Podcasts about Sun Belt

House flipping is cooling off fast. A new survey from John Burns Research and Consulting and lender Kiavi shows flippers are struggling with higher costs, longer timelines, and shrinking profits. Investor activity is down nationwide, condo sales have tanked, and oversupply in the Sunbelt is making deals harder to find. But opportunities remain in older housing stock, especially across the Northeast and Midwest. In this episode, we break down why flops are outpacing flips, the regional pressures squeezing investors, and the strategies flippers can use to survive—and even thrive—in today's tougher market. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sponsored by thegalindocollective.com, BHIhats.com, turnkey-tailgate.com, Austin.Patchmaster.com  -  The new Pac-12 against the old Pac-12, the Texas State Bobcats (2-0) are headed to Tempe for a rematch of a prime time loss from last season to the Arizona State Sun Devils (1-1). Keff Ciardello is here to rehash the 2024 game between TXST and ASU, preview this year's contest with 5 players to watch on each side, and finally ending with his game prediction for Saturday night. (Produced by Zachary Webb) (Follow WNOGB Twitter, Tik Tok and Instagram)

Need financing for your next investment property? Visit: https://www.academyfund.com/ Want to join us in San Francisco, CA on October 7th & 8th? Visit: https://www.10xvets.com/events ____ Curtis Cullen is the Co-Founder and Managing Principal of Convolo Capital, a real estate investment firm focused on small to mid-size multifamily syndications across the Southeast and Sunbelt markets. A West Point graduate, Curtis served as an Infantry and Aviation officer, including time as a Battalion Operations Officer, before exiting the Army in 2018 to pursue a career in commercial real estate. After the Army, Curtis built his business and finance expertise in corporate roles that included managing multi-million-dollar strategic initiatives, automating enterprise systems, and conducting market research to support executive decision-making. He later earned his MBA from UCLA with a concentration in Real Estate and Finance before co-founding Convolo Capital in 2020. Today, he leads acquisitions and asset management, guiding properties from purchase through stabilization with disciplined, value-add strategies. With operations growing across Georgia and Texas, Curtis remains focused on growth, vertical integration, and building investor partnerships that drive long-term value. In this episode of the SABM podcast, Scott chats with Curtis about: Convolo Capital's Mission: Bringing professional management and Institutional discipline to smaller multifamily portfolios The Deal Process: How his team finds opportunities, underwrites with rigor, and maintains a disciplined focus on returns. Market Expansion: Scaling beyond Georgia into Texas and considering other Southern states as next steps. Team Building:  Adding analysts and partners, and strengthening operator relationships for sustained performance. Capital Raising: Strategies and advice for connecting with investors, plus plans for upcoming breakout sessions. Long Term Vision:  Pursuing vertical integration and reaching 1,000 units under management. Timestamps: 00:57 Curtis Cullen's Background and Career Journey 03:12 Current Deals and Market Strategy 11:40 Challenges and Lessons Learned in Real Estate 20:18 Future Goals and Expansion Plans 22:40 Networking and Collaboration Opportunities Connect with Curtis: LinkedIn | Curtis Cullen www.convolocapital.com curtis@convolocapital.com  If you found value in today's episode, don't keep it to yourself—share it with a colleague or friend who could benefit. And if you're a Service Academy graduate ready to elevate your business, we'd love for you to join our community and get started today. Make sure you never miss an episode subscribe now and help support the show: Apple Podcasts Spotify Leave us a 5-star review! A special thank you to Curtis for joining me this week. Until next time! -Scott Mackes, USNA '01

Bret and Adam look ahead to the football conference opener in Hattiesburg on Saturday and visit with DL Rondo Porter. Then, with the volleyball team red-hot to start the season, the guys sit down with Lou Johnson to discuss the team's success in 5-set matches, the unique origin of her name and the card game that brings out her family's competitive juices. #DSOTDPSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Let's talk about East Carolina, the recent Hall of Fame announcement, and Sun Belt conference pick 'em.

Johnny and Greg get you over the hump and look ahead to Taylen Green and Malachi Nelson both playing ranked opponents this weekend. Bob talks with Leon Rice in Bronco Focus as the 2025-26 Mountain West conference schedule has been finalized. Johnny and Greg also re-draft the 2024 NFL QB class after JJ McCarthy is named the NFC's Offensive Player of the Week and they get the opinion of CFB writer Chris Vannini at The Athletic on what's going on with The American, Mountain West and Sun Belt in the G5 CFP race.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sun Belt play opens this week for App State football and we're talking about it with head coach Dowell Loggains, OL Trent Ramsey and DE Thomas DavisSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Johnny and Greg get you over the hump and look ahead to Taylen Green and Malachi Nelson both playing ranked opponents this weekend. Bob talks with Leon Rice in Bronco Focus as the 2025-26 Mountain West conference schedule has been finalized. Johnny and Greg also re-draft the 2024 NFL QB class after JJ McCarthy is named the NFC's Offensive Player of the Week and they get the opinion of CFB writer Chris Vannini at The Athletic on what's going on with The American, Mountain West and Sun Belt in the G5 CFP race.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Johnny and Greg get you over the hump and look ahead to Taylen Green and Malachi Nelson both playing ranked opponents this weekend. Bob talks with Leon Rice in Bronco Focus as the 2025-26 Mountain West conference schedule has been finalized. Johnny and Greg also re-draft the 2024 NFL QB class after JJ McCarthy is named the NFC's Offensive Player of the Week and they get the opinion of CFB writer Chris Vannini at The Athletic on what's going on with The American, Mountain West and Sun Belt in the G5 CFP race.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joseph Gyourko, Wharton Professor of Real Estate, Finance, and Business Economics and Public Policy, explores 50 years of housing market data, highlighting how local regulation, slowing construction, and regional demand shifts are reshaping affordability across the U.S., particularly in high-growth Sunbelt cities. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Half a million new rental apartments are set to hit the U.S. market in 2025, following last year's record-setting supply surge. From New York City to the Sun Belt, new units are reshaping vacancy rates, rent growth, and investment opportunities. In this episode, we unpack the metros leading the boom, the policy changes fueling construction, and how tariffs and material costs could slam the brakes on future projects. We'll also explore why smaller landlords may benefit from the affordability gap that shiny new buildings aren't solving. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Monarch Nation, we've got a jam-packed episode! We start with breaking news: Jason Henderson, the best linebacker in Old Dominion football history, announces his retirement. We reflect on his legendary career, share memories, and discuss what this means for the program.Then, we recap ODU's dominant win over North Carolina Central (54-6) — from Treyquan Jones' record-breaking touchdown run to improved offensive line play and strong defensive depth.Finally, we preview the huge matchup against Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. Can ODU take advantage of Tech's struggles? We dive into key matchups, game planning, and what a win could mean for the Sun Belt race.Special guest Jonathan Plisco joins us, plus Fade Gary's Week 3 Picks, recruiting updates, and plenty of Monarch Nation energy.

Keith discusses the factors driving rent growth, emphasizing income growth, supply constraints, and affordability.  He highlights that population growth has a weak correlation with rent growth, citing examples like Austin and San Francisco. The fastest rent growth is in San Francisco (4.6%), Fresno (4.6%), and Chicago (4%), while Austin (-6.8%), Denver (-5%), and Phoenix (-4.1%) show declines.  GRE Coach, Naresh Vissa, joins the conversation to talk about the administration's focus on lowering rates and the potential for higher inflation as a result. He encourages investors to stay informed and take advantage of opportunities when rates are low. Resources: Book a free coaching session with Naresh at GREinvestmentcoach.com Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/570 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREinvestmentcoach.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Complete episode transcript:   Keith Weinhold  0:01   Welcome to GRE. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, vital trends are moving the rental real estate market. And learn what really drives rent growth. It's probably not what you think. Then inflate, baby. Inflate. Why this administration wants inflation today on get rich education.   Speaker 1  0:22   Since 2014 the powerful get rich education podcast has created more passive income for people than nearly any other show in the world. This show teaches you how to earn strong returns from passive real estate investing in the best markets without losing your time being a flipper or landlord. Show Host Keith Weinhold writes for both Forbes and Rich Dad advisors, and delivers a new show every week since 2014 there's been millions of listener downloads of 188 world nations. He has a list show guests and key top selling personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki, get rich education can be heard on every podcast platform, plus it has its own dedicated Apple and Android listener phone apps build wealth on the go with the get rich education podcast. Sign up now for the get rich education podcast, or visit get rich education.com   Corey Coates  1:08   You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  1:18   You Keith, welcome to GRE from Whippany New Jersey to Parsippany New Jersey. Not much distance there and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm Keith Weinhold, and you're listening to this week's episode of Get rich education, where it's not just about your ROI. It's about your roti, your return on time invested, and your return on life. Everyone says that population growth is what drives rents, yes, but that's just one part of it, and it probably isn't even the most important factor. There is evidence of this, from Harvard research to what HUD has found. Austin, Texas recently added 500,000 people, rents spiked, and then supply flooded in and rents stalled. Head count wasn't enough. I discussed that in depth when I walked the streets of Austin last year. San Francisco lost population, but yet rents rebounded and remain among the highest in the nation. Harvard's housing research shows that population growth only has a weak correlation with rent growth. So what actually does drive rents? Well, income growth, supply constraints, and then staying under the 30% affordability ceiling, which is HUD's definition of what a cost burdened household is, right? That means that a tenant spends more than 30% of their income on rent. That is cost burden, and this pattern holds from ancient Rome to modern Manhattan, rents follow paychecks, not head counts and on the supply side, well, not all metros are created equal. Some have quantified it with what's called a supply elasticity score, places like Houston can seemingly build endlessly, while Manhattan and San Francisco cannot. So it's that difference that explains why incomes turn into rent growth in one market but not in the other. So if you're chasing fast growing metros, okay, but be careful, because headcount does not equal pricing power. Paychecks are what do well today, rents are falling in boom towns, but they're climbing in what we would call legacy, established metros, the year over year, rent change across US, metro areas really has a striking contrast. The three with the fastest rent growth are San Francisco up 4.6% Fresno also up 4.6% and Chicago up 4% and the three biggest declines in rent are Austin down 6.8% Denver down 5% and Phoenix Down 4.1% rent contraction in those three cities. And here's the problem during that 2020, to 2022, real estate surge. Years ago, investors piled into Sun Belt markets, and they sort of expected this endless growth, but then new supply flooded Austin, Phoenix and Denver, pushing rents down and vacancies up, and all three of those are cities that I visited during the boom and I saw the. Cranes in the air myself, and yet, at the same time, older supply constrained metros, like in the northeast, in Chicago and in San Francisco, they are quietly regaining momentum. That's where demand is steady. Construction is limited, and that's why rents are ticking higher. So this is why, like I've talked about before, it's good for you to invest in some Sunbelt areas, say, like Florida and then others that have this steady demand, like, say, a place in Ohio. And it's worth pointing out, too, how unusual it is that a city like Austin has a 6.8% rent contraction. We all know that housing prices are more stable than stocks, sure, but real estate rents are even more stable than housing prices, so this rent aberration that was caused by such wild overbuilding in Austin. Now, I recently attended a presentation on the rental housing market. It was put together by John Burns. He's the one that presented it, and he's the owner of the eponymous John Burns research and consulting. And people pay good money to attend these presentations, and he's a guy worth listening to, always with good housing market insights, and some of his insights while they're the same ones I've shared with you for a while, like how there's been a persistent lack of housing supply in the Northeast and Midwest, and still an abundant supply in the south. The Northeast is the only region of the nation that's adding more jobs than new homes at this time, the top amenities that tenants want today are a driveway in a yard. Pretty simple things. They're not a pool in a clubhouse. They're a driveway in a yard. And if you think about them, it totally makes sense, and that's why single family rentals have become such a booming industry, because that's where tenants are getting a driveway and a yard and burns. Also pointed out that most US job growth is in low income jobs. The presentation talked mostly in terms of headwinds versus tailwinds. Lower immigration. Well, that's a headwind. That's a bad thing for real estate investing, since immigrants tend to be renters. The tailwinds The good thing that includes less future supply coming out of the market, fewer apartments and fewer build to rent, deliveries coming online, fewer being added between today and 2028 and another positive for the next two decades at least, is the fact that since people are having fewer kids, that makes people less likely to settle down, buy a home and need a good school district. Well, that is good for people renting longer, longer tenancy durations, and John Burns also spotlighted how building material cost inflation is up 40% from pre pandemic times fully 40% more in material costs. But that Spike has since flattened out. However, it is just another reason why home prices can't really fall substantially. Today's prices are baked in, and his summary overall is to be bullish and bet on the tailwinds those real estate investing positives that is mostly due to future rent growth because the new supply is going away, and it's going to continue to stay difficult to buy a home, more rent growth, and that's the end of what he had to say. So as you're out there, targeting the right areas and renters for your properties, I've talked before about how new build rental property is a sweet spot, since your builder will often buy down your mortgage rate. For you, new build is where you can attract a good quality tenant. Look for a moment, just forget finding a tenant that can just barely afford your unit because they're spending 30 to 33% of their income to pay you rent, because, see, in that condition, there's no room for you to get a rent increase. If you can offer great value to your residents and target a 10 to 15% rent to income ratio, aha, you are really in good shape, because the easiest rent growth is retaining happy residents that are conditioned to accept 5% rent increases. Well, that is more likely in a nice new build property. That's where you attract a better tenant. And if they were to move out, they would have to take a lesser property so they will stay and pay the rent in. Increase, and they're going to have the capacity to do so when the rent is only 10 to 20% of their income.    Keith Weinhold  5:25   Now, when we talk about a major factor that trickles down to rents, the level of inflation, a lot of this comes down to the Fed chair and even the president, to some extent. And you know what's interesting, half the nation bashes whoever is president, and the entire nation bashes whoever is the Fed chair. Look, every recent Fed Chair has been maligned and bashed more than a pinata at a toddler's birthday party, bashed open more than an umpire at a little league game. Well, since 1980 there have been five of them, Volker, then Greenspan, then Bernanke, then Yellen and now Jerome Powell, most of that group is known for substantially lowering interest rates, yet they've remained unpopular anyway. And you know the irony here? The most popular of these five is Paul Volcker. He's the only Fed chair that's celebrated, and yet he jacked rates in the 1980s to up near 20% yes, 20% he really made borrowers feel the pain, but yet he's the only guy that's celebrated, because that's how he stomped that out of control inflation fire, 45 years ago, in 1981 mortgage rates peaked between 18 and 19% yet Somehow he's the Fed share that we celebrate? Well, here in more modern times, will the Fed eventually have to do the same thing? This is because Trump wants inflation now. The short term, talk is about lowering interest rates, but there are so many inflationary forces that you've got to wonder about how interest rates could very well go much higher later to get on top of this inflation that I'm telling you Trump actually wants. Now, of course, no one is going to come out and explicitly say that they want inflation, but that is now so implied, there are a ton of policies that the administration favors that are super inflationary. Some are a little deflationary, like deregulation, but they are overwhelmingly inflationary. Look tariffs, that's inflation on goods, mass deportations, that's labor inflation, reshaping the Fed in order to lower rates. That's inflation, the one big, beautiful bill, act that's lots of spending and largely inflationary. I'm telling you, Trump wants inflation now I'm not here to evaluate these policies for being good or bad. This is about policies, not politics, and understand it's not just the US government. It's every government everywhere that secretly wants inflation. And why do they want that? Well, first, it fuels spending. If you know that your dollars are going to shrink in purchasing power tomorrow, well then you're going to spend today, and consumer spending makes up 68% of us. GDP, yes, Amazon, thanks, you. Secondly, inflation shrinks the government's debt. The third reason that governments everywhere want inflation is because it foils deflation. In a deflationary world, people hoard cash like its gold bullion, tax revenue dries up and the economy stalls, and also inflation. It facilitates wage adjustments. It helps the labor market function. If economic conditions are weak, well, then employers can implement real wage cuts just by keeping salaries flat right where they're at. I mean, that is so preferable to cutting nominal wages directly and giving employees a pay cut notice. Everyone hates seeing that. So those are what four big reasons why governments will take their gloves off and fight in a steel cage match to the death to ensure inflation. So most expect a rate cut at the Feds meeting next week. But if this continues and there were massive cuts, you know, there's something else you've got to ask yourself, do you really want to live in an economy where massive rate cuts occur. I mean, that's what the 2008 global financial crisis and the covid pandemic in 2020 brought to us. So massive cuts mean there's some giant problem out there. Therefore, although the Trump and Powell rivalry, it might make you. Interesting theater and headlines. You know, let's not get carried away. Let's put things in perspective. What matters to you more is how many dollars you're leveraging, the efficiency of your property operations and the quality of your business relationships. Really, the bottom line is that fed tweaks are background noise inflation, that is the long term engine that makes your real estate profitable. Focus there, and let the politicians keep doing the yelling concerns about ongoing inflation and what that means for real estate investors, that's next. I'm Keith Weinhold. You're listening to get rich education.    Keith Weinhold  8:57   The same place where I get my own mortgage loans is where you can get yours. Ridge lending group and MLS, 42056, they provided our listeners with more loans than anyone because they specialize in income properties. They help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage. Start your prequel and even chat with President Chaley Ridge personally while it's on your mind, start at Ridge lendinggroup.com. That's Ridge lendinggroup.com.    Keith Weinhold  8:57   You know what's crazy your bank is getting rich off of you. The average savings account pays less than 1% it's like laughable. Meanwhile, if your money isn't making at least 4% you're losing to inflation. That's why I started putting my own money into the FFI liquidity fund. It's super simple. Your cash can pull in up to 8% returns, and it compounds. It's not some high risk gamble like digital or AI stock trading. It's pretty low risk because they've got a 10 plus year track record of paying investors on time in full every time. I mean, I wouldn't be talking about it if I wasn't invested myself. You can invest as little as 25k and you keep earning until you decide you want your money back, no weird lockups or anything like that. So if you're like me and tired of your liquid funds just sitting there doing nothing, check it out. Text family. 266, 866, to learn about freedom. Family investments, liquidity fund again. Text family, to 66866,   Ken McElroy  17:26   this is Rich Dad advisor Ken McElroy. Listen to get rich education with Keith Weinhold, and don't quit your Daydream.    Keith Weinhold  17:34   we have a familiar voice back on the show. It's an in house discussion here with our own GRE investment coach since 2021 he's helped you completely free, usually over the phone, learning your own personal goals and then helping you find the market that's the right fit for you, and even help connect you with the exact property address that helps you win the inflation Triple Crown, like say, 321, Mulberry Street in Chattanooga, Tennessee. They say that formal education will make you a living self education will make you a fortune. Well, he's got them both. He's slinging an MBA, and he's an active real estate investor just like you and I. Hey, welcome back to the show investment coach and race Vista.    Naresh Vissa  18:25   Hey, Keith pleasure, to be back on.    Keith Weinhold  18:27   Inflation is something that affects real estate investors even more so than it does the general public. Since we're borrowing large sums of money and the inflation discussion sure has been interesting lately, you just can't quite get rates back down to 2% still, they've been elevated for years. So talk to us from your vantage point about inflation and future inflation concerns.   Naresh Vissa  18:51   Well, Keith, I am concerned about inflation. This is the first time in a year or so that I'm concerned with the direction and with the policy surrounding inflation, here's why. And I brought this up when I was on your podcast in July, the current administration is not talking at all about the fact that inflation is rising. We saw the CPI, for example, hit 2.3% which was four year low earlier this year, and since then, inflation has gone up. That is concerning, that inflation is going back up without any rate cuts. Yet it's gone back, I don't want to say gone back up, but it's gone up. And remember, the Federal Reserve inflation target is 2% so we want to get as close to 2% as possible. And the number one issue in the 2024 election, and the number one issue today is still the cost of everything is right, is too much, which we'll talk about, from gas prices to home values to rents to grocery that's the. Big one, the cost of groceries, the stuff that you buy at grocery stores, etc, everything is just too expensive. Of course, education, you name, childcare, everything is just too expensive. Inflation is still, I think the administration needs to really tackle this problem. They need to really, really tackle it, because it is the number one issue. It is what people essentially, their vote is, is based on it's not necessarily based on some peace agreement in a foreign nation. It's not based on some social issue. The number one issue is going to be this inflation problem. It's are things affordable? Do I have money in my bank account to pay for X, Y and Z? So I am concerned because, yes, tariffs are inflationary. That's kind of common sense. Now I think tariffs can be good. Tariffs can keep inflation in check. If they're handled the right way, we will see that. But my bigger concern is that inflation has been rising. We're not anywhere close to that 2% and we know with a very high degree of certainty that the Federal Reserve is beginning their rate cutting cycle next week with the September rate cut, and that's going to be extended. We've seen President Trump. He's very public, his Treasury Secretary, his Secretary of Commerce, all the economic advisors who he has, they're very transparent about the fact that they want rates slashed, and they want rates slashed quickly. And so we know that we're going to get a rate this is going to be a rate slashing cycle. It's going to be great for the upper class, if you want to call it, it's going to be great for real estate investors, but for the common man, the byproduct of that is going to be higher inflation. There's just no way that you can cut rates so quickly, so low, and you're not going to see inflation. That's my concern. Now on the other hand, and again, we have to see how this plays out. On the other hand, I brought up earlier this year, I've referenced Doge. I think Doge is doing a good job cutting government spending, trying to scale back some of the government initiatives, not that the government's always going to spend we know that, but it's you need to cut back, and doges is trying to do that. That's a plus. But even bigger, I talked about some foreign wars, right? Well, I think that the Middle Eastern conflict and the Russia Ukraine conflict, both of those actually are disinflationary, or fixing those conflicts, creating peace. We've seen a ceasefire in the Middle East. We've seen a peace agreement in Ukraine, and they're disinflationary because of some of the items that I brought up. I think oil is going to dip below $50 a barrel as a result of these peace agreements, these ceasefires. So we're going to see oil prices go down. When you see oil and energy prices go down, you see the cost of almost everything else go down, because you need oil and energy to transport everything else. If you're building a house, you have wood and steel and lumber and and all sorts of materials. And it's you need a truck to transport all that. And the truck is probably it's not an EV truck. You're getting these big trucks that are using diesel fuel. So if we can bring down the cost of of oil and gas and electricity, which these taking care of these conflicts will do, creating peace will do the price of those products, oil, the natural gas, the electricity, the wheat, the grains, those are your groceries. The cost of those are going to come down. So I think it's very positive what we're seeing with this idea of peace in regions that make a huge difference to the global economy. So I'm curious to see, like I think we could see greater than 100 basis point decrease in inflation just by solving these conflicts 1% or more, like I legitimately think so, and that's without the tariffs. That's without the federal rate cut. So even if we're at, let's say, two and a half percent inflation today, and you shave off 100 basis points up now you're at one and a half, and then you throw in tariff inflation, you throw in the rate cut inflation, and we're around 2% so that's the ideal scenario that the administration is hoping for. It's let's create peace, let's have a freer market, and then they can scale back a lot of these tariffs too, because many of these tariffs against India, for example, they can scale back the United States can scale back the 50% tariff on India. That tariff was India got hit with because they're buying Russian oil, and you take care of the Russia conflict. Now it's we say, oh, India, you know, we'll scale back to go back to your 25% tariff, or maybe even less, if you do X, Y and Z. For us, we can expect to see many of these tariffs scaled back. We can expect to see the price of specific goods and services, the prices decrease, which will bring down inflation. That's what I'm optimistic about. Hopefully all these agreements hold, which I think they will, and we can expect that, and the Fed can begin its rate cutting cycle, and everything will be booming, and everything will be great. This is the. Deal scenario. I'm not predicting this. This is the ideal scenario for the administration,   Keith Weinhold  25:05   when both war and terrorists get as bad as they can possibly get. From there, they can only get better, each of which would be disinflationary. Now, the CPI inflation has been reported at 2.7% each of the past two months. But when we talk about rates, Trump wants lower rates, of course, and I think we all know that the Fed's fear of lowering rates is that high inflation could resurface. One thing though, that few think about is that lower rates lead to higher inflation, which kills off the national debt faster. But when we think about upcoming federal reserve rate cuts anytime, whether this was 10 years ago today or 10 years into the future, these are the type of lessons that I like to talk about. All right, when we look at the last Fed meeting, there was no rate cut, but then awful jobs numbers were reported right after that. That's why some think that there could be a 50 point rate cut at the next meeting. The Fed meets eight times a year, so there's about a month and a half between meetings. Now, the Fed doesn't have to wait for a meeting to make a rate cut. They can do an emergency rate cut between meetings, like we saw during covid, but sometimes they're reluctant to do that because that really spooks markets, and that makes people think, oh my gosh, there was an emergency rate cut. Maybe things are worse than we thought. What's going on that triggers concern?   Naresh Vissa  26:24   Well, I think that would be a huge mistake to have an emergency. Yeah, anatomic was obviously an emergency. That was a global emergency. Makes sense. 2008 I remember, I was just college student, but that was an emergency because we saw people lining up on the streets of Manhattan with all their boxes of laid off work, and we saw that on Phoebe. You know, that was a trying time. I think that's out of the question. It's completely unnecessary, especially when the Fed meets every 45 to 50 days. It's, you know, you can wait another 20 days until the next meeting and then make a decision when you have lower rates than the cost, the borrowing costs on the debt, it goes down so the government can refinance its debt, and they would pay less keyword interest dollars. That's a plus, the other plus with tariffs. And I really hope, again, this is just my opinion. I hope this is what happens. But the government is raising quite a lot of tariff revenue, so close to $30 billion last month. And we can expect, in the first full year, next year, it's going to have raised close to half a trillion dollars just for fiscal year 2026 that's the expectation, about half trillion dollars worth of tariff revenue. And I hope that the government uses that pair of revenue to pay down the debt, because when you're paying down the debt, you're dissipating inflation. What I actually don't want them to do is to give us back that money, because they've been floating that around, saying, Oh, we got all this tariff revenue. Let's get it back as a tariff dividend, and every American gets hex, you know, $100 in their bank account or something   Keith Weinhold  28:01   very altruistic. Of you patriotic,   Naresh Vissa  28:04   I would much rather that they use 100% of it to pay down that debt, because the country is going to be better off as a whole over the long term, and in turn, the people will be better off over the long term. The people may not see it. They may want their $200 check or $100 check or whatever it might be, but over the long term, I think the tariffs are overall working out quite well. We're not seeing the crazy inflation that the mainstream expert predicted. I don't think we're going to see the crazy inflation that the experts predicted, if you it's not going to be because of the tariffs, in my opinion, I think it's going to be if there's this aggressive rate cutting cycle that juices the markets and the cost of everything just just goes up. And this ties into real estate investing, because when the Fed starts cutting, that's a very good time for real estate investors to pay attention when the Fed stops cutting immediately. That's a an even better time to pay attention when the rates have bottomed. And this has to deal with timing the real estate market. I'll give you an example. I own several properties. Of one of my properties when the Fed was cutting in 2020 it took about a year for all those cuts to permeate into the mortgage market and into the the market as a whole. It took it. The inflation didn't go up overnight. The inflation didn't go up in April of 2020 or or May of 2020 it went up in April of 2021, it took about a year. So I actually refinanced one of my properties in July of 2021, I refinanced my my property, and I saved about 110 basis points on that refinance. And that's what I mean by timing the market. Because, if you're paying attention, part of it was I knew, Okay, the Fed has stopped. It's cutting. And you know, let's follow the more. Good market. Let's follow the Treasury yield curve and all that. And I jumped in. I literally refinanced at the bottom, like at the absolute bottom. There was about a three month window that was the bottom, and I refinanced. I did the application all that at the beginning of those three months, and it was and I got that great rate at the end of those three months. And I think there's going to be a tremendous opportunity for real estate investors. And I'm sure the Bane This is why I'm a little concerned about inflation as well, because the big hedge funds, the big real estate investment firms, the big banks, the blackstones, the blackrocks, they're going to be ready, and they're going to buy up. They're going to buy up real estate again, and investors, including our GRE investors, they're going to start buying up too. So pay attention. We're going to cover it here. We're going to cover it here, on the podcast and in the newsletter. But pay attention to these rates, because it'll be, I don't want to say, a once in a lifetime opportunity, but it will be a once in a cycle type of opportunity to jump in and get some bottoming real estate values as well as bottoming real estate mortgage rates at the same time. So that equilibrium point is only, like I said, about three or four months long. So we're going to be coming to that point and timing it sometime, I think next year, 2026   Keith Weinhold  31:21   talk to us about the vibe that you're getting from GRE listeners that contact you for a free coaching session. It's really hard to time the real estate market. Why don't you help us out with that? Let us know about a listener or two that you recently helped.   Naresh Vissa  31:37   Well, we have free real estate investment coaching here at GRE. It's absolutely free of charge. You can call, text me, email me whenever you'd like. People can book a free meeting with me, and it's a session. It's an immersive session on real estate investing. So we can go over all of that on our call. You can reach out to me unlimited times, like I said, it's I'm here just to help you throughout and along your real estate investment journey, I've helped hundreds of people invest in real estate, hundreds so it's buying turnkey, cash flowing real estate properties, so our investors can buy properties, and use my guidance and advice to help them buy properties. I also help them if they already own properties, how to optimize their portfolio, how to find new markets. I help them with their existing properties, dealing with property managers, with contractors, even with issues that things aren't always great in real estate, sometimes things can be bad. So listener Paul, for example. Listener Paul, he had a problem with the builder, and he submitted earnest money, and he wanted his earnest money back. Many, many years had gone by, and he came to me and he said, Hey, Naresh, you know, I've got all this money tied up, and the builder's not giving me the money back. Can you help me? And so I got him in touch with the right people, and within three or four months, he got all of his money back, plus interest on all the missed payments. So he got everything back as a lump sum, and then he thanked me and said, Thank you so much. I can sleep better at night, and I'm just I'm doing very well now, and he was ready to buy his next property.   Keith Weinhold  33:15   That's an example of where a deal went wrong and the builder didn't perform and build a property.   Naresh Vissa  33:19   Yes, exactly. Think of me as a trusted advisor, but also as a super connector, someone who can get you in touch with all the right companies and people to make real estate investing very sound. We have listener Joe, who bought many properties through us. He bought his first property through me and through GRE through our coaching program, and that first property worked out really well. So then he said, Hey, I want to buy a second property about six months later. So he bought a second property, and that worked out well. And then he said, let's go with it. And he bought all these with the same provider. So once he reached four, because my rule is, you don't want to go more than four or five in one market. Then he asked me for the next he said, what market do you recommend next? So then I recommended the next market, and then he bought another three or four in that market, and he built a nice little portfolio of seven or I mean, some people think it's little, some people think it's big, of seven or eight properties. So that's very common with the coaching program, where our listeners are really happy. If things are going great, I'm here for them. If things are not going the way that they expected, I'm here to help fix that problem.   Keith Weinhold  34:30   Maurice, is there to help you start building and grow a portfolio. Now, how do you yourself analyze deals and find properties before you let our listeners know about them?   Naresh Vissa  34:40   Well, we work with 15 to 20 different providers around the country, 15 to 20. So these providers are always reaching out to me, emailing me, calling me, leading me voicemails, texting me, saying we've got this great deal. We've got this great incentive. So I parse through all of that, and I find a handful of what I think is best. US and many of these deals, I send them to you, Keith, to promote in your Don't quit your Daydream newsletter, which people can subscribe if they go to get rich education.com. I send them there, and I let our listeners know on the phone when they set up calls, or I have notes on every meeting. So I'm able to send all of these deals to them, and that's how I put the best deals in front of them.   Keith Weinhold  35:25   Most of the coaching calls are over the phone rather than zoom the race. Sure can arrange a zoom call with you if you prefer. You really don't need to do too much to prepare for the call either.   Naresh Vissa  35:38   No, not at all. Just sign up for the meeting, and I'll run things. I'll run the meeting, I'll run the call. It's very straightforward. It's a session. It's very immersive, very interactive.   Keith Weinhold  35:49   Yeah, and you just have to book a time with Naresh once there and afterward. Yeah, it's really casual. Naresh is very open to you text messaging him if you have any ideas, or if you just heard about something on the show that you want to know more of. But yeah, booking that first coaching call is really what opens the door to the communication. And you really staying up to date on things. You can find a race through GRE marketplace. And alternatively, you can learn more about him with his bio. And importantly, book a time on his calendar by going directly to GREinvestment coach.com for a while now he's had times available Monday through Friday, and even some weekend slots available, and yeah, keep in touch with him, because property inventory is ever changing, especially with late breaking news like we've had this year of Home Builders Offering major incentives like buying down your mortgage rate to about 5% so staying up to date has hopefully brought you, the listeners, some really big wins already this year. Naresh, do you have any last thoughts?   Naresh Vissa  35:49   Definitely book a meeting with me. You won't regret it. I think even if you think that you own all these properties, you have all this experience, I think you'll find that the resources we offer it through our free coaching program, there will be one or two nuggets that you didn't know about that will still help you. So it doesn't harm anybody to book that free session with me. If you don't think you need my help, maybe it's just a five minute call and we touch base and we're good to go. That's fine too, but I highly recommend that people get in touch with me. We go from there so that you can continue to have a fruitful investment journey.   Keith Weinhold  37:28   Naresh has been valuable as always. Thanks for coming back out of the show.    Naresh Vissa  37:31   Thank you very much, Keith.   Keith Weinhold  37:38   Yeah, some sharp insight from Naresh as always. Now, when you think about making your next property move, consider how, compared to a few years ago, uncertainty has largely abated and real estate has stabilized. Think about how back in 2020 covid was the big uncertainty concern 2021 it was this real estate boom and an inventory shortage. You would get 50 or 80 offers on one property, and buyers were waiving inspections. That was tough. That was such a seller's market in 2022 that's when you had inflation and the supply chain chaos. That's when CPI inflation peaked at 9.1% in 2023 the big uncertainty concern was interest rate shock and the affordability crisis. And last year and this year, they've pivoted more to macro economic concerns. So therefore today's chief concern gets somewhat more buffered from real estate. Now I discussed the direction of rents earlier in today's show, the recently released Kay Shiller numbers came out, and they show that national home prices are up almost 2% annually, 13 cities or higher and seven or lower. By the way, this continued nominal price appreciation that frustrates the bejesus out of those perpetually wrong crash predictors. They have been wrong even longer than the people waiting for flying cars to show up. And where will prices continue to go from here, probably even higher now, America just hit somewhat of a milestone in this cycle. You might remember that mortgage rates peaked at 7.8% almost two years ago. Well, mortgage rates have now slid down to six and a half 6.5% and here's why this has become significant, right? Just compared to when rates were 7% per the nar 2.8 million Americans now qualify to buy a home. 5.5 million more will qualify at 6% and 7.7 more will qualify at five and a half percent. My gosh. Now. Now, of course, not every newly qualified buyer is going to pounce on a property, but only if a fraction of those do. Can you imagine how this demand increase will stoke prices? There are still only about 1.1 million homes available today. So not only are mortgage rates at a fresh low, but inventory choices, although they're still historically low, they are now at a six year high, and this is all while there's less buyer competition. So today's buyer conditions are really improving, and the bottom line here is that you are in the best position in more than five years to find the right property while still avoiding a bidding war, you have really got some properties to choose from. That is the takeaway, and you don't need to do much to prepare for an immersive free call with Naresh. You know what your situation is, although you probably do want to have about a 20% down payment for a property ready to go, some of which cost as little as 200k in these investor advantage markets, whether you've never bought any property in your life, or if you have dozens, it probably will benefit you. You can easily book a time that works best for you right on a GRE investment coaches calendar that way. There's no back and forth, and you can set it up now. Should you so choose at GRE investment coach.com Until next week, I'm your host, Keith Weinhold, don't quit your Daydream.   Speaker 3  41:38   Nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice, please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get rich Education LLC, exclusively.   Keith Weinhold  42:02   You know, whenever you want the best written real estate and finance info, oh, geez, today's experience limits your free articles access, and it's got paywalls and pop ups and push notifications and cookies disclaimers. It's not so great. So then it's vital to place nice, clean, free content into your hands that adds no hype value to your life. That's why this is the golden age of quality newsletters. And I write every word of ours myself. It's got a dash of humor, and it's to the point, because even the word abbreviation is too long. My letter usually takes less than three minutes to read, and when you start the letter, you also get my one hour fast real estate video. Course, it's all completely free. It's called the Don't quit your Daydream letter. It wires your mind for wealth, and it couldn't be easier for you to get it right now. Just text gre, 266, 866, while it's on your mind, take a moment to do it right now. Text gre, 266, 866,   Keith Weinhold  43:18   The preceding program was brought to you buy your home for wealth, building, get richeducation.com

-Florida goes down to in-state USF -Mississippi State gets a huge ranked win -Some sloppy performances from top teams -Mateer shines under the bright lights

App State improves to 2-0 for the first time since 2019 with a 20-13 win over Lindenwood. Our radio crew brings you the highlights and analysis, plus interviews with Dowell Loggains, Thomas Davis and Dylan Manuel.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textHosted by Dominick Crosetto and TJ O'Sullivan, The Wrap breaks down all the action from Week 2 in the Sun Belt Conference. From final scores and game-changing plays to standout performances, we've got you covered on everything you missed around the league. Get the full recap and the storylines you need as we head into Week 3 of Sun Belt football.Support the showBe sure to check out Don't Sleep Energy at www.dontsleepenergy.com or at their Amazon shop. Go to Amazon and search 'Don't Sleep Energy'. Check out all Phenom has to offer at www.phenomelitebrand.com. Whether you need cleats, gloves, or accessories, Phenom's got you covered! Use code SBSYNDICATE at checkout for 10% off!

On the eve of the 2025 football home opener, we visit with director of athletics Doug Gillin to discuss what fans can expect from an experience perspective when they arrive on campus on Saturday. Plus, we dive into some of the early successes of our fall sports teams. Also, Bret chats with LB Kyle Arnholt about the team's impressive performance in week one and the excitement of being back at The Rock. #DSOTDPSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Host John Lund gives a preview of Friday night's Week 2 home game against Sun Belt champion hopeful James Madison, kickoff set for 7ET. Game notes include a look at how the Dukes fared last week, a breakdown of the offense and defense, some key players to watch, and we'll hear back from Louisville head coach Jeff Brohm at his press conference earlier in the week about the matchup against the Dukes before an early bye week. The TL;DR, don't commit 106 yards worth of penalties, win the turnover battle by not throwing three interceptions and control the line of scrimmage on both sides. Easy peasy right? And, more importantly, who covers?

The guys dive into all the other Georgia State news, including the upcoming basketball exhibition against Georgia, a debate over the best quarterbacks in program history, and updates around the Sun Belt. Hear our takes on what matters most for Panther fans and how it all ties back to Georgia State. Follow us Web: http://stateofatlanta.com Facebook: http://facebook.com/STATEofAtlanta Twitter: http://twitter.com/STATEofAtlanta SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/user-466493756 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@STATEofAtlanta Support the show Patreon: http://patreon.com/STATEofAtlanta Rock our swag Merch: http://merch.STATEofAtlanta.com

We're getting you ready for the football home opener with head coach Dowell Loggains, tight end Izayah Cummings and linebacker Colton PharesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textThe OG's are back for another hard-hitting episode as Dominick Crosetto and TJ Courman break down all the action coming up in Week 2 of Sun Belt football. From key matchups to sleeper picks, these guys are diving deep into what you need to know before kickoff.TJ returns with his signature Clip Breakdown, dissecting key plays and performances with his unique insight. Plus, we're rolling out brand new segments this week:

You couldn't have asked for a much better start to the Scott Abell era of Rice football than what the Owls delivered on Saturday night in Cajun country. The Owls' offense looked as advertised and the defense was even better, doing just enough to knock off a team projected to contend for a Sun Belt conference championship. This win wasn't a fluke but should we be buying Rice bowl stock just yet? At least one host thinks its in the realm of possibilities. But first, a rundown of the game, what worked, what didn't and what's at stake in the coming game against the Houston Cougars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rust Belt is heating up while the Sun Belt cools down. In today's episode, we break down Redfin's latest metro-level housing market rankings, revealing that cities like Milwaukee, Chicago, and Philadelphia are outperforming the national market with rising sales and prices. Meanwhile, boomtowns like Las Vegas, Sacramento, and Miami are slowing fast as inventory surges and buyers gain leverage. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sponsored by thegalindocollective.com, BHIhats.com, turnkey-tailgate.com, Austin.Patchmaster.com  -  The Texas State Bobcats went to work early and often against Eastern Michigan, putting up 52 points, totaling 606 yards on offense and an epic Pac-12 drone show celebration. Host Keff Ciardello gives a recap and his thoughts on the game before a quick Sun Belt rundown to close the show. (Produced by Zachary Webb)

Send us a textThe Wrap – A Sun Belt Syndicate PodcastHosted by Dominick Crosetto and Marv Dickens, The Wrap breaks down all the action from Week 1 in the Sun Belt Conference. From final scores and game-changing plays to standout performances, we've got you covered on everything you missed around the league. Get the full recap and the storylines you need as we head into Week 2 of Sun Belt football.Support the showBe sure to check out Don't Sleep Energy at www.dontsleepenergy.com or at their Amazon shop. Go to Amazon and search 'Don't Sleep Energy'. Check out all Phenom has to offer at www.phenomelitebrand.com. Whether you need cleats, gloves, or accessories, Phenom's got you covered! Use code SBSYNDICATE at checkout for 10% off!

Greg previews the Sun Belt for the upcoming 2024-25 season by looking at the conference from a stylistic and betting standpoint, doing a deep dive on every team's roster, the coaching changes & moving parts with Blake Lovell of Southeastern 16, & Greg gives his projected order of finish for each team in the conference.Podcast Highlights2:33-Styles & Betting Trends of the Sun Belt15:48-Deep dive on every Sun Belt roster with Blake Lovell51:07-Greg's projected order of conference finish in the Sun Belt

Dave Nitz will always be the 'Voice of the Bulldogs.' Listen as many of Dave's broadcasting friends from opposing programs inside CUSA & the Sun Belt share stories about Dave in a touching tribute. The impact 'Freeway Dave' had on both the broadcast industry & Tech community was substantial. And as you'll hear, it's unlikely Dave's accomplishments will be matched.In addition to Louisiana Tech's Malcolm Butler & Kane McGuire, the play-by-play voices you'll hear include: Steve Cotton - Marshall John Cox - Southern Miss David Crane - UAB JP Heath - Rice Randy Lee - WKU Jon Teicher - UTEP Jay Walker - ULL Chip Walters - MTSUSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

App State Football opened the 2025 season with a dominant 34-11 victory over Charlotte in the Duke's Mayo Classic. Listen back to the highlights and analysis from our radio crew as well as game highlights and postgame interviews with Dowell Loggains, AJ Swann and Ja'Den McBurrows.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Sponsored by thegalindocollective.com, BHIhats.com, turnkey-tailgate.com, Austin.Patchmaster.com  -  The Texas State Bobcats will kick off the 2025 season at home this Saturday against Eastern Michigan. WNOGB Keff Ciardello host has a combo preview and mailbag prepared for the occasion in episode 202. (Produced by Zachary Webb)

The Crew breaks down the Micah Parsons trade, takes a look at college football Week 1 & the Sun Belt Conference!!Give us your thoughts!Support the show

On the eve of the 2025 season opener for App State football, Bret and Adam visit with defensive coordinator DJ Smith. #DSOTDPSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's the 2025 season debut of Mountaineer Talk from Rivers Street Ale House in Boone. Join head coach Dowell Loggains along with defensive backs Ja'Den McBurrows and Elijah McCantos as we get ready for the season opener against Charlotte. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Texas State kicks off the 2025 season at Eastern Michigan. Here are the three keys that will decide if the Bobcats start 1–0.It's game week. Texas State opens the season on the road against Eastern Michigan, and this matchup is going to come down to a few critical factors.What do you think—what's the most important key to victory in Week One? Drop your thoughts in the comments

Send us a textDominick Crosetto and TJ Courman kick off the Sun Belt Syndicate with a full 2025 football preview. The guys recap Marshall's 2024 championship run, spotlight the biggest games to circle on this year's calendar, break down projected standings in both divisions, and debate which teams could play spoiler. They also run through the Sun Belt's top players heading into the season—including QB Braylon Braxton and LB Jason Henderson—and finish with bold predictions for the year ahead.Support the showBe sure to check out Don't Sleep Energy at www.dontsleepenergy.com or at their Amazon shop. Go to Amazon and search 'Don't Sleep Energy'. Check out all Phenom has to offer at www.phenomelitebrand.com. Whether you need cleats, gloves, or accessories, Phenom's got you covered!

In this Topical Tuesday episode, I spoke with Brian Burke who is the President & CEO of Praxis Capital, Inc. Brian has acquired over 800 million dollars' worth of real estate over a 30-year career including over 4,000 multifamily units and more than 700 single-family homes. He is also the author of “The Hands-Off Investor: An Insider's Guide to Investing in Passive Real Estate Syndications”. Be sure to tune in if you're interested in learning about: The rise in distress across different lending sectors, with CMBS loans seeing notable increases. Regional multifamily opportunities, highlighting short-term potential in the Midwest and long-term value in the Sunbelt. The challenges and evolving strategies in value-add multifamily investing. Insights on vertical integration in property management and its complexities. To your success, Tyler Lyons Resources mentioned in the episode: Brian Burke Website Instagram Book Interested in learning how to take your capital raising game to the next level? Meet us at Capital Raiser's Edge. Learn more here: https://raisingcapital.com/cre

We're live from Pitbull Stadium with a very special guest — FIU legend and current DB coach Anthony Gaitor. From his days as a three-time All-Sun Belt standout and NFL Draft pick to now leading FIU's secondary, Gaitor shares his journey, the importance of doing it “in your backyard,” and why this season feels like 2010 all over again.We dive into:Gaitor's favorite FIU playing memories (Texas A&M pick-six, Sun Belt title, first bowl win)His transition from NFL player to coachInsights on new head coach Willie Simmons and the culture shift at FIUThe return of QB Keyone Jenkins and the excitement for August 29th kickoffWhy FIU fans need to pack Pitbull Stadium this seasonThis one's for Panther Nation — FIU is back.

Morgan Keim spent a decade launching food tech startups and raising $400M, only to realize that income without ownership was not true freedom. What began in 2014 as a quiet hedge against startup volatility grew into a full-time mission as he placed over 50 LP checks and then led two dozen contrarian acquisitions across the Midwest and Sunbelt. With 105 percent net investor returns across seven exits, he has transformed overlooked Class C properties into safe communities and stable cash flow. Today, as Managing Partner of Ocean Ridge Capital, Morgan helps founders and operators trade burnout for lasting wealth while tackling America's housing crisis.   Here's some of the topics we covered:   Breaking Free From Limiting Beliefs And Owning Your Path From Digital Marketing Hustle To Real Estate Empire Builder The Cash For Keys Strategy That Changes The Game The Hidden Struggles Of Affordable Housing No One Talks About Inside Morgan's Playbook For Managing A Full Rehab The Must-Know Advice Every New Real Estate Investor Needs How Morgan Builds Power Teams That Actually Deliver The Two Asset Classes Morgan Can't Stop Investing In Unlocking Your True Strengths And Leveraging Them For Success The Silver Tsunami That Will Disrupt Senior Housing Over The Next Decade   To find out more about partnering or investing in a multifamily deal: Text Partner to 72345 or email Partner@RodKhleif.com    For more about Rod and his real estate investing journey go to www.rodkhleif.com   Please Review and Subscribe  

The playoffs really come down to who the fourth (and maybe fifth) SEC team will be. The playoff committee will shaft 12-0 Notre Dame. Can an American squad upend an 11-1 Boise team? Regional Rivalries in the Sun Belt. And look what the NIL has done to the MAC. Uggg...

It's the Sun Belt preview, rounding out our offseason conference preview series. Plus, some week zero talk.Flipping The Field is presented by Meet At Midfield and Homefield Apparel. Use code MEETATMIDFIELD for 15 percent off your first order at Homefield Apparel.If you like the show, please tell a friend and leave a five-star review. If you want to keep up to date with the show, subscribe on your podcasting app of choice and follow the show on Twitter at FieldFlipping.If you have a question you'd like answered on the show, send us a DM on the show's Twitter account.

BettorEdge Partner Promo Code: PLAYME Signup Link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bettoredge.com/playme⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Peer to peer sports betting with NO JUICE! Click the link for a risk free $20, no deposit required. Podcast Card: Navy Over 8.5 (-125) Toledo Over 8.5 (-145) James Madison Over 8.5 (-115) Arizona State Over 8.5 (-105) Tulsa Under 3.5 (+100) Stanford Under 3.5 (-170) UL Monroe Under 4.5 (-165) San Jose State Over 7.5 (+110) Join the Free Discord + View Our Podcast Record⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/ZkzcH3mwHS⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube: @PlayMeorFadeMePodcast X: @MrActionJunkie1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

This may be the most important season in Texas State Football history. It's the Bobcats' last chance to win a Sun Belt title, their last chance to beat Louisiana as a conference foe, and the year that will define how they enter the Pac-12.So here's the question: if Texas State goes 8–4, is that enough to reach the Sun Belt Championship?In this episode of Wizard Wednesday, we break it down:The unfinished business Texas State needs to settle before leaving the Sun BeltHow our season prediction from Monday sets the stage for this discussionWhat records it has historically taken to make the Sun Belt title gameAnd finally, the big question — does Texas State have to reach the championship game for 2025 to be considered a success?Bobcat fans — what do you think? Does 8–4 get us in, or does this team need more? Drop your take in the comments.Thumbnail Photos Courtesy Texas State Football Intro/Outro Music: Also Sprach Zarathustra recorded and conducted by @officialphilman.#TexasStateFootball #TXST #CollegeFootball

BC & Beck discuss the upcoming move to the Sun Belt, breakdown Tech's 2025 football schedule, and chat with LA Tech AD Ryan Ivey in studio. 

In Redefining the Immigrant South: Indian and Pakistani Immigration to Houston During the Cold War (University of North Carolina Press), Uzma Quraishi (Sam Houston State University) follows the Cold War-era journeys of South Asian international students from U.S. Information Service reading rooms in India and Pakistan, to the halls of the University of Houston, to the suburban subdivisions of Alief and Sugar Land. This student migration between 1960 and 1980 shows how public diplomacy programs overseas catalyzed the arrival of highly educated, middle-class Asians in the U.S. before the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. Drawing on archival documents, GIS data, and oral interviews, Quraishi investigates how Indian and Pakistani immigrants forged an “interethnic” identity in Houston and located themselves—both socially and geographically—in the midst of a booming yet segregated Sunbelt city. She conceptualizes their mobility as “brown flight,” a process that simultaneously strengthened ethnic bonds even as it reinforced racial and class barriers. By exploring the links between international and local scales, Redefining the Immigrant South will interest scholars from many fields, including Asian American history; histories of the U.S. South, immigration, and U.S. foreign relations; and sub/urban studies. Ian Shin is assistant professor of History and American Culture at the University of Michigan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Austin (@devydeets) & Colin (@C2CDecker) cover some recent news before discussing the teams from the Mountain West and Sun Belt Conferences

In this episode of The Distribution, host Brandon Sedloff sits down with rental housing economist Jay Parsons for a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the rental housing market. Jay shares his path into the industry during the aftermath of the financial crisis, explains why he chose to specialize deeply in rental housing, and outlines the unique dynamics shaping apartments, single-family rentals, and build-to-rent communities today. Together, they explore current market challenges, long-term tailwinds, and the opportunities that lie ahead for investors and operators alike. They discuss:  * The origins of Jay's career and his focus on rental housing economics * Key differences between ownership-driven housing commentary and true rental housing analysis * Glass half full versus half empty perspectives on today's market, from high supply and rates to affordability and demographics * The convergence of multifamily, single-family rentals, and build-to-rent under one rental housing umbrella * Migration and demographic trends driving demand across the Sunbelt, mountain metros, and emerging tertiary markets * Investor strategies shifting from short-term flips to long-term value creation and operational excellence * How technology and AI are reshaping leasing, resident experience, and customer service in rental housing * The most important data points to track over the next cycle: supply and demand This episode offers clear insights for investors, operators, and anyone looking to understand the forces shaping the future of rental housing. Links: Jay on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jay-parsons-a7a6656/ Jay's website - https://jayparsons.com/ Brandon on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bsedloff/ Juniper Square - https://www.junipersquare.com/ Topics: (00:00:00) - Intro (00:02:02) - Jay's background and career (00:12:50) - What are the good things happening in rental housing right now? (00:15:20) - Categories of rental housing that Jay covers (00:18:46) - What should investors be focused on if they want to increase their allocations in apartments over the next 3-10 years? (00:26:12) - Formats of new builds (00:29:16) - Migration trends (00:37:06) - Rental housing pipelines (00:40:20) - Capitalization trends (00:42:42) - Multifamily fundamentals over a cycle (00:45:04) - Drivers of the BTF and SFR market (00:48:06) - Creating alpha in a multifamily portfolio (00:51:41) - What to look for in a great operator (00:53:06) - Technology and AI application trends (00:56:19) - What is one data point everyone should be paying attention to?

Host Carter Yates and senior writer Mike Craven welcome on Colton McWilliams, the sports editor at the San Marcos Daily Record, to preview Texas State's 2025 season. (:30 – 2:00) Why the final year in the Sun Belt is the biggest storyline for 2025? (2:00 – 4:00) How does Colton rank the roster talent in 2025 to GJ Kinne's first two seasons? (4:00 – 6:25) Who does Colton think will win the QB battle? Are people not making a big enough deal about losing OC Mack Leftwich? (6:25 – 8:00) Colton's offensive breakout candidates (8:00 – 10:30) What does the TXST RB room look like behind Lincoln Pare? Can the OL still be a strength? (10:30 – 11:10) Colton's Preseason Defensive MVPs (11:10 – 12:30) Why Colton has the most questions about the secondary (12:30 – 14:20) LB room (14:20 – 21:00) What needs to happen for TXST to make the jump from bowl team to conference champion contender? What are TXST fans frustrated about? How much of the lack of consistency can be attributed to growing pains from a young staff? (21:00 – 25:00) Is GJ Kinne a victim of his own early success? (25:00 – 27:30) How important is an exit ramp of success to the Pac-12? (27:30 – 29:00) What is Colton's record prediction? (29:00 – END) Texas State vs UTSA review and preview Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Jordan, Commish, Pitt Girl, Big Sky Bright and special guest Dusty aka Thibs from Warhawk Report, along with our VP of Podcast Production Arthur. Jordan says goodbye to the World Games, we apologize for our errors to our loving Cal fans, a Heinz Ketchup Smoothie?, Mashall Islands soccer, VMI Keydets new Kangaroo logo, we preview Week 0, OMG WE GOT FOOTBALL SOON, then we do the SUPER SICKO SPINNING SELECTION SEASON PREVIEW FORECAST: SSSSSPF aka the 5SPF Mountain West and Sun Belt! A PORTION OF OUR INTERVIEW WITH HAWAII HEAD COACH TIMMY CHANG, the Utah State mascot as a Pokemon? Dear Lobos please use your Turquoise more, Laramie food options, Air Force pizza, ULM MENTIONED, Old Gus the Eagle, Ace the Warhawk without Teeth, actually have to break down Marshall and all their transfers, Lunch with a Ragin' Cajun and much, much more!!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Griffin Warner and Lonte Smith talk College Football Group of Five betting. 0:05 – 0:31 Opening motivational speech emphasizing speed, defensive swarming, and physical dominance — “Out-block, out-tackle, out-hit, out-hustle” — with a repeated call to “leave no doubt tonight.” 0:31 – 1:19 Griffin Warner Introduces the College Football Podcast episode focusing on Group of Five teams, following a prior episode on the Power Four. Announces a promo code and a college football contest, noting the goal is to identify season-long betting opportunities. Date: Tuesday, 1:45 – 2:33 Griffin Warner Explains that Group of Five games offer strong betting opportunities. Begins with Army (West Point) win total: Over 7.5 at +110, Under 7.5 at -140 on BetOnline. 2:35 – 4:41 Lonte Smith — Army Analysis 2023 Recap: 12–2, AAC champions, led by QB Bryson Daly (dark horse Heisman) and RB Kanye Udo. Losses: Daly to graduation, Udo to Arizona State, two Joe Moore Award-winning offensive tackles, best defensive player to Georgia. Returning Talent: Six of top ten tacklers; LB corps Miller & Thomas praised. Concerns: Offensive drop-off, new OL coach, challenging schedule (Tulane, UTSA, Navy, Air Force). Projection: 7–5 ceiling, 6–6 floor → leans Under 7.5. 4:41 – 6:08 Griffin Warner & Lonte Smith — Schedule Talk Army's 2024 slate includes K-State, North Texas, Tulane, Air Force, Navy (in Baltimore). Lonte favors Navy among service academies, citing better returning production and depth. 7:16 – 14:52 Western Kentucky (C-USA) Odds: Over 7.5 (-125), Under 7.5 (-105). 2023: 8–6 record. Roster: Only 3 starters return (1 offense, 2 defense). Poor 2023 rush defense (224 YPG). Key Additions: QB Maverick McIver (Abilene Christian, 3,500+ yds, 37 TDs), OC Rick Bowie (former Abilene OC). WR Matt Henry (1,100+ yds at Western Illinois). Concerns: OL continuity, defensive holes, rush defense. Schedule: Winnable home games; road tests at Toledo, Delaware, Missouri State. Projection: ~8.6 wins → leans Over 7.5. 15:43 – 20:22 Bowling Green (MAC) Odds: Over 6.5 (+200), Under 6.5 (-260). 2023: 7–6 (6–2 MAC). Changes: New HC Eddie George; ranked 130th in returning production; offense loses top TE hero Fanning (drafted by Browns). Defense: Loses 13 of top 15 tacklers but adds FCS standouts (including Eddie George's son). Schedule: Lafayette, Cincinnati, Liberty, Louisville early; Toledo and Buffalo at home. Projection: Depth concerns, brutal early stretch → Under (expects ~4–8). 20:53 – 25:10 Air Force (MWC) Odds: Over/Under 6.5 (-115). 2023: 5–7 after starting 1–7, finished on 4-game win streak. Roster: 9 returning starters (6 offense, 3 defense). QB battle (Johnson favored). OL returns 3 starters plus 2 with experience. Defense: Allowed 23 PPG; DL led by Peyton Zurch. Schedule: Bucknell, Boise, Navy, Wyoming, Army, UNLV, SJSU, UConn. Projection: Manageable slate, strong finish expected → Over 6.5 (7–8 wins). 25:38 – 31:06 Georgia Southern (Sun Belt) Odds: Over 7.5 (+130), Under (-160). 2023: 8–5. Roster: 10 starters return (5 offense, 5 defense). QB J.C. French (2,500+ yds, 17 TDs, 11 INTs, 66% comp). Deep WR corps; strong OL with most combined starts in Sun Belt. Defense: Needs rush D improvement; strong secondary led by Chance Gamble. Schedule: Fresno, USC, Jacksonville State, JMU, Coastal, ODU, Marshall. Projection: Favors in most conference games except JMU → Over 7.5 (floor 8 wins). 31:07 – 38:35 Playoff/Long-shot Discussion No strong playoff contenders from teams covered; JMU strong but blocked by JMU matchup for Georgia Southern. Boise State (2–1 to make playoffs) downgraded without RB Ashton Jeanty. Long-shot pick: South Florida (33–1) if QB Byron Brown stays healthy; avoid betting until after tough Miami/Florida stretch. 38:36 – End Best Bet: Army Under 7.5 wins. Rationale: Loss of QB, RB, two elite tackles, new OL coach, tough schedule, regression from 12–2 2023 season. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices