5.6: Love Your City - Hour 1

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
But nine day, Holy crap, I don't know who the
hell we think when we are.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
Get off our show, idiots.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
The kids are playing to tail off. Your countries are
screwing it up.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Gold Play Inner Murals, Brother, gold Play Inner Murals.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
They're supposed to be mature adults, but they're really not.
Who's the kid here?

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Who's the kid here? Are you kidding me?

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Now?

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Here's Nick Coffee.

Speaker 3 (00:32):
I'm gonna ask the question if we're ready or not?
Meaning are we ready to get this thing started? And
it really is is pointless to ask the question because
it doesn't matter if you're ready.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
I'm ready. My name is Nick Coffee. I hope you
knew that. Austin Montgomery. I know you know him. He's
the travel chief. I know he's ready, right, I stay ready.
We're ready.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
So collectively we're all ready. And if you're not ready,
you'll be. You'll be up to speed.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
Here soon.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
It's coffee and company, and we are fueled by Thornton's
here on sports to seven ninety on a beautiful, beautiful
Tuesday afternoon here in Louisville, Kentucky, beautiful. Right now as
we speak, it is three oh one and by you
know who knows in the next ten minutes, maybe it's
not as beautiful. But when I made my way from
my vehicle here in the garage at for Street Live it,

(01:17):
I mean, it was one of those beautiful days. So
hopefully that that continues. And we're gonna take you up
until not six o'clock because unless I'm wrong, aren't we
out early today for the Bats?

Speaker 4 (01:27):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:27):
Bats, Gay Spas back.

Speaker 3 (01:28):
So we'll be we'll be out of here about five
thirty ish today, So two and a half hours.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
That's a little bit less than what you're.

Speaker 3 (01:36):
Used to, so let's just all join in and making
sure we make the most of these next two and
a half hours. Derby is over, obviously, and yesterday was
a big recap and enjoyed doing that. And uh, you know,
Derby is a tricky thing for me, as I've probably
discussed more than I really needed to. But you know,

(01:56):
it's such a big deal around here. But obviously it's
just not something that I have as much as much
knowledge and I guess or interest when it comes to
horse racing. But the Derby event, everything that comes with it,
that's been a big focus in the last week and
some change and it's been fun, but I want to
shift gears here, or maybe I should more so say
turn the page, because there's a lot.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
Of other things I want to get into. And we'll
do that.

Speaker 3 (02:18):
We'll have some pubb'll mix it up, and I hope
you guys will stick with us. You can take us
with you wherever you go. You can listen live on
the Hour radio app. Also listen live at seven ninety
Louisville dot com.

Speaker 1 (02:29):
And I say all that to say, but.

Speaker 3 (02:31):
You know, this is me letting you know that I
don't want you to think that we're going to just
do horse racing stuff the rest of the show after
we start with it. But it is worth mentioning that
we did get some news. But then I believe the
last hour or so that this year's Kentucky Derby winner
sovereignty winner of Derby one point fifty one is going
to miss the Preakness Stakes, which obviously eliminates all potential

(02:57):
of a triple crown. And I from what I've gathered
again and i'm i'm i'm I'm sharing this just based
off of literally what I've what I've read from the
coverage at NBC, the coverage at by Pat forty at
Sports Illustrated and just some This is this is where
I am when it comes to just kind of knowing

(03:18):
like where to go when it comes to get legitimate
trust information you can trust when it comes to these
kind of things. Is that you know, it's just people
who I know that love horse racing. And apparently Bill Mott,
trainer of Sovereignty, is old school to where he will,
not to say others don't, but he is believed to
be somebody that will not necessarily worry about chasing that

(03:39):
triple crown. He'll think about the horse first. And it
sounds as if owners do trust Bill Mott to where
as much as a triple crown would be you know,
would be amazing because those don't happen very often. They're
making the decision that they believe is best suited for
the horse.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Sovereignty.

Speaker 3 (03:59):
So again, I think it was about about one thirty
when the news broke that Sovereignty will be skipping the Preakness,
and it was the Pimlico Race course, of course, you
know the Preakness event itself. They released a statement kind
of putting it out there and Pat forty and I'm
not picking up Pat at all. I just I'm reading
directly from because that's the first place I saw it.

(04:20):
As far as the news being broke, not to say
he deserves credit for breaking it. Maybe he just put
it out there and I happen to see it at
that time. But the last sentence in his post is
what I wanted to kind of start with it, because
it says horse racing is the king of self inflicted wounds.
And I mean, I wouldn't be the one that could
tell you if that's fair or foul, but like I

(04:41):
kind of get why he's saying it, right because if
you are Pimlico and the Preakness, I mean, you already
don't get anywhere near the attention and the coverage that
the derby gets and that'll never change. But the scenario
where you do, I mean, like this is the worst
case scenario for them. No, like they'll have I mean
assume they'll still have plenty of people that attend, plenty

(05:02):
of people that wager, but like best case scenario for them,
and it's all I mean winsl. I mean, I know
this has happened before, and we can look back and see,
you know, just how common it is. But for the
Preakness race. To know that the horse who just won
the Derby is already out, like that's gotta be a like,
I get it like that, that does seem as if

(05:24):
it is a self inflicted wound. But again, who's self
inflicting it?

Speaker 1 (05:28):
Right? Like that?

Speaker 3 (05:29):
That's what interested me today to where I you know,
believe it or not. I'm not trolling you, I'm not.
This is this is in a bit, it's the truth just
kind of here, you know. And again I'm not picking
on Pat forty like you said something crazy, but who
inflicted the wound? When you say self inflicted? Is it?

Speaker 1 (05:44):
Is it Bill Mott and his team? Is it?

Speaker 3 (05:49):
Is it the fact that these races aren't spread apart,
meaning with more time in between. Because again, this is
where I'm just being transparent. I'm out there on any
telling you guys, I don't have a clue what you know?
What is what the consensus opinion is for those that
do enjoy horse racing as this, you know, the sport itself,

(06:10):
and don't just think about the Derby. They think about,
you know, the other races like the Belmont and the Breakness.
But could they make some adjust because this I think
could turn into at least maybe a conversation about the
ball rolling to adjust the schedule here, because it's been
a long time, right, Like, we went many many, many years,

(06:30):
many decades without having a triple crown winner, and then
it happened with American Pharaoh, and then not long after
it happened to Justify. But all I it was almost
like it was on a loop when you would hear
people discuss a triple crown, the chances of it happening,
that kind of stuff. What I feel like I heard,
you know, my memory, if you know, my memory is

(06:52):
relatively solid. I feel like what I heard more than
anything when it comes to that loop, I reference was, well,
you know, it's just not realistic, it's just not practical.
It's this day and age. There's just such little time
between races. Therefore it'll never happen again. And when you
say self inflicted wound, I wonder if that's more so
because they don't realize they could make some slight adjustments

(07:14):
that might in fact make, you know, make this a
little bit more doable for horses to go from Derby
to to Preakness or you know, is it saying that
you know the trainers and the owners are at fault
for not wanting their horse to run in the second
leg of the triple Crown.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
You know, I think the.

Speaker 3 (07:37):
Triple Crown again, and this is where I get out
there and I'm just you know, I'm not in my
comfort zone. So I'm letting you guys know ahead of
time a triple crown happening when it did with American
Pharaoh and then and then justify that really did debunk
those who said it would never happen again. And it's
one thing to get one triple crown winner since I mean,
who was the one before that, I mean it wasn't

(07:57):
secretaryat was it.

Speaker 4 (07:59):
The last triple crown winner before before we had the
two before American Pharaoh. Yeah, I mean I could look
that up.

Speaker 3 (08:06):
I mean yeah, and actually if you could look it up,
because I want to know the year when it was,
because I think I sometimes exaggerate just how long it
we went without one.

Speaker 1 (08:14):
But it just seemed to be.

Speaker 3 (08:15):
And again, I'm talking about folks who are into horse
racing like it's what they do, meaning that they their fans,
they cover it and they you know, it's it's the
it's their gig. It just became from what I gathered
in their minds something. Well, we need to just stop
talking about because it'll never happen again. Let's just get
over it. Let's just realize that that will not be
doable again. And then it happened twice, you know, in

(08:37):
a in a relatively short amount of time.

Speaker 1 (08:40):
I got it.

Speaker 4 (08:40):
Last one before American Pharaoh was do you remember the
horse name?

Speaker 2 (08:43):
Affirmed?

Speaker 1 (08:44):
Yes, I don't know why the hell I said, Secretary
Seattle Secretary was two before him. Okay, And so there
have been one.

Speaker 4 (08:52):
Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve,
only thirteen triple crown winners.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
I mean it cause and again, when was the first one.

Speaker 4 (09:04):
That was back in nineteen nineteen where it was Sir Barton?

Speaker 1 (09:08):
So nineteen nineteen up until a firm? What year was affirm?
He was nineteen seventy eight. Yeah, so we're talking about
a it happening.

Speaker 3 (09:19):
I mean, even even as many times as it happened,
like I feel, I think from nineteen nineteen on until
a firm, it's still not something that was happening super frequently.

Speaker 1 (09:28):
Right, It's pretty rare, pretty hard to do.

Speaker 4 (09:31):
Nineteen nineteen, nineteen thirty nineteen thirty five, then two years
after that nineteen thirty seven and forty one, forty three,
forty six, forty eight. Then that's where we had like
almost a twenty year drought, was seventy three, seventy seven,
seventy eight with the firm, and then we had that
drought again until twenty fifteen. In twenty eighteen.

Speaker 3 (09:51):
So wow, so gosh, it's crazy. So justify I was
twenty eighteen. Yes, wow, I for some reason thought it
was much more recent than that. Believe it's been that long.
But again it went from being something we thought we'd
never see to happening twice. And you know, here I
am being so hyper focused more so just on the
derby and seeing all the attention deservedly. So that was

(10:15):
given yesterday once we got the TV ratings. As far
as the amount of people that viewed, I mean, it
was the most watched derby.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
In a long long time.

Speaker 3 (10:22):
It proves that big, big events here in America, when
it comes to sports, they still will gravitate to people
to where they're going to stop what they're doing. It's
appointment viewing. They're going to make sure they're able to watch.
So then you know, to see that love and then
it be ended with a little caveat of well for
a sport that's struggling, for a sport that you know

(10:44):
is you know is dying, as some say, that's pretty good.
So like if you could do things that could prevent
that from happening, like why why not make adjustments? Like
the Derby is going to be fine regardless, right, Like
the Derby is in a world of its own when
it comes to like ever having to worry, Like they

(11:05):
don't have to worry about interest and attendance, right And
I don't know enough about the Bellmont or the Preakness
to know sort of where they are, but they're not
Churchill downs in the Derby. So like, if there's things
that they could do to extend from the Derby, meaning
giving people a more realistic shot at looking at a
triple crown winner because you have stretched out these races,
like why not do that? So Mike Rodgers is the

(11:28):
VP of Form I gather, He's the VP of Pimlico
Race Course, which of course is where the Preakness is.

Speaker 1 (11:34):
Here's his quote.

Speaker 3 (11:35):
We receive a call today from trainer Billmont that sovereignty
will not be competing in the Preakness. Bill informed us
they would point towards the Belmont Stakes. We extend our
congratulations to the connections of sovereignty and respect their decision.
We continue to see the excitement building toward the milestone
celebration of the one hundred and fiftieth Preakness Stakes, and
we look forward to an incredible weekend of world class

(11:56):
racing and entertainment. So, I mean, there's there's no scenario
if you're Billmont or the ownership group that you wouldn't
I mean, you're doing this because you care about the horse,
right Like, there's no other reason why you would not
do it like you would, you know, I don't think
it's a scenario where they felt like they got lucky
in the Derby and don't want to you know, risk

(12:18):
really you know, being I don't think. I mean, again,
what do I know? But I just I would highly
be shocked if that has anything to do with it.
So the biggest reaction that I've been able to gather
in the last hour and a half since this news
broke is that, hey, why don't we why don't we
spread these races out a little bit like the Derby
should always be the first Saturday in May. To be fair,
if there's one race in the triple Crown that deserves

(12:40):
to be able to say we're going to do this
however we want. It's the Derby, but the Preakness, why
not do it? Why not do it in you know,
early June. Maybe you make it the first Saturday in June.
Hold the Belmont, you know, make it a fourth of
July kind of thing. Whatever weekend happens to, you know,
fall closest to fourth of July.

Speaker 1 (13:00):
Do it.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
Then it gives you more of I think a modern
schedule where you know all three you know you can,
you can realistically being you know a little bit better,
better prepared to to be able to run in all three.
So anyways, that's the news following two days after Derby.
We now know that this year's Derby winner is not

(13:20):
going to be participating in the Breaknas.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
But and again, I mean.

Speaker 3 (13:25):
I if it's if it's the right reason for the horse,
then you know that's really all that matters. It's the
right reason. But I think the chase of a triple
crown really became realistic again because it went so we
went so long without one.

Speaker 1 (13:37):
Then we had too.

Speaker 3 (13:38):
Well, now we already know there's no there's no shot
at one because the guy who you know, the horse
that just won Derby is already is already out. So
I don't really know, Like this is one of those
things where, yeah, it sucks, because we would all probably
like to see at least a chance to see if
we could have another triple crown winner. As Austin just mentioned,
with those numbers, it's very rare, so you know, to

(13:58):
know already that like it's not happening, it does suck.
But who you mad at the person that wants to
keep a horse safe? You know, like I just you know.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
It's a bummer.

Speaker 3 (14:07):
But sometimes when you realize like things just didn't work
out the way that you wanted something, you know there's
a result you don't like, or a decision that's been
made that that maybe impacts you in a negative way,
Like all that sucks, But if you have no route
to really point it back to, like.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
But like you could eat you could, you know, you
could deal with it a little bit better.

Speaker 3 (14:32):
But I just to see that the news and then
it turned to well, hey, horse racing man, they just
can't get out of their own way self. Inflicted wounds,
like who we mad at here? Like who did something wrong?
I mean, if anything, I would assume that if this
race was maybe a little bit later than the current
date that's scheduled, then maybe that maybe sovereignty would be
able to go. And if so, I think you point
the finger at the schedule and whoever decided on that

(14:54):
probably ain't even around anymore, like horse racing seems to have,
and again i'd say seems to have because I'm letting
you know right now, I've stepped out, I've stepped out
of said comfort zone, and I'm now sharing thoughts on
horse racing, well aware that I'm not as informed as
a lot of you listening, and also horse racing will
be found without my thoughts, my suggestions. They understandably so
would not have any interest in any kind of suggestions

(15:16):
that I would make. But horse racing again seems to
have a little bit of like the the golf element
to it, to where like it's historic and it's the
way we've always done it, so that's just the way
it is. And I get sort of the mindset behind
that from the purists. But like this day and age,
you got to grow the game. You got to you

(15:36):
got to understand that if you want people at a
high level to be interested in engaging in your event,
your content, whatever it is you're doing. I meant the
end of the day, horse racing is what entertainment.

Speaker 1 (15:46):
It's business.

Speaker 3 (15:49):
I mean the people who make a lot of money
and are the ones who own the horses and are
trainers that kind of stuff. But like if it's on television,
it's because people can watch it and they can wager
on it.

Speaker 1 (15:57):
Like that's that's that's what it is. It's entertainment.

Speaker 3 (15:59):
So you got to keep in mind there's a lot
more competition in twenty twenty five for people to be entertained,
and if a slight adjustment to the schedule would give
you a better ability to really make these other you know,
really just the second leg, because you know, the the Bellmont,
it just comes down to, like, all right, do they
knock off the first couple of legs and if so,

(16:22):
that's the best case scenario obviously for the Belmont, But
they can't control that, and you know.

Speaker 1 (16:29):
They have to know that going in.

Speaker 3 (16:30):
But with the Preakness, when horses decide not to go,
and it's just because it might be too close and
they don't have enough time to rest. That to me
seems like an easy fix. And I'm thinking, like, who
says no? I mean, especially given this time of year,
Like I could be totally wrong here, And again, disclaimer,
I'm stepping outside of not even a comfort zone, Like
I'm just out here rambling about things that, like, you know,

(16:53):
a lot of you are probably thinking, the hell's this
scut talking about? Didn't he know that the Preakness race
is on this, Like I'm assuming NBC has all so
the Preakness and the Belmont.

Speaker 1 (17:01):
Don't know.

Speaker 3 (17:02):
But if I'm wrong, I'll stand correct. But it only
makes sense, right, Yeah, it only makes sense. So I
mean again, you're not competing on NBC with a lot
of other things to put on television at that time,
Like a slight adjustment that could make it a.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
Little more doable. I think.

Speaker 3 (17:17):
Put it this way, it can't hurt, right, Like, what
what's what's the downfall? I mean that again, And maybe
there is legitimate downfall and a reason why they don't
do it, And I'm just, you know, that ignorant. That's
certainly a possibility. But to see the winner on Saturday,
and there'd be so much, you know, energy, and you know,
I think after the Derby it's always the first question

(17:38):
that comes to mind for people once they sober up. Hey,
you think we could have a triple Crown winner? And
a lot of times we don't. More often than not
we don't. But this is the moment where you really
never know, right, Like you're sitting here thinking this race
or this this this horse Sovereignty clearly did enough to
generate enough buzz to be in the conversation as one

(17:58):
of the favorites and got it done, got the win,
and the lead up to the Preakness about can Sovereignty
get the second leg down and get even closer to
you know, the pinnacle of horse racing, the Triple Crown,
and it's already eliminated, and I just feel like, you know,
it could be avoided if there was a slight change.

(18:20):
But again that's just my thoughts on it. I'll step
now back into like, you know, my comfort zone because
I rarely just get out there and share like, hey,
here's what horse racing should do, because again, like they
don't need to appeal to me, but if it's such
a oh, they can't get out of their own way
and it's based simply off schedule. I mean, I don't
think it would be a real big deal to make

(18:42):
a slight adjustment. And the reason again, the root of
why I'm bringing all this up is because for the
longest time, when we were told we'd never see another
triple Crown winner, most people referenced that two things. One,
it's just unrealistic to expect this much out of a
horse in these three races and now amount of time.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
That was the biggest factor.

Speaker 3 (19:01):
The other was, well, there's just so many horses in
the Derby that like, sometimes you end up with a
random winner of the Derby that really wasn't that impressive,
but the other horse is just gassed out. Because the
Derby is such a long race and there's so many horses,
you really never know what you're gonna get. Kind of
like sometimes you'll get a team that you know wasn't
that good, but man, they got hot. They made the
Sweet sixteen, they made the Elite eight. I always find

(19:25):
myself comparing other things in sports to you know, college basketball, like,
for example, the college football playoff appearance to me is
now considered like basically a final four of college football,
like it is basketball so all right, we got a
lot to get to. Let's get our first time out
out of the way. And if you guys want to
join us on the show, you certainly can do it.
You could text in five oh two four three eight

(19:45):
ninety seventy three. That's the Eleenent Federal Credit Union text line,
and you could also give us a call five O
two five seven one seventy nine hundred.

Speaker 1 (19:53):
Give it lock right here.

Speaker 3 (19:54):
It's Coffee and Company and we are fueled bout Thornton's
on Sports Talk seven to ninety.

Speaker 2 (19:59):
Now back to coffee and Company, fueled by Thornton's on
Sports Talk seven nine day.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
That's right, it's coffee and Company fuel by Thornton's here
on Sports Talk seven ninety. Appreciate you guys hanging out
with us, Nick Coffee, Austin Montgomery alongside and real quick.
This is something that hit the news wire today and
I thought, initially it seems kind of kind of.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
Silly.

Speaker 3 (20:26):
Maybe I mean, Silly's not the word I was aiming for,
but nothing else came to mind. But Clemson and Notre
Dame have agreed to a twelve year series in football
from twenty twenty seven to twenty thirty eight, and you
may wonder, why the hell does anybody care, and may
there may not be a person that's listening that cares.
But I think if you're in the ACC in both
football and basketball, your best course of action would be

(20:49):
to understand where the league is, understand realistic expectations, or
really just being realistic with yourself as far as how
much better the league can get. So I think Clemson
here is well aware that we can't just have years
where we have Notre Dame on the schedule because of

(21:12):
the ACC arrangement twice in a six year window. We're
gonna need if we want to impress the committee to
get into the college football Playoff, we need to absolutely
have a annual opponent on the schedule that will give
us big time value if we beat them, and wouldn't

(21:33):
kill us if we lose if we lose a close game,
because that's what it seemed like.

Speaker 1 (21:37):
It's started to turn into.

Speaker 3 (21:39):
Like if you lose if you have a good record, like,
for example, if Louisville, and maybe they aren't the best
example actually, because nobody really gave respect to the ACC,
but prior to Louisville's loss to Stanford, let's say they
finished the season nine to three and all three losses
are to Miami, Notre Dame, and SMU. I mean pains

(22:01):
me to say it, Austin, but they might have been in.
Like I don't think they would have got in, but
I mean Clemson got in, all right, I mean like
they might. Clemson got in because they won they won
the league, I guess, But as far as the championship.

Speaker 1 (22:11):
Didn't the win the championship game? They did, right, Clemson
beat s MU and the AC championship.

Speaker 4 (22:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (22:16):
Yeah, so so they got in regardless. But you know,
maybe because Louisville beat Clemson at Clemson the way they did,
maybe Louisville would have been able to somehow edge SMU.
It's it's silly to go back and think about that,
but you know, the A this this tells me a
couple of things. One, Clemson's aware that they're gonna have
to schedule an annual It can't just be South Carolina

(22:39):
because you're you know, obviously Shane Biemer has done a
good job and they're in a better spot now than
they well, they.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
Seem to be hit or miss.

Speaker 3 (22:46):
Beemer will have a year where it looks as if
he's gonna have to coach for his job, and you know,
then he has a good year, then he'll he'll he'll
take a step back. But they've got Clemson every year
as an annual opponent, and they also have, uh, they
now have Notre Dame as an annual opponent starting in
twenty twenty seven. So two things to take from this,
and I'm sure I'm reaching a little bit, But if

(23:08):
the SEC does go to nine games in their conference schedule,
which right now Greg Sanki what he's doing is really
not even try me.

Speaker 1 (23:18):
He's not hiding it.

Speaker 3 (23:19):
They want to If they're going to go to nine,
then they're going to make adjustments on their end where
they will no longer like they'll they'll probably encourage South
Carolina to not schedule Clemson. They'll encourage Kentucky not to
schedule Louisville because they're going to non conference games.

Speaker 1 (23:34):
So a couple things.

Speaker 3 (23:35):
This is maybe Clemson giving themselves an added non conference
opponent that will give them big value with a win
and won't kill them if they lose if they lose
South Carolina, or they're just of the opinion that they're
going to need maybe two non conference resume opportunities, meaning
big value with a win, not a killer if you lose,

(23:57):
because what they do in league play will no longer.

Speaker 1 (24:02):
It's just it's you know, beating up.

Speaker 3 (24:03):
And in fact, for years now, running through the ACC
just hasn't hasn't actually given you a whole lot of respect,
And and I can't I argue.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
That the respect is deserved.

Speaker 3 (24:13):
Like Clemson would do enough to where sometimes they would
run through the ACC and then they would get to
the College Football Playoff and they'd win because they're Clemson
in that in that era, but anybody else, like who
else in the ACC has had really good years where
they're getting some national love, some national relevance because mostly
what they're doing against the league, and then it pays

(24:35):
off to where it's like, wow, what a statement by
the ACC. It just hadn't played out that way. So
you know, I think if you're Louisville, you know, and
by the way, credit to Jeff Brown. You know, he's
tried to get some big time non conference games on
the schedule with teams from the SEC, not including Kentucky,
and they just you know, they don't, they don't, they

(24:55):
don't want to play. And I you know, I don't
really cause when I was, when I was looking and
when I initially when this story broke this morning, I'm
thinking to myself, why does Clemson need to do that?
Because you know, right now, like the way it stands
as of today, going off just the one year we
have with the expanded playoff, the way it's set up, like,
you really don't need to go out and really schedule

(25:19):
really tough in the non conference because are you really
going to get credit for it?

Speaker 1 (25:24):
Right?

Speaker 3 (25:24):
Because if you know, for for a while it's been
we'll look, if you win your you win your conference,
then you're in. Well now they're you know, the auto
bids as far as getting in if you win your league.
That's still on the table as far as the discussion.
But rightfully so the scenario where the top four seeds
who get buys are just the conference champs.

Speaker 1 (25:42):
Like that can't be. That can't be it.

Speaker 3 (25:45):
So I think you're gonna see some decisions as far
as scheduling moving forward that give programs like Clemson's done
here a little bit of landing room regardless of how
this shakes out, right, because I mean, I think it's
a areas because the SEC you know, for as arrogant
as they are, they don't do anything out of conference.
They beat up on each other, and that doesn't prove

(26:08):
that they're not like they're not the best league. But
they also like they won't schedule non conference games unless
they're guaranteed a certain amount of auto bids to the playoff,
which you know, it's just it's Sankee doing what. Like
Sankie's the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference. So literally everything

(26:29):
he's throwing out there, everything he proposes, every bit of
his role is to look out specifically for his conference.
Like I don't fault him for that at all. I mean,
that's literally his job. That's like an agent. If you
know your client's got a great deal and a great
salary and a couple of years ago by like you're

(26:49):
probably going to think, well, I gotta try to get
him more because that's what I'm paid to do. That's
how I'm incentivized. So you know, I just the college
football layoffs future is not like in doubt we're gonna
have it. But the discussions going on most recently at
this college football Playoff spring meeting that took place in Dallas.

(27:11):
Whatever comes out of this is gonna be like a
big deal, and it's just tough to know exactly what
transpires because I think guaranteeing a certain amount of spots
per conference is stupid as hell because you just never know,
even if it's unrealistic or if it's something that's never
been done before. It is insane to think that, Okay, automatically,

(27:35):
in this expanded playoff that includes fourteen teams instead of twelve,
we're gonna give four guaranteed to the SEC and four
to the Big Ten. Who's to say that the Big
Ten may fall off the cliff and be the worst
league in the world. You're gonna tell me we're putting
thirty roughly thirty percent of the of the of the

(27:56):
event is going to feature teams that stink. And again
I'm not saying that that's realistic about that's gonna happen,
but this is a step in the direction of like
truly not making about if you if you guarantee certain
spots per conference, or if you do something unheard of,
which no way they'll ever do it, but it was
at least thrown out there, and that's the TV viewership

(28:18):
being a factor and how you get in any anything
in that lane, especially especially, but also just guaranteeing spots
based off your league. That is the full blown confirmation
that that you know, you're operating with the mindset that
results don't matter. And I think people are already operating
with that, and that's why you had so many people.

Speaker 1 (28:40):
You can't tell me we're not one of the twelve
best teams in the country.

Speaker 3 (28:44):
You didn't you didn't show that, you didn't do that,
you didn't get those results at all. Therefore you're not
one of the twelve best. Like that's like saying teams
who missed the like Kansas Jayhawk basketball this year, biggest
best roster, most expensive roster. They lost in the first
round that ten seeded John Caliperi. So with that, like

(29:13):
do we think, Okay, well, you know you can't, but
you can't tell me Kansas sit in elite with Hunter
Dickinson and you know all those guys Bill self, Like,
come on, now, you can't tell me they're not, so
let's just go and throw them in the final. For me,
it's Kansas Like that that sounds.

Speaker 1 (29:25):
Crazy, right, That's what people are.

Speaker 3 (29:27):
That's the same rhetoric you're hearing when it comes to
the college football argument. And I mean, I know I
sound like poor ACC guy, but look, I've been clear,
I don't give a damn about the ACC. I hope
it does well because that, you know, vodes well for
Louisville because clearly how good your conferences is a big
factor and the kind of respect that you get and
the opportunities that you have.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
But liked, ACC has been.

Speaker 3 (29:49):
Falling off a cliff and basketball in recent years, and
in football, I do think it took a little bit
of a step in the right direction last year. But
like I've never acted like the ACC's great, but that's
not what.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
This is about. Like the like for example, South Carolina last.

Speaker 3 (30:03):
Year, they are actually they're probably the best example to
give you because you know, South Carolina, they were one
of those where you can't tell me that we're not
you know, we're not one of the twelve best teams,
and they were basing that just off of the fact
that they played. They had they had a good record
in a really good league. However, I mean, you didn't,

(30:28):
like you went nine and four, right, like your your
losses are to lsu Ole miss by a billion. You
lost Tobama, like you know you beat some good teams
along the way, but like you just would be in,
Like South Carolina would have been the team that just
got in because of their league and no other data

(30:49):
point or resume win that like puts them there. Their
best win was against who I mean, I'm I'm looking,
Their best win was a thirty four to thirty victory
over Missouri, or you could say their best win and
this is where this is where it would get where
it would get real rich because objectively speaking, again, their

(31:10):
losses aren't aren't too bad teams, but their wins are
like they went nine and four and felt like, I mean,
come on, nine and four overall five and three in
the SEC.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
You can't tell me we're not one.

Speaker 3 (31:22):
And the only reason I keep saying that is because
both Lane Kiffin, who was kind of foolish and hilarious
actually for him to tout that when he lost at
home to a Kentucky team that did not beat another
SEC team, like you like, Lane's going to be Lane,
but like that's hilarious to actually think that you would
not need to be held accountable for that disastrous loss
with really no other wins that would that would make

(31:42):
up for that so last year South Carolina went nine
and four overall wins Old Dominion, Kentucky, Akron, Oklahoma, Texas,
A M, Vandy, Missouri, Clemson. You could make the case

(32:04):
Clemson is their best win. So if you're gonna be
one of these SEC teams, that's just making it all about, well,
come on, we can't be held at the same standard.
We play in a real league with real teams. You
didn't beat any of those real teams you're talking about,
and your best win is against a team that comes
from a league that you think is inferior that you
barely beat. I mean, I'm sure I'm more you know,

(32:30):
focused on this than others. But whatever comes of these
meetings that are taking place in the offseason about the
future of college football is going to be a big,
big deal. And as much as I think this past
year was, I mean, what happened this past year was
there was a realization that won you shouldn't just get
in if you win your conference championship game, because that really,
you know, not every conference is created equally, right, But

(32:51):
that also like there's now so many teams in these
leagues that like, it is damn near impossible for you
to put together a schedule ahead of time and know
if it's gonna be a good enough schedule to make,
you know, to make a big, good enough impression. Like
for example, Indiana, And I'm not gonna defending them like
they were, you know, great and got picked on. But

(33:12):
Indiana last year they rolled through their schedule, did they not?
They played and beat the defending national champions Right?

Speaker 1 (33:22):
Who else did they beat? Like Indiana?

Speaker 3 (33:24):
Like they they lost to Ohio State, And you know,
I know the Michigan win wasn't wasn't really all that
impressive in the grand scheme of things, But like nobody
knows that ahead of time.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
That's who's on the schedule. They just won the national championship.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
So you know, like I don't know how you fix that,
because year in and year out, there's just gonna be
teams that their scheduled that the league gives them based
off of just random I don't know, flipping a coin.
However the schedule is set up, is gonna give one
team a better ability to find themselves in that playoff
than others. And that's just that at this point that
just seems kind of unavoidable. Yeah, so they beat let's

(34:04):
see I felt like there was one other, one other
win that, like in real time, wasn't that impressive. But yeah,
it was it Washington that got to the championship game
before Calen de Bor left. It didn't Michigan beat Washington
the National Championship or did I dreamed that they? They?

Speaker 4 (34:23):
They beat Michael Pennix.

Speaker 1 (34:24):
Yeah, so that's what it was.

Speaker 3 (34:26):
For some reason, I was still thinking Saving was there,
but Savan got beat by Michigan in in that first round.

Speaker 1 (34:32):
McCarthy.

Speaker 3 (34:33):
So Indiana, like imagine telling Indiana on paper last year
around this time, and I think everybody expected Washington take
a step back because their coach went to Alabama and Harball.

Speaker 1 (34:43):
Went to the NFL.

Speaker 3 (34:44):
But like Indiana got crushed for their schedule, and again
it wasn't a strong schedule because of things they can't control.
But imagine ahead of time saying you will play two
of your nine conference opponents against two teams that last
year played in the National Championship Game.

Speaker 1 (35:05):
But yet, sorry about your luck.

Speaker 3 (35:07):
That's just too weak of a schedule, Like you can
never predict that, So I don't have a perfect way
to do it. But giving away guaranteed number of bids
by conference is the clear wrong way to do it.
And it's again I think that it would be the
first real proof and there's been proof there, but this
would be the ultimate realization that they don't care about

(35:29):
what you do. It's a popularity contest, it's TV viewership,
it's TMZ. Because although it seems completely unrealistic and I
can't see a scenario where it happens. However, what happened
in this country five years ago, a global pandemic. Nobody
saw that coming right.

Speaker 1 (35:45):
Shook a lot of the world. Up to this day.

Speaker 3 (35:47):
There's probably still people that are in a different position
in their world now because of that.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
Things change.

Speaker 3 (35:54):
Never know, but imagine a scenario where one of these
leagues falls off a cliff and they just completely suck.
We're gonna guarantee that they get a certain amount of
teams in like it doesn't make any sense. It should
always be about what you do, not about what you're
expected to do. And any benefit of the doubt, like

(36:15):
benefit of the benefit anybody getting benefit of the doubt
in sports, and it happens, and sometimes it is it
is unavoidable. Like Carolina, I think they got the benefit
of the doubt bout getting any civil a tournament as
the last team probably so probably helped that they their
ad was on the on the committee or the president
of the committee. But still like benefited. Doubt to an
extent is inevitable in all aspects of life. But in sports,

(36:38):
anybody like just wanting that to be a bigger factor,
a bigger force. What you're doing is limit Like just
why even play Like, eh, you know, like if we
do that, then like why even care about upsets anymore?
Like why you can play the game, Like because how
many times you've seen an upset and you know, the
team that just won in a David Versullia situation, like

(36:59):
you know.

Speaker 1 (36:59):
They aren't every day going to be able to do that.
But that's what makes sports great, right.

Speaker 3 (37:02):
The unexpectedness, the spontaneousness. If they're slotted positions in the playoff,
it'll it'll I don't say it'll ruin college football, but
like it just eliminates the ultimate root of what sports
is competition, winning and losing results getting you where you
want to go or eliminating you from doing what you

(37:24):
want to do. It's really not that complicated. So again,
just looking at notre dame scheduling or Clemson scheduling Notre Dame.
That's just what had me thinking that if you're not,
because I have a hard time thinking that the Big
ten and the SEC are going to get their way.

Speaker 1 (37:36):
So if you're in one.

Speaker 3 (37:37):
Of these other leagues like the SEC, I'm sorry, the
ACC or the Big twelve, like, you're gonna have to
find ways to cause you're not gonna get guaranteed spots.
And the scenario where the ACC or the Big twelve
has a.

Speaker 1 (37:49):
Big year, we're like, damn, this league's loaded this year.
You kidd me.

Speaker 3 (37:52):
Miami's on fire. Jeff Broms got it rolling with Louisville.
How about Virginia Tech. They finally woke up from the dead.
Look at Pittsburgh, they got the best defense in the country.
Not to mention, you know, maybe Bill Belichick, maybe he
gets rolling, Like although I'm not saying that's like gonna
happen soon, but like if it did, there'll only be

(38:14):
two spots in the playoff for the ACC because the
Big ten in the SEC are just letting you know, ay, no,
we got the you know you got you got some
cute teams there. And again, this is not a conversation
about which league is better. But if we're just going
to decide moving forward for the rest of time, it's
just been dedicated that these leagues get this amount of
spots like that that that's stupid, at least in my opinion.

(38:38):
It is all right, quick break, we'll come back and
wrap at the three o'clock hour. On the other side,
stick around right here on Sports Talk seven ninety.

Speaker 2 (38:44):
Now back to coffee and company fueled by Thornton's on
Sports Talk seven nine day.

Speaker 1 (38:50):
As we get the four o'clock hours started.

Speaker 3 (38:52):
I want to take a look at Jeff Borzello if
he has I mean, I don't want to. I mean,
Jeff Borzell is actually a pretty good looking god. To
be honest, I didn't mean to say I want to
get a look at him, but I'm just saying, like,
we'll take a look at his updated rankings at ESPN.
He's a college basketball writer for the Four Letter Network
and with some moves made, you know, really a lot
of the movement made in the portal was pretty early.

(39:13):
In fact, I still feel like the biggest moves made
took place before the National Championship game actually happened. But
there have been some other big moves made, including some
players losing or i'm sorry, teams losing players that they
had counted on. So we'll tell you where Louisville and
Kentucky fall as of right now. And I think Louisville
they took a hit because you know, they lost James

(39:33):
Scott and that's not a big hit and they didn't
take a big drop, but clearly that's a guy that
was viewed as a legitimate, nice returning piece that's now
not there. As for Kentucky, I mean, I really don't
know what would have changed for them, but they also
because there's the thing, if you drop, it may not
because you didn'ything wrong. It's because other teams made moves
that just put them ahead of you. And I really

(39:53):
think at the end of the day, that's probably what
happened more than any But we'll say you where both
teams locally here currently stand in ESPNS some early rankings.
And look, there are still good players out there. I
just kind of feel like at this point, how many
are out there that are gonna genuinely change.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
How you view a team as far as their ceiling.

Speaker 3 (40:14):
Also, I mean, