Territorial Cup is 54th on top 100 college football rivalries
The big picture: The Athletic released fresh rankings of the top 100 college football rivalries, and Arizona State University vs. the University of Arizona was 54th.
The intrigue: The rivalry is "red hot" no matter the teams' records, The Athletic writes, but the annual matchups rarely affect anything besides the series tally, which currently stands at 51-46-1 in UofA's favor.
But with the Sun Devils and Wildcats in the Big 12, "there's a chance it climbs the list."
Flashback: Last season, ASU punched its ticket to the conference championship with a win over UofA, going on to beat Iowa State for the Big 12 crown.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
44 minutes ago
- New York Times
How small provision added to Donald Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' affects taxes for sports bettors
A small provision added to President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' — that came to light days before the president signed the bill into law July 4 — could have a major impact on sports betting. The small change could force some bettors to pay income tax even in years when they have net losses and could significantly hike the tax burden on professional sports bettors. Advertisement The provision nearly escaped notice until alarm began to spread on X just days before Trump signed the bill into law. 'Not to be hyperbolic, but it's an extinction of professional sports betting,' a gambler who goes by the pseudonym Jack Andrews told The Athletic. Andrews is a professional gambler with a popular YouTube channel and a contributor to a MasterClass on sports and gambling. 'It is the end of my career, potentially.' One sentence of the 940-page bill says gamblers can deduct only 90 percent of their annual losses, instead of 100 percent, which has been the norm. What does that mean? Before now, when gamblers reported their betting income, they would take their gross winnings, subtract their gross losses and then report the net amount as their taxable income. Now, they're allowed to subtract only 90 percent of those losses, which means they appear to have more income, even though they don't actually have that money. That 10 percent change amounts to a whole lot if you're dealing with huge numbers. Andrews told The Athletic that, in a year, he makes between $7 million and $10 million in gross winnings. 'If it's $7 million as gross winnings and it's $6.6 million as net losses, then I have a $400,000 net,' Andrews said. 'But if it's $7 million of gross wins and you can only deduct the $6.6 times 90 percent ($5.94 million), now you have $1 million that the government sees as your net income versus $400,000. I'm looking at probably a 35 percent tax rate, so about $350,000 in tax. So now I'm paying $350,000 in taxes on a $400,000 actual income. And that's not worth it.' The bill also means that even in losing years, some gamblers might still owe income tax. For example, if you win $100,000 and lose $100,000, you can deduct only $90,000 of those losses, meaning you will owe taxes on $10,000 of income even though you did not take home any money. Advertisement The biggest impact will be on people who gamble as a professional career. These professional gamblers — some of whom are known in the industry as 'sharps' — record every wager, how much they win and lose, and report all of it in their taxes. Professional gamblers tend to wager large sums of money with small margins, which can lead to a significant profit over a year. (If you wager $100 million and lose $99 million, you still made a profit of $1 million.) These gamblers aren't just trying to win more bets; they're trying to make money even after covering the costs of betting, including cuts from casinos and taxes. 'It's going to be disastrous for them,' Nathan Goldman, CPA and tax professor at North Carolina State University, told The Athletic. 'It's going to devastate the Nevada economy. The professional gamblers bring a lot to that economy.' 'Gambling operates by the 80/20 rule, maybe 90/10,' Andrews said. 'Ninety percent of the business comes from 10 percent of the players, the VIPs.' And in Nevada, alarm bells are sounding. Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.), whose district includes Las Vegas, has already introduced a bill to reverse the change (more on that in a minute). 'I think this is something that a lot of people make a livelihood off of,' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored Titus' new bill, told The Athletic. 'We know people who are working at the unions or the casinos and in these industries whose livelihood will be affected.' This week, many are looking at the IRS' definition of a gambling 'session,' which typically means you can report your net winnings or losses from a whole night on a casino floor, rather than reporting every game you played while inside the casino. But with sports betting, every bet is one session. Advertisement If bettors can stretch that interpretation to say, a day, a week, etc., they could have more control over how they report their taxable income. 'I think you're going to see three types of people,' Zak Zimbile, CPA, told The Athletic. 'Those who continue to gamble and report incorrectly, those who continue to do it and adjust their definition of what a session is, and those who might completely stop altogether, which might be your high-volume, low-margin people.' Amateur sports bettors — people who make casual bets on sports betting apps such as BetMGM or FanDuel — might not feel the effects. At least not unless they get audited. 'A lot of people don't even understand that they owe taxes on gambling,' Goldman said. 'But if a bettor gets audited and the IRS reviews their sportsbook account balance, they could say, 'Wait a minute, you bet $100,000 throughout the year, you won $50,000 and lost $50,000, you actually have taxable income of $5,000.'' The deduction rule came from the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). After the bill was approved by the House on May 22, the Senate Finance Committee introduced revisions June 16. The final version of the legislative text was released by the Senate on June 27 and passed by the Senate on July 1. The bill was then rushed back to the House to meet Trump's timeline, passed in the House on July 3 and was signed into law by Trump on July 4. Many in the gambling world woke up July 1 to news of the change, and it took days to become widespread. Speculation online about the reasons for the provision has run wild, ranging from straightforward accounting explanations to conspiracy theories that sportsbooks were behind the change in an attempt to eliminate sharp bettors or that the provision benefits new prediction market firms such as Kalshi, which are seen as rising competitors to sportsbooks. Advertisement 'You can deduct your full losses under this bill if you're one of these predictive sites because those aren't technically online betting sites,' Khanna told The Athletic. Prediction markets are not regulated and operate differently from sportsbooks but allow users to put money on future outcomes, similar to traditional betting. 'I just think that they were looking for revenue. Who's going to be for standing up for betting?' 'It's very popular to tax gamblers,' Goldman said. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the gambling tax provision would generate over $1.1 billion in additional revenue over eight years, although some question this estimate. 'You're going to have a lot of professional gamblers stop being professional gamblers,' Goldman said. 'It's only $1.1 billion if everyone continues doing the exact same thing as before.' Politicians are scrambling to determine whether they can reverse this change. Monday, Titus introduced the FAIR BET Act, which seeks to restore the 100 percent deduction rate. Titus says there is bipartisan support, but it's too soon to know whether it will truly gain traction. FAIR BET Act by @RepDinaTitus is out. Language gets right to the point. First reported by InGame. — Fairplaygov (@fairplaygov) July 8, 2025 Titus argues this bill is a threat to legal betting and will drive professional gamblers to unregulated, illegal markets. 'We should be encouraging players to properly report their winnings and wager using legal operators,' she said in a statement. 'The Senate change will only push people to not report their winnings and to use unregulated platforms.' 'If (VIP bettors) realize this creates a glass ceiling above them, they won't want to gamble anywhere it would show up on their taxes,' Andrew said. 'All gambling income is taxable, no matter where or how it's done, but regulated gambling definitely is more likely to create a paper trail than offshore or underground gambling.' Advertisement The American Gaming Association, which lobbies for casino and sportsbook operators, initially applauded the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' in a post that drew ire from gamblers online. The organization has since thrown its support behind Titus' legislation. 'We are committed to working with Congresswoman Titus, other congressional leaders, and the Trump Administration to restore the long-standing tax treatment of gaming losses,' an AGA representative told The Athletic. When asked whether the AGA raised concerns about the provision, a representative from Crapo's office told The Athletic, 'The legislative text was released very widely and publicly June 16 via press release, posted on the website, reported on, etc. The American Gaming Association raised concerns with Sec. 899 of the bill. Not the 90 percent threshold.' 'If they didn't know of the tax change language between June 16, when it was published by the Senate Finance Committee, and when it hit social media around July 1, that's pretty damning,' Andrews said.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Colorado's Deion Sanders pushing for college football salary cap
NIL has dramatically altered the college sports landscape. Now that colleges are allowed to pay student-athletes, players can often go to the highest bidder — usually a Power 5 program. That's why Colorado head coach and Pro Football Hall of Famer Deion Sanders is calling for a salary cap in college football. Speaking at Big 12 Media Day on Wednesday, Sanders explained why schools without deep financial resources are at a disadvantage when trying to attract elite talent. Advertisement 'I wish there was a cap. Like, the top-of-the-line player makes this, and if you're not that type of guy, you know you're not going to make that. That's what the NFL does,' said Sanders. 'So the problem is, you got a guy that's not that darn good, but he could go to another school and they give him a half-a-million dollars. You can't compete with that. And it don't make sense.' Sanders pointed to the programs that routinely make the College Football Playoff — like Alabama, Texas, and Ohio State — as examples of schools that can afford to spend tens of millions on incoming freshman classes. That kind of financial muscle, he said, creates a lopsided playing field Advertisement 'All you have to do is look at the playoffs and see what those teams spent and you understand darn near why they're in the playoffs,' he said. 'It's kind of hard to compete with somebody who's giving $25–30 million to a darn freshman class. It's crazy.' Sanders continued: 'What's going on right now don't make sense. We want to say stuff but we're trying to be professional, but you're going to see the same teams darn near the end, with somebody who sneaks up in there, but the teams that pays the most is going to be there in the end.' Colorado had two of the highest NIL earners in college football in 2024 in Travis Hunter and Shedeur Sanders, who are now in the NFL with the Jacksonville Jaguars and Cleveland Browns, respectively. The university also shut down its NIL collective before the House v. NCAA settlement, which now allows schools to directly pay athletes across all sports a combined $22 million annually. In his second season at Colorado, Deion Sanders led the Buffaloes to a 9–4 record after going 4–8 in his first year. It was a solid 2024 campaign — Hunter won the Heisman Trophy, and Colorado finished 25th in the final AP Top 25 poll. However, with the departures of Hunter and Shedeur Sanders, expectations have cooled for the 2025 season. Advertisement Related Headlines
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Padres get horrible Scott Boras news regarding Dylan Cease's future in San Diego
Unfortunately, the San Diego Padres find themselves in that weird position, where they have an opportunity to win a World Series, but may also lose some of their top players in the offseason. With Dylan Cease available on the free agency market during this upcoming winter, it remains uncertain what the Padres plan to do. Advertisement However, as a Scott Boras client, it's almost certain that he'll be available for teams to bid on, unless the Padres come in with an offer over the next few months before he hits free agency that blows him and Boras out of the water. Despite that, Dennis Lin of The Athletic doesn't expect that to be the case, adding that every team around the league could use him, and that he's "almost certainly gone." 'Cease is a Scott Boras client, and every team could use him. In other words, he's almost certainly gone. King's weird injury might have increased the chances of his staying, but for now, I'd still put those odds at well under 50 percent. Suarez will be 35 next season, and he's had elbow issues in the past. The Padres would be wise to let him explore free agency,' he wrote. MORE: All-Star Red Sox outfielder 'makes the most sense' for Padres at trade deadline Advertisement The Padres likely understood that when Cease hit the open market, they'd have a tough time keeping him. Had the Padres been playing a bit better, it'd be easier to justify giving a starter the type of money that he'll command on the market. However, even then, it isn't as if Cease has been great this year, with a 4.62 ERA. He has 121 strikeouts in 97.1 innings and a 3.41 FIP, suggesting that he's been very unlucky, but the base numbers haven't exactly been ideal regarding the ERA. MORE MLB NEWS:
