I recently read Chuck Klosterman’s Football, which is a book about football, sure. But it’s mainly the subject for a much deeper exercise.

In the book, Chuck tackles our national relationship with football, the pitfalls of designating a great player “the GOAT” (I love his pick, btw), and what he thinks the future of football holds. I lent out my copy, so I have to paraphrase from memory, but one of the opening lines goes something like “This book is for no one,” which really captured my attention. Sickos only! That felt like a great fit for Streak Talk.

In Football, Chuck talks a lot about the NIL evolution of the college sport, which is also the version of the sport he follows more-or-less obsessively. As he analyzes the structure of the thing, I of course couldn’t help but thinking about those ideas as they pertain to college basketball, the sport that this newsletter thinks too much about. So, I plucked Chuck’s email from an old Grantland hang-out logistics email and sent him some questions about college hoops.

To thank Chuck for his participation, I will send two copies of Football out to subscribers. If you subscribe to the newsletter — or will subscribe now, in order to cash in this free offering — and are interested in this DIY raffle situation, please respond directly to this email expressing your interest. I will then use a random number generator to pick the winners, notify those folks to get their shipping info, and send them their copies.

What’s your relationship with KU basketball? Do you have favorite teams, players, eras, jerseys, moments? Has it touched your life at all as a plains-state guy?

Chuck Klosterman: I don't necessarily identify as a Kansas Jayhawk diehard, but I definitely want them to succeed more than most programs.

They're my favorite Big 12 team, most of the time. Like a lot of people, I was very interested in the Danny Manning-Larry Brown 1988 championship squad, and that title game is extremely memorable for multiple reasons (Dave Sieger's 1st half for Oklahoma, the fact that Brent Musberger explained how he'd been fired by CBS during the pre-game, etc).

And then about 10 years after that, Jeff Boschee (who, at the time, was probably the best player in North Dakota history) went to Kansas and started for four years, though I suppose Kirk Hinrich ended up having a better career. I've watched a lot of Kansas basketball games in my life. Though somewhat ironically, I missed both the title game they lost to Syracuse (because I was interviewing Mike Skinner in London) and the title game they won against Memphis (because I was in East Germany and the game was not televised at 3 AM).

One idiotic thing about my existence is that any major college basketball game I miss is inevitably a classic. I missed the 1985 Villanova-Georgetown championship because I was running in an indoor track meet. I missed the 1987 Indiana-UNLV Final Four semi-final because I was competing in a livestock judging competition. I missed the 1990 Loyola-Maramount vs. LSU game because I was at a speech meet. I can retrace my entire life through memorable sporting events I didn't see.

In the book, you write about how college and pro football could collapse, for a variety of reasons. In that same line of thinking, what have you observed about NIL in college basketball, and how could that play out? What's the fatal flaw of the thing?

CK: What's tricky about the structure of college basketball is its dependence on football. At a school like Michigan or Texas, the football team generates more revenue than every other sport combined, so the hoops program can only operate in response to the football program. The earning power of football destroyed the Big East and the Pac 12.

But in a way, this does provide basketball a degree of protection. Due to the limited roster size, I don't think NIL will pose a fatal crisis for basketball. The transfer portal is the bigger problem, because it's just become impossible to have a lasting relationship with the players.

As a diehard for a “blue blood” program, do you feel that the impressions or prestige around KU—or Kentucky, or Duke— have changed in recent years? What’s behind that, if so? And is that a problem for the sport if teams beloved by “casuals” are no longer a draw?

CK: That era is probably over. Recruiting, which used to be based around the personality of the coach and the history of the program, is now just a process of talent evaluation and purchasing power. If a kid is offered $200K to play for Kansas and $500K to play for BYU, he's not going to care about the legacy of Wilt Chamberlain. He's not even going to visit the campus. All that symbolic value has been erased.

So going forward, I think there will be between 20 to 40 schools that will be very good and essentially interchangeable. The gap will be negligible. It seems quite possible that the best player in any given recruiting class could often end up at a school that has no prior relationship to basketball. I mean, Nebraska won 22 straight games last year. That's almost as crazy as Indiana winning the football title.

As someone who has acutely tracked how football makes money… is there anything that bothers you about college basketball’s current moment and structure? What do you think about expanding the tournament, or any of the other measures the sport will surely have to take? 

CK: The product on the floor is still compelling, and I like that the players are slightly older now. The style of play is more mature, especially at the mid-major schools. But it's pretty difficult to be positive about the current state of college basketball.

It's now just a lesser version of pro basketball. The situation with Darryn Peterson last season was quite frustrating and did not seem remotely connected to the college experience. Conference realignment and its consequences has been a disaster. The Big 12 is now sponsored by Monster fucking Energy? I don't know one person — not one — who thinks expanding the tournament to 76 teams was necessary. If you ignore the financial motivation, it's impossible to justify.

Now, will I watch those extra games? Of course. But that doesn't mean it isn't stupid. The central problem is that they've just made it impossible to follow college basketball in an emotional, non-disposable way, unless you're the alumni of a specific school and totally myopic. Everything feels temporary and commodified. I can remember more guys from the 1989 Illinois team than I can from all the teams who played in last year's Final Four. That's insane to me.

I see that the only way forward to keep fan interest and momentum in college ball is a player union like the NBA — that way, you can sign multi-year contracts, install performance bonuses, fork back money if a player transfers or breaks their contract. Is there any world where a player union, or another arrangement like that, could feasibly happen?

CK: That could happen, and it might work, sort of. It would be a viable version for semi-pro basketball. But you know, I prefer college basketball.

Football is available now.