warning the people of kenya that they should be prepared for a long war. the next crew of the international space station took flight. >> one american joined the three current members. the 3-man crew that launched will receive the olympic torch on the space station and that will be used during the opening ceremonies of the winter olympics in russia. the space station is set to dock later tonight. >> those are the headlines. consider this is up next. for the latest, check out the website. >> the u.s. senate sees another showdown over obamacare. in the latest move texas senator ted crews ended his almost day-long speech. consider this when all is said and done what impact will all the hot air from both sides on the hill actually have on obamacare. we'll ask minnesota congressman keith ellison. if iranian president hassan rouhani can't meet briefly with president obama, what hope should we hold out for diplomacy with iran. is it a big step back. we'll ask someone that had dinner with hassan rouhani. >> 28 football college football players did something - uniting to sent a message that reform is needed. is the harsh backlash the players received part of the problem. i'm antonio mora, welcome to consider this. >> the senate floor is the battle ground over obamacare. the latest skirmish featured a lot of talk but did nothing to slow momentum to key votes and a shutdown. >> if one reads the "new york times," one would expect that i'm leaning over, biding my colleagues... >> senator ted cruz took to the senate floor on tuesday before three in the afternoon. >> i appreciate the senator from kansas's observations that in his judgment we have not conducted ourselves in that way. >> he spoke for over 21 hours. >> anyone trying to make this a battle of personalies is trying to change the topic from the topic that should matter. whether or not obamacare is helping the american people. mr president, if you focus on the substance, the evidence overwhelming. this law is a train wreck. >> his marathon stall tactic was intended to demonstrate his opposition to obamacare, but delay senate democrats from stripping the provision that defunds obamacare from the spending bill and sending it to the house. harry reid called cruz's speech a big waste of time. >> it's a shame we are standing here having wasted perhaps two days - most of yesterday and a good part of today. when we could pass what we need to pass quickly. >> a "new york times" and cbs news poll found 80% of americans think it's unacceptable for the president or congress to threaten a government shutdown as a way to negotiate. there's little partisan divide. democrats, republicans and independence feel it's not acceptable. after cruz stopped speaking the senate voted to open debate. they are likely to send a bill back to the house with the funding of obamacare removed. with the clock ticking it remains to be seen, even if the house and senate comes to turns, if a government shutdown can be avoided. the republicans say they are ready to take up the obamacare debt fight again. >> for more i'm joined from washington dc by representative keith ellison, democratic member of minnesota and member of the house congress. do you want to address what happened in the senate. ted cruz wrapped up a 21 hour speech, a phil buster of sorts. he was trying to rally opponents so senate members wouldn't amend a bill before sending it to the house? what do you think, if anything, that the senator accomplished? >> i think he proved conclusively that he doesn't want a lot of people to have health care coverage. he demonstrated that the 30 million that will get health care because of obamacare, he doesn't want them to have it. that's pretty much all he did. >> is it as limited as that? he has an argument that there are issues with obamacare, and something needs to be done to fix them. >> there's never been a piece of legislation that didn't need some refine. as you move forward in time. if you look at the 1964 civil rights act it didn't have voting in it or housing. yet we came back in "65 and 68 to include the provision, and we reauthorise the bills all the time. it's no shock that the affordable care act needs to be revised, revisited and improved. that's not what he's doing, he wants to repeal it, take it away. the one thing he did prove is that he doesn't want to see a lot of americans get health care coverage, he doesn't want to see seniors filling a dough nut hole and have lower drug prices or see young parents stay on parents' insurance until they are 26. i have a young woman intern at my office. she has a rare serious disease. without the limit on life-time caps, she could not get covered, and she probably wouldn't be with us. the fact is when i look into her eyes - a young person, bright, full of life - she needs health care coverage and got it because of the affordable care act. ted cruz wants to take it away. it's a serious problem. >> you make a fair point that he's trying to defund this. they have talked about other alternatives that wouldn't take away necessarily all the specific things you were talking about. let's move forward. now that the sirnt rejected, the senate devoted to go forward and debate the bill that defunds obamacare. the senate scheduled 30 hours on the measure, starting wednesday, thursday the senate is supposed to vote on the spending bill. presumably it will be against it, along party lines. on saturday the senate will likely vote on a new bill that senate majority leader harry reid came up with, hunting the government, restoring obamacare funding. leaving sunday and monday for the house to vote that into law. then it goes to the senate for approval - all has to be done before tuesday, by monday night, if not the government shuts down. given the intransgens on both sides, are you concerned of a government shutdown. >> i'm an optimist. i believe we understand here in congress how serious it would be for it to shut down a government. not only would it shake the confidence of american people, it would lay off people, it would harm and make a meaningful difference in the lives of citizens who depend upon government services. i'm hoping we'll stay here, do our job, stick to what our responsibilities are and we are going to fund the government. >> do you think that right now as things stand, it seems that republicans probably will accept - house republicans will accept the senate bill and leave further back and forth about the negotiations over the shutdown for the debt ceiling, which that vote will have to come out by the middle of october. >> well, i think republicans know that shutting down a government is not a winning formula for them, from a political standpoint and they caused harm to their brand when they literally caused damage to america's debt, their bond rating in august 2011. so i think that they are going to see the light and we'll do the right thing. i'm not guaranteeing that. they have people in their caucus who are quite unusual in their points of view. we are going to stick together and we are going to push forward and do what's right for the american people - shutting down the government and ruining america's bond rating and not paying debts is not good for america. i'll do what i can to avoid it. >> you have a point about the popularity, according to the latest "new york times" cbs news poll, 16% of adults saying threatening to shut down the government should occur... . >> i respect your point of view, that is said often, but democrats have been working hard to come to an agreement. our position has been let's fund the government and pay our debts. i don't think it's a both sides-type situation. >> the senate democrats couldn't come up with a budget bill until this year. the one passed was 50-49 - had very little support in general. there has been a significant issue on both sides when it comes to the budget. you sent a letter to the senate leadership on monday along with your co-chair that asked for a budget resolution bringing spending up to its level before the sequester took effect last marge. you said, "we can not support funding levels that add to the extensive damage caused by the se confer of.". >> that's true. >> -- sequester.". >> that's true. >> if you take that position, some argue that's as stream as the tea party is? >> no, it's not. i appreciate your point of view. you have to understand we come from 535 different districts. we have different points of view we have to represent. our constituents expect us to raise our points of view, argue for what we believe in and at the end of the day come to an agreement around how to make america successful. that means that everybody has to give a little bit. we have never said we shouldn't do that. we believe that, but you have to understand that it is representative democracy, the nature of the system, that members will come to congress and represent the points of view they believe in. >> let me be the devil's advocate. are you criticising the others for doing the same thing. you know that your bill has no chance of passing. is that the same thing as the tea party taking on an extreme side, satisfying your base to try to get to a middle ground negotiating. is that what is happening? >> no, sir. we are representing the point of view, one, that we believe in. that's a similarity. at the end of the day we are not going to default on america's bonds and break our promise to the men people to have a funded government. we are going to reach a point where we are going to live up to our responsibilities, negotiate in good faith, and arrive at what makes sense. now, nobody sends us to congress to abandon the principles that we go here for, but they expect us with our principles in mind to come up with answers for the american peep. that is very different from threatening to default on america's debt by breaking the debt ceiling and shutting down a government. that is saying we believe in our principles, we'll stick to them. at the end of the day we'll come to a point of agreement that is reasonable and fair. >> are you okay with that? >> that's what our government is. >> are you okay with what governor reid is trying to do, it will be a funded bill funding through november, but we'll go through the battle in november? >> do you know what, i believe we should fund the government for a term that americans can rely on. i don't like the short-term funding bills. if it's the best we can do, we have to deal with that. i don't prefer the short funding bills. it puts us in the same soup a short time from now. what he wants to do is get past the debt ceiling debate. that may be what he has in mind. the short-term patches don't really give americans a chance to plan. imagine being a fellow employ... >> it seems you guys don't have a chance to plan you spend so much time on negotiations that virtually nothing else gets down. >> exactly. >> let's change gears, i want to talk about something important you to and all americans. this week we saw the terrible pictures from nairobi, where the fighters from somali group al-shabab took over the westgate mall, killing 72 people, perhaps many more. earlier this year you went to somalia, and you told the miniappo lass "star tribune" that al-shabab was reduced to a guerilla outquit. you have a lot of somalians in your district. now you have seen al-shabab, what do you think of their reach and power? >> i maintain they are a straight weakened group. if they could have struck in mogadishu or somalia, they would have tried to. they went to a soft target outside of nairobi, because that is where people didn't have their guard up. it's because the somali government, which is on its feet and operating - it has a long way to go, but they've made a lot of progress. because of that they weren't able to strike in somalia. the sad fact is as somalia gets stronger, i expect al-shabab will look for vulnerable targets outside of somalia. that is a tragedy, and that's why the international community has to stay strong in terms of sharing information and going after al-shabab. >> i still maintain that if they could have struck in somalia, they would have. the fact that they didn't indicates that they didn't. it's cold comfort to the people in somalia, and my heart goes out to them. we need to keep the pressure on al-shabab, and keep the supporting kenya. >> if they strike outside somalia, the concern that's raised, your district, as many as 20 in your district have returned to somalia at some point, some dying for al-shabab. you thought al-shabab recruitment drive, their recruitment drives in their state are over. are you concerned that they are not, and some of these young men could strike in the united states? >> well, what i meant is not that their recruitment was over, but they haven't been successful recently. of course, we have to stay vigilant. we have to make sure that we are talking to our young people, that we are gathering intelligence, that we have to let young people know that al-shabab is nowhere, that they are not offering a future. they are offering only death, destruction and hatred. and that they have to be rejected and their philosophy is bankrupt. we have to give young people alternatives, making sure they don't slip through the tracks, and are not vulnerable to the message that al-shabab was pushing towards them. one of the things that al-shabab was trying to do was provoke an overreaction so they could claim that they are standing up for some articlies. this is not true, this claim they are trying to make, that they are standing up for somalis or muslims is false. they are a neo-group of murderers. >> an important point. keith ellison, thank you for joining us on consider this today. >> coming up iranian president hassan rouhani seems to be reaching out to the world. after skipping a chance to shake hands with the president, how sincere are his words. we'll ask jim walsh, who just finished having dinner with the new president of hassan rouhani. >> our producer is fielding your questions and she'll bring them to it. join the conversation on twitter, facebook and google+ pages. we'll we right back. a >> much was made of the handshake that never happened between president obama and iranian president hassan rouhani. the so-called snub belies the reality of a charm offensive that the "new york times" calls hassan rouhani-mania. a dinner party was hosted at a hotel. two dozen people were invited, including a former white house chief of staff, security advisor, diplomats and jim walsh. an international security expert at nyt security analysis program. what struck you the most? what was the most important thing you saw? >> two things. one we'll talk about later. this guy is not ahmadinejad in a variety of ways. he's a different person in style and inclination and goal. the second thing that came through crystal clear is they want to deal, they want to deal now and get it done and done quick. he wants something to come back to his constituency in tehran and say you voted for change. >> that message came across. >> huge. >> does it feel like he's backed up by the supreme leader. >> i think so. his foreign minister who i have known for years spoke with confidence. if you look at the supreme leaders speeches that he made in the last couple of weeks, it's changed. people have been spectacle. people have gone to him saying, "we want to deal with the united states", he said, "you go do that, when you come back empty handed i won't be surprised." he's scept -- scepticcal but willing to give hassan rouhani some rope. >> you have met him before, you a met ahmadinejad before. >> he was an unusual character. i spent about 20 hours with him. he was going to be the smartest guy in the room, even if he wasn't. he was the center and had to be the center. hassan rouhani is completely different. it's clear because of his political training, it's about a process and getting a result. ahmadinejad gave long answers, this guy is practical, prudent, organised political guy. >> was anything off limits? >> the did you suggest we talked about - israel, women's rights, human rights, afghanistan, nuclear, a gamut of issues. >> what about the handshake? in some meetings, closed door he said he explained - this is a quote from him - a sensitive subject. there are no problems in terms of shaking mr obama's hand and negotiating. we have not talked at that level in 35 years. we did not have time to make that happen. how did he address it tonight? >> i think he said a similar thing. i can't quote directly from the meeting - we have certain rules we are under - the key word, "this is a complicated history", there are a lot of ways for these things to go wrong. he is about results. he was not opposed to meeting obama, but wanted to know it would lead to a result leading to a result leading to a result. >> he's dealing with two constituencies, the hardliners that don't want him going near obama. >> exactly >> but the general public, what do they want? >> the reformed folks, the sent rift the would be open to that. there are a lot in iran with favourable opinions of united states, a lot don't. we threatened to use force and sanctioned them. if folks did that against us, some of us would be upset. >> he mentioned that in his speech before the u.n. the other day. let's talk about the reaction back in iran. >> yes. >> there was a bit of a hollow caused translation issue -- holocaust translation that came up. let's listen to what hassan rouhani said on cnn. >> >> translation: i said i'm not a historian person. any crime that happened in history against humanity, including the crime the nazis committed towards the jews and non-jewish is reprehensible and condemnable." >> a newsagency in iran came out and said cnn fabricated the translation and that's not what it said. cnn said the translator was provided by the iranian government. what does that tell you? >> there are going to be constituencies in iran, hard line, like in the u.s., the last thing either of those folks want is progress in u.s.-iranian negotiations. the foreign minister tweeted isn't it great we don't have a hollow caused -- holocaust tonight. >> we have reaction from social media. >> we have a question - whether hassan rouhani acknowledges the holocaust or not, what difference does it make to israel? >> that's a great question. certainly there are issues between the two countries that remain. they fear one another. they are adversaries. i think that israel and the israeli public felt more threatened by a person who would deny the existence of the holocaust. >> calling for their destruction? >> yes, yes. that reverberates in israel much more so than we'll see with hassan rouhani. >> israeli government document reported on by "the washington post." we brought it up last night, it described hassan rouhani's charm offensive as smile but enrich. pretty much saying what the rainians were doing is stringing us along, giving them time to develop nuclear weapons. >> this argument baffles me every time i hear this. >> why? >> it does not apply. why? they are applying for time argument. a country is not doing something, and during negotiations they do it and string out the negotiations so they can finish the job. that's playing for time. it's not the case. the case here is iran was enriching before negotiations, they'll continue enriching, whether - we haven't had negotiations since 2009. five years. >> will they get to the point where they can have nuclear weapons. >> the top intelligence official in the u.s., dni, director of national intelligence says that iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program, had it before and halted it. they testified they have not made a decision to pursue nuclear weapons, they have a capability that because they enrich they can do it later. they haven't. that's why it's important to put them on a different track. >> hassan rouhani is coming across a grandfatherly. let's listen to him speaking english last night on cnn. >> i would like to say to american people i bring peace and friendship from iranians to americans. >> did he speak english at the dinner? did he come across that way? >> i would say two things. he didn't speak english in his answers, but did not use headphones for transition. he listened to all of us in english, absolutely, and responded in farsi. i would say he's chill in the clip we saw there. tonight we saw different things. at some things he spoke strongly about different parts of the nuclear issue. he's a pretty-even-keeled guy based on the couple of hours i spent. >> was he running the show or the foreign minister. >> it was definitely the president. the foreign minister was there. the president was running late. the foreign minister spoke for several minutes and has command of this portfolio. >> he and secretary of state john kerry on thursday will begin the negotiations. >> yes. >> is the fact that people like you, and many others in this country, because he spent a lot of time in this country, is that a reason so many experts on iran are optimistic. >> i think so. >> is it fair? >> and that is a fair question to ask. because you know someone and you like them, does that mean that they are going to do the right thing? i think the reason why we say that is he's a skilled diplomat. he was associated with helping americans install the hamid karzai government in afghanistan. it was a big success. he was one of the people helping to negotiate the 2003 frieze on iran's nuclear program. that was a success. he knows the issues well. john kerry - i know him, he knows the issues well. same thing. it's a good pairing. >> american people not hopeful according to a "new york times" poll on president obama's handling of iran. it was conducted before the speeches at the un. 39% approve of the president's handling of iran. 44% disapprove and they are dubious about whether relations would improve with iran. people in the room, like you, are they hopeful? >> they are more hopeful. let's be clear - they want a small deal. we are not looking for the big deal. they are looking for a small deal allowing both sides to build momentum. >> initially. >> exactly right. small deal on nuclear that both sides can walk out and be happy with and is the basis for more. all of us who have done this a long time, i don't blame the american people for being skeptical. we had this problem with iran for 30 years. both sides missed opportunities. i saw in the last 10 years there were times when the americans blew it, and times when the irans blew it. there was opportunities lost. would it happen this time? no. it could, but this is as good a shot as these two countries have had in, you know, 10, 15, maybe more years. >> let's hope there's that opportunity and the opportunity is not lost if it's there. jim, appreciate your insights. it must have been a fascinating dinner. >> it was fun. >> next, forget the hype. what impact is obamacare having on small business owners. we'll have two job creators with different reactions to the law. iranians rainians is the pe. finish finiiranians iranians irs >> >> a week-long series on the cost of heath care continues with the exact on small businesses. a new government survey shows premiums nationwide would be 16% less, and 95% of uninsured live in a state where they were be lower than expected. companies with 50 or more employees are required to supply full-time workers with health insurance or face a fine of $2,000 per employee. the first 30 employees will not cause fines, the penalties begin with the 31st employee on up. companies with less than 25 employees get sub-sidies as long as average salaries is less than 55,000 a year. the law is confusing, long and is impacting small business owners in a real way. we are joined by two of them. joe joins us from philadelphia, he runs a printing business, 48 employees, 44 full-time. he pays all health care costs. but he doesn't like the law because it has a host of unknown costs that could force him to expand. >> mike roche likes the law. mike and his wife sell women's clothing and jewellery. he has 12 employees, and qualifies for the sub-sidies. he pays health anyway. >> you have covering your full-time employees full premiums. you say the law is taking away your ability to expand. why does it affect you if you are already paying their coverage? >> my concern is as someone that's voluntarily provided health insurance for the 25 years i run the business, i'm concerned i'm going to be able to do that in the future. the unknowns about the law affect my investment, how willing i am to invest, how aggressive. it's an increase in expenses and i have no idea how to budget for it, because it's a dramatic change. >> mike you have been operating under the law for a few years as a business owner with 12 employees. you've been getting benefits from obamacare. what impact has that had on your costs? >> it has fairly dromenticily decreased -- dramatically decreased costs of providing insures. we received $5,000 a year for three years to offset the cost of employees insurance, in the form of the federal income tax credit available for small businesses with 25 or fewer employees. i might add i would love to see that 25 employee threshold go up to 50 so that businesses, owners like joe, would potentially qualify for those federal income tax credits. >> joe, i'd hate to pit you against each other, but does it accept you that a smaller business like mike's gets the sub siddies and you are not. who should get them? >> it's tough. how do i explain to my employees, if we are bidding against a company that has a lower expense base than ours, they are getting credits from the government and the government is picking winners and losers, rather than letting the market doing so. it winds up hurting some people while it tries to help others. >> to play devil's advocate isn't it easier to like the law when you are getting funds to cover your costs? >> i think it's fair. i tell you, i think that in fairness to small real mum and pop businesses, and we have six employees of our 12 that actually utilise the coverage, because others are covered under their spouses or their parents. we have the negotiating power of six employees which is not much to work with when you are up against your health insurance company. joe has 48, 44 employees - that's a little more leverage, it's not a lot but more than we have with six. so the aca - sorry, the affordable care act has somewhat levelled the playing field for small companies like us that for years sought doubt digit increases in most years for our employees health insurance. >> large companies have more leverage. the law includes an employer mandate, companies with 50 employees have to provide full-time staffers, part-time workers have to work less than 30 hours or the employer has to provide health insurance. you are almost at the 50 threshold. what do you hear from other business owners that are over the 50 employee threshold and how does it affect you too - i know you have part-time workers? >> it has affected by decision. new hires have been from temporary agencies or part-time workers. from business owners i have spoken to, there's huge amounts of concern and so much unknown. many owners have just not had the ability because they are so busy running their business, they don't know what is coming forth in this law. i think as it rolls out it will be more of a shock to certain business owners what their liabilities are, fines, penalties, mandates, higher taxes. they are not aware of that yet. >> we have a viewer question. >> chloe asks do you have moral concerns along with business concerns. we know you have to make money, where is the balance? >> right, as somebody that i have been running the business for 25 years, it's a family-owned business. most of my employees have been with me for 15-20 years, and i consider them family. i want to do what is best for them. that's my concern. i pay 100% of the premiums, i'm concerned i won't be able to do this especially if my competition puts their employees on to the exchanges. i may be forced do so to compete and survive. >> mike, as joe has been saying and we gave some of the information about how this affects small businesses, it can be confuse k. i am sure you have empathy for people that don't know what they are in for. >> absolutely, i'm glad joe brought up the exchanges. the state exchanges hold forth the hope for actually stablilizing for the first time in a long time the cost of health insurance for small business owners and their employees. we have a meeting on 9 october with our insurance broker that we used for five years and will go over all the choices available under our cover oregon health exchange in organ - we are fortunate to have a state that embraced the aca and has a well developed exchange. the exchange will do employee carrier choice, where all six of our employees can each pick a different insurance company that offers the plan that best suits them. we are very excited about that, and we think some of those plans will be lower costs than the ones we've been using. we've been using a one size fits none approach to our employees' health insurance, as probably joe has, because we couldn't afford to have multiple carriers. the exchange will do consolidated billing, where they'll send a bill for each of the six companies that may be chosen by the employees, and we'll write one check per month for the coverage. we are excited about the fact that our employees will get exactly the plan they want. >> the law hasn't gone into effect. there has been tonnes of political back and forth. lots of misinformation on both sides, death panels from the right, a guarantee to keep your doctor from the administration, which has been backing off from that. once the law is settled, do you hope that - or do you think there may be a chance that reality is less scarier than you thought and it's all much ado about nothing? >> i see looking at 2000 pages of legislation, what has been - they backed off on change delay. i'm not optimistic. the exchanges - being from new jersey, we are probably in the top three as far as the most expensive premiums, because it's a heavily regulated state. much of the features in obamacare are in place here, as far as community rated, guaranteed access. that is causing prooemiums to increase over the past 20 years, on average on myself, at least 25% of the year. >> mike, on the flipside are you concern costs may end up higher than you first thought? >> that's always - that's been a concern every year of mine since we started to offer group health insurance. it's important to remember that the pre-affordable care act act for small businesses with horrible in terms of the increases we saw every year. i'm hopeful we can see rate stablilization, and i'm pleased that our employees, the most valuable asset in our business, will meet plans that -- choose plans that suit their needs for the first time in offering insurance. >> mike and joe, i wish you the best in your businesses and dealing with health care for your employees. >> straight ahead, after ted cruz spent 21 hours speaking on the floor. we look at the history of talks, including one that was so long it saved the president's life. we'll explain next. a phil bustfilibuster >> in light of the ted cruz's 21 hour speech today's data dive takes a long look at speeches in senate history. at 21 hours, there's debate over whether it was a filibuster. they spoke far beyond obamacare. reading from dr zeus, and ashton kooucher's teen choice award speech. and quoted "duck dynasty". and others. cruz did not take a bath room break, some suspect he used a diaper. maybe he could be a pitchman for depends. this has been a year of long speeches. rand paul fill bustered in march to delay john brennan's confirmation as cia director. cruz's fellow tex an, wennedie davis filibustered against abortion reform in the state senate for 11 hours, that bill passed in june. >> strong thurman spoke for 24 hours, arguing against the civil rights act. he was one of a team of senators who spent 57 days filibustering the bill which eventually passed. any long speech brings jimmy stuart's crusade against graph with a 24 hour talk in "mr smith goes to washington". >> you all think i'm licked. well i'm not licked. and i'm going to stay right here and fight for this, even if this room is filled with lies like here. >> real-life senators hated the film and tried to ban it in other countries. i guess it hit close to home. in 1912 teddy roosevelt's 90 minute speech helped to save his life before he delivered it. an attempted assassin shot him in the chest. the bullet was slowed bys hi thick coat, steel enforced glasses case and the 50-page speech in his pocket. roosevelt refused a trip to the hospital so he could deliver the script. he told the crowd, "it takes more than that to kill a bull moose", he lost that, but not the bullet which stayed lodged in his rib cage until he died 6.5 years later. >> coming up - college athletes demanding their right to get paid. but should they? kevin ware >> college sports generate more than $6 billion a year. where does that money go, is it properly benefitting college athletes. this past weekend in an unpress dented move 28 college football players wore the letters apu on their yun forms, standing for all players united. a controversial movement calling for reform in college sports. they are facing backlash with georgia tech coach paul johnson taking issue with his players involvement because they did not act with the full endorsement of the team saying: >> sports caster dan posted on twitter that: >> joining us now from portland organ is dave a sports editor. dave, were you surprised that 28 players chose to put up a stand and do this in a public way? >> am i surprised, no, because the level of anger and frustration of athletes in football and basketball has never been higher. i'm surprised at the amount of publicity had received. those three letters that you said - apu - got more social media mentions than scc, south eastern conference, more than the pack 12, big 10, big 12. it captured the imagination of where a lot of people are at, which is thinking the ncaa is a moral sewer, and players are the only people who have the power to affect change. >> well, the movement seems to be growing among the players. so is the criticism. is that by the coaches fair much. >> no. >> should the guys have gone out on a limb and separated from the other players on the teams? >> i remember an interview with a college ath leet five years ago saying when you play ncaa football, it's better to forget you are in america. >> i said, "what do you mean?", he said, "any kind of conception you have of freedom, of the declaration of independence or even that word independence, put it out the window. you are aless person." it's the opposite in many respects of what it's like when you are in the professional ranks. the athletes are organised, they are in unions, have the ability to speak their minds, have contract which are guaranteed. when you play at the college level, you are there at the pleasure of the coach. you and i discussed this before. what people say when you raise the issue of paying college athletes is, "they get a 4-year scholarship", that's not true. they get a one year renewed at the pleasure of the coach. you could be the class president, have a 4.0 gpa, if you don't get the job done on the field, you are out. >> scolarships are not guaranteed for four years. you called for ncaa players to get compensation, referred to what you described as a display of amateurism. do you think college players will organise, unionise and that will help end the charade? >> i think that's definitely the next step. part of the issue is that there is so much money in collegiate sports that there's no incentive to change at the top. the system is not in crisis. it's only in crisis for the players themselves. if you are a coach, if you work for the ncaa. if you are one of the 14 vice presidents making up to 1400 a year, working for mark emmett, making $2 million a year, there's no incentive to change of the the people with the incentive are the players themselves. what is interesting is that the demand that they are putting forward - you and i talk about compensation, they are less about compensation and more about health and education. they want to make sure there are concussion experts on the sideline, trainers at every game. at some games there are no trainers on the sideline. they want commitments about checking players for head injuries on the field, and they want to make sure that if a player gets hurt, they are still entitled to go to class and get their education. >> important reforms, not just on the compensation side. you bring up the numbers talking about the ncaa business - we should call it that - we have a few commissioners making more than a million, coaches making more than $5 million. >> 434,000 student athletes competing. ncaa has revenues of $800 million. ath lettings generating $6. -- athletics generating $6.1 billion for universities. how much of this money, if any, should go to the players? >> you'd need radical structural reform. 95% of athletic departments lose money. 56%, according to recent statistics, of football programs alone lose money. people say, "where is the money coming from to make this happen?" two things can be done - do away with the ncaa bureaucracy, you'll be talking about freeing up millions. the new headquarters and mini p miniyapo lis. schools like ohio state have massive compliance offices making sure that players live up to the rule book. if you did away with that bure okay -- bureaucracy. college professor's incomes are pegged to scales, especially if you worked at a public university. what if they did that to coaches. the top professor at the university of alabama. nick saban football coach, $5.1 million as a base salary. what if the head of the football team is not paid more than the top paid professor. a lot of people have problems with that. the money is there, it's a question of how it's allocated and distributed. >> you bring up an issue of compliance, how it's taking up money. why doesn't the ncaa let the guy the make money. we saw the dust-up about johnny manziel in trouble because he was paid to sign autographs. this happened over and over again. is that a total waste of time. >> yes, my friend, a sports writer, describes it as administrative man's burden, like kipling's whiteman's burden. there's so much language about paternalism. they use phrases like, "we need to protect players from agents and the marketplace. the question is why. no one tried to protect jodie foster from the marketplace when she was a student at yale from acting. or the williams sisters from playing tennis. when they were teenagers, making money, the idea that they can't fend for themselves, but they can fend for themselves with a full class load basically being a campus employee, flying around the country, making sure to use butter on the bagles, not cream cheese, because that's an ncaa violation - that's true, that's a rule, butter is okay, cream cheese is not. they manage all of that as 19-year-olds, but can't manage to get their face on a cereal box. >> we have a social media comment. >> when are players going to boycott bowls and the final four. is that what it will take for the ncaa to finally change its policies? >> the answer is absolutely. roughly 89% of the ncaa's budget comes from the final four alone, from the basketball tournament known as march madness, it has more people betting on it. it's the biggest extravaganza in sport. if the best player walked on to court, took off the sneakers and said, "we are not going to play until we get a piece of this. the system would crack like an egg. the issue is that a lot of players feel like they are powerless. that makes the apu so important. you heard it. >> one thing that always comes to my mind is where do you go with this. if athletes are paid, does it turn into a negotiating game. who is paid more. the quarter back or the lion backer. what happens to people who play other sports. all the money - does it come out of the other athletic programs, what about the other sports. what happens to all that money. >> terrific questions. sometimes, to be honest with you i answer it by saying, "that's above my pay grade", i think there's a way to understand and figure it out. if you free up the funds taken up by the bure okay rahsy of the nca: if you free up the funds going to paying tonnes of assistant coaches, you'd have enough to treat all athletes on a campus as if it is their work study. instead of working for 10 hours a week in the book store, you are contributing back to the atmosphere to the school. everyone gets a form of compensation, whether revenue producers or not. those who are becoming famous, really, producing their own brand like a johnny manziel, if people are willing to pay $100 for an autoio graph for their name, it violates a basic pre-september of living in the country -- precept of living in the country. your name is your name. this is you. >> some other athletes can play in the summer time, making money doing that. there are limitations on that too. this discussion will continue as we saw this weekend, to heat up. we'll stay on top of it. thank you for coming on. >> my privilege. >> the show may be over, but the conversation continues on the website. or on facebook or google+ pages. you can go to twitter. see you next time. good evening, welcome to al jazeera. here are the top stories. congress gets down to the debate over the budget with only days to stop a government shut down. secretary of state john kerry prepares for historic talks wittalks with iran. he's more pleased than the international community as a whole. >> a cautious tony blare said to trust but verify iran's intentions. >> and team usa coming away with a historic cup and a story book