. Are we going to be an education institution or are we going to be pro sports?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:40]

SMERCONISH: UConn freshman Braylon Mullins' 35-foot buzzer beater defeating Duke in the regional final, probably the most exciting moment in sports so far this year. It's all part of March Madness, which has become as big as the Super Bowl or the World Series, maybe bigger. More money bet on the basketball tournament, an estimated 3.3 billion this year, than any other sporting event in the U.S.

It also generates over $1 billion in revenue for the NCAA. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Combined admissions, media rights, merchandizing for all college sports, and you're talking multibillions.

The question becomes, where should the money go? Obviously, much of it is to pay for university's athletic programs. But what about the athletes themselves? Should they see anything?

Until recently, the answer was no. A college degree and a chance to make the pros was enough. The NCAA, which ruled with an iron fist, claimed athletes as amateurs, was central to college sports. But a number of lawsuits, culminating in the 2021 case of NCAA v. Alston, where the Supreme Court unanimously declared restrictions on compensation for athletes violated antitrust law changed all that.

It brought us to today's world, where top college athletes, who not that long ago couldn't accept a free meal, are worth millions. They get this money by signing lucrative NIL deals, naming their -- selling their name, image, and likeness.

According to "Sports Illustrated," the top earning college athlete for 2025-26 is Texas quarterback Arch Manning, whose NIL valuation is estimated at 6.8 million. Next is Miami quarterback Carson Beck at 4.3 mil. In fact, eight of the top 10 earners this year are quarterbacks.

Women also getting a piece of the pie. LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne, also a major social media influencer, and "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit cover model, was estimated to have an NIL valuation of 4.1 million.

The new rules have also led to faithlessness on the part of athletes who regularly switch teams during their college careers, seeking better deals. And the lure of money has changed the makeup of some rosters. For instance, for team Illinois, set to play UConn later tonight, they've got a bunch of eastern European players known as the Balkan Five.

They could otherwise be playing pro ball in Europe, but we're enticed by the money that can be made in college ball here. Many bemoan this new world. In fact, a number of politicians from President Trump on down have met with college sports officials to discuss the current state of affairs. Others say they're glad that we're never going back to a time when, in effect, management didn't have to pay labor.

Joe Nocera may be the top expert on this issue. He's written about it for years about sports and business at "The New York Times" and elsewhere.

He's also the author of "Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA," and recently wrote an article for "The Free Press" titled Paying College Athletes Has Created a Mess. It Was Still the Right Thing To Do.

So Joe, as a columnist, as I mentioned for the "Times" in the early 2010s, this became your issue. You've been obsessed with coaches and athletic directors making millions but nothing for the players.

I read your "Free Press" piece and I said to myself, it's like Churchill said about democracy. We've got the worst system of democracy except for all the others. Fair assessment?

JOE NOCERA, SENIOR EDITOR AND WRITER, THE FREE PRESS: They're very fair assessment for sure. Look, when you go 100 years without paying the players and fighting every single step of the way year after year to prevent that from happening, when all of a sudden a court says, you know, you have to pay them, they can pay.

It's an antitrust -- it's a violation. If you don't pay them, they have no preparation. They were not ready. They didn't know how to do it. So basically, what the NCAA did was they threw up their hands and said, good luck everybody. That's what happened.

SMERCONISH: The Supreme Court was unanimous, very interesting. And I was particularly noting Justice Kavanaugh's take on all of this, but has it more recently morphed into an R versus D issue, like so many other in our society?

NOCERA: I've been surprised by that. The answer is yes. Republicans have been pushing for legislation that would give the NCAA an antitrust -- pass on antitrust and would, you know, allow them to start putting caps on money and, you know, a little bit, try to put the toothpaste back in the bottle.

[09:45:20]

The Democrats have been much more oriented toward the free market and saying, you know, players should have rights, the same economic rights as everybody else in society. And we need to -- we need to find a better -- another better way to pay the players.

SMERCONISH: From what you wrote at "The Free Press," one astounding statistic. NCAA in the SEC only one basketball player spent four years at the same school. You can see the transfer portal is out of control and that's got to get addressed.

NOCERA: Yes, it's a -- it's a form of legalized bribery. You know, what happens is, an agent for the player and -- players have agents now. Let's be clear, an agent for the player will call up a school and say, hey, my guys getting 50,000 here. If you'll give him 75 or 100,000, he'll go in the transfer portal and will transfer to your school. That's happening all the time. So, there's no -- there's no loyalty.

Now, you know, the flip side is there's never been loyalty by the coaches. You know, I mean, who is it? Lane Kiffin left Mississippi and went to LSU in the middle of the season. I mean it's just unbelievable what the coaches have been able to do. So, I don't have too much of a problem with that. I do think there's a solution however, which is pretty simple, which is to do the same thing that everybody else in society does. When you -- when you -- when you get a job, you sign a contract. You tell a player, I'm going to sign a contract to be here for three years. And if you and if you leave, you got to give the money back.

SMERCONISH: It's been an exciting tournament so far. The buzzer beater last Sunday night, unbelievable. But some would argue --

NOCERA: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- Joe, there haven't been the upsets that we love. And maybe you'll cite High Point, I don't know. But you can see that. Is it related to the issue that we're discussing? Do you attribute it to the fact that we're paying the players and therefore you don't have the Cinderella story you used to?

NOCERA: I believe that's true. High Point was a 12 seed. There were no 13, 14, 15, which there often are. There was no 13, 14 or 15 seeds that won a game this year.

Look, it's the smaller schools that if there's a breakout player, he tends to leave. I grew up in Providence, Rhode Island, and Providence College -- Providence College Friars have always been my team. Bryce Hopkins was our best player. He's now with Saint John's. That's what happens.

You know, the problem with the transfer portal is if you -- if you try to control it, then again, you're potentially violating the antitrust laws. So there has to be -- they have to find a way to control the transfer portal while still giving the player some freedom.

SMERCONISH: Just a quick final thought. Fans don't seem to care. There will be fannies in seats tonight. Millions are going to be watching all around the globe and the prognostications of how the fans would turn their back on the game. When you were writing in support of paying players that didn't pan out. Quick final thought from you.

NOCERA: That is so true. It's always been true. The NCAA's defense has always been if we get rid of amateurism, the fans will walk away.

The fans don't care. They just want to see somebody with their jersey of their team and who can play well, well enough to get them in the NCAA tournament. That's what they care about.

SMERCONISH: Right. As Jerry Seinfeld said, we love to root for laundry. I recommend Joe Nocera's piece from "The Free Press." It will bring you right up to speed what's happened in the last 20 years, and it's really well done. Thank you, Joe.

Checking in on social media reaction. No social media reaction because I ran out of time. OK, well, you still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Should the U.S. seize Iran's enriched uranium before ending hostilities?

Subscribe to the newsletter which, by the way, gets a makeover on Monday. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons like this from Steve Breen and also this from Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:48]

SMERCONISH: Mr. President, you're going to want to see this result. You know, oftentimes we get tens of thousands of people voting. It's not scientific. It's damn interesting.

And oftentimes the result is a left of center result. And I'm often in the minority on that result. Check out the result so far of today's poll question at Smerconish.com. We're now more than 35,000 have voted.

Should the U.S. seize Iran's enriched uranium before ending hostilities? In a country where a lot of people, you know, want us out of there asap, 54 percent are saying, yes, don't shut it down without resolving the nuclear issue, which I find really insightful.

OK, social media reaction. Follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Should the U.S. seize uranium? Yes. Better question, can U.S. without massive casualties? Probably, no. Is it worth it then? Above my pay grade.

A valid issue. I mean that kind of a cost benefit analysis has to factor into the military decision as to how we go about it. And you heard Admiral Stavridis earlier this hour saying it's darn close to mission impossible. The stakes are high. I get that.

[09:55:00]

More social media reaction. What do we have? College athletics has been ruined. They have to create some guardrails around the transfer portal to bring some stability. Even the NFL has protocols regarding restricted and unrestricted free agency.

So, I don't think that college athletics has been ruined. I think that -- I think a lot of the pearl clutching over -- well, let me -- let me start out this way. Look at the Ryan Boatright. Look at the Ed O'Bannon cases that Joe Nocera has written about. If you don't know what I'm talking about, Google them.

It was not fair for so many years that coaches and athletic directors were making millions, and the players weren't getting anything. They were getting bupkis. I mean, that was not right.

Today, the transfer portal is a problem. It needs to be fixed. I like Joe's solution. Let him sign a contract.

You know who it's most unfair to? It's most unfair to the smaller schools because all of a sudden the smaller schools have a player that does well, picks up notice, and now gets to transfer to a greener pasture. So, on balance though, it was the right thing to do. Those players need to get paid.

Happy Easter, everybody. If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)