Please sir, I want some more: Make Jalopnik your go-to on Google Search

You know that feeling when you want more of a specific flavor — be it extra gravy with your fry-up or another Jalopnik teardown of the latest electric crossover? Google’s new “preferred sources” feature lets you feed that appetite directly into Search so your favorite outlets show up more often in Top Stories. If Jalopnik is your jam, here’s how to make it show up more when you hunt for car news, reviews, or the latest automotive chaos.

Why this matters right now

• Google recently rolled out a Preferred Sources option in Search’s Top Stories, letting users prioritize outlets they trust. This isn’t about blocking other voices — it’s about nudging the algorithm toward the sites you love. (blog.google)
• Publishers (including Jalopnik) are encouraging readers to add them as preferred sources because it helps visibility and keeps traffic flowing in a world where discovery has fragmented across platforms. (jalopnik.com)
• For readers, it’s a small personalization that yields a more relevant stream of reporting when searching breaking topics — especially useful for fast-moving beats like cars, tech, and motorsports. (tomsguide.com)

Quick takeaways

• The feature appears in Google Search’s Top Stories and can be accessed from the star/card icon or from a central preferences page.
• You can add as many preferred sources as you like; changes sync to your Google account.
• Adding Jalopnik helps surface more of its articles in searches where Top Stories appear — but you’ll still see other outlets too.

How to add Jalopnik as a preferred source (two easy ways)

1. Via a direct Jalopnik link (fastest)

• Click the link Jalopnik provides in their article or site post (they often include a direct link to the Google “Set your preferred sources” tool). Once on Google’s preferences page, type “Jalopnik,” tick the checkbox, and save. Jalopnik’s article highlights this shortcut for readers who want a one-click route. (jalopnik.com)

2. From a Google Search results page (discover-as-you-go)

• Search Google for a current car-related topic (for example: “2024 Kia Sorento review” or “EV recalls”). When Top Stories appears, look for the small stacked-card/star icon to the right of the Top Stories header. (tomsguide.com)
• Click that icon to open the “Choose your preferred sources” dialog. Type “Jalopnik” into the search box, check the box next to the publication, then tap “Reload results” to see Top Stories refreshed with your selections. (blog.google)

Tips for getting the best results

• Make sure you’re signed into your Google account — preferences tie to your account and sync across devices.
• Use high-news queries (current events, trending car models, recalls, racing results) to trigger Top Stories and the star icon if you don’t see it for everyday searches.
• Add several sources you trust, not just one; users often pick multiple outlets to keep perspective while prioritizing favorites. Google’s early testers typically added four or more. (blog.google)
• If you change your mind, you can always remove or edit preferred sources from the same dialog or via Google Search personalization settings.

What this means for readers and publishers

• For readers: more of what you like. If Jalopnik’s voice — cranky, irreverent, detail-hungry car coverage — is what you want, Preferred Sources nudges Search to serve it up more often.
• For publishers: a way to court loyal readers directly inside the platform that still sends huge referral traffic. It’s also a reminder that discovery is a two-way street: publishers must keep producing content that readers want to prioritize. (theverge.com)

A couple of caveats

• Preferred sources don’t mean exclusive results. Google will still show other outlets; the feature simply increases the prominence of your chosen sources when relevant.
• Rollout and availability have been region-limited as Google expands the feature; if you don’t see the star icon yet, try updating the Google app or checking your account settings. (theverge.com)

My take

There’s a small, almost comforting delight in tailoring the internet to your tastes — like asking for an extra helping at a diner and being handed exactly what you wanted. Google’s Preferred Sources is that small favor writ large: it doesn’t rewrite the menu, but it nudges the kitchen to plate more of your favorite dish. If Jalopnik’s the publication that makes you laugh, think, and occasionally spit-take coffee when reading about automotive absurdity, this is an easy move to make your searches feel a little more like home.

Sources

• How To Add Jalopnik As A Preferred Source On Google. Jalopnik.
  https://www.jalopnik.com/2076831/how-add-jalopnik-google-preferred-sources/ (jalopnik.com)

• Preferred sources — Google Search blog. Google.
  https://blog.google/products/search/preferred-sources/ (blog.google)

• Google is adding a new way to personalize the news you see. The Verge.
  https://www.theverge.com/news/757979/google-search-preferred-sources-launch-top-stories (theverge.com)

• How to set preferred sources in Google Search results. Tom’s Guide.
  https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/googles-new-feature-lets-you-customize-search-to-show-sites-you-trust-how-to-use-preferred-sources (tomsguide.com)

• How to add preferred news sources to Google Top Stories. Kiplinger.
  https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/how-to-add-your-favorite-news-sources-to-google-top-stories (kiplinger.com)

When prediction markets meet college sports: who should hit pause?

