Connect with us

News

The 2024 NCAA football championship, brought to you by … California?

Published

on

The 2024 NCAA football championship, brought to you by … California?

The Washington Huskies, seen here celebrating with the trophy after beating the Texas Longhorns in the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, quickly rebuilt its roster by using transfers and players from out of state — particularly California.

Sean Gardner/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Sean Gardner/Getty Images


The Washington Huskies, seen here celebrating with the trophy after beating the Texas Longhorns in the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, quickly rebuilt its roster by using transfers and players from out of state — particularly California.

Sean Gardner/Getty Images

When the Michigan Wolverines and Washington Huskies face off in the College Football Playoff National Championship on Monday night, a third state is being exceptionally well represented: California.

In fact, football fans in California can claim more players in the title game than their counterparts in either Michigan or Washington, according to the teams’ listings of their players’ hometowns.

Advertisement

Both of the undefeated teams rely on out-of-state talent for more than half of their players, according to their published rosters.

Where do the players come from?

Just 34 Wolverines are listed as being from Michigan on its roster, which runs to 143 players. That means in-state players make up around 24% of the team.

Washington’s roster lists 120 players, and just a few more Huskies hail from the Apple State (42) than from California (38).

With Michigan counting 11 players from California and none from Washington state, that brings the California contingent in the national title game to 49 players — the most of any state.

Washington’s team does have two players from Michigan, pushing Michigan’s total in the big game to 36 athletes. No Wolverines’ home towns are listed as being in Washington state.

Advertisement

Is this a new trend?

Top college teams have been scouting and attracting talent around the U.S., and beyond, for years. But a look at these two teams shows how that trend has evolved — especially when we compare their current rosters to their championship teams of the 1990s.

Michigan’s roster from 1997, when it last won it all, shows 48 players from in-state, on a roster with 116 names, or about 41% of the total squad. But back then, the out-of-state recruiting effort seemed to focus on Ohio — where it signed 10 players, including Charles Woodson.

The 1997 Wolverines also recruited in other big states known to produce talented athletes, such as Texas (9 players) and Florida (5 players). But it had just four players from California — including Tom Brady, who was then playing behind Brian Griese of Florida.

Washington’s 1991 championship roster, or at least the one it printed at the start of the year (a later version wasn’t available online), is much more similar — up to a point — to the makeup of today’s roster.

The 1991 team included 49 players from California and 60 from Washington, meaning that around 44% of the roster was home-grown. But as we’ll see below, Washington has also relied on a new strategy to win: recruiting transfers from other schools.

Advertisement

How big a role do the out-of-state players play?

They have been crucial, for both Michigan and Washington.

Looking at Washington’s player stats for the 2023 season, a core of key athletes all hail from other states, from Heisman finalist Michael Penix Jr., who is from the Tampa, Fla., area, to otherworldly wide receiver Rome Odunze, who went to high school in Las Vegas.

Edge rusher Bralen Trice, out of Phoenix, has seven sacks to lead the Huskies. Running back Dillon Johnson, a Mississippi native, scored 16 touchdowns for the Huskies — but his status has been in question for the final, due to an injury in the last minute of the Sugar Bowl win over No. 3 Texas a week ago.

Michigan’s player stats for the 2023 season tell a similar story, most emphatically in the rushing column, led by running back Blake Corum — one of five Wolverines from Virginia, and who scored a touchdown against Alabama to help Michigan reach the title game.

None of this is to say homegrown players don’t also help their teams. Highly regarded cornerback Will Johnson — whose side of the field often gets tellingly quiet during games — is from Detroit, for instance.

Advertisement

But the Wolverines’ leading tackler is linebacker Junior Colson of Brentwood, Tenn.; its leading receiver is Roman Wilson of Maui, Hawaii. Its imposing defense relies on players from Tampa, Fla. (edge rusher Jaylen Harrell), Olney, Md. (defensive tackle Kris Jenkins), and Everett, Mass. (defensive back Mike Sainristil), and elsewhere.

It’s not unusual for highly coveted athletes to join programs outside their home state. Since 2010, for instance, just two Heisman winners — Johnny Manziel and Robert Griffin III — have won the trophy playing in the same state where they went to high school.

What about the transfer portal?

Michigan and Washington arrived at the national title game by playing to different strengths. The Wolverines rely on elite defense and control at the line of scrimmage, while the Huskies deploy an offense led by Penix and a corps of talented receivers.

But while both teams look far and wide to find talented players, one of them — Washington — also performed a quick turnaround thanks to another strategy: the transfer portal.

Washington is playing for it all just two years after going 4-8 in the 2021-2022 season. After that losing record, it hired Kalen DeBoer — a talented head coach who arrived in the same year the NCAA’s transfer rules changed to no longer require a player who switches schools for the first time to sit out one year before suiting up.

Advertisement

The list of transfers making an impact at Washington is long. It starts with Penix, who came most recently from Indiana, but it also includes Johnson, who came from Mississippi State; and defensive back Jabbar Muhammad, who led the Huskies in interceptions after coming from Oklahoma State.

Why does any of this matter?

The title teams’ rosters show how college football is becoming an ever more-professionalized sport, dominated by state colleges that have become burgeoning national brands. These days, alumni are routinely hit up to send money to line the pockets of potential star players through name, image and likeness deals. And in the transfer era, recruiting no longer stops when a player graduates college.

Also, in a year that has become the swan song of the PAC-12, it’s worth noting that while the venerable conference finally has a team in the college football playoff final, the state of California is finally also involved — but only because it produced athletes for out-of-state programs to recruit.

It’s particularly poignant because Washington is poised to leave the PAC-12 to join Michigan in the Big Ten — a move that helped put the heralded “conference of champions” into what has been described as a death spiral.

Still, this year’s title game is a stark contrast to last year’s, when both contenders’ rosters were dominated by homegrown players. In that game, Texas Christian University listed some 79 players from Texas. On the other sideline, the Bulldogs listed 77 players from Georgia on their 2022 roster.

Advertisement

Another perennial contender, Alabama, is more similar to Michigan in recruiting far beyond its borders. In the 2021-2022 season, when the Crimson Tide last played in the title game, it did so with a roster of 128 players — 43 of whom were from Alabama, or about 34% of the squad.

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending