Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
There's gotta be something. There's gotta be an algorithm thing
I can just break into and we can get like
six Omaha winters in like a two day span. That's
what I'm hoping for. But that means, you know what
it means with Portland and all these different communities getting
you know, multiple, you know, winners in a row. Sometimes
we're do, We're due. We want you to be a
(00:20):
big winner too, So go online kfab dot com. You
have a chance to win one thousand dollars. Putting the
keyword bank in this hour bank B, A and K.
Put the keyword bank in that kfab dot com that
little box, and you will be entered twin one thousand
dollars in our nationwide contest. Good luck to you. I
did you have a comment?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
I was just gonna ask you random question. It's probably
not helpful for the show. I just think about Portland, Portland,
Oregon or Portland. Yeah, main Portland, Oregon, the one that
just won three in a row, Portland, Oregon.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
If let's say, if you're a significant other or someone
close in your life was like, hey, for our next trip,
let's plan a trip to Portland. Would you be like
that sounds fun or would you be like, uh, I'm
gonna need to.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Know why have you watched the show Portlandia? I have,
and I love it? Yeah, that would be the reason, okay,
because you know, like maybe i'd notice some landmarks from
the show, so you.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Want to you'd want to go to the Women and
Women First bookstore just to get kicked out.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
It's I don't think that part is real. But to
be in that neighborhood and just like notice the buildings,
I think it might be kind of fun. But if
I'm going to Portland, I'm also going to Seattle, and
I might be also going to Vancouver, like I'm doing
the whole Pacific Northwest.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Now that'd be fun. Yeah if you hit all three?
Yeah is there?
Speaker 1 (01:28):
This is going to sound disrespectful. Maybe if you look
hard enough, you could spend a week in Portland and
make it work. I'd try to go to Isaac Brock's
house if I was in Portland. I don't know if
he'd be interested in that.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
He might not. But also there's a chance knowing a
guy like that. He's the lead singer on Modest Mouse.
If you know who that band is, people listening, but
there's also a chance he'd be the type of guy
who'd just be like, sure, come on in, let's have
some tea.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
I think he's probably drinking more than just tea would
be my guess.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Yeah, it's probably some whiskey in that.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
There is a lot of cool story I heard from
a buddy when Modest Mouse came here.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Sorry, like Modest Spells came here? What last year?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
This was years ago. They were playing outside and some
storms passed through, and instead of taking cover, Isaac Brock,
lead singer of Modest Mouse, was out in the hail.
He had his drink, a whiskey with him. He was
trying to catch some hailstones to cool down his drink.
What a legend, What a legend. That's why I feel
(02:24):
like if you showed up at his house unprompted, yeah,
he'd be like, sure, come on in.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. Wow. That's pretty interesting. Well, I
gotta tell you, Portland not high on the list. Vancouver is.
For whatever it's worth, I really do want to go
to Vancouver. It's not far from a big mountain range,
just right next to the ocean. You do some whale
watching over there. Maybe Portland has some of those same qualities,
but there's something about Vancouver and like the kind of
community and the stuff that they got going on. A
(02:49):
little bit more going on in Portland does unless you're
a basketball fan, maybe you go and see a Blazers
game or something.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Yeah, anyway, four eleven, thanks for listening to the show today.
Speaking of four eleven, I'm gonna you the four to
one one on something that Donald Trump is attempting to
do here. He in his White House is investigating now
that Joe Biden's use of autopin, that autopen that we've
heard so much about regularly. They are reviewing tens of
thousands of documents which have been turned over by the
(03:17):
National Archives in Records Administration. So this is one thing
right to keep an eye on. Twenty seven thousand records
to the White House have been provided by the National
Archives in Records Administration or NARRA, which is what I'm
going to say because it's nar is the acronym there.
But they basically are saying that Joe Biden has very
(03:40):
few right actual authorizations on a lot of these documents
that were utilizing the autopin and the conversation. Why this
matters is this could lend itself to who actually was
in charge, and would it nullify the ability for a
lot of the stuff that was signed to be properly
(04:00):
enforced if there is no indication or evidence that Joe
Biden did not actually authorize the use of that pen.
Now we know Caroline Levitt, the Press Secretary of the
White House, to be quite the firecracker. She says Joe
Biden was the worst, most incompetent and senile president in
our country's history. Now I'm gonna stop there before I
(04:21):
continue to quote. I usually am very opposed to hyperbole,
and I don't like the idea of hyperbole. But worst,
most incompetent in senile, I mean senile. He definitely was.
There's been nobody other than Trump that's been even in
their seventies, you know, and been elected in their seventies,
except I guess Reagan. But Reagan was pretty sharp all
(04:41):
the way up to the end. Worst most incompetent I
think is a bit subjective. Most incompetent maybe I still
kind of favor the three guys Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce,
and James Buchanan, who mismanaged America enough to run us
right into the middle of a civil war where we
spent four years fighting against each other right on our
own soil. I tend to think that that though those
(05:03):
guys were pretty bad, But you know, I guess it
depends on recency bias. She goes on and says, it
has been widely reported that Joe Biden handed the power
of the presidency to an auto pen controlled by unelected
leftist staffers who were allowed to make terrible decisions that
destroyed our country. The Trump White House is committed to
finding the answers to the many outstanding questions the American
(05:25):
people still have about how business in the Biden White
House was conducted. End quote. Now again, I'm not a
super opposed in this situation to, you know, hearing about transparency,
but coming off of the heels of a moment where
it didn't feel like there was a whole lot of
transparency with the Jeffrey Epstein debacle, and how it has
(05:47):
continued to kind of make everybody look like they may
have s egg on their face as it pertains to this,
do we really trust or we're going to get our
hopes up that there's going to be some major reveal
that of these, you know, tens of thousands of documents
that have been provided to the Trump Trump White House
for review and investigation to see who actually was running
(06:08):
this country. You know, I don't think getting my hopes
up is worth it in this situation. How would we
even know, right? And the use of autopen, it's not
that it's really not that crazy. Okay. There's been the
use of autopen by many presidents, especially when you're signing
a ton thousands of different documents on a day to
day basis for different reasons, and there is authorization for
(06:30):
the autopen as long as the president is quite literally
signing off on that being utilized instead of them having
to sit there for an hour like a you know,
famous basketball player or pro wrestler or something that's just
signing autograph after autograph after autograph for you know, a
couple of hours. So people will buy it online or
it will be given out to people. I'm not exactly sure,
(06:51):
but it will be interesting to see if there is
some development on. Okay, Joe Biden really didn't know what
was going on here. This is how we know that.
Will those documents give enough of that evidence or is
this just going to be something that another thing that
the Trump White House is kind of looking backwards at
the past and saying, you know, trying to figure out
ways to kind of ruin or continue to kind of
(07:16):
shame the previous White House if it hasn't been done enough.
I mean, I think the twenty twenty four election results
did plenty to talk about how the American people felt
about those four years of the Biden presidency. But if
you look and if you're looking beyond that, I'm just
not sure that there's going to be like do we
have like video to review of people like talking in secret, like, hey,
we're just going to do this, and Biden's gonna have
no idea, but his signature is going to be on it.
(07:38):
I'm not sure we're going to be able to have
all that. So I don't know. I suppose we're going
to have to find out over time, But we will
see how they expect to review upwards of what they're
considering up to one million documents. It just sounds painful.
I'm glad I'm not the one that has to dig
through that stuff. It's four seventeen. Have you got thoughts
on the auto pen have you got thoughts on what
(07:59):
Joe Biden has been doing or what Joe Biden did
and what Donald Trump is doing to try to continue
to kind of talk about the lack of legitimacy that
that administration even had while also being kind of crazily incompetent.
You can give me an email Imriett kfab dot com,
or go ahead and hit me up on the phones
four oh two five five eight eleven ten four oh
(08:20):
two five five eight eleven ten on news radio eleven
ten KFAB.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
I'd love to ask you very deep and probing questions
just to prove how open you are, but I won't
do that.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
That'd be weird. Just give me one, No, give me
one so I can.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
I don't want to. I'm backing out of that.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
I want to prove to the people how open I am.
Give me one. Yeah, I'm an open book here.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Have you ever had hemorrhoids? No?
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Okay, well yeah exactly. I can't ask any follow ups,
right exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Yeah, there we go.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
I've heard it's not fun, for whatever it's worth, but
I haven't experienced it.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Nothing you can face sitting down. Let me tell you that.
That's what I've heard. Anyway, I got this email from
a guy named Tom. I'm willing to talk about stuff.
I don't care what it is. If it's something I
don't deem to be super important, I'm not going to
talk about it. But can you can you help me
with this? Can you be my studio audience, Matt Police
for the people out out there? Okay, Tom says, this
(09:13):
has got to be the worst show on KFAB. Why
aren't you talking about how the Republicans refused to release
the Epstein files. The vote was two eleven to two ten,
split right down party lines. Instead, you're talking about home
runs and artificial sweeteners. But I guess you're not allowed
to express any opinions that would conflict with conservative Fox News.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
How often have I talked about the Epstein's files over
the last week and a half.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
You've talked about it a lot recently. First off, as
your studio audience wanted to get that in there. I
think you have talked about it a lot recently. If
I could be candid, I totally agree with Tom. I
saw that too, and I was just like, huh. And
then we actually talked a little bit about it the
commercial break because I was curious about your thoughts on it.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
There's got to be something in the way it was
worded that created that split. And then Donald Trump did
say today outside he's next standing next to Caroline Levitt,
and you know, I don't know exactly the context this
was asked, but it is out there, and he says
something like this is a hoax, like the files, the
(10:17):
idea of the files. This has become kind of a
Democrat hoax. All the smoke that was swirling around this
in the previous administration led us to believe maybe there
was more. There is no more, and we should stop
talking about it. I just don't It's a crazy change
up from what he was saying about this just months ago,
and what he was saying and the people around him
were saying about transparency just in the campaign trail a
(10:40):
year ago. How Tom, I don't know how this is
the worst show, but I will say this it is
worth talking about. I just don't know how to read
legislation like this and why this would have specifically been right,
because now this has become a political issue against Trump
because now all of a sudden, it's Democrats who are
saying release the files, when it was the exact opposite
a year ago.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
I don't see in what world. And I'm the last
person who's just going to take what Donald Trump says
as the truth.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Without it, it's impossible to know what to believe at
this point.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Well, I certainly, yeah, I don't see in what world
that this is a party issue one versus the other.
This is a people issue. Now. When he was on
the campaign trail and this was a talking point for
his campaign, he was saying that the Clintons are implicated
in this, and that has been everybody thought that from
the day I've seen died right from day one. This
(11:34):
from what I understand, this was a conspiracy theory that
started on the right side of the aisle.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Well, and then the right side kept talking about it
and saying that we would be the side, the right
side would be the side that is going to release
the files. And then the opportunity came and they had
that stupid thing in February, which I keep talking about.
And I know people are getting mad that I keep
talking about this, but Tom wanted me to talk about it,
and it is worth talking about for whatever it's worth.
(12:00):
And honestly, like the we're sitting here in February, and
we spent time talking about the big binders. In the
pictures that these people were taking with the binders. These
are fifteen right wing influencers across social media platforms and
YouTube channels, and we're thinking to ourselves, Okay, this is interesting.
They're letting these people tell the story of what is
(12:20):
in the Epstein files. And then we didn't hear anything
about those binders ever again. And then at almost midnight
on a Sunday into Monday, in the middle of the
Texas floods and all this other international news with foreign
tariffs and different wars that you know are still raging
on in negotiations that are taking place, they slide this
(12:41):
into the news cycle that oh, there's actually nothing involving
Jeffrey Epstein. He killed himself like we thought initially, and
on top of that, he's not got the client list
that we thought he had. There's nothing to be seen here.
The optics look absolutely obscene and horrid. And because of
who's in power now, the Democrats see this is an
op con to go on the attack. Everything in this
(13:03):
entire world that we live in, especially when you follow politics,
is going to be weaponized. Politically You're right. It shouldn't
be a party issue. It should be a people issue.
The problem is, Matt, everything happens to be a political
issue no matter what it is.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Well, that's because we're so polarized.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Well and even then, I mean, everybody wants a leg up,
and these people their job is politics. So they have
Democrats Now they're like, this is my chance to get elevated.
People will say my name, I'm bringing this to the table.
And then I'm going to get a bunch of my
buddies on the Democratic side to say, hey, you know what,
we should vote this. So they have to release the files.
And even then would they have to if Congress decided, yeah,
(13:38):
that's a good idea. If the House voted for that,
you know what would happen. Let's go to the Senate.
You know what's going to happen. In the Senate. There
are more Republicans than there are Democrats, and they would
find some reason if this bill or if this resolution
they were voting on is what we think it is
is just as simple as release the files, which I
think there's probably more to it than that. But if
that happens, Republicans understanding what the implications could be to
(13:59):
their own party and also to the president. They're going
to vote it down too. So as much as it
should be a people issue, there's something about this that
is more than that. It is absolutely a political issue.
And when the Republicans were in power and the Democrats,
or when the Republicans were not in power and the
Democrats were, the Republicans saw is a chance to attack.
(14:20):
And now that the Republicans have said there's nothing to
see here, now the Democrats, on the exact same issue
are seeing an opportunity to attack. It's one of those
weird situations that just a couple of years apart, both
sides have gone on the offensive about the exact same
thing to absolutely no resolution.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
But I think this is why so many people caught
somewhere in the middle who just are a person and
they don't identify with some sort of overarching party system,
and they're not drunk on that sort of ideology. They're
so sick and tired of this truth versus power struggle
that we have going on in our divided country right now,
where it's only true if it helps my side. No,
(14:59):
that's not the truth. It's only true if it's the truth,
and we would like to get to the bottom of this.
And I'm sitting here. Can I be controversial for a second?
I'm always controversial. He's not running again in twenty eight
Why is Don Bacon unless there is something in this
bill that specifically is clearly against a reason why we
(15:21):
should not view this right because of the way it's proposed.
And every single Republican said no, no, no, get this
out here, two hundred and eleven in the House. Why
would Don Bacon then be a part of that two
hundred and eleven? Why can't he be a part of
the one who says no, I want to get to
the truth. And hey, look, I'm not speaking from a
ton of information, but I am at least saying I am,
at least at this point trying to speak some truth
to power to get to the truth of the matter
(15:42):
of this situation because I'm sick and tired.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
It's a good call his partisan craft. Yeah, it's a
good point. Hey, if you want to be a part
of the show four h two, five, five, eight, eleven, ten,
running short here, we can continue this conversation. Hopefully Tom's happy.
I hope he's listening. News Radio eleven ten KFAB Emrie Sunger. Literally,
like the objective of the bill mostly is require Attorney
General Pam Bonni to release more information about the Epstein files,
(16:04):
which we were just talking about in the last half
hour for those who are just tuning in, because there
was a vote today in the House of Representatives that
went basically party lines two eleven to two ten. Their
Democrats want this to be released, and now the Republicans
are all voting against it. Well, there was a second
thing attached to this bill, and it was proposed and
attached to the Genius Act, which was a bill about cryptocurrency. Now, again,
(16:27):
I'm not here to say that that was like an
end all, be all thing, but this was not just
a simple resolution that was like, hey, this is what
we want, Pam Bondi needs to deliver this for us otherwise,
you know, like if we vote this in, that's fine, right,
But this cryptocurrency bill, which I know absolutely nothing about,
and I'm not afraid to tell you that, but it's
not as simple as just like a singular thing was
(16:48):
on this resolution that everybody voted against. It also had
a cryptocurrency bill attached to it. And you know, this
is what people did when the Democrats last year. Yeah,
it was the beginning of last year when all this
heat was on them for the illegal immigration issue that
we were having in this country. They tried to say, hey,
we're going to put more funding and close that border.
(17:08):
But as part of that where billions of dollars that
were in foreign aid to Ukraine, for instance, and so
the Republicans still voted it down, and you could say
it was a little bit of gamesmanship as far as
the Republicans are concerned, because you're looking at it from
a standpoint of like, oh, yeah, of course, you know,
like the Republicans don't want the problem to get fixed
because the longer it lingers, the more stain it is
(17:31):
on the Democrats who are in charge, like Joe Biden
at that time, and they want to solve it with
a Republican in charge so they can take the credit
for Well that's one part of it. Another part of
it is the fact that they also didn't want to say, yes,
it makes a lot of sense to give a ton
of money to Ukraine. So this is part of what
we do here. I mean, this is just a part
of how our politics work. You're going to try to
(17:52):
leverage for something else. They thought this was a chance
to also get this Genius Act passed, this cryptocurrency bill,
which again I'm not familiar with, And the Democrats are like, hey,
if you vote against this, people will just say you're
voting against releasing the Epstein files, even though there was
something else in the bill that's interesting.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
But also, let's keep that same energy, folks, remember all
those years ago when the whole Jeffrey Epstein thing happened.
The energy then was don't let them sweep this under
the rug. Don't let these socialites, don't let all of
these millionaires, billionaires, don't let all these powerful people who
might be involved with this stuff, anyone surrounding it, sweeping
(18:32):
under the rug. Why because a whole lot of young
girls had their lives destroyed by this monster, and maybe
men too, and maybe young boys also, certainly likely. Let's
keep that same energy, my friends, keep the same energy,
regardless who it implicates. Okay, keep the same energy, because
we need to keep telling truth to power. It reminds
(18:54):
me of the whole referee situation in the NBA when
they said, oh, it's just a one rogue ref right, Yeah,
it's the whole rogue person theory that all this only
person is.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
There's only one person.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Yeah, There's been enough stuff around this that I think
any moment where somebody, regardless of who it is, just
says there really was nothing to see there at all,
you say, no, there was something to see there because
the guy's partner and wife is in jail. Why would
that be staly? What about the Prince of England? What
(19:25):
about that guy doesn't want to come over here? All
these other implications around it. There's something here, don't tell
me there's nothing.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Yeah, And it's interesting as far as this goes. There
is a conversation Benny Johnson on social media and he's
got a you know, podcast, and he was doing an
interview with Marjorie Taylor Green a couple of hours ago,
and she he brings it up, this vote today, and
she corrects him and says, this is actually not this
is not true that we blocked the release of Epstein files.
(19:53):
This was technically a procedural vote against the Democrats having
House floor control for this for this bill, and it's
a misunderstanding. Now again procedures in Congress. I'm not going
to pretending like I'm an expert on that either, there's
a lot of stuff in terms of who can and
can't bring stuff to the table. I mean, remember when
a Keem Jefferies didn't do a filibuster, but it technically,
you know, we think of it as a filibuster. He
(20:14):
talked for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours,
right like, procedurally he was allowed to do that until
he couldn't anymore before a vote actually took place for
the one big beautiful bill. This is, you know, kind
of a thing where there's also a chance that maybe
there's a bit of procedural nature in this. But the
headlines that are gonna get clicks and get people interested
are the ones that are saying House Republicans vote against
(20:37):
releasing the Epstein files.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
Well, and that's already everywhere at every major news publication.
I'm looking a one right here from Axio's House GOP
blocks second dem attempt to release Epstein files exactly.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
So, like, as easy as that sounds like it might be,
from people who were actually there, and from also some
information that you can find online of what was attached
to this bill, it's just not that SIMI. So I'm
not here to say that I want it too, all right,
and I think I've been pretty clear about how, you know,
(21:08):
like how kind of weird I find this entire thing.
And I think everybody should kind of be ashamed of
themselves of how this was carried out from the binders
in February to the you know, midnight release of the information,
to the way it was utilized on the campaign trail.
Just an absolute joke, honestly, of how this thing played
out from everyone in power, both sides of things. But
I also think that we need to take some of
(21:29):
this stuff that happens in Congress with a grain of salt,
because it's never as simple as oh, we want this
to be done. No, there's always something else that's attached
to it, or there's always some caveat that makes people
want to vote one way or the other, and then
they'll shout from the rooftops just the one thing that
gets the clicks. That's just the reality of American politics.
And I hate to say that, but that's what it is.
(21:50):
Four forty six, great conversation on news radio eleven to
ten KFAB. There's a debate going on and it's a
little dry in Iowa this time of the year because they,
you know, don't have any like college sports to care
about in Iowa, Iowa State and all that stuff. Right,
So a debate has raged on Twitter, at least that's
where I saw it of who Iowa's biggest rival in
(22:11):
football is. And I think you and me were talking
about this a little bit yesterday off the air. Yeah,
So Who's Iowa's biggest football rival?
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Personally? I have to say Iowa State. It has to
be Iowa State. So historic they've played for how long
have they played? Has it been over one hundred years?
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Well, they started playing a long time ago, but in
the thirties they stopped ah, and they didn't play again
until like the seventies, Like they went like forty something
years without playing each other, and then they realized how
important that could be for the state. And then you know,
it's been the yearly thing and it's so important, like
Syhawk Week is so important. We can't let the money
of college football and Iowa maybe even Iowa State both
(22:46):
saying you know what, with this new college football playoff situation,
us playing each other in the non conference doesn't really
make much sense, does it. Like knowing that we could
lose a couple of games and still maybe get into
the playoffs. Why would we pitt ourselves against each other? Know,
if you saw this the news about Indiana changing their schedule,
they just canceled a home and home series with Virginia
an acc opponent to add to add Austin p and
(23:10):
another likely FCS or a Group of five opponent in
those two slots instead.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
So Virginia is like, hey, this is so rare for
us to even be in a position where we could
possibly compete. We're just going to remove all obstacles we can.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
Literally, well, Virginia, I don't know what Virginia is going
to do, but it was Indiana who decided to do this,
did I said, Virginia, Yeah, I'm in Indiana. Yeah. But
Indiana like yeah, they just decided straight up, like, we're
just going to play cupcakes at home in all of
our non conference games. We have nine Big ten games.
The goal is to win all the games so we
can get in the college football playoffs. So no more.
I mean, we're not going to get any major awesome
(23:45):
non like non conference games and matchups that much anymore.
Just because of the changing landscape in college football. You
don't need to prove yourself with a tough schedule. All
you need to do is just win enough games so
you get put into the twelve team or eventually sixteen
team playoff. It's kind of sad, to be honest with you.
Does that change how you feel about Iowa and Iowa State?
(24:06):
If you're an Iowa fan, I mean yeah, it probably
you can't me losing at Kennick Stadium to Iowa State.
It would be way better for you to invite UTEP
to come and play that game, even if it means
a lot less. Yeah, in Iowa State's got to feel
the same way, like, why would we play Iowa every
single year even if it means a lot to the state?
Makes way more sense for us to give it call
to UAB and see if they have a free night,
free day on the schedule.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Iowa State was right there last year they played in
the Big twelve Championship, right, yeah, yeah, they would have
won that.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
They would have got a buy in the first round
there you go, you know, but they beat Iowa So
you know, losing that game, you know, they can really
set you back. Here's the other thing, right, if it's
not Iowa State, who is it? And the argument a
lot of people are making is it's Wisconsin. Actually, now
Iowa has protected opponents in Nebraska every year, Wisconsin every year,
in Minnesota every year. Those are three the three rivalry
(24:53):
games that Iowa got protected when that new Big Ten
schedule came out with the eighteen teams. Nebraska's only protect
the game was Iowa. Is it Nebraska or is it
Wisconsin if it's a conference opponent, or is it Floyda
Rosedale and it's Minnesota. It just doesn't feel like those
games have meant that much over the years. It's either
was consin or Nebraska. But the one sidedness of Nebraska
(25:15):
and Iowa. I was just beat Nebraska all but once
or twice in the last like ten twelve years since
they started playing that Black Friday game. I think Nebraska
would say it's Iowa. But I also think that Iowa
would probably say it's Wisconsin because that's a game that
is always competitive and they don't always win that, So
(25:36):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
It's kind of weird.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
It's kind of weird to think about the changing landscape.
It used to be everybody knew exactly who their biggest
rival was was, but now at the changing conferences, there's
just no way to Know More coming up on news
Radio eleven ten kfab
There's gotta be something. There's gotta be an algorithm thing
I can just break into and we can get like
six Omaha winters in like a two day span. That's
what I'm hoping for. But that means, you know what
it means with Portland and all these different communities getting
you know, multiple, you know, winners in a row. Sometimes
we're do, We're due. We want you to be a
(00:20):
big winner too, So go online kfab dot com. You
have a chance to win one thousand dollars. Putting the
keyword bank in this hour bank B, A and K.
Put the keyword bank in that kfab dot com that
little box, and you will be entered twin one thousand
dollars in our nationwide contest. Good luck to you. I
did you have a comment?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
I was just gonna ask you random question. It's probably
not helpful for the show. I just think about Portland, Portland,
Oregon or Portland. Yeah, main Portland, Oregon, the one that
just won three in a row, Portland, Oregon.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
If let's say, if you're a significant other or someone
close in your life was like, hey, for our next trip,
let's plan a trip to Portland. Would you be like
that sounds fun or would you be like, uh, I'm
gonna need to.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Know why have you watched the show Portlandia? I have,
and I love it? Yeah, that would be the reason, okay,
because you know, like maybe i'd notice some landmarks from
the show, so you.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Want to you'd want to go to the Women and
Women First bookstore just to get kicked out.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
It's I don't think that part is real. But to
be in that neighborhood and just like notice the buildings,
I think it might be kind of fun. But if
I'm going to Portland, I'm also going to Seattle, and
I might be also going to Vancouver, like I'm doing
the whole Pacific Northwest.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Now that'd be fun. Yeah if you hit all three?
Yeah is there?
Speaker 1 (01:28):
This is going to sound disrespectful. Maybe if you look
hard enough, you could spend a week in Portland and
make it work. I'd try to go to Isaac Brock's
house if I was in Portland. I don't know if
he'd be interested in that.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
He might not. But also there's a chance knowing a
guy like that. He's the lead singer on Modest Mouse.
If you know who that band is, people listening, but
there's also a chance he'd be the type of guy
who'd just be like, sure, come on in, let's have
some tea.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
I think he's probably drinking more than just tea would
be my guess.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Yeah, it's probably some whiskey in that.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
There is a lot of cool story I heard from
a buddy when Modest Mouse came here.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Sorry, like Modest Spells came here? What last year?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
This was years ago. They were playing outside and some
storms passed through, and instead of taking cover, Isaac Brock,
lead singer of Modest Mouse, was out in the hail.
He had his drink, a whiskey with him. He was
trying to catch some hailstones to cool down his drink.
What a legend, What a legend. That's why I feel
(02:24):
like if you showed up at his house unprompted, yeah,
he'd be like, sure, come on in.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. Wow. That's pretty interesting. Well, I
gotta tell you, Portland not high on the list. Vancouver is.
For whatever it's worth, I really do want to go
to Vancouver. It's not far from a big mountain range,
just right next to the ocean. You do some whale
watching over there. Maybe Portland has some of those same qualities,
but there's something about Vancouver and like the kind of
community and the stuff that they got going on. A
(02:49):
little bit more going on in Portland does unless you're
a basketball fan, maybe you go and see a Blazers
game or something.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Yeah, anyway, four eleven, thanks for listening to the show today.
Speaking of four eleven, I'm gonna you the four to
one one on something that Donald Trump is attempting to
do here. He in his White House is investigating now
that Joe Biden's use of autopin, that autopen that we've
heard so much about regularly. They are reviewing tens of
thousands of documents which have been turned over by the
(03:17):
National Archives in Records Administration. So this is one thing
right to keep an eye on. Twenty seven thousand records
to the White House have been provided by the National
Archives in Records Administration or NARRA, which is what I'm
going to say because it's nar is the acronym there.
But they basically are saying that Joe Biden has very
(03:40):
few right actual authorizations on a lot of these documents
that were utilizing the autopin and the conversation. Why this
matters is this could lend itself to who actually was
in charge, and would it nullify the ability for a
lot of the stuff that was signed to be properly
(04:00):
enforced if there is no indication or evidence that Joe
Biden did not actually authorize the use of that pen.
Now we know Caroline Levitt, the Press Secretary of the
White House, to be quite the firecracker. She says Joe
Biden was the worst, most incompetent and senile president in
our country's history. Now I'm gonna stop there before I
(04:21):
continue to quote. I usually am very opposed to hyperbole,
and I don't like the idea of hyperbole. But worst,
most incompetent in senile, I mean senile. He definitely was.
There's been nobody other than Trump that's been even in
their seventies, you know, and been elected in their seventies,
except I guess Reagan. But Reagan was pretty sharp all
(04:41):
the way up to the end. Worst most incompetent I
think is a bit subjective. Most incompetent maybe I still
kind of favor the three guys Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce,
and James Buchanan, who mismanaged America enough to run us
right into the middle of a civil war where we
spent four years fighting against each other right on our
own soil. I tend to think that that though those
(05:03):
guys were pretty bad, But you know, I guess it
depends on recency bias. She goes on and says, it
has been widely reported that Joe Biden handed the power
of the presidency to an auto pen controlled by unelected
leftist staffers who were allowed to make terrible decisions that
destroyed our country. The Trump White House is committed to
finding the answers to the many outstanding questions the American
(05:25):
people still have about how business in the Biden White
House was conducted. End quote. Now again, I'm not a
super opposed in this situation to, you know, hearing about transparency,
but coming off of the heels of a moment where
it didn't feel like there was a whole lot of
transparency with the Jeffrey Epstein debacle, and how it has
(05:47):
continued to kind of make everybody look like they may
have s egg on their face as it pertains to this,
do we really trust or we're going to get our
hopes up that there's going to be some major reveal
that of these, you know, tens of thousands of documents
that have been provided to the Trump Trump White House
for review and investigation to see who actually was running
(06:08):
this country. You know, I don't think getting my hopes
up is worth it in this situation. How would we
even know, right? And the use of autopen, it's not
that it's really not that crazy. Okay. There's been the
use of autopen by many presidents, especially when you're signing
a ton thousands of different documents on a day to
day basis for different reasons, and there is authorization for
(06:30):
the autopen as long as the president is quite literally
signing off on that being utilized instead of them having
to sit there for an hour like a you know,
famous basketball player or pro wrestler or something that's just
signing autograph after autograph after autograph for you know, a
couple of hours. So people will buy it online or
it will be given out to people. I'm not exactly sure,
(06:51):
but it will be interesting to see if there is
some development on. Okay, Joe Biden really didn't know what
was going on here. This is how we know that.
Will those documents give enough of that evidence or is
this just going to be something that another thing that
the Trump White House is kind of looking backwards at
the past and saying, you know, trying to figure out
ways to kind of ruin or continue to kind of
(07:16):
shame the previous White House if it hasn't been done enough.
I mean, I think the twenty twenty four election results
did plenty to talk about how the American people felt
about those four years of the Biden presidency. But if
you look and if you're looking beyond that, I'm just
not sure that there's going to be like do we
have like video to review of people like talking in secret, like, hey,
we're just going to do this, and Biden's gonna have
no idea, but his signature is going to be on it.
(07:38):
I'm not sure we're going to be able to have
all that. So I don't know. I suppose we're going
to have to find out over time, But we will
see how they expect to review upwards of what they're
considering up to one million documents. It just sounds painful.
I'm glad I'm not the one that has to dig
through that stuff. It's four seventeen. Have you got thoughts
on the auto pen have you got thoughts on what
(07:59):
Joe Biden has been doing or what Joe Biden did
and what Donald Trump is doing to try to continue
to kind of talk about the lack of legitimacy that
that administration even had while also being kind of crazily incompetent.
You can give me an email Imriett kfab dot com,
or go ahead and hit me up on the phones
four oh two five five eight eleven ten four oh
(08:20):
two five five eight eleven ten on news radio eleven
ten KFAB.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
I'd love to ask you very deep and probing questions
just to prove how open you are, but I won't
do that.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
That'd be weird. Just give me one, No, give me
one so I can.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
I don't want to. I'm backing out of that.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
I want to prove to the people how open I am.
Give me one. Yeah, I'm an open book here.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Have you ever had hemorrhoids? No?
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Okay, well yeah exactly. I can't ask any follow ups,
right exactly.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Yeah, there we go.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
I've heard it's not fun, for whatever it's worth, but
I haven't experienced it.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Nothing you can face sitting down. Let me tell you that.
That's what I've heard. Anyway, I got this email from
a guy named Tom. I'm willing to talk about stuff.
I don't care what it is. If it's something I
don't deem to be super important, I'm not going to
talk about it. But can you can you help me
with this? Can you be my studio audience, Matt Police
for the people out out there? Okay, Tom says, this
(09:13):
has got to be the worst show on KFAB. Why
aren't you talking about how the Republicans refused to release
the Epstein files. The vote was two eleven to two ten,
split right down party lines. Instead, you're talking about home
runs and artificial sweeteners. But I guess you're not allowed
to express any opinions that would conflict with conservative Fox News.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
How often have I talked about the Epstein's files over
the last week and a half.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
You've talked about it a lot recently. First off, as
your studio audience wanted to get that in there. I
think you have talked about it a lot recently. If
I could be candid, I totally agree with Tom. I
saw that too, and I was just like, huh. And
then we actually talked a little bit about it the
commercial break because I was curious about your thoughts on it.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
There's got to be something in the way it was
worded that created that split. And then Donald Trump did
say today outside he's next standing next to Caroline Levitt,
and you know, I don't know exactly the context this
was asked, but it is out there, and he says
something like this is a hoax, like the files, the
(10:17):
idea of the files. This has become kind of a
Democrat hoax. All the smoke that was swirling around this
in the previous administration led us to believe maybe there
was more. There is no more, and we should stop
talking about it. I just don't It's a crazy change
up from what he was saying about this just months ago,
and what he was saying and the people around him
were saying about transparency just in the campaign trail a
(10:40):
year ago. How Tom, I don't know how this is
the worst show, but I will say this it is
worth talking about. I just don't know how to read
legislation like this and why this would have specifically been right,
because now this has become a political issue against Trump
because now all of a sudden, it's Democrats who are
saying release the files, when it was the exact opposite
a year ago.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
I don't see in what world. And I'm the last
person who's just going to take what Donald Trump says
as the truth.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Without it, it's impossible to know what to believe at
this point.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Well, I certainly, yeah, I don't see in what world
that this is a party issue one versus the other.
This is a people issue. Now. When he was on
the campaign trail and this was a talking point for
his campaign, he was saying that the Clintons are implicated
in this, and that has been everybody thought that from
the day I've seen died right from day one. This
(11:34):
from what I understand, this was a conspiracy theory that
started on the right side of the aisle.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Well, and then the right side kept talking about it
and saying that we would be the side, the right
side would be the side that is going to release
the files. And then the opportunity came and they had
that stupid thing in February, which I keep talking about.
And I know people are getting mad that I keep
talking about this, but Tom wanted me to talk about it,
and it is worth talking about for whatever it's worth.
(12:00):
And honestly, like the we're sitting here in February, and
we spent time talking about the big binders. In the
pictures that these people were taking with the binders. These
are fifteen right wing influencers across social media platforms and
YouTube channels, and we're thinking to ourselves, Okay, this is interesting.
They're letting these people tell the story of what is
(12:20):
in the Epstein files. And then we didn't hear anything
about those binders ever again. And then at almost midnight
on a Sunday into Monday, in the middle of the
Texas floods and all this other international news with foreign
tariffs and different wars that you know are still raging
on in negotiations that are taking place, they slide this
(12:41):
into the news cycle that oh, there's actually nothing involving
Jeffrey Epstein. He killed himself like we thought initially, and
on top of that, he's not got the client list
that we thought he had. There's nothing to be seen here.
The optics look absolutely obscene and horrid. And because of
who's in power now, the Democrats see this is an
op con to go on the attack. Everything in this
(13:03):
entire world that we live in, especially when you follow politics,
is going to be weaponized. Politically You're right. It shouldn't
be a party issue. It should be a people issue.
The problem is, Matt, everything happens to be a political
issue no matter what it is.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Well, that's because we're so polarized.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Well and even then, I mean, everybody wants a leg up,
and these people their job is politics. So they have
Democrats Now they're like, this is my chance to get elevated.
People will say my name, I'm bringing this to the table.
And then I'm going to get a bunch of my
buddies on the Democratic side to say, hey, you know what,
we should vote this. So they have to release the files.
And even then would they have to if Congress decided, yeah,
(13:38):
that's a good idea. If the House voted for that,
you know what would happen. Let's go to the Senate.
You know what's going to happen. In the Senate. There
are more Republicans than there are Democrats, and they would
find some reason if this bill or if this resolution
they were voting on is what we think it is
is just as simple as release the files, which I
think there's probably more to it than that. But if
that happens, Republicans understanding what the implications could be to
(13:59):
their own party and also to the president. They're going
to vote it down too. So as much as it
should be a people issue, there's something about this that
is more than that. It is absolutely a political issue.
And when the Republicans were in power and the Democrats,
or when the Republicans were not in power and the
Democrats were, the Republicans saw is a chance to attack.
(14:20):
And now that the Republicans have said there's nothing to
see here, now the Democrats, on the exact same issue
are seeing an opportunity to attack. It's one of those
weird situations that just a couple of years apart, both
sides have gone on the offensive about the exact same
thing to absolutely no resolution.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
But I think this is why so many people caught
somewhere in the middle who just are a person and
they don't identify with some sort of overarching party system,
and they're not drunk on that sort of ideology. They're
so sick and tired of this truth versus power struggle
that we have going on in our divided country right now,
where it's only true if it helps my side. No,
(14:59):
that's not the truth. It's only true if it's the truth,
and we would like to get to the bottom of this.
And I'm sitting here. Can I be controversial for a second?
I'm always controversial. He's not running again in twenty eight
Why is Don Bacon unless there is something in this
bill that specifically is clearly against a reason why we
(15:21):
should not view this right because of the way it's proposed.
And every single Republican said no, no, no, get this
out here, two hundred and eleven in the House. Why
would Don Bacon then be a part of that two
hundred and eleven? Why can't he be a part of
the one who says no, I want to get to
the truth. And hey, look, I'm not speaking from a
ton of information, but I am at least saying I am,
at least at this point trying to speak some truth
to power to get to the truth of the matter
(15:42):
of this situation because I'm sick and tired.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
It's a good call his partisan craft. Yeah, it's a
good point. Hey, if you want to be a part
of the show four h two, five, five, eight, eleven, ten,
running short here, we can continue this conversation. Hopefully Tom's happy.
I hope he's listening. News Radio eleven ten KFAB Emrie Sunger. Literally,
like the objective of the bill mostly is require Attorney
General Pam Bonni to release more information about the Epstein files,
(16:04):
which we were just talking about in the last half
hour for those who are just tuning in, because there
was a vote today in the House of Representatives that
went basically party lines two eleven to two ten. Their
Democrats want this to be released, and now the Republicans
are all voting against it. Well, there was a second
thing attached to this bill, and it was proposed and
attached to the Genius Act, which was a bill about cryptocurrency. Now, again,
(16:27):
I'm not here to say that that was like an
end all, be all thing, but this was not just
a simple resolution that was like, hey, this is what
we want, Pam Bondi needs to deliver this for us otherwise,
you know, like if we vote this in, that's fine, right,
But this cryptocurrency bill, which I know absolutely nothing about,
and I'm not afraid to tell you that, but it's
not as simple as just like a singular thing was
(16:48):
on this resolution that everybody voted against. It also had
a cryptocurrency bill attached to it. And you know, this
is what people did when the Democrats last year. Yeah,
it was the beginning of last year when all this
heat was on them for the illegal immigration issue that
we were having in this country. They tried to say, hey,
we're going to put more funding and close that border.
(17:08):
But as part of that where billions of dollars that
were in foreign aid to Ukraine, for instance, and so
the Republicans still voted it down, and you could say
it was a little bit of gamesmanship as far as
the Republicans are concerned, because you're looking at it from
a standpoint of like, oh, yeah, of course, you know,
like the Republicans don't want the problem to get fixed
because the longer it lingers, the more stain it is
(17:31):
on the Democrats who are in charge, like Joe Biden
at that time, and they want to solve it with
a Republican in charge so they can take the credit
for Well that's one part of it. Another part of
it is the fact that they also didn't want to say, yes,
it makes a lot of sense to give a ton
of money to Ukraine. So this is part of what
we do here. I mean, this is just a part
of how our politics work. You're going to try to
(17:52):
leverage for something else. They thought this was a chance
to also get this Genius Act passed, this cryptocurrency bill,
which again I'm not familiar with, And the Democrats are like, hey,
if you vote against this, people will just say you're
voting against releasing the Epstein files, even though there was
something else in the bill that's interesting.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
But also, let's keep that same energy, folks, remember all
those years ago when the whole Jeffrey Epstein thing happened.
The energy then was don't let them sweep this under
the rug. Don't let these socialites, don't let all of
these millionaires, billionaires, don't let all these powerful people who
might be involved with this stuff, anyone surrounding it, sweeping
(18:32):
under the rug. Why because a whole lot of young
girls had their lives destroyed by this monster, and maybe
men too, and maybe young boys also, certainly likely. Let's
keep that same energy, my friends, keep the same energy,
regardless who it implicates. Okay, keep the same energy, because
we need to keep telling truth to power. It reminds
(18:54):
me of the whole referee situation in the NBA when
they said, oh, it's just a one rogue ref right, Yeah,
it's the whole rogue person theory that all this only
person is.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
There's only one person.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Yeah, There's been enough stuff around this that I think
any moment where somebody, regardless of who it is, just
says there really was nothing to see there at all,
you say, no, there was something to see there because
the guy's partner and wife is in jail. Why would
that be staly? What about the Prince of England? What
(19:25):
about that guy doesn't want to come over here? All
these other implications around it. There's something here, don't tell
me there's nothing.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Yeah, And it's interesting as far as this goes. There
is a conversation Benny Johnson on social media and he's
got a you know, podcast, and he was doing an
interview with Marjorie Taylor Green a couple of hours ago,
and she he brings it up, this vote today, and
she corrects him and says, this is actually not this
is not true that we blocked the release of Epstein files.
(19:53):
This was technically a procedural vote against the Democrats having
House floor control for this for this bill, and it's
a misunderstanding. Now again procedures in Congress. I'm not going
to pretending like I'm an expert on that either, there's
a lot of stuff in terms of who can and
can't bring stuff to the table. I mean, remember when
a Keem Jefferies didn't do a filibuster, but it technically,
you know, we think of it as a filibuster. He
(20:14):
talked for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours,
right like, procedurally he was allowed to do that until
he couldn't anymore before a vote actually took place for
the one big beautiful bill. This is, you know, kind
of a thing where there's also a chance that maybe
there's a bit of procedural nature in this. But the
headlines that are gonna get clicks and get people interested
are the ones that are saying House Republicans vote against
(20:37):
releasing the Epstein files.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
Well, and that's already everywhere at every major news publication.
I'm looking a one right here from Axio's House GOP
blocks second dem attempt to release Epstein files exactly.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
So, like, as easy as that sounds like it might be,
from people who were actually there, and from also some
information that you can find online of what was attached
to this bill, it's just not that SIMI. So I'm
not here to say that I want it too, all right,
and I think I've been pretty clear about how, you know,
(21:08):
like how kind of weird I find this entire thing.
And I think everybody should kind of be ashamed of
themselves of how this was carried out from the binders
in February to the you know, midnight release of the information,
to the way it was utilized on the campaign trail.
Just an absolute joke, honestly, of how this thing played
out from everyone in power, both sides of things. But
I also think that we need to take some of
(21:29):
this stuff that happens in Congress with a grain of salt,
because it's never as simple as oh, we want this
to be done. No, there's always something else that's attached
to it, or there's always some caveat that makes people
want to vote one way or the other, and then
they'll shout from the rooftops just the one thing that
gets the clicks. That's just the reality of American politics.
And I hate to say that, but that's what it is.
(21:50):
Four forty six, great conversation on news radio eleven to
ten KFAB. There's a debate going on and it's a
little dry in Iowa this time of the year because they,
you know, don't have any like college sports to care
about in Iowa, Iowa State and all that stuff. Right,
So a debate has raged on Twitter, at least that's
where I saw it of who Iowa's biggest rival in
(22:11):
football is. And I think you and me were talking
about this a little bit yesterday off the air. Yeah,
So Who's Iowa's biggest football rival?
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Personally? I have to say Iowa State. It has to
be Iowa State. So historic they've played for how long
have they played? Has it been over one hundred years?
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Well, they started playing a long time ago, but in
the thirties they stopped ah, and they didn't play again
until like the seventies, Like they went like forty something
years without playing each other, and then they realized how
important that could be for the state. And then you know,
it's been the yearly thing and it's so important, like
Syhawk Week is so important. We can't let the money
of college football and Iowa maybe even Iowa State both
(22:46):
saying you know what, with this new college football playoff situation,
us playing each other in the non conference doesn't really
make much sense, does it. Like knowing that we could
lose a couple of games and still maybe get into
the playoffs. Why would we pitt ourselves against each other? Know,
if you saw this the news about Indiana changing their schedule,
they just canceled a home and home series with Virginia
an acc opponent to add to add Austin p and
(23:10):
another likely FCS or a Group of five opponent in
those two slots instead.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
So Virginia is like, hey, this is so rare for
us to even be in a position where we could
possibly compete. We're just going to remove all obstacles we can.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
Literally, well, Virginia, I don't know what Virginia is going
to do, but it was Indiana who decided to do this,
did I said, Virginia, Yeah, I'm in Indiana. Yeah. But
Indiana like yeah, they just decided straight up, like, we're
just going to play cupcakes at home in all of
our non conference games. We have nine Big ten games.
The goal is to win all the games so we
can get in the college football playoffs. So no more.
I mean, we're not going to get any major awesome
(23:45):
non like non conference games and matchups that much anymore.
Just because of the changing landscape in college football. You
don't need to prove yourself with a tough schedule. All
you need to do is just win enough games so
you get put into the twelve team or eventually sixteen
team playoff. It's kind of sad, to be honest with you.
Does that change how you feel about Iowa and Iowa State?
(24:06):
If you're an Iowa fan, I mean yeah, it probably
you can't me losing at Kennick Stadium to Iowa State.
It would be way better for you to invite UTEP
to come and play that game, even if it means
a lot less. Yeah, in Iowa State's got to feel
the same way, like, why would we play Iowa every
single year even if it means a lot to the state?
Makes way more sense for us to give it call
to UAB and see if they have a free night,
free day on the schedule.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Iowa State was right there last year they played in
the Big twelve Championship, right, yeah, yeah, they would have
won that.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
They would have got a buy in the first round
there you go, you know, but they beat Iowa So
you know, losing that game, you know, they can really
set you back. Here's the other thing, right, if it's
not Iowa State, who is it? And the argument a
lot of people are making is it's Wisconsin. Actually, now
Iowa has protected opponents in Nebraska every year, Wisconsin every year,
in Minnesota every year. Those are three the three rivalry
(24:53):
games that Iowa got protected when that new Big Ten
schedule came out with the eighteen teams. Nebraska's only protect
the game was Iowa. Is it Nebraska or is it
Wisconsin if it's a conference opponent, or is it Floyda
Rosedale and it's Minnesota. It just doesn't feel like those
games have meant that much over the years. It's either
was consin or Nebraska. But the one sidedness of Nebraska
(25:15):
and Iowa. I was just beat Nebraska all but once
or twice in the last like ten twelve years since
they started playing that Black Friday game. I think Nebraska
would say it's Iowa. But I also think that Iowa
would probably say it's Wisconsin because that's a game that
is always competitive and they don't always win that, So
(25:36):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
It's kind of weird.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
It's kind of weird to think about the changing landscape.
It used to be everybody knew exactly who their biggest
rival was was, but now at the changing conferences, there's
just no way to Know More coming up on news
Radio eleven ten kfab
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.