First Call: Antonio Brown is actually 100% right about something. Lyke on gambling. Fitzgerald on Blue Jays.

Friday’s “First Call” tackles three big topics before we hit the weekend. College sports gambling. Why the Toronto Blue Jays were snubbed in Pittsburgh. And Antonio Brown — for perhaps the first time in his life — may have a point.

When Himmothy is right, Himmothy is right

Here’s something I bet you never thought you’d read from me regarding Antonio Brown.

The guy is 100% correct.

As predicted by yours truly, it appears that Antonio Brown ended his 48-hour retirement on Thursday. He apparently wants to get back in the NFL. And he’s tired of the league using the ongoing investigation of his alleged sexual assault allegations and witness intimidation as a stall tactic to keep him away from the game.

View this post on Instagram

@nfl I have complied with each and every ask of your investigations throughout the past 11 months. You have had access to all of my phones, you know what the deal is in each and every situation that the media has distorted. I have been seeing the therapist you asked me to, I have worked on all aspects of my life this past year and have become a better man because of it. The fact that you refuse to provide a deadline and the reason for the fact you won’t resolve your investigations is completely unacceptable. I demand you provide me clarity on this situation immediately if you really care about my wellbeing. My legal team continues to ask and you provide no answers. How is it that the league can just drag it’s feet on any investigation it chooses on players and we just have to sit there in limbo? Need an update so I can talk to these teams properly, they’re waiting on you @nfl let’s get this thing moving! We’ve got history to make!! #Himmothy

A post shared by AB (@ab) on Jul 22, 2020 at 7:26pm PDT

What can I say? This physically pains me to write, but I agree with A.B. on this matter.

He’s been suspended since the start of Week 3 last year. Unless the league knows something we don’t about Brown failing to comply with their outside guidelines for reinstatement, what more are they waiting on before making a ruling about his availability (or lack thereof) as a free agent to be signed by a team?

Look, I get where the league is coming from. The NFL sees Brown as toxic. They want to keep him as far away from the product as possible. But I’d still bet that some team will investigate signing him, once they know what the length of suspension will be.

Even if it’s a year, somebody will consider him in 2021.

But what kind of precedent does the league think it is setting? Action through inaction? All that it is doing is frustrating any team that may want to sign the guy.

The funny thing is, as we all know, the NFL sets its own course for discipline all the time anyway. Whether that’s Spygate, DeflateGate, Ben Roethlisberger, Ray Rice, the second Spygate, BountyGate, Greg Hardy, Josh Gordon or Aldon Smith.

Put on your blindfold. Spin the wheel. Throw darts. Swing for the piñata and see what happens.

So if they think Brown should be suspended for eight games at this point and then they find out something worse between now and when he comes back, just go ahead and make it 16.

There’s just as much precedent for that as there is not making a ruling at all for almost a full season.

Chris Simms and Mike Florio agreed on ProFootballTalk.com. And I think their analysis nailed it.

I never thought I’d say this, but I’m (gulp) on Mr. Big Chest’s side here.

Feckless Fitzgerald

Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald went on 93.7 The Fan on Thursday to talk about Gov. Tom Wolf’s decision to halt the Toronto Blue Jays from playing at PNC Park.

Fitzgerald was asked by host Colin Dunlap if he was in favor of the Blue Jays playing in Pittsburgh, which appeared to be fast tracking on a team level and a Major League Baseball level, prior to the governor blocking the process.

“I wasn’t against it,” Fitzgerald said. “I was kinda conditionally for it.”

Wow, Rich, hot take. “Kinda conditionally for it,” eh? Way to take a stand!

We all know what that condition was. The condition was that Wolf had to be in favor of it first, and he wasn’t. Wolf is a Democrat. And Fitzgerald is a Democrat, catering to the higher-ranking guy in the party for the sake of keeping the political house in order.

By his own admission, Fitzgerald says the potential existed for an economic boost for the struggling hotel and food industries with the added influx of games that would’ve been played here, between constant housing for the Jays and all the visiting teams coming from out of town.

Fitzgerald even said he thought the approach from MLB to contain the threat of coronavirus spread from visiting players was sound.

“The plan that Pirates and Major League Baseball had in place made some sense,” Fitzgerald said. “They were going to isolate the Blue Jays in one hotel. They were going to isolate the visiting teams in one hotel. They were segregating the locker room and workout facilities.”

Right. So why not push back against Harrisburg instead of just falling in line on the topic if you were for it — under other “conditions?”

I mean, that’s supposed to be your job, isn’t it? To lobby for your region, rather than be a local ombudsman for the governor just because you have the same political allegiances?

Pittsburgh mayor Bill Peduto was similarly wishy-washy when Dunlap approached him about the matter on Twitter.

It never got to the local level. Had DOH supported the decision, it would’ve gone to the SEA (who owns the building) for review of sub-lease agreement & approval. Our interaction, to this point, has been minimal. https://t.co/YEK1Qbhh6D

— bill peduto (@billpeduto) July 22, 2020

So, what’s Peduto saying there? If it’s something he wanted for the city, he wasn’t going to give that opinion to the governor until he had to? Why not initiate “the interaction” then, Mr. Mayor? Or was he just “conditionally supportive” like Fitzgerald said?

I’ll give Fitzgerald credit for one thing, anyway. During the interview, he admitted that there was an element of added “risk” versus reward on the Blue Jays front. That being, the benefit may not have been worth opening up the park to an out-of-town club, where as at least the Pirates are a hometown entity and business.

Previously, the state didn’t even have enough gumption to speak that plainly on it. At least Fitzgerald did.

Whether or not you agree with that logic is up to you.

Who wants to give her the bad news?

On Wednesday, Pitt Athletic Director Heather Lyke gave testimony in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, hoping to launch awareness and support for the prohibition of gambling on college sports.

She answered questions about that stance from reporters Thursday.

“I think we all recognize that gambling is omnipresent in our country,” Lyke said via TribLive’s Jerry DiPaola. “But the addition of college gambling is on a different level.”

Is it? Is it really? Or is this just an extension of the same level it was already on? And I’d question the word “addition” there, too. College sports isn’t being “added.” The only thing that was added in recent years was the ability for it to be done legally in certain states.

As Yahoo.com points out, “Since a federal law banning sports wagering across the country was repealed in 2018 and left for states to legalize sports betting, betting on sports is legal in 18 states. Multiple states have rules against betting on schools located in them and Lyke cited those restrictions as a reason why gambling on college sports should be outlawed everywhere.”

And as Lyke described in her testimony, “New York allows sports wagering on college sports generally, but prohibits wagering on New York college sports teams or on any collegiate sports taking place in the state of New York.

New York may not take a bet on a Syracuse game or a college tournament at Madison Square Garden, but it will allow bets on Pitt vs. Clemson.”

Right. And not only that, gambling on college sports has been possible for years via apps and offshore accounts — let alone the under-the-table stuff with the local bookie.

“There is more exposure,” Lyke added. “If you were a bookie (before social media), you had to figure out a way to get in touch with the student-athlete. You had to hang out at a stadium and see them leaving and walking to their car or see them walk across campus or try to figure out how to connect to their buddy or roommate or classmate.

“Now, with devices, they can just follow them on any of their social media platforms. The proliferation of online betting makes it simply so easy to turn your college football stadium into a mini-casino.”

What year does Lyke think it is? 2020 or 1980? There’s nothing new here. This has been an ongoing argument for years, and it has largely been believed that nefarious gambling activity is going to find college athletes — or athletes will find it — whether it’s legalized in a given state or not.

According to DiPaola’s account, Lyke said the ACC and its 15 member institutions oppose gambling on their games.

It makes me wonder if something fishy happened somewhere in the ACC that hasn’t fully come out yet that’s a big deal and the conference is trying to get ahead of it.

Otherwise, this feels like an attempt to put billions of dollars of toothpaste back into a billion-dollar tube — at a time when there are much bigger issues afoot.

Like, you know, if there will actually be games to bet on in the first place because of the coronavirus pandemic.