April 8, 2025 • 48 mins
In the second hour, Dave Softy Mahler and Hugh Millen react to Houston blowing a 12 point lead to Florida in the title game, react to Stephen A. Smith potentially running for President in 2028, then talk to Whit Watson about The Masters, and Jon Wilner later.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Sharp sharp lost ball.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I don't pick up Eva Florida.
Speaker 3 (00:05):
I said, come pilot the set of it.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
You know, Hugh, I know that you're rooting for Florida.
Is that our guy Matthias by the way, with that call? What?
Speaker 4 (00:17):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (00:18):
What is up the Spanish version or is that like
it's Brazil ESPN Brazil? Okay, gotcha, got you. Well, they're
big basketball fans in Brazil, there's no question about that. Uh.
The guy that had the Spanish call for Westwood One, Yeah, yeah,
he was freaking awesome. And I know you're a big
Gators fan. Your kid goes there. You're rooting for Florida.
So whatever you're taking anyway, you can get it. I
think the country if you're like a you know, impartial
(00:40):
fan and just want to watch a good game. I
I didn't like the way that game ended at all.
You know, look at team blows a twelve point lead,
and I found it to be a little bit coincidental.
The team that blew the twelve point lead is called
the Cougars. By the way, buddy of mine sent me
a text and wants to know if Cougan is a
patented and pullman or Houston can borrow that because they
(01:01):
cooped it. They freaking choked. Man, you get a twelve
point second half leat in the National Championship, you win
the damn game. I think it was like the fourth
largest comeback ever in the National Championship. So that's number one,
But number two, you just want to seecod basketball right,
and for a team to have that many problems down
the stretch, I think it was four consecutive possessions to
end the game with four straight turnovers, not even getting
(01:24):
a shot off, a guy jumping in the air, not
touching the ball because he's fearful of getting called for
a travel. Just from a pure basketball perspective, I did
not like the way that game ended last night.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
No, it was brutal the last possession, but I think
even you go to the second to last possession, I mean,
if you look at Emmanuel Sharp, here's a guy that
was the tournament MVP in the Big twelve tournament, seems
like a nice player. I mean, he's one for seven
last night from the three point line. But in the
fifty plus years I've been watching this tournament, you know,
(01:57):
goden Sports has taken on. Now two there's goat as
in the greatest of all time, like Michael Jordan, like
Tom Brady. The original the og term of goat was like, Okay,
you don't want to have that like goat horns.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Right, That's how we said it, right, correct, right.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
And and so to me, the number one gaff in
in tournament history was Fred Brown. Not our beloved downtown
Freddie Brown, but Georgetown. Georgetown had a point guard, Fred Brown.
And in the the it's it's noted for Michael Jordan
knocking down the eighty two final game. Yeah, Jordan knocked
it about an eighteen footer down from about eighteen feet
(02:35):
and then Fred Brown goes down and he gets confused
and he passes the ball right to James Worrid.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Chris Weber calling time out against Caroline number two.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
That was gonna be my silver medal.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
I'm telling you this.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Emmanuel Sharp.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Now, I wouldn't put the final possession quite at that level,
but when you consider inside of thirty seconds, this guy
drove down. He was trying to dribble through a car
wash without getting the basketball wet, run through three guys.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Where was he going on that? Just think about this.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
He was going to a spot about fifteen feet on
the baseline. He wasn't driving to the he was going
to no man's land. And if you think of sabernutricians,
they either want a dunker land or they want a
three pointer, right Like. There's some people say, you know,
the mid range jumper is a waste of time, right
And there's nothing a sabermetrician would would say.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
The worst possible play.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
That you could make is what Emmanuel Sharp was doing
on that second to last possession when the ball went
off his knee right now, the final possession. I've been
interested in traveling violations for a long time because I
just note that when you go to a high school game,
you can't get away with one step in high school.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
You can get away with a little bit more in college.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
In the NBA, I mean, there's all kinds of stuff
with Lebron taking four steps, right like. So traveling is
an interesting violation in my opinion. But you learn on
an elementary school playground. When's the last time you saw
a traveling where you go up and then you realize
you don't have a shot and then you put the
ball on the floor. That's something I mean that just
(04:14):
doesn't happen, that does not happen. Now, somebody's gonna say, well,
it happened on Saturday. I think it was Saturday. So
I've seen it twice. Yeah, and I hadn't seen it
in twenty years in college basketball because experienced basketball players
don't get themselves into that type of traveling situation. But
here a manual sharp man, he's gonna have to eat
this his entire life. Two turnovers and not pulling the
(04:38):
trigger on that jump shot and committee. You know, now
he had the sense to not commit the travel, but
he knew, you know, he had to let it bounce.
I just can't believe that really, with the game on
the line, you you're in a situation where you have
that kind of travel, like a third grade level of travel.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
I was just just made a final thought on that.
If you ROAs the bigs.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
For Houston on that final possession, they ran three different
sets out options on that on that play. But the
bigs at the top they didn't screen anybody. They were
just they might as well have been traffic cones. That
just the execution on that was you know, it wasn't
just Sharp where he did the bigs, I mean, come on,
(05:23):
that was that was That was really a breakdown in
the crucial moments.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Yeah, well, I'm rooting for him because the guy is
born in Israel, by the way, so I'm a big
fan of a Manual Sharp. I know he is. I
know his dad played Overseas obviously, so he was born
there because of Derek Sharp. But I just think for me,
there's there's a game every now and then that comes along,
and I've often wondered like people and I hate to
bring this up, but I'll bring it up very fast.
(05:49):
The twenty fourteen game against the Patriots. People that were
watching that that were not Seahawk fans or Patriot fans
that were just rooting for a good game, did they
feel almost like physically for us because of what happened
in that game, Like if you're a Falcon fan or
Viking fan, or just some guy living in Florida or Nebraska, whatever,
Because I felt sick for Houston fans right, Like Houston's
(06:10):
never won a title. They've played in the championship game before.
Kelvin Sampson is almost seventy years old. This might be
the one shot he'll ever have to play and win
a national championship. He's been good, but making the title
game is damn hard. There were people that were talking
about if Houston had finished this thing off, it would
have been maybe the greatest run in the tournament ever,
considering the opponents they had to beat to get there,
(06:33):
right Duke in Florida being two of them in the
final four. So I was almost like physically sick for
Houston fans. I just could not believe what it would
be like to be in that position where you're nervous
as hell up twelve, you're thinking, oh my god, we
can't blow this. We have to finish this thing off.
And then the way you end it, I mean, all
you need is one good possession in the final four
(06:55):
and maybe things go your way in the final four,
possessions of that game just completely fall apart and have
a brain fart. It kind of felt like a choke job.
Like I know a lot of people in this business
just throw that word around like it doesn't mean anything
and it's easy to do and anybody can play basketball.
But it felt like the pressure hue of the moment
(07:15):
may have gotten to those guys last night.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Well it may have. I mean, to me to really
say that, that's a hard I know that it's very hard.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
But to be that inefficient and the final four possessions
to just completely go into the tank. Man, it's hard
to not believe that.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Yeah, well, I mean, to me a choke.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
I would use that term when I say it's it clearly,
unequivocally the pressure of a moment cause an athlete that
would ordinarily do you know, simple things where they just
couldn't execute, you know, like like, okay, what would be
the uh, the all time choke. Okay, let's say there
was a steal down one, you know, four seconds to go,
(07:59):
and a college basketball player goes down with the chance
to make a land or dunk to win the game
and then throws it off the rim, get it and
any and he and he literally misses a land that
you would then say, Okay, that's a choke. I'm talking
about the final four possessions and the twelve point lead,
both of them combined.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
No doubt.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Well, I think that the the officiating, I think played
apart because there's only four fouls in the first half
twenty three in the second half, they got the lot
of Houston guys into foul trouble, a lot of guys
playing with four fouls and credit Florida. I mean they
went after him. I mean they raised their their level
and and you know when uhh, when Aberdeen had to
(08:39):
come off the bench, uh, you know, they got some
good minutes out of him. They you know, they just
they just kind of toughened up there. It was on
the verge of getting away from them. I thought, maybe
the most critical play of the game down six, when uh,
when Alex Condon blocked the three pointer and they got
the fast break, and then and then the one on
(09:00):
a really difficult land by Condon to pull within three.
That's where you go, Okay, well that that uh that
that might be you know, there's real belief that Florida
can win this thing.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Yeah. Well, the other topic that we did not get
to on fun with audio are are you ready? Are
you ready? Hure Milling crap for this guy right here
to be the next president of the United States of America.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
I've been approached, approached by people on Capitol Hill. I've
been approached by people who are elected officials in office.
I have no desire to be a politician. My life
is pretty well, but I've decided I'm no longer gonna
close that door I'm gonna keep my options open.
Speaker 6 (09:43):
I'm gonna entertain the possibility.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Stephen A. Smith. Just imagine sitting in the Oval Office
as the President.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
Jimmy g Poor and star Jimmy mister garoppolo.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Of the United States of America. Yeah, how's that land for?
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Okay, Well, I'll wait into these waters and that will
be okay, cocktail.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
How much longer is left of this segment? Jackson? Go
about ten minutes? No, just listen.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
I'll try and make a take and then you respond.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
You can have it.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
I'd like to hear yours.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
No, I would just say this what I'm about to say,
I'm going to try and make politically neutral because I'm
going to talk about three politicians, two Republicans and one
perspective Democrat, and I'm just going to tell you that
you could pull their political affiliation out of this. I'm
only talking about qualification, all right. Number one Ronald Reagan.
(10:39):
Ronald Reagan, people say, well, he was an actor and
then obviously he became president. Before he was an actor,
he was twice the president of the Screen Actors Guild,
and in nineteen sixty four he gave a famed speech
of time for choosing. That was sixteen years before he
(10:59):
ran for president, and he was the governor of the
state of California. Now I don't know when he was
the governor if this applied, but the following is true today.
If the state of California was its own state, it
would have the fifth largest economy in the world. Look
it up, all right, So, okay, that's wrong with rag.
Donald Trump never elected to an office. Donald Trump at
(11:19):
least graduated from Wharton's School of Finance. Wharton is ranked
number one out of one hundred and thirty three US
News and World Report business schools. He obviously had a
business experience, wrote a book on the art of the
deal mega real estate deals. Okay, so you could say
he was underqualified. But if a temple a pistol to
(11:42):
your temple. Forget whether you love Donald Trump, despise him, whatever,
just answer this question alone. Stephen A. Smith or Donald Trump,
neither one have elected office. Who is more qualified? If
you said, it's not a tie.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Stephen A.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
Smith has a Mass Commune Munications and Media Studies degree
from Winston Salem State University, which is ranked number two
twenty on the US News and World Report. I ask
you again, remove your political affiliation. If you had to
say who was more qualified, many people are saying neither.
(12:20):
But if you had to say Mark, the point is.
The point is Stephen A. Smith is not qualified whatsoever
in my opinion, And whether he has an R or
a D next to his name he has, he has
next to no qualifications.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I think it's absurd.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Yeah, well, I mean a lot of this stuff feels
absurd right now. To be honest with you, I just
you know, I think, but.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
That's a different topic. That's a different topic.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
No, I get it.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
But you respond to that point a Smith about his qualification?
How far if, if, if absurdity was was the universe,
the universe is ever expanding, correct it is?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
How far can absurd go?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Fuck level?
Speaker 4 (13:04):
There's always something more absurd than than what you thought
was the most correct.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
Yes, exactly, so how far? How far can absurd go?
I mean, that's just my question to you. So, look,
I don't think Steven A. Smith is going to run
for president. I don't think Steven A. Smith is going
to be the next president. I know he has and
I've told my friends that you know that he's talked
about it a lot. What what what I think is
going to happen. Is that steven A. Smith and Jackson.
I want to get your take on this too. Don't
(13:29):
just let me and Hugh hang on this man. You
got to jump in here too, Oh please. What I
think of steven A. Smith is that steven A If
you watch ESPN on a daily basis, which I don't.
Dick does, but I don't. If you watch steven A. Smith,
he has a major, major habit of making everything in
the end about him. Everything everything about him, Okay, every
every topic, every show, every angle is always about him.
(13:51):
I mean, he'll spend twenty minutes on the air talking
before somebody else gets a chance to jump in, and
I'm sure that's in his contract that he can do that.
I think steven A Smith, whatever attention he can gain
from this idea of him becoming president, he's gonna milk
it for all that's worth. He's gonna milk that cow
until there's nothing left in the teet. Everything is gonna
be dry as a bone by the time it's all
(14:12):
said and done. So I don't think that's gonna be president,
or does he want to be president, But I think
he's gonna ride this train as long as he can.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
He's I think he's gonna he's gonna be up on
the debate stage. He's gonna find a way to be
up there because I'm listen good. Because of fun with audio,
we can't play the full two minutes and forty five seconds.
He went off about this subject. But in that he
also mentions, like the opportunity be in front of tens
of millions of people on the debate stage. Come on,
the guy is very clearly focused on eyes on him, right,
(14:39):
So this this dude is gonna find a way to
be on the debate stage just for the eyes. But
like if he thinks that there is a remote chance
that he could become president, he's out of his mind.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Like everybody knew that. I think the name.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Donald Trump Trump, hold on, Yeah, everybody knew the name
Donald Trump, regardless of whether you watched the reality show
The Apprentice or whatever. Like he was a household name.
I don't think Stephen A. Smith is a household name.
I will be I think, well right now he's not.
And Donald Trump at this point when before he became president,
(15:14):
I think he was a household name. I don't think
Stephen A. Smith is remotely at that level, and not
to mention he does. Hugh, I think you accurately pointed
out that he had a financial background Steven A.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Smith as a sports background.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
That is not even we're talking apples to pumpkins right now,
it's not even the same fruit.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
I think we do a quick pull on the text
line four nine four to five one. Would you vote
for Steven A. Smith if he was running for president? Yes?
Or no? Four nine four or five one? Because I
think you're again, we're just forgetting that. I think the
absurd has room to grow. You know, ludicris could be
even more ludicrous tomorrow than it is today. And he's right.
I mean, when Donald Trump was running, nobody thought the
(15:56):
guy was gonna win. I thought it was a joke.
I remember doing a show with apker Thing and there's
no way. It's like, dude, I don't know, man, this
guy might pull it off. Who knows, man, Who knows
what kind of money he can get behind a campaign,
what kind of people he can motivate to vote for him.
I got no idea. I just think I've reached a
point view in my life when it comes to politics
and new stories like this. I don't want to dismiss anything,
(16:18):
as stupid as it sounds, I don't want to dismiss anything.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
Yeah, well, yeah, because I I can remember how I felt, well, Okay,
Trump's gonna get up there, you know, in the Republican debates,
and he's going to uh, you know, show aside, you know,
a raw instead of the polished politician. He's just going
to be more raw and and maybe it'll help influence
the other politicians. And you know, I didn't. I kind
(16:43):
of dismissed it. And then of course everything transpired since then.
But but uh, let me ask you.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
This quickly, how do you think he would do it?
A debate, Steven, A debate?
Speaker 4 (16:54):
He's very Yeah, I do too. I think I think
I think he's very well spoken.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
I do too.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
And I think he'd be a good Now, I don't
know how educated he would be, but you know, I
would just ask, I would just say, uh, I don't
know if.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
If you say, should you be should there be qualifications?
And what are the minimum qualifications?
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (17:17):
You know, and and there is relative some people are
more qualified than than others. I can't I can't imagine
being less qualified if there are objective standards I can't
imagine being less qualified than what Stephen A.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Smith would bring.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Well, we got a lot of texts on this. We
can get to some of them next, by the way,
and then John.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
Willis, by the way, we're gonna get an anti break,
an anti Trump vote on this, I mean obvious.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Do you understand what it means when I say we
have to break? No, Okay, we have to break.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
I'm gonna say, guy, get the Spanish guy.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Yea, yeah, we gotta break the guy from Yeah Brazil
that Hugh Miller. Next on ninety three three kJ r
f M.
Speaker 7 (17:58):
You're listening to the Home the Husky, the Krek, n
cle's best NFL Draft coverage Jim the twenty twenty five
NFL Draft. Now back to Suthian Did proudly brought to
you by Emerald Queen Casino on Sports Radio ninety three
point three kJ r Fmhi.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
We're getting a lot of text by the way, on
the which you vote for Steven A for president?
Speaker 8 (18:19):
Thing?
Speaker 1 (18:19):
We're gonna say those next on ninety three to three KJRFM.
But joining us right now on the radio show, he
keeps saying yes when so many others say no. U
formerly a ESPN Golf Channel. He's now got a podcast
on iHeartRadio. His boss is our boss. By the way,
how about that our friend wit Watson. Find him on
Twitter at real wit Watson joining us on the radio
(18:41):
show talking some Masters golf. How are you man?
Speaker 8 (18:45):
I'm excellent And if you guys are ever in Orlando,
check us out on iHeartRadio's ninety six to nine in
the Game and in Jacksonville on AM nine thirty Fox
Sports Radio, Jacksonville. That's my only plug. I promise, I.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Love it forever. The promoter man, good stuff. Well, I
got a few minutes here to talk some golf Masters
starting on Thursday, and I think for a lot of people, man,
the number one burning question will this be the year
from for the little five foot nine irishman from County Down,
Rory McElroy. Will this be the year the curse finally
(19:18):
is lifted and Rory takes home the Masters Championship.
Speaker 8 (19:23):
You know, you and I exchanged messages prior to the interview,
and he's definitely it's in his head. I mean everyone
knows it's in his head. That being said, he's arguably
the best player in the world right now. I know
that Scheffler is number one in the rankings, But who's
playing better than Rory McElroy. If ever, there was a
year when he could shape this off and finally complete
(19:44):
the Grand Slam put on the green jacket, you would
think this would be not his last chance, but his
best chance so far. And from what I'm gathering from
talking to a lot of people, you know he's the
betting favorite right now. So it's just, you know, you
wash your fingers and you kind of hold your breath
when you're watching McElroy at Augusta, because we've just been
(20:06):
conditioned to expect something weird to happen right during the
course of these four days. But I think he has
a very good shot at it.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
Well, you brought up Scheffler, and you're right, he's still
he's number one, and by a pretty good margin. I
think Rory's number two, and the gap between one and
two is like the gap between two and six. But interestingly,
to me points gained, you have Rory McElroy one hundred
(20:33):
and eighty eight, Scheffler only seventy two. He's kind of
cooled off when it seemed like he was going to
maybe be making the march to greatness, what's your take
on Scotty Scheffler from a broad perspective, and then also
just for this week, he.
Speaker 8 (20:51):
Has admitted to being a little out of sorts in
the last couple of weeks, although his press conference today
he said he felt very prepared. He appeared to be confident,
but in previous events at the Players in the Texas,
the two Swings, the two events in Texas, the Texas Swing,
he had been pretty open about saying he was frustrated
(21:13):
with how things were going. Now again, his bar is
awfully high. Right if you look at the world rankings,
and I'm on the official World Golf Ranking page right
now and I'm looking up those numbers you just mentioned,
nobody would imagine that Schefler was in any kind of trouble.
But you know, these players, they have standards that are
so high in their own mind. And when you win
(21:33):
at a rate that Schefler won at, and not just one,
but the way he played that the way he placed
every single week last year, even when he wasn't winning.
To him, that's the standard, right, So if he's not
playing up to that standard, in his head, he thinks
he's struggling the rest of us watching. Go my god, Scott,
you're the best player in the world. But the fact
(21:54):
that he appeared comfortable and he said that he was
well prepared. Maybe he's talking himself into it, maybe not,
but mentally he appears to be ready for this week.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Yeah, Watson, whether I was talking to masters, find him
on Twitter at real wit Watson. By the way, I
got a podcast as well for iHeart Witwatson dot com.
Everything you need is there on the web page, and
there's a there's a list of just great players that
have never won a Major. Xander was on that list
until last year, and he promptly got the hell off.
But Ludwig, Victor Hoblin, Tommy Fleetwood can't lay Corey Conners.
(22:28):
You and I talked about him, Sepstraca. Is this gonna
be a first time major win for somebody you think
this weekend?
Speaker 8 (22:36):
I my gut tells me no, just because I think Scheffler,
McElroy and Shopley and Morikawa that's the first four players
in the world rankings, and Matsiyama is six. They're just
they're all playing pretty well right now. It's you know,
I don't think that the conditions favor a first time
(22:56):
major champion. I think that Oberg has good of a
chance as anybody of laing a major for the first time.
For those that have never seen him play, you know,
this guy, first of all, was one of the breakout
stars of TGL. Right, like a lot of non golf
fans who saw him for the first time in the
Virtual Golf League that was you know, airing on ESPN
(23:17):
Mondays and Tuesdays. Right, who is this kid? He looks
like a Greek god. He hits the ball three hundred
and fifty yards. He's in good form, He's played well,
and if there is anybody that might be a first
time winner, that's the guy that I might point to.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
It seems like the dust has kind of settled on
the live factor within the golf world, and maybe nerves
aren't as quite as afraid. Kind of give us a
perspective now that we've had a chance to kind of
see how this is impacting the game. How from your
perspective in terms of the masters. Obviously those competitors can
(23:58):
can play in participate, but just what is the live
effect that we can assess after a few years now
of having lived with it.
Speaker 8 (24:07):
So LIV has twelve players who are at the Masters
this year, which is the lowest number they've had in
their three full seasons. And the reasons for that, obviously
is because these guys are no longer playing on the
PGA Tour and some of their exemptions are running out.
They you know, whether they're former Masters, well, Masters champions
go for life, but if they're former Open champions or
(24:29):
PGA champions or US Open champions, because they've been away
from the PGA Tour and not gaining world ranking points,
those exemptions are running out. Would anybody bet against Brooks Koepka?
Would anybody bet against Bryce and De Shamba? Bubba Watson
is playing as a lifetime obviously former Masters champion. No
one knows what he is going to look like because
(24:51):
he hasn't played very much on the League tour. He's
been hurt, so I think, you know, Mickelson is playing
with Jason Day and Keegan Bradley the first two days,
which I think is delicious by the way, putting him
the group of Bradley, that's the group I want to
watch to see how they they speak to each other
for four hours. So there's a lot of uncertainty around
(25:11):
those guys because we don't know how they are in competition.
We don't know, you know, what kind of form they're
they're coming into. But you know, would anybody experience means
so much at Augusta National, Would anybody be surprised if
Patrick Reid came back and won another green jacket? We
just we don't see them, don't We don't know how
they're playing because they get so few eyeballs on those
(25:34):
broadcasts in person, so that adds a little bit of intrigue.
And to answer the question, I've spoken to a lot
of people at Golf Channel and other contacts in the game,
and we're not close, guys, We're not close to resolving this.
I mean, the PGA Tour just turned down one point
five billion dollars from the Public Investment Fund. They wanted
(25:56):
Yaser all remind to be the co chair of pg Enterprises.
That was a flat no, we're not close. And the
tour doesn't want Team Golf, you know, they want the
PGA Tour brand to be on whatever this thing is,
and the Public Investment Fund is still pushing for a
team entity and some kind of co branding. So we're
(26:19):
no closer. John Rahm said that today at Augustin in
his press conference, we're not any closer.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Yeah, yeah, well we're closer to Thursday, round one and Augusta,
which is all that matters now. And before you go again,
wit Watson with us on ninety three three KJRFM. Fin
him at Witwatson dot com for his podcast and everything
he's up to. All this analysis is really great and awesome,
but really there's one reason why we have you on
to help us make some damn money. Okay, And you
(26:45):
came close, man, if the cup was four and a
half and not four in a quarter, you would have
had that great call at Jordan's speak at the Heritage
a couple of years ago in that playoff. Man, God,
you came close on that one. But give us a
long shot and give us maybe maybe you're favorite to
win it this.
Speaker 8 (27:00):
Week, all right, the long shot, he's not really a
long shot. Is the guy that I took in the
pool that I do with some Florida golf media guys.
We give the money to charity, and that's Ludwig Obert
now in faird. I took him because I already burned
Scottie Scheffler and Rory McElroy. Right, great assault, I am,
(27:25):
I am fingers crossed. I feel good about this. I'm
rooting for him. I'm gonna say McElroy gets it done.
I think he's gonna finally get the green jacket, banish
the curse like you know the curse of the Bambino
with the Red Sox. I think McElroy will finally get
over the hump.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Love it awesome, Wit Watson Witwatson dot Com, at Real,
wit Watson on x or Twitter, as the kids say,
great stuff, Enjoy the week, and we'll talk soon. But
appreciate this man.
Speaker 8 (27:52):
Yeah, man, cheers, talk you soon.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
Okay, they got it, Bud with Watson with us on
the radio show talking some masters. All right, we're gonna break,
come back and wrap it up, little techtimonials John Wilner
as well at five before Cracking Hockey pregame at five
thirty on ninety three three KJRFF.
Speaker 7 (28:06):
It's time for our weekly Pac twelve conversation with Senjose
Mercury News reporter John Wilner, brought to you by Simply Seattle.
Our friends at simply Seattle dot com have the most
amazing collection of all thayings Seattle Seahawks gear UW had
some of the largest selection of Sonics gear anywhere in
the world. Learn more at simply Seattle dot com.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
All right, boys and girls, back here at Jimmy's on
First across the street from t Mobile Park. We got
the Astros and Mariners coming up at six point forty
This evening, we have krackin hockey with the Utah Hockey
Club coming up pregame five thirty faced off at six
pm right here on ninety three three KJRFM. But courtesy
of our friends at simply Sattle dot com, whatever you
(28:48):
have your eyes on, use code Softy at simply Sattle
dot com for fifteen percent off anything at simply Sattle
dot com. Here he is our friend, the poet for
the pack, the big ten Baron from the San Jose
Mercury News. Our buddy Johnny Wilner. John, How are you pal?
Speaker 6 (29:07):
I'm good? Thanks? Are you guys?
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Good? Good? Hugh Mellon's here as well. So did did
Florida win that game last night against Houston? Or did
Houston choke it? Did Houston lose it? Man? Can we
say the Houston Cougars cooged it? Or do they have
a patent on that? Over in Pullman by the way, Oh.
Speaker 6 (29:25):
That's that's low.
Speaker 9 (29:27):
I don't think, you know, I think that in most games,
you know, the losing team contributes to its own demise.
That was certainly the case with Houston. But I think
you got to give Florida a lot of credit. Executed
really well down the stretch, played terrific defense. I would
I would say Florida won it a little bit more
than Houston lost it. Certainly Florida won the Houston's contribution
(29:51):
to its own demise was not merely to the extent
the Duke undercut itself in the semi finals against Houston.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
Yeah, I'm curious about your take on just the way
the play game played out from the respect of the officials.
So four foulsand the first half, twenty three in the
second half, clearly that impacted foul trouble for Houston, how
they played and what have you. Florida was able to
get to the free throw line, and that may have
(30:22):
been as big a difference as anything. But just what
about the tenor the tempo and how it shifted so
much with respect to fouls.
Speaker 9 (30:31):
It was the kind of night and day the way
they called the game, and that's the problem that I
find more than anything else.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
If they're going to call it tight, you got to
call it tight the whole game. You can't switch up, right.
Speaker 9 (30:43):
The players have to be able to adjust in any
sports to the way the officials are calling it, and
they got to be consistent with that regard. I thought
generally speaking, officiating throughout the tournament was poor, you know,
inconsistent on a possession of possession base. Is too much
time spent down the stretch with the clock reviews, possession reviews.
(31:06):
They need to fix officiating in college basketball certainly. You know,
having Tony Padilla work in the Final four, a lot
of fans out less know how bad he is. That
continue that symbolizes how broken the system is when Tony
Padilla is working.
Speaker 6 (31:22):
The Final four.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Yeah, well, I mean I guess, first of all, the
follow up to that is, what is your solution besides
not letting Tony Padilla work the Final four? Right, what
would be your solution fix the officiated issues? And I
don't know what you guys think, but when I'm watching
the Final Four and I see a rules analyst for
CBS that is also a guy that they rely on
(31:43):
for football during the regular season, and the playoffs. I'm
talking about gene Stera Torro I think is really good
at his job, by the way, but the symbolism of that,
when you've got a football guy doing rules analysts for basketball,
to me, it just doesn't look right on network TVs.
So what's your response to that and what would you
(32:04):
do to fix it?
Speaker 9 (32:05):
Yeah, I've always thought that was a little bit weird,
to be honest, that he did both.
Speaker 6 (32:09):
Even though he is solid. It is more about the optics.
Speaker 9 (32:13):
Than anything than the mechanics of what he's doing. The
biggest thing I would do is that got to limit
the review time. You know, the possessions fifteen seconds you
look at it, and it's the same in football. If
you keep tell within ten or fifteen seconds and looking
at the review, then just leave with the call on
(32:36):
the field or on the court, right.
Speaker 6 (32:38):
I don't think anybody.
Speaker 9 (32:39):
Expects it to be one hundred accurate every time. So
they got to limit the time spent on reviews. They
got to limit the number of things that can be reviewed.
Speaker 6 (32:48):
And then in.
Speaker 9 (32:49):
Terms of the the you know, the inconsistency of calls
throughout the game, that's harder to adjudicate in some ways, right,
it's just a matter you've got to pick the best officials.
Speaker 6 (33:03):
So I don't know.
Speaker 9 (33:04):
The details of how they assess, you know, throughout the
tournament they great the officials each round, and the ones
particularly have the best advance. They obviously need to do
something to raise the standard on that regard, but generally speaking,
college basketball needs to reassess the way it's officiated to
you know, kind of get in touch with the current game.
(33:26):
It's more perimeter oriented, it's faster, and it doesn't feel
to me like the officials have adjusted to the modern game,
like as much as the game itself has changed.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
John Wilner with us and John, you know, I was thinking,
I've been watching the tournament for over fifty years, and
if I just think of like the number one gaff.
There's a lot of synonyms I could use for that word,
but the number one would be Fred Brown in nineteen
eighty two, after Jordan hits the shot from you know,
he just inexplicably, you know, come down the point guard
(33:59):
for Georgetown and he passes out to the perimeter, as
you know, and James Worthy, you know, he thought that
a North Carolina player was his teammate. That would be
the gold medal of all of that, and I would
say that calling time out Chris Weber would be the
number two. But I gotta tell you last night, I
know Emmanuel Sharp is a is a really nice player.
(34:22):
He was the MVP of the Big twelve tournament. But
inside of thirty seconds, you know, he dribbles down. I
don't know where he's going on that play, but off
his knee turnover one and then a traveling type of
call or potential traveling calling. To his credit, he knew
he was going to travel if he touched the ball,
but we don't see that kind of traveling violation other
(34:44):
than on elementary school playgrounds. And he goes up and
then you know, just kind of loses his mind, loses
the ball, and so he has to wear that for
the rest of his life. Two turnovers inside of thirty seconds. Man,
that's got to be that's got to be real hard
for Emmanuel Sharp in terms of just like WHOA, I
don't know how he lives that down.
Speaker 9 (35:06):
Yeah, that'll stick with him and Houston's program. You know
the play at the very end when Flora's defender, I
think it was Walter Clayton, came flying at and you know,
to me, the problem what he did there is instinctive.
He knows it's going to get blocked, he lets it go,
and then he knows if he grabs it it's going
to be a travel call. You probably want to just
(35:26):
grab it to at least get the time stopped. But
to me, the bigger problem was the sequence leading up
to that. It just wasn't a good shot. I saw
Kelvin Sampson's coming and he thought that sharp probably should
have driven the ball to the basket. They were only
down two, they didn't need a three, so the right
move was to drive the ball.
Speaker 6 (35:47):
I thought that was the bigger mistake than actually kind of.
Speaker 9 (35:50):
You know, letting go of the ball instead of shooting
it once he knew it was going to get blocked.
Speaker 6 (35:54):
That's an instinctive thing. People can understand.
Speaker 9 (35:57):
It was everything leading up to that that really on
that last sequence, I thought, where they broke down and they're.
Speaker 6 (36:02):
Going to have to live with it.
Speaker 9 (36:03):
They couldn't even get a shot off, and that's inexcusable,
and it's coming.
Speaker 6 (36:08):
Senson said that exact same thing.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
It's inexcusable, no doubt. Well, John Wilner with us again,
courteys to have our friends at simply Seattle. Just use
code KJR fifteen for fifteen percent off anything on the
website at simply Seattle dot com. So one of the
reasons why we love having you on is because you
make everything so simple for us. Right, what's complicated to
the average person becomes simple to us because you have
(36:30):
a great way of making it simple. So explain in
these simplest terms if you can, this house settlement that's
inching closer to final approval. What's going on? What are
the details? What are we all waiting to hear? What
are we hoping to hear?
Speaker 6 (36:47):
So they had the settlement hearing yesterday in.
Speaker 9 (36:49):
Oakland and the judge Chlaudie Wilkin did not issue, She
did not approve it, She did not rule on it,
but she indicated that she to do that as long
as the NCAA and the Power Conferences can.
Speaker 6 (37:05):
Solve two issues for her.
Speaker 9 (37:07):
The biggest issue is the roster deal, right, they're cutting
Basically walk ons are getting eliminated, and she wants them
to come up with a plan where that would be
the current walk ons would be you maybe grandfathered in. Right,
So if you're a sophomore and you've been to walk
on all of a sudden, you're out, You're out of
your spot. She didn't think that was fair, and I agree,
(37:30):
and a lot of people agree.
Speaker 6 (37:31):
They need to come up with a solution for that.
Speaker 9 (37:33):
But basically what God came out of that is She's
gonna prove this thing, which mean started July first. There's
gonna be revenue unit in college sports. And that means
that Washington is going to.
Speaker 6 (37:44):
Have twenty point five million dollars.
Speaker 9 (37:46):
That they're gonna have to share with their athletes in
the next fiscal year, and the same with all the
schools in the Big Ten and the sec ACC and
Big twelve. That's the that's the biggest thing.
Speaker 6 (37:57):
It's gonna happen right if it want.
Speaker 9 (37:59):
If there have been a bigger issued yesterday, then she
may have said, you know what, you guys got to
go back to the drawing board.
Speaker 6 (38:05):
But she didn't. So revenue share is coming.
Speaker 9 (38:07):
It's now going to be incumbent upon Washington and the
other schools to come up with that money. And you
also have got traditional.
Speaker 6 (38:14):
Nil that is going to remain in place.
Speaker 9 (38:17):
So Deman Williams, for instance, is going to get a
million or two million dollars from Washington as part of
a revenue shareing agreement. He's also going to be able
to get traditional NIL doing a promotional endorsement.
Speaker 6 (38:30):
Opportunities in the Seattle area.
Speaker 9 (38:32):
So Williams, you know, he could make three four million
bucks if you want to.
Speaker 6 (38:37):
And that's going to be the same with athletes.
Speaker 9 (38:39):
Traditional ANIL is not going away just because they're putting
in revenue sharing.
Speaker 4 (38:45):
Okay, so let's break that down. We got a nice
round number to work with. Twenty million that they uh,
you mentioned the University of Washington. How much of that
is going to go to the Husky football players? How
much is it going to to go to maybe the
basketball players women? How does this does Title nine review this?
(39:05):
How do you see this as a practical matter? What
athletes at the University of Washington are getting that twenty million?
Speaker 10 (39:12):
So fifteen million of that on average, or let's just
say roughly fifteen million is going to go to football,
men's basketball is going to probably get three to four million,
and then.
Speaker 6 (39:24):
The rest is going to be the Olympic sport athletes.
They're not going to get very much.
Speaker 9 (39:28):
And that's going to set off a round of lawsuits
as soon as this team gets implemented, and we'll see
how the title nine piece gets admunicated. But basically, the
schools in the SEC and Big Ten are going to
devote seventy five percent of that twenty million to their
football rosters.
Speaker 6 (39:45):
Now here's the interesting thing.
Speaker 9 (39:47):
In some ways, they're going to be at a disadvantage because
schools in the ACC at Big twelve are going to
give a higher percentage to basketball, and so they'll have
more money for their basketball rosters. You know, uh you
Arizona is gonna have more money for its basketball roster
than Washington is as an example. But here's the most
(40:07):
interesting piece is schools that don't have football they're gonna
have an even bigger advantage. Gonzaga doesn't have to worry
about football.
Speaker 6 (40:15):
They could get six or seven.
Speaker 9 (40:17):
Million to their basketball loster, say with the Big East schools.
Speaker 6 (40:21):
So it's gonna.
Speaker 9 (40:22):
Change the dynamics of the basketball rosters in a way
that favors the schools that don't have football.
Speaker 1 (40:30):
No, that's a great point, Absolutely great point. Gonzaga. I mean,
they got other sports as well, but I would assume
that they're throwing maybe all of that money towards basketball
and then going out and just raising a couple of
bucks on the side for the other sports.
Speaker 6 (40:42):
Yep, exactly exactly.
Speaker 9 (40:44):
They're gonna actually have a big advantage in this regard,
and the big the schools that have where football matters
the most, their basketball programs are gonna be at a disadvantage.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (40:57):
Now what about you mentioned fifteen million were using hypothetically
the Huskies. Fifteen million of the twenty ish is going
to the football players. Who decides is that gonna be?
I assume it's not just all one hundred and five
guys are going to get an equal share. Is demon
William's gonna get more? Is gonna get a lot more?
Is there a minimum involved in that? Like in the
(41:18):
NFL you got a minimum salary of a little over
a million dollars, right, But then there's some people making
sixty million. Like, how is the fifteen million that is
earmarked for the football team?
Speaker 2 (41:28):
How does that get distributed? And who makes those decisions?
Speaker 9 (41:31):
I mean, ultimately that's up to jegsh So the Big
Ten on myne sense is that the Big Ten is
not going to require each school to devote a certain
amount of football, but everybody's gonna devote basically the same.
Speaker 6 (41:45):
Within your program.
Speaker 9 (41:47):
The head coach can and the GM can decide how
they're gonna allocate their funds. That's why so many schools
are hiring salary caps specialists. Right now, I'm guessing that
their starting quarterback, just like in the NFL, it's gonna
be market based. Your quarterback, your left tackle, edge rushers,
they're gonna probably get a little bit more than the average.
(42:07):
Your backup guard is gonna get very little. But every
school's gonna have to decide how they allocate those funds.
And if you've got a quarterback, it's like the forty
nine ers have benefited with brock Party, Right, If you've.
Speaker 8 (42:20):
Got a quarterback who kind of comes down.
Speaker 9 (42:22):
In nowhere and you're only paying him two hundred and
fifty thousand, right, you got more for everybody else.
Speaker 6 (42:29):
If you get a star quarterback out of the portal
or high school recruiting, he's gonna have to get more,
so that's less for everybody else.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
Well, Johnny, you just said something there that's kind of interesting,
and I don't think this is any surprise. I mean,
maybe in the NFL would be done differently. If there
were a coach in a GM, but I mean Jetfish
and again John Wilner with us courtesy is simply Seattle
used code KJR fifteen for fifteen percent off anything at
simply Seattle dot com. You know, for example, with the Seahawks,
you know, John Schneider is in charge of how the
(42:56):
money gets spent, and Mike McDonald coaches the players. But
Je Fish is essentially the GM and the head coach,
so he gets to make the calls on how they
spend all of that twenty point five. Can you ever
foresee a school like Washington hiring a general manager like
Stanford did with Andrew Luck, and that person is in
charge of how they spend the money.
Speaker 9 (43:19):
Well, I think ultimately Pat Chun Washington AD will decide how.
Speaker 6 (43:25):
The twenty point five gets broken down.
Speaker 9 (43:27):
He will say, all right, football gets fifteen, football gets sixteen,
whatever fourteen, that fifteen million will be Fish's purview. It's
up to Fish to hire a GM salary cap specialist.
At Stanford, it's a little bit different because Andrew Luck
is reporting directly to the university president.
Speaker 6 (43:47):
He overseas football and he reports directly to the president.
Speaker 9 (43:50):
He's the highest ranking guy in the head department and
Washington he's more of a traditional setup. Pat Chun is
the highest ranking guy in the athletic department, but.
Speaker 6 (43:58):
I assume he is going to give Fish control over
the allocation of the fifteen million. So Stanford's situation is
a little.
Speaker 9 (44:07):
Bit wacky because they've had so much mismanagement over the
last few years.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Final minutes here with John Wilner. John, you mentioned a
moment ago that lawsuits are going to come almost immediately
Title nine, what have you as soon as as all
of this is is implemented. Can you see a situation here?
You've got US District Judge Claudia Wilkin ruling on all this.
(44:33):
She seems to be generally favorable to the plan. But
could you then see an injunction that might even you know,
bug this thing down so that for at least for
this upcoming year, nothing really happens because it's caught up
in the legal process.
Speaker 9 (44:50):
I could see, like thirty seven touches you there's a
lot of things that it's not solving. The number one
issue is, besides SNA that.
Speaker 6 (45:00):
It is putting in a cap. There's a twenty point
five million dollar cap on.
Speaker 9 (45:06):
How much the schools can pay the athletes, and that itself,
some people think is illegal and is going to get challenged.
Until there's collective bargaining with an athlete's union, there are
gonna be lawsuits.
Speaker 6 (45:22):
What this House deal does is it cleans things up
a little bit, but not completely. There's a current lawsuit
in Colorado.
Speaker 9 (45:31):
Alex Fontino, former cu BOP's running back as soon and
it also gets right at this problem. It's not part
of the House deals. It's a separate deal. In six months.
In nine months, we could have another deal where they
have to put a pause on all this because it's
deemed illegal because there was no negotiated salary cap.
Speaker 6 (45:56):
That's the issue, as you well know, you're right, the.
Speaker 9 (45:58):
Collective know, that's that handles everything. That's why the NFL
doesn't get sued for these.
Speaker 6 (46:05):
Type of issues. College football is not going to have that.
Speaker 9 (46:08):
So it's still going to be open to all a
host of lawsuits over and above the Title nine issue.
Speaker 1 (46:15):
Yeah, well, the players have to find a way to unionize,
uh and then you know, create a CBA with whoever
that is. The NCAA, the president issue.
Speaker 9 (46:25):
The issue soft is the has screwed up so bad.
I want to use the F word, just be screwed
up so bad that the players have it great. They're
getting the tradition stopships, they're now going to get revenue sharing,
and they're going to get nil. Why would they e
they con transfer as million times as they want to
play immediately, Why would they unius? The NAA has messed
(46:46):
up so bad that the athletes have it great. There's
no motivation to unionize.
Speaker 4 (46:50):
Unless they got they get more money, you know, unless
they look at the twenty million and say, hey, that's
not that that's way too low of a percentage. Well,
you're restraining trade when you implement implement that arbitrary number,
and that's not subject to the market forces that that
would be the argument they think they can get more mond.
Speaker 6 (47:08):
That's exactly right. And when is the the nflpa's what
revenue tue it.
Speaker 4 (47:13):
It's generally forty seven to forty nine, has been and things.
There's certain triggers. But yeah, when I was with the
Players Association, we were hovering right around that, just below fifty.
Speaker 9 (47:24):
Yeah, John, college sports, College sports, it's twenty two. That
twenty point five number is twenty two percent of an
athletic department's revenue, so that's hot.
Speaker 6 (47:33):
The college athletes are still underpaid market based on the.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
Market, Johnny, great stuff man. Appreciate this. Always good at
explaining stuff for the simple folk like me. Keep doing
it and we're talking a week man. Appreciate it, Pal.
Thanks guys, all right, John Wilner from the San Jose
Mercury News. We've got cracking hockey pregame five thirty face
off with Utah Hugh. Great stuff man. We'll see it
tomorrow a three o'clock Right now, we got cracking hockey
(47:59):
next right here on ninety three three kJ RFM. We'll
see you tomorrow. Bye.
Sharp sharp lost ball.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I don't pick up Eva Florida.
Speaker 3 (00:05):
I said, come pilot the set of it.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
You know, Hugh, I know that you're rooting for Florida.
Is that our guy Matthias by the way, with that call? What?
Speaker 4 (00:17):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (00:18):
What is up the Spanish version or is that like
it's Brazil ESPN Brazil? Okay, gotcha, got you. Well, they're
big basketball fans in Brazil, there's no question about that. Uh.
The guy that had the Spanish call for Westwood One, Yeah, yeah,
he was freaking awesome. And I know you're a big
Gators fan. Your kid goes there. You're rooting for Florida.
So whatever you're taking anyway, you can get it. I
think the country if you're like a you know, impartial
(00:40):
fan and just want to watch a good game. I
I didn't like the way that game ended at all.
You know, look at team blows a twelve point lead,
and I found it to be a little bit coincidental.
The team that blew the twelve point lead is called
the Cougars. By the way, buddy of mine sent me
a text and wants to know if Cougan is a
patented and pullman or Houston can borrow that because they
(01:01):
cooped it. They freaking choked. Man, you get a twelve
point second half leat in the National Championship, you win
the damn game. I think it was like the fourth
largest comeback ever in the National Championship. So that's number one,
But number two, you just want to seecod basketball right,
and for a team to have that many problems down
the stretch, I think it was four consecutive possessions to
end the game with four straight turnovers, not even getting
(01:24):
a shot off, a guy jumping in the air, not
touching the ball because he's fearful of getting called for
a travel. Just from a pure basketball perspective, I did
not like the way that game ended last night.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
No, it was brutal the last possession, but I think
even you go to the second to last possession, I mean,
if you look at Emmanuel Sharp, here's a guy that
was the tournament MVP in the Big twelve tournament, seems
like a nice player. I mean, he's one for seven
last night from the three point line. But in the
fifty plus years I've been watching this tournament, you know,
(01:57):
goden Sports has taken on. Now two there's goat as
in the greatest of all time, like Michael Jordan, like
Tom Brady. The original the og term of goat was like, Okay,
you don't want to have that like goat horns.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Right, That's how we said it, right, correct, right.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
And and so to me, the number one gaff in
in tournament history was Fred Brown. Not our beloved downtown
Freddie Brown, but Georgetown. Georgetown had a point guard, Fred Brown.
And in the the it's it's noted for Michael Jordan
knocking down the eighty two final game. Yeah, Jordan knocked
it about an eighteen footer down from about eighteen feet
(02:35):
and then Fred Brown goes down and he gets confused
and he passes the ball right to James Worrid.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Chris Weber calling time out against Caroline number two.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
That was gonna be my silver medal.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
I'm telling you this.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Emmanuel Sharp.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Now, I wouldn't put the final possession quite at that level,
but when you consider inside of thirty seconds, this guy
drove down. He was trying to dribble through a car
wash without getting the basketball wet, run through three guys.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Where was he going on that? Just think about this.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
He was going to a spot about fifteen feet on
the baseline. He wasn't driving to the he was going
to no man's land. And if you think of sabernutricians,
they either want a dunker land or they want a
three pointer, right Like. There's some people say, you know,
the mid range jumper is a waste of time, right
And there's nothing a sabermetrician would would say.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
The worst possible play.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
That you could make is what Emmanuel Sharp was doing
on that second to last possession when the ball went
off his knee right now, the final possession. I've been
interested in traveling violations for a long time because I
just note that when you go to a high school game,
you can't get away with one step in high school.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
You can get away with a little bit more in college.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
In the NBA, I mean, there's all kinds of stuff
with Lebron taking four steps, right like. So traveling is
an interesting violation in my opinion. But you learn on
an elementary school playground. When's the last time you saw
a traveling where you go up and then you realize
you don't have a shot and then you put the
ball on the floor. That's something I mean that just
(04:14):
doesn't happen, that does not happen. Now, somebody's gonna say, well,
it happened on Saturday. I think it was Saturday. So
I've seen it twice. Yeah, and I hadn't seen it
in twenty years in college basketball because experienced basketball players
don't get themselves into that type of traveling situation. But
here a manual sharp man, he's gonna have to eat
this his entire life. Two turnovers and not pulling the
(04:38):
trigger on that jump shot and committee. You know, now
he had the sense to not commit the travel, but
he knew, you know, he had to let it bounce.
I just can't believe that really, with the game on
the line, you you're in a situation where you have
that kind of travel, like a third grade level of travel.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
I was just just made a final thought on that.
If you ROAs the bigs.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
For Houston on that final possession, they ran three different
sets out options on that on that play. But the
bigs at the top they didn't screen anybody. They were
just they might as well have been traffic cones. That
just the execution on that was you know, it wasn't
just Sharp where he did the bigs, I mean, come on,
(05:23):
that was that was That was really a breakdown in
the crucial moments.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Yeah, well, I'm rooting for him because the guy is
born in Israel, by the way, so I'm a big
fan of a Manual Sharp. I know he is. I
know his dad played Overseas obviously, so he was born
there because of Derek Sharp. But I just think for me,
there's there's a game every now and then that comes along,
and I've often wondered like people and I hate to
bring this up, but I'll bring it up very fast.
(05:49):
The twenty fourteen game against the Patriots. People that were
watching that that were not Seahawk fans or Patriot fans
that were just rooting for a good game, did they
feel almost like physically for us because of what happened
in that game, Like if you're a Falcon fan or
Viking fan, or just some guy living in Florida or Nebraska, whatever,
Because I felt sick for Houston fans right, Like Houston's
(06:10):
never won a title. They've played in the championship game before.
Kelvin Sampson is almost seventy years old. This might be
the one shot he'll ever have to play and win
a national championship. He's been good, but making the title
game is damn hard. There were people that were talking
about if Houston had finished this thing off, it would
have been maybe the greatest run in the tournament ever,
considering the opponents they had to beat to get there,
(06:33):
right Duke in Florida being two of them in the
final four. So I was almost like physically sick for
Houston fans. I just could not believe what it would
be like to be in that position where you're nervous
as hell up twelve, you're thinking, oh my god, we
can't blow this. We have to finish this thing off.
And then the way you end it, I mean, all
you need is one good possession in the final four
(06:55):
and maybe things go your way in the final four,
possessions of that game just completely fall apart and have
a brain fart. It kind of felt like a choke job.
Like I know a lot of people in this business
just throw that word around like it doesn't mean anything
and it's easy to do and anybody can play basketball.
But it felt like the pressure hue of the moment
(07:15):
may have gotten to those guys last night.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Well it may have. I mean, to me to really
say that, that's a hard I know that it's very hard.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
But to be that inefficient and the final four possessions
to just completely go into the tank. Man, it's hard
to not believe that.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Yeah, well, I mean, to me a choke.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
I would use that term when I say it's it clearly,
unequivocally the pressure of a moment cause an athlete that
would ordinarily do you know, simple things where they just
couldn't execute, you know, like like, okay, what would be
the uh, the all time choke. Okay, let's say there
was a steal down one, you know, four seconds to go,
(07:59):
and a college basketball player goes down with the chance
to make a land or dunk to win the game
and then throws it off the rim, get it and
any and he and he literally misses a land that
you would then say, Okay, that's a choke. I'm talking
about the final four possessions and the twelve point lead,
both of them combined.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
No doubt.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Well, I think that the the officiating, I think played
apart because there's only four fouls in the first half
twenty three in the second half, they got the lot
of Houston guys into foul trouble, a lot of guys
playing with four fouls and credit Florida. I mean they
went after him. I mean they raised their their level
and and you know when uhh, when Aberdeen had to
(08:39):
come off the bench, uh, you know, they got some
good minutes out of him. They you know, they just
they just kind of toughened up there. It was on
the verge of getting away from them. I thought, maybe
the most critical play of the game down six, when uh,
when Alex Condon blocked the three pointer and they got
the fast break, and then and then the one on
(09:00):
a really difficult land by Condon to pull within three.
That's where you go, Okay, well that that uh that
that might be you know, there's real belief that Florida
can win this thing.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Yeah. Well, the other topic that we did not get
to on fun with audio are are you ready? Are
you ready? Hure Milling crap for this guy right here
to be the next president of the United States of America.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
I've been approached, approached by people on Capitol Hill. I've
been approached by people who are elected officials in office.
I have no desire to be a politician. My life
is pretty well, but I've decided I'm no longer gonna
close that door I'm gonna keep my options open.
Speaker 6 (09:43):
I'm gonna entertain the possibility.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Stephen A. Smith. Just imagine sitting in the Oval Office
as the President.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
Jimmy g Poor and star Jimmy mister garoppolo.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Of the United States of America. Yeah, how's that land for?
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Okay, Well, I'll wait into these waters and that will
be okay, cocktail.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
How much longer is left of this segment? Jackson? Go
about ten minutes? No, just listen.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
I'll try and make a take and then you respond.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
You can have it.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
I'd like to hear yours.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
No, I would just say this what I'm about to say,
I'm going to try and make politically neutral because I'm
going to talk about three politicians, two Republicans and one
perspective Democrat, and I'm just going to tell you that
you could pull their political affiliation out of this. I'm
only talking about qualification, all right. Number one Ronald Reagan.
(10:39):
Ronald Reagan, people say, well, he was an actor and
then obviously he became president. Before he was an actor,
he was twice the president of the Screen Actors Guild,
and in nineteen sixty four he gave a famed speech
of time for choosing. That was sixteen years before he
(10:59):
ran for president, and he was the governor of the
state of California. Now I don't know when he was
the governor if this applied, but the following is true today.
If the state of California was its own state, it
would have the fifth largest economy in the world. Look
it up, all right, So, okay, that's wrong with rag.
Donald Trump never elected to an office. Donald Trump at
(11:19):
least graduated from Wharton's School of Finance. Wharton is ranked
number one out of one hundred and thirty three US
News and World Report business schools. He obviously had a
business experience, wrote a book on the art of the
deal mega real estate deals. Okay, so you could say
he was underqualified. But if a temple a pistol to
(11:42):
your temple. Forget whether you love Donald Trump, despise him, whatever,
just answer this question alone. Stephen A. Smith or Donald Trump,
neither one have elected office. Who is more qualified? If
you said, it's not a tie.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Stephen A.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
Smith has a Mass Commune Munications and Media Studies degree
from Winston Salem State University, which is ranked number two
twenty on the US News and World Report. I ask
you again, remove your political affiliation. If you had to
say who was more qualified, many people are saying neither.
(12:20):
But if you had to say Mark, the point is.
The point is Stephen A. Smith is not qualified whatsoever
in my opinion, And whether he has an R or
a D next to his name he has, he has
next to no qualifications.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I think it's absurd.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Yeah, well, I mean a lot of this stuff feels
absurd right now. To be honest with you, I just
you know, I think, but.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
That's a different topic. That's a different topic.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
No, I get it.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
But you respond to that point a Smith about his qualification?
How far if, if, if absurdity was was the universe,
the universe is ever expanding, correct it is?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
How far can absurd go?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Fuck level?
Speaker 4 (13:04):
There's always something more absurd than than what you thought
was the most correct.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
Yes, exactly, so how far? How far can absurd go?
I mean, that's just my question to you. So, look,
I don't think Steven A. Smith is going to run
for president. I don't think Steven A. Smith is going
to be the next president. I know he has and
I've told my friends that you know that he's talked
about it a lot. What what what I think is
going to happen. Is that steven A. Smith and Jackson.
I want to get your take on this too. Don't
(13:29):
just let me and Hugh hang on this man. You
got to jump in here too, Oh please. What I
think of steven A. Smith is that steven A If
you watch ESPN on a daily basis, which I don't.
Dick does, but I don't. If you watch steven A. Smith,
he has a major, major habit of making everything in
the end about him. Everything everything about him, Okay, every
every topic, every show, every angle is always about him.
(13:51):
I mean, he'll spend twenty minutes on the air talking
before somebody else gets a chance to jump in, and
I'm sure that's in his contract that he can do that.
I think steven A Smith, whatever attention he can gain
from this idea of him becoming president, he's gonna milk
it for all that's worth. He's gonna milk that cow
until there's nothing left in the teet. Everything is gonna
be dry as a bone by the time it's all
(14:12):
said and done. So I don't think that's gonna be president,
or does he want to be president, But I think
he's gonna ride this train as long as he can.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
He's I think he's gonna he's gonna be up on
the debate stage. He's gonna find a way to be
up there because I'm listen good. Because of fun with audio,
we can't play the full two minutes and forty five seconds.
He went off about this subject. But in that he
also mentions, like the opportunity be in front of tens
of millions of people on the debate stage. Come on,
the guy is very clearly focused on eyes on him, right,
(14:39):
So this this dude is gonna find a way to
be on the debate stage just for the eyes. But
like if he thinks that there is a remote chance
that he could become president, he's out of his mind.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Like everybody knew that. I think the name.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Donald Trump Trump, hold on, Yeah, everybody knew the name
Donald Trump, regardless of whether you watched the reality show
The Apprentice or whatever. Like he was a household name.
I don't think Stephen A. Smith is a household name.
I will be I think, well right now he's not.
And Donald Trump at this point when before he became president,
(15:14):
I think he was a household name. I don't think
Stephen A. Smith is remotely at that level, and not
to mention he does. Hugh, I think you accurately pointed
out that he had a financial background Steven A.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Smith as a sports background.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
That is not even we're talking apples to pumpkins right now,
it's not even the same fruit.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
I think we do a quick pull on the text
line four nine four to five one. Would you vote
for Steven A. Smith if he was running for president? Yes?
Or no? Four nine four or five one? Because I
think you're again, we're just forgetting that. I think the
absurd has room to grow. You know, ludicris could be
even more ludicrous tomorrow than it is today. And he's right.
I mean, when Donald Trump was running, nobody thought the
(15:56):
guy was gonna win. I thought it was a joke.
I remember doing a show with apker Thing and there's
no way. It's like, dude, I don't know, man, this
guy might pull it off. Who knows, man, Who knows
what kind of money he can get behind a campaign,
what kind of people he can motivate to vote for him.
I got no idea. I just think I've reached a
point view in my life when it comes to politics
and new stories like this. I don't want to dismiss anything,
(16:18):
as stupid as it sounds, I don't want to dismiss anything.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
Yeah, well, yeah, because I I can remember how I felt, well, Okay,
Trump's gonna get up there, you know, in the Republican debates,
and he's going to uh, you know, show aside, you know,
a raw instead of the polished politician. He's just going
to be more raw and and maybe it'll help influence
the other politicians. And you know, I didn't. I kind
(16:43):
of dismissed it. And then of course everything transpired since then.
But but uh, let me ask you.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
This quickly, how do you think he would do it?
A debate, Steven, A debate?
Speaker 4 (16:54):
He's very Yeah, I do too. I think I think
I think he's very well spoken.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
I do too.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
And I think he'd be a good Now, I don't
know how educated he would be, but you know, I
would just ask, I would just say, uh, I don't
know if.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
If you say, should you be should there be qualifications?
And what are the minimum qualifications?
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (17:17):
You know, and and there is relative some people are
more qualified than than others. I can't I can't imagine
being less qualified if there are objective standards I can't
imagine being less qualified than what Stephen A.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Smith would bring.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Well, we got a lot of texts on this. We
can get to some of them next, by the way,
and then John.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
Willis, by the way, we're gonna get an anti break,
an anti Trump vote on this, I mean obvious.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Do you understand what it means when I say we
have to break? No, Okay, we have to break.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
I'm gonna say, guy, get the Spanish guy.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Yea, yeah, we gotta break the guy from Yeah Brazil
that Hugh Miller. Next on ninety three three kJ r
f M.
Speaker 7 (17:58):
You're listening to the Home the Husky, the Krek, n
cle's best NFL Draft coverage Jim the twenty twenty five
NFL Draft. Now back to Suthian Did proudly brought to
you by Emerald Queen Casino on Sports Radio ninety three
point three kJ r Fmhi.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
We're getting a lot of text by the way, on
the which you vote for Steven A for president?
Speaker 8 (18:19):
Thing?
Speaker 1 (18:19):
We're gonna say those next on ninety three to three KJRFM.
But joining us right now on the radio show, he
keeps saying yes when so many others say no. U
formerly a ESPN Golf Channel. He's now got a podcast
on iHeartRadio. His boss is our boss. By the way,
how about that our friend wit Watson. Find him on
Twitter at real wit Watson joining us on the radio
(18:41):
show talking some Masters golf. How are you man?
Speaker 8 (18:45):
I'm excellent And if you guys are ever in Orlando,
check us out on iHeartRadio's ninety six to nine in
the Game and in Jacksonville on AM nine thirty Fox
Sports Radio, Jacksonville. That's my only plug. I promise, I.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Love it forever. The promoter man, good stuff. Well, I
got a few minutes here to talk some golf Masters
starting on Thursday, and I think for a lot of people, man,
the number one burning question will this be the year
from for the little five foot nine irishman from County Down,
Rory McElroy. Will this be the year the curse finally
(19:18):
is lifted and Rory takes home the Masters Championship.
Speaker 8 (19:23):
You know, you and I exchanged messages prior to the interview,
and he's definitely it's in his head. I mean everyone
knows it's in his head. That being said, he's arguably
the best player in the world right now. I know
that Scheffler is number one in the rankings, But who's
playing better than Rory McElroy. If ever, there was a
year when he could shape this off and finally complete
(19:44):
the Grand Slam put on the green jacket, you would
think this would be not his last chance, but his
best chance so far. And from what I'm gathering from
talking to a lot of people, you know he's the
betting favorite right now. So it's just, you know, you
wash your fingers and you kind of hold your breath
when you're watching McElroy at Augusta, because we've just been
(20:06):
conditioned to expect something weird to happen right during the
course of these four days. But I think he has
a very good shot at it.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
Well, you brought up Scheffler, and you're right, he's still
he's number one, and by a pretty good margin. I
think Rory's number two, and the gap between one and
two is like the gap between two and six. But interestingly,
to me points gained, you have Rory McElroy one hundred
(20:33):
and eighty eight, Scheffler only seventy two. He's kind of
cooled off when it seemed like he was going to
maybe be making the march to greatness, what's your take
on Scotty Scheffler from a broad perspective, and then also
just for this week, he.
Speaker 8 (20:51):
Has admitted to being a little out of sorts in
the last couple of weeks, although his press conference today
he said he felt very prepared. He appeared to be confident,
but in previous events at the Players in the Texas,
the two Swings, the two events in Texas, the Texas Swing,
he had been pretty open about saying he was frustrated
(21:13):
with how things were going. Now again, his bar is
awfully high. Right if you look at the world rankings,
and I'm on the official World Golf Ranking page right
now and I'm looking up those numbers you just mentioned,
nobody would imagine that Schefler was in any kind of trouble.
But you know, these players, they have standards that are
so high in their own mind. And when you win
(21:33):
at a rate that Schefler won at, and not just one,
but the way he played that the way he placed
every single week last year, even when he wasn't winning.
To him, that's the standard, right, So if he's not
playing up to that standard, in his head, he thinks
he's struggling the rest of us watching. Go my god, Scott,
you're the best player in the world. But the fact
(21:54):
that he appeared comfortable and he said that he was
well prepared. Maybe he's talking himself into it, maybe not,
but mentally he appears to be ready for this week.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Yeah, Watson, whether I was talking to masters, find him
on Twitter at real wit Watson. By the way, I
got a podcast as well for iHeart Witwatson dot com.
Everything you need is there on the web page, and
there's a there's a list of just great players that
have never won a Major. Xander was on that list
until last year, and he promptly got the hell off.
But Ludwig, Victor Hoblin, Tommy Fleetwood can't lay Corey Conners.
(22:28):
You and I talked about him, Sepstraca. Is this gonna
be a first time major win for somebody you think
this weekend?
Speaker 8 (22:36):
I my gut tells me no, just because I think Scheffler,
McElroy and Shopley and Morikawa that's the first four players
in the world rankings, and Matsiyama is six. They're just
they're all playing pretty well right now. It's you know,
I don't think that the conditions favor a first time
(22:56):
major champion. I think that Oberg has good of a
chance as anybody of laing a major for the first time.
For those that have never seen him play, you know,
this guy, first of all, was one of the breakout
stars of TGL. Right, like a lot of non golf
fans who saw him for the first time in the
Virtual Golf League that was you know, airing on ESPN
(23:17):
Mondays and Tuesdays. Right, who is this kid? He looks
like a Greek god. He hits the ball three hundred
and fifty yards. He's in good form, He's played well,
and if there is anybody that might be a first
time winner, that's the guy that I might point to.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
It seems like the dust has kind of settled on
the live factor within the golf world, and maybe nerves
aren't as quite as afraid. Kind of give us a
perspective now that we've had a chance to kind of
see how this is impacting the game. How from your
perspective in terms of the masters. Obviously those competitors can
(23:58):
can play in participate, but just what is the live
effect that we can assess after a few years now
of having lived with it.
Speaker 8 (24:07):
So LIV has twelve players who are at the Masters
this year, which is the lowest number they've had in
their three full seasons. And the reasons for that, obviously
is because these guys are no longer playing on the
PGA Tour and some of their exemptions are running out.
They you know, whether they're former Masters, well, Masters champions
go for life, but if they're former Open champions or
(24:29):
PGA champions or US Open champions, because they've been away
from the PGA Tour and not gaining world ranking points,
those exemptions are running out. Would anybody bet against Brooks Koepka?
Would anybody bet against Bryce and De Shamba? Bubba Watson
is playing as a lifetime obviously former Masters champion. No
one knows what he is going to look like because
(24:51):
he hasn't played very much on the League tour. He's
been hurt, so I think, you know, Mickelson is playing
with Jason Day and Keegan Bradley the first two days,
which I think is delicious by the way, putting him
the group of Bradley, that's the group I want to
watch to see how they they speak to each other
for four hours. So there's a lot of uncertainty around
(25:11):
those guys because we don't know how they are in competition.
We don't know, you know, what kind of form they're
they're coming into. But you know, would anybody experience means
so much at Augusta National, Would anybody be surprised if
Patrick Reid came back and won another green jacket? We
just we don't see them, don't We don't know how
they're playing because they get so few eyeballs on those
(25:34):
broadcasts in person, so that adds a little bit of intrigue.
And to answer the question, I've spoken to a lot
of people at Golf Channel and other contacts in the game,
and we're not close, guys, We're not close to resolving this.
I mean, the PGA Tour just turned down one point
five billion dollars from the Public Investment Fund. They wanted
(25:56):
Yaser all remind to be the co chair of pg Enterprises.
That was a flat no, we're not close. And the
tour doesn't want Team Golf, you know, they want the
PGA Tour brand to be on whatever this thing is,
and the Public Investment Fund is still pushing for a
team entity and some kind of co branding. So we're
(26:19):
no closer. John Rahm said that today at Augustin in
his press conference, we're not any closer.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Yeah, yeah, well we're closer to Thursday, round one and Augusta,
which is all that matters now. And before you go again,
wit Watson with us on ninety three three KJRFM. Fin
him at Witwatson dot com for his podcast and everything
he's up to. All this analysis is really great and awesome,
but really there's one reason why we have you on
to help us make some damn money. Okay, And you
(26:45):
came close, man, if the cup was four and a
half and not four in a quarter, you would have
had that great call at Jordan's speak at the Heritage
a couple of years ago in that playoff. Man, God,
you came close on that one. But give us a
long shot and give us maybe maybe you're favorite to
win it this.
Speaker 8 (27:00):
Week, all right, the long shot, he's not really a
long shot. Is the guy that I took in the
pool that I do with some Florida golf media guys.
We give the money to charity, and that's Ludwig Obert
now in faird. I took him because I already burned
Scottie Scheffler and Rory McElroy. Right, great assault, I am,
(27:25):
I am fingers crossed. I feel good about this. I'm
rooting for him. I'm gonna say McElroy gets it done.
I think he's gonna finally get the green jacket, banish
the curse like you know the curse of the Bambino
with the Red Sox. I think McElroy will finally get
over the hump.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Love it awesome, Wit Watson Witwatson dot Com, at Real,
wit Watson on x or Twitter, as the kids say,
great stuff, Enjoy the week, and we'll talk soon. But
appreciate this man.
Speaker 8 (27:52):
Yeah, man, cheers, talk you soon.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
Okay, they got it, Bud with Watson with us on
the radio show talking some masters. All right, we're gonna break,
come back and wrap it up, little techtimonials John Wilner
as well at five before Cracking Hockey pregame at five
thirty on ninety three three KJRFF.
Speaker 7 (28:06):
It's time for our weekly Pac twelve conversation with Senjose
Mercury News reporter John Wilner, brought to you by Simply Seattle.
Our friends at simply Seattle dot com have the most
amazing collection of all thayings Seattle Seahawks gear UW had
some of the largest selection of Sonics gear anywhere in
the world. Learn more at simply Seattle dot com.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
All right, boys and girls, back here at Jimmy's on
First across the street from t Mobile Park. We got
the Astros and Mariners coming up at six point forty
This evening, we have krackin hockey with the Utah Hockey
Club coming up pregame five thirty faced off at six
pm right here on ninety three three KJRFM. But courtesy
of our friends at simply Sattle dot com, whatever you
(28:48):
have your eyes on, use code Softy at simply Sattle
dot com for fifteen percent off anything at simply Sattle
dot com. Here he is our friend, the poet for
the pack, the big ten Baron from the San Jose
Mercury News. Our buddy Johnny Wilner. John, How are you pal?
Speaker 6 (29:07):
I'm good? Thanks? Are you guys?
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Good? Good? Hugh Mellon's here as well. So did did
Florida win that game last night against Houston? Or did
Houston choke it? Did Houston lose it? Man? Can we
say the Houston Cougars cooged it? Or do they have
a patent on that? Over in Pullman by the way, Oh.
Speaker 6 (29:25):
That's that's low.
Speaker 9 (29:27):
I don't think, you know, I think that in most games,
you know, the losing team contributes to its own demise.
That was certainly the case with Houston. But I think
you got to give Florida a lot of credit. Executed
really well down the stretch, played terrific defense. I would
I would say Florida won it a little bit more
than Houston lost it. Certainly Florida won the Houston's contribution
(29:51):
to its own demise was not merely to the extent
the Duke undercut itself in the semi finals against Houston.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
Yeah, I'm curious about your take on just the way
the play game played out from the respect of the officials.
So four foulsand the first half, twenty three in the
second half, clearly that impacted foul trouble for Houston, how
they played and what have you. Florida was able to
get to the free throw line, and that may have
(30:22):
been as big a difference as anything. But just what
about the tenor the tempo and how it shifted so
much with respect to fouls.
Speaker 9 (30:31):
It was the kind of night and day the way
they called the game, and that's the problem that I
find more than anything else.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
If they're going to call it tight, you got to
call it tight the whole game. You can't switch up, right.
Speaker 9 (30:43):
The players have to be able to adjust in any
sports to the way the officials are calling it, and
they got to be consistent with that regard. I thought
generally speaking, officiating throughout the tournament was poor, you know,
inconsistent on a possession of possession base. Is too much
time spent down the stretch with the clock reviews, possession reviews.
(31:06):
They need to fix officiating in college basketball certainly. You know,
having Tony Padilla work in the Final four, a lot
of fans out less know how bad he is. That
continue that symbolizes how broken the system is when Tony
Padilla is working.
Speaker 6 (31:22):
The Final four.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Yeah, well, I mean I guess, first of all, the
follow up to that is, what is your solution besides
not letting Tony Padilla work the Final four? Right, what
would be your solution fix the officiated issues? And I
don't know what you guys think, but when I'm watching
the Final Four and I see a rules analyst for
CBS that is also a guy that they rely on
(31:43):
for football during the regular season, and the playoffs. I'm
talking about gene Stera Torro I think is really good
at his job, by the way, but the symbolism of that,
when you've got a football guy doing rules analysts for basketball,
to me, it just doesn't look right on network TVs.
So what's your response to that and what would you
(32:04):
do to fix it?
Speaker 9 (32:05):
Yeah, I've always thought that was a little bit weird,
to be honest, that he did both.
Speaker 6 (32:09):
Even though he is solid. It is more about the optics.
Speaker 9 (32:13):
Than anything than the mechanics of what he's doing. The
biggest thing I would do is that got to limit
the review time. You know, the possessions fifteen seconds you
look at it, and it's the same in football. If
you keep tell within ten or fifteen seconds and looking
at the review, then just leave with the call on
(32:36):
the field or on the court, right.
Speaker 6 (32:38):
I don't think anybody.
Speaker 9 (32:39):
Expects it to be one hundred accurate every time. So
they got to limit the time spent on reviews. They
got to limit the number of things that can be reviewed.
Speaker 6 (32:48):
And then in.
Speaker 9 (32:49):
Terms of the the you know, the inconsistency of calls
throughout the game, that's harder to adjudicate in some ways, right,
it's just a matter you've got to pick the best officials.
Speaker 6 (33:03):
So I don't know.
Speaker 9 (33:04):
The details of how they assess, you know, throughout the
tournament they great the officials each round, and the ones
particularly have the best advance. They obviously need to do
something to raise the standard on that regard, but generally speaking,
college basketball needs to reassess the way it's officiated to
you know, kind of get in touch with the current game.
(33:26):
It's more perimeter oriented, it's faster, and it doesn't feel
to me like the officials have adjusted to the modern game,
like as much as the game itself has changed.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
John Wilner with us and John, you know, I was thinking,
I've been watching the tournament for over fifty years, and
if I just think of like the number one gaff.
There's a lot of synonyms I could use for that word,
but the number one would be Fred Brown in nineteen
eighty two, after Jordan hits the shot from you know,
he just inexplicably, you know, come down the point guard
(33:59):
for Georgetown and he passes out to the perimeter, as
you know, and James Worthy, you know, he thought that
a North Carolina player was his teammate. That would be
the gold medal of all of that, and I would
say that calling time out Chris Weber would be the
number two. But I gotta tell you last night, I
know Emmanuel Sharp is a is a really nice player.
(34:22):
He was the MVP of the Big twelve tournament. But
inside of thirty seconds, you know, he dribbles down. I
don't know where he's going on that play, but off
his knee turnover one and then a traveling type of
call or potential traveling calling. To his credit, he knew
he was going to travel if he touched the ball,
but we don't see that kind of traveling violation other
(34:44):
than on elementary school playgrounds. And he goes up and
then you know, just kind of loses his mind, loses
the ball, and so he has to wear that for
the rest of his life. Two turnovers inside of thirty seconds. Man,
that's got to be that's got to be real hard
for Emmanuel Sharp in terms of just like WHOA, I
don't know how he lives that down.
Speaker 9 (35:06):
Yeah, that'll stick with him and Houston's program. You know
the play at the very end when Flora's defender, I
think it was Walter Clayton, came flying at and you know,
to me, the problem what he did there is instinctive.
He knows it's going to get blocked, he lets it go,
and then he knows if he grabs it it's going
to be a travel call. You probably want to just
(35:26):
grab it to at least get the time stopped. But
to me, the bigger problem was the sequence leading up
to that. It just wasn't a good shot. I saw
Kelvin Sampson's coming and he thought that sharp probably should
have driven the ball to the basket. They were only
down two, they didn't need a three, so the right
move was to drive the ball.
Speaker 6 (35:47):
I thought that was the bigger mistake than actually kind of.
Speaker 9 (35:50):
You know, letting go of the ball instead of shooting
it once he knew it was going to get blocked.
Speaker 6 (35:54):
That's an instinctive thing. People can understand.
Speaker 9 (35:57):
It was everything leading up to that that really on
that last sequence, I thought, where they broke down and they're.
Speaker 6 (36:02):
Going to have to live with it.
Speaker 9 (36:03):
They couldn't even get a shot off, and that's inexcusable,
and it's coming.
Speaker 6 (36:08):
Senson said that exact same thing.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
It's inexcusable, no doubt. Well, John Wilner with us again,
courteys to have our friends at simply Seattle. Just use
code KJR fifteen for fifteen percent off anything on the
website at simply Seattle dot com. So one of the
reasons why we love having you on is because you
make everything so simple for us. Right, what's complicated to
the average person becomes simple to us because you have
(36:30):
a great way of making it simple. So explain in
these simplest terms if you can, this house settlement that's
inching closer to final approval. What's going on? What are
the details? What are we all waiting to hear? What
are we hoping to hear?
Speaker 6 (36:47):
So they had the settlement hearing yesterday in.
Speaker 9 (36:49):
Oakland and the judge Chlaudie Wilkin did not issue, She
did not approve it, She did not rule on it,
but she indicated that she to do that as long
as the NCAA and the Power Conferences can.