The headline landed like a buzzer-beater nobody asked for: on January 14, 2026, the NCAA asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to suspend prediction markets from offering trades on college sports until stronger guardrails are put in place. That request — delivered in a letter from NCAA president Charlie Baker and amplified at the NCAA Convention — pulls into sharp focus a fast-moving collision between financial innovation, fan engagement, and the fragile integrity of amateur athletics.

This isn't just a regulatory squabble. It touches students, coaches, parents, regulators, market operators and every fan who cares whether a game is decided on the field or by outside incentives.

What happened and why it matters

• The NCAA formally asked the CFTC on January 14, 2026 to pause collegiate sports markets operated by prediction-market platforms. (espn.com)
• Prediction markets let users buy and sell contracts on yes/no outcomes (for example: “Will Player X enter the transfer portal?”). They are federally regulated by the CFTC, and many platforms argue they are distinct from state-licensed sportsbooks. (espn.com)
• The NCAA’s key concerns include:
  • Age and advertising restrictions (prediction markets are often available to 18+ users nationwide, unlike sportsbooks where many jurisdictions set 21+). (espn.com)
  • Stronger integrity monitoring and mandatory incident reporting (sportsbooks in many states must report suspicious activity; the NCAA argues prediction markets lack comparable requirements). (espn.com)
  • Banning or limiting prop-style markets tied to individual athletes (increasing risk of manipulation or harassment). (espn.com)
  • Anti-harassment measures and harm-reduction tools. (ncaa.org)

Why it matters: college athletes are not paid employees in the traditional sense (despite NIL changes), they’re still students whose careers and mental health can be affected by gambling-driven incentives and abuse. Prediction markets—accessible nationally and to younger bettors—create a different risk profile than regulated sportsbooks operating under state gaming laws.

The players on the court

• NCAA: Focused on athlete welfare and competition integrity; willing to work with the CFTC to design safeguards. (ncaa.org)
• Prediction market companies (e.g., Kalshi, Polymarket and others): Regulated by the CFTC and argue they operate as financial exchanges offering contracts between traders, not traditional wagering against a house. They have begun adding integrity partners and monitoring tools. (espn.com)
• CFTC: The federal regulator for event contracts. Historically has allowed event markets but has been cautious about drawing hard lines around sports-related markets. The NCAA’s request asks the agency to take a more active stance. (espn.com)
• State gaming regulators: Some have moved to restrict or challenge prediction markets, arguing those products violate state wagering laws. Recent enforcement actions and cease-and-desist letters show the state-federal regulatory boundary is contested. (barrons.com)

The core tensions

• Jurisdiction and labeling
  • Are binary event contracts “financial products” under federal CFTC oversight, or are they sports betting that falls under state gambling laws? The answer determines who writes the rules. (barrons.com)
• Age and accessibility
  • Many prediction platforms accept 18-year-olds nationwide; sportsbooks in many states restrict college-sports betting to older age groups or ban in-state college betting entirely. That gap concerns the NCAA. (espn.com)
• Types of markets and harm
  • Prop markets or player-specific questions (transfer portal, injuries, playing time) can create perverse incentives and increase risk of manipulation, harassment, or targeted abuse. (espn.com)
• Speed of innovation vs. pace of regulation
  • Prediction markets have evolved quickly; regulators and sports governing bodies are scrambling to adapt. That mismatch often leaves safeguards trailing innovation. (barrons.com)

What a workable compromise might look like

• Temporary moratorium: A pause limited in time that gives regulators and the NCAA room to draft specific safeguards tied to college athletics.
• Harmonized minimums: Federal rules requiring age verification (21+ for college sports?), targeted advertising restrictions, and robust geolocation enforcement for in-state protections.
• Integrity reporting: Mandatory, standardized reporting of suspicious activity and cooperation channels between prediction-market operators, leagues, the NCAA and law enforcement.
• Limits on player-level markets: A ban or strict controls on markets tied to individual athletes’ discrete actions (transfers, injuries, disciplinary outcomes), with exceptions only under university/athlete consent.
• Independent monitoring and penalties: Third-party integrity firms with transparent methodologies and enforcement mechanisms that include suspensions or delisting of risky markets.

Those steps would mirror many safeguards already required of licensed sportsbooks while recognizing the structural differences of exchange-style prediction products.

How this could play out

• The CFTC could accept the NCAA’s request and issue a temporary ban or guidance — an outcome that would quickly shape operator behavior and possibly defuse state-level enforcement actions.
• If the CFTC declines to act, states may intensify enforcement, producing a patchwork of restrictions that platforms must navigate, or litigate — a costly, slow path with inconsistent protections for athletes.
• Operators might self-impose stricter controls to avoid reputational and legal risk, especially if major leagues and associations amplify their objections.

Either route raises costs and complexity for prediction markets, but also pushes the industry toward clearer rules and stronger athlete protections.

What fans and college communities should watch

• Will the CFTC respond with emergency measures or a formal rulemaking? Watch for agency statements or action following the NCAA letter (dated January 14, 2026). (espn.com)
• Are states preparing enforcement actions, or crafting laws specifically addressing prediction markets and college-sports exposure? Recent history suggests more state attention is likely. (barrons.com)
• How platforms adjust: whether they pull college markets voluntarily, raise minimum ages, or harden integrity controls.

Something only partly covered in the headlines

Prediction markets aren’t inherently villainous: they can provide price discovery for political events, economic forecasts and even fan engagement when done responsibly. The core issue is context. College sports involve unpaid (in the employment sense) student-athletes, academic obligations and developmental stakes that make the same market structure riskier than in professional sports. That nuance should shape tailored rules, not blanket acceptance or reflexive bans.

My take

The NCAA’s ask is forceful but reasonable: when a new market intersects with young athletes’ careers and safety, regulators and operators should err on the side of stronger protections. A coordinated approach led by the CFTC — working with the NCAA and state regulators — that sets baseline safeguards (age, integrity reporting, limits on individual-player markets) would protect athletes without crushing innovation. If regulators balk, expect a messy, uneven landscape of state responses and legal fights that ultimately does more harm than a short, well-scoped pause would.

Where this leaves us

We’re at a crossroads where technology, finance and sports culture clash. The right answer will balance consumer innovation and market freedom with clear protections for vulnerable participants. The NCAA’s letter forced the conversation into the open on January 14, 2026. The next moves from the CFTC, prediction-market operators and state regulators will determine whether college sports get a pragmatic safety net — or whether the growth of prediction markets continues to outpace the rules meant to keep play fair and players safe. (ncaa.org)

Sources

• NCAA urges federal agency to suspend college sport prediction markets, NCAA — January 15, 2026.
  https://www.ncaa.org/news/2026/1/14/media-center-ncaa-urges-federal-agency-to-suspend-college-sport-prediction-markets.aspx

• NCAA asks regulators to suspend collegiate prediction markets, ESPN — January 14, 2026.
  https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/47614688/ncaa-asks-regulators-suspend-collegiate-prediction-markets

• Polymarket cleared to offer prediction markets as regulator stays quiet, Barron’s — December 2025.
  https://www.barrons.com/articles/polymarket-kalshi-prediction-markets-sports-betting-a2c4db3a

• NCAA urges halt to college sports prediction markets, Sports Business Journal — January 15, 2026.
  https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/01/15/ncaa-urges-halt-to-college-sports-prediction-markets.aspx

Upsets, Runs and a Freshman Breakout: Stanford 95, North Carolina 90

There are games that feel like a yard-by-yard slog and then there are those where momentum flips so fast you can almost hear the rim rattling from coast to coast. Wednesday night at Maples Pavilion was the latter. Stanford rallied from a double-digit deficit and knocked off No. 14 North Carolina 95–90 on January 14, 2026 — a high-octane, three-heavy affair that left both teams with plenty to chew on.

Why this game mattered

• North Carolina arrived with Top-15 respectability and national expectations; Stanford wanted to prove last season’s upset wasn’t a fluke.
• The result further highlighted defensive concerns for the Tar Heels (particularly perimeter defense and late-game stops).
• For Stanford, the win underscored the rise of a freshman who can carry an offense and the potency of a modern perimeter attack.

What stood out

• Ebuka Okorie’s emergence
  • The Stanford freshman exploded for a career-high 36 points and added nine assists. He created off the dribble, got to the line, and kept the Cardinal offense humming when UNC clamped down early. His 36 points set a freshman record for Stanford in a single game and felt like the difference-maker on the final run.
• Heat check: Stanford’s 3-point barrage
  • Stanford drained 16 three-pointers on the night — an enormous number against a program that usually takes pride in defending the arc. That barrage erased North Carolina’s cushion and proved decisive down the stretch.
• North Carolina’s collapse from the perimeter
  • The Tar Heels made only six threes and went nearly four minutes without a field goal during the decisive stretch. Carolina’s inability to close out on shooters and its struggles at the free-throw line (20-of-32) turned a game they led for large stretches into a nail-biter they ultimately lost.
• Late-game poise and clutch shooting
  • Jeremy Dent-Smith hit the go-ahead triple with about a minute left, and Ryan Agarwal’s follow-up three effectively sealed the deal. Stanford found the right shooters in the right moments; UNC could not respond.

Game flow snapshot

• First half: North Carolina built an early 12-point lead behind Henri Veesaar and Caleb Wilson, taking advantage of transition opportunities and efficient looks.
• Second half: UNC extended that advantage to 12 early on, but Stanford chipped away — led by Okorie’s creativity and a hot perimeter stroke from Agarwal and Dent-Smith.
• Final minutes: A 7–0 Stanford run, timely threes, and steady free-throw shooting closed out a classic conference upset.

Breaking down the matchups

• Backcourt battle
  • Caleb Wilson and Henri Veesaar combined for 52 points for UNC, but point production alone couldn’t compensate for team defensive lapses. Okorie’s dual threat — scoring and playmaking — forced UNC to alter its rotations and defensive matchups.
• Perimeter defense vs. modern spacing
  • Stanford’s success underlined a broader truth: if you don’t respect the three-point line, you’re asking to be burned. UNC’s missing closeouts and the sheer volume of Stanford’s catch-and-shoot opportunities created a mismatch the Tar Heels couldn’t overcome.
• Rebounding and transition
  • While not the headline, control of the glass and rebounding position in late possessions shaped the final possessions — Stanford got the offensive rebounds and extra chances that kept pressure on UNC’s defense.

Implications for both teams

• For Stanford
  • This win builds confidence for a team that is starting to brand itself as a dangerous ACC opponent when its shooters are hot and Okorie is in rhythm. That combination — a dynamic freshman and multiple reliable shooters — gives Stanford staying power in close games.
• For North Carolina
  • The Tar Heels need to address defensive fundamentals: closeouts, rotation communication, and late-game defensive discipline. Free-throw consistency is another nagging issue; making more of those 32 attempts would have swung the scoreboard margin in their favor.

What to watch next

• Can Okorie sustain this level of play against top defenses? Consistency from a freshman is rare, but if he keeps creating, Stanford turns into a real problem for opponents.
• Will UNC tighten perimeter defense and correct late-game lapse patterns? The schedule doesn’t get much kinder; immediate adjustments will be required to avoid a skid.
• Three-point volume: Are we seeing an outlier night or a shift in Stanford’s identity toward “let it fly” when shooters are hot?

My take

This was college basketball in one concentrated blast: star-making performance, momentum swings, and the sort of late-game drama that keeps fans awake. Stanford didn’t just outscore North Carolina — they exposed a set of tactical vulnerabilities (closeouts, late rotations, and free-throw execution) that any smart opponent will exploit. For Carolina, the talent is there — Wilson and Veesaar proved that — but elite teams find ways to stop the bleeding when shots stop falling.

Stanford’s victory feels less like a lucky night and more like a statement: when your freshman can orchestrate and your shooters heat up, even blue-blood programs are beatable.

Sources

• Stanford’s freshman phenom Ebuka Okorie leads 95-90 win over No. 14 North Carolina — AP / CBS Sports
  https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/gametracker/recap/NCAAB_20260114_UNC%40STNFRD

• Stanford Shoots Past No. 14 MBB, 95-90 — University of North Carolina Athletics recap
  https://goheels.com/news/2026/1/14/mens-basketball-mbb-recap-at-stanford

• Stanford secures electric win over No. 14 Tar Heels — The Stanford Daily
  https://stanforddaily.com/2026/01/15/stanford-secures-win-over-tar-heels

• UNC's Poor Defense Proves Fatal Again As Tar Heels Fall To Stanford 95-90 — Tar Heel Times
  https://www.tarheeltimes.com/article163805.aspx