Speaker 6 (37:05):
Solve two issues for her.
Speaker 9 (37:07):
The biggest issue is the roster deal, right, they're cutting
Basically walk ons are getting eliminated, and she wants them
to come up with a plan where that would be
the current walk ons would be you maybe grandfathered in. Right,
So if you're a sophomore and you've been to walk
on all of a sudden, you're out, You're out of
your spot. She didn't think that was fair, and I agree,
(37:30):
and a lot of people agree.
Speaker 6 (37:31):
They need to come up with a solution for that.
Speaker 9 (37:33):
But basically what God came out of that is She's
gonna prove this thing, which mean started July first. There's
gonna be revenue unit in college sports. And that means
that Washington is going to.
Speaker 6 (37:44):
Have twenty point five million dollars.
Speaker 9 (37:46):
That they're gonna have to share with their athletes in
the next fiscal year, and the same with all the
schools in the Big Ten and the sec ACC and
Big twelve. That's the that's the biggest thing.
Speaker 6 (37:57):
It's gonna happen right if it want.
Speaker 9 (37:59):
If there have been a bigger issued yesterday, then she
may have said, you know what, you guys got to
go back to the drawing board.
Speaker 6 (38:05):
But she didn't. So revenue share is coming.
Speaker 9 (38:07):
It's now going to be incumbent upon Washington and the
other schools to come up with that money. And you
also have got traditional.
Speaker 6 (38:14):
Nil that is going to remain in place.
Speaker 9 (38:17):
So Deman Williams, for instance, is going to get a
million or two million dollars from Washington as part of
a revenue shareing agreement. He's also going to be able
to get traditional NIL doing a promotional endorsement.
Speaker 6 (38:30):
Opportunities in the Seattle area.
Speaker 9 (38:32):
So Williams, you know, he could make three four million
bucks if you want to.
Speaker 6 (38:37):
And that's going to be the same with athletes.
Speaker 9 (38:39):
Traditional ANIL is not going away just because they're putting
in revenue sharing.
Speaker 4 (38:45):
Okay, so let's break that down. We got a nice
round number to work with. Twenty million that they uh,
you mentioned the University of Washington. How much of that
is going to go to the Husky football players? How
much is it going to to go to maybe the
basketball players women? How does this does Title nine review this?
(39:05):
How do you see this as a practical matter? What
athletes at the University of Washington are getting that twenty million?
Speaker 10 (39:12):
So fifteen million of that on average, or let's just
say roughly fifteen million is going to go to football,
men's basketball is going to probably get three to four million,
and then.
Speaker 6 (39:24):
The rest is going to be the Olympic sport athletes.
They're not going to get very much.
Speaker 9 (39:28):
And that's going to set off a round of lawsuits
as soon as this team gets implemented, and we'll see
how the title nine piece gets admunicated. But basically, the
schools in the SEC and Big Ten are going to
devote seventy five percent of that twenty million to their
football rosters.
Speaker 6 (39:45):
Now here's the interesting thing.
Speaker 9 (39:47):
In some ways, they're going to be at a disadvantage because
schools in the ACC at Big twelve are going to
give a higher percentage to basketball, and so they'll have
more money for their basketball rosters. You know, uh you
Arizona is gonna have more money for its basketball roster
than Washington is as an example. But here's the most
(40:07):
interesting piece is schools that don't have football they're gonna
have an even bigger advantage. Gonzaga doesn't have to worry
about football.
Speaker 6 (40:15):
They could get six or seven.
Speaker 9 (40:17):
Million to their basketball loster, say with the Big East schools.
Speaker 6 (40:21):
So it's gonna.
Speaker 9 (40:22):
Change the dynamics of the basketball rosters in a way
that favors the schools that don't have football.
Speaker 1 (40:30):
No, that's a great point, Absolutely great point. Gonzaga. I mean,
they got other sports as well, but I would assume
that they're throwing maybe all of that money towards basketball
and then going out and just raising a couple of
bucks on the side for the other sports.
Speaker 6 (40:42):
Yep, exactly exactly.
Speaker 9 (40:44):
They're gonna actually have a big advantage in this regard,
and the big the schools that have where football matters
the most, their basketball programs are gonna be at a disadvantage.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (40:57):
Now what about you mentioned fifteen million were using hypothetically
the Huskies. Fifteen million of the twenty ish is going
to the football players. Who decides is that gonna be?
I assume it's not just all one hundred and five
guys are going to get an equal share. Is demon
William's gonna get more? Is gonna get a lot more?
Is there a minimum involved in that? Like in the
(41:18):
NFL you got a minimum salary of a little over
a million dollars, right, But then there's some people making
sixty million. Like, how is the fifteen million that is
earmarked for the football team?
Speaker 2 (41:28):
How does that get distributed? And who makes those decisions?
Speaker 9 (41:31):
I mean, ultimately that's up to jegsh So the Big
Ten on myne sense is that the Big Ten is
not going to require each school to devote a certain
amount of football, but everybody's gonna devote basically the same.
Speaker 6 (41:45):
Within your program.
Speaker 9 (41:47):
The head coach can and the GM can decide how
they're gonna allocate their funds. That's why so many schools
are hiring salary caps specialists. Right now, I'm guessing that
their starting quarterback, just like in the NFL, it's gonna
be market based. Your quarterback, your left tackle, edge rushers,
they're gonna probably get a little bit more than the average.
(42:07):
Your backup guard is gonna get very little. But every
school's gonna have to decide how they allocate those funds.
And if you've got a quarterback, it's like the forty
nine ers have benefited with brock Party, Right, If you've.
Speaker 8 (42:20):
Got a quarterback who kind of comes down.
Speaker 9 (42:22):
In nowhere and you're only paying him two hundred and
fifty thousand, right, you got more for everybody else.
Speaker 6 (42:29):
If you get a star quarterback out of the portal
or high school recruiting, he's gonna have to get more,
so that's less for everybody else.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
Well, Johnny, you just said something there that's kind of interesting,
and I don't think this is any surprise. I mean,
maybe in the NFL would be done differently. If there
were a coach in a GM, but I mean Jetfish
and again John Wilner with us courtesy is simply Seattle
used code KJR fifteen for fifteen percent off anything at
simply Seattle dot com. You know, for example, with the Seahawks,
you know, John Schneider is in charge of how the
(42:56):
money gets spent, and Mike McDonald coaches the players. But
Je Fish is essentially the GM and the head coach,
so he gets to make the calls on how they
spend all of that twenty point five. Can you ever
foresee a school like Washington hiring a general manager like
Stanford did with Andrew Luck, and that person is in
charge of how they spend the money.
Speaker 9 (43:19):
Well, I think ultimately Pat Chun Washington AD will decide how.
Speaker 6 (43:25):
The twenty point five gets broken down.
Speaker 9 (43:27):
He will say, all right, football gets fifteen, football gets sixteen,
whatever fourteen, that fifteen million will be Fish's purview. It's
up to Fish to hire a GM salary cap specialist.
At Stanford, it's a little bit different because Andrew Luck
is reporting directly to the university president.
Speaker 6 (43:47):
He overseas football and he reports directly to the president.
Speaker 9 (43:50):
He's the highest ranking guy in the head department and
Washington he's more of a traditional setup. Pat Chun is
the highest ranking guy in the athletic department, but.
Speaker 6 (43:58):
I assume he is going to give Fish control over
the allocation of the fifteen million. So Stanford's situation is
a little.
Speaker 9 (44:07):
Bit wacky because they've had so much mismanagement over the
last few years.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Final minutes here with John Wilner. John, you mentioned a
moment ago that lawsuits are going to come almost immediately
Title nine, what have you as soon as as all
of this is is implemented. Can you see a situation here?
You've got US District Judge Claudia Wilkin ruling on all this.
(44:33):
She seems to be generally favorable to the plan. But
could you then see an injunction that might even you know,
bug this thing down so that for at least for
this upcoming year, nothing really happens because it's caught up
in the legal process.
Speaker 9 (44:50):
I could see, like thirty seven touches you there's a
lot of things that it's not solving. The number one
issue is, besides SNA that.
Speaker 6 (45:00):
It is putting in a cap. There's a twenty point
five million dollar cap on.
Speaker 9 (45:06):
How much the schools can pay the athletes, and that itself,
some people think is illegal and is going to get challenged.
Until there's collective bargaining with an athlete's union, there are
gonna be lawsuits.
Speaker 6 (45:22):
What this House deal does is it cleans things up
a little bit, but not completely. There's a current lawsuit
in Colorado.
Speaker 9 (45:31):
Alex Fontino, former cu BOP's running back as soon and
it also gets right at this problem. It's not part
of the House deals. It's a separate deal. In six months.
In nine months, we could have another deal where they
have to put a pause on all this because it's
deemed illegal because there was no negotiated salary cap.
Speaker 6 (45:56):
That's the issue, as you well know, you're right, the.
Speaker 9 (45:58):
Collective know, that's that handles everything. That's why the NFL
doesn't get sued for these.
Speaker 6 (46:05):
Type of issues. College football is not going to have that.
Speaker 9 (46:08):
So it's still going to be open to all a
host of lawsuits over and above the Title nine issue.
Speaker 1 (46:15):
Yeah, well, the players have to find a way to unionize,
uh and then you know, create a CBA with whoever
that is. The NCAA, the president issue.
Speaker 9 (46:25):
The issue soft is the has screwed up so bad.
I want to use the F word, just be screwed
up so bad that the players have it great. They're
getting the tradition stopships, they're now going to get revenue sharing,
and they're going to get nil. Why would they e
they con transfer as million times as they want to
play immediately, Why would they unius? The NAA has messed
(46:46):
up so bad that the athletes have it great. There's
no motivation to unionize.
Speaker 4 (46:50):
Unless they got they get more money, you know, unless
they look at the twenty million and say, hey, that's
not that that's way too low of a percentage. Well,
you're restraining trade when you implement implement that arbitrary number,
and that's not subject to the market forces that that
would be the argument they think they can get more mond.
Speaker 6 (47:08):
That's exactly right. And when is the the nflpa's what
revenue tue it.
Speaker 4 (47:13):
It's generally forty seven to forty nine, has been and things.
There's certain triggers. But yeah, when I was with the
Players Association, we were hovering right around that, just below fifty.
Speaker 9 (47:24):
Yeah, John, college sports, College sports, it's twenty two. That
twenty point five number is twenty two percent of an
athletic department's revenue, so that's hot.
Speaker 6 (47:33):
The college athletes are still underpaid market based on the.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
Market, Johnny, great stuff man. Appreciate this. Always good at
explaining stuff for the simple folk like me. Keep doing
it and we're talking a week man. Appreciate it, Pal.
Thanks guys, all right, John Wilner from the San Jose
Mercury News. We've got cracking hockey pregame five thirty face
off with Utah Hugh. Great stuff man. We'll see it
tomorrow a three o'clock Right now, we got cracking hockey
(47:59):
next right here on ninety three three kJ RFM. We'll
see you tomorrow. Bye.
Dave 'Softy' Mahler and Dick Fain News
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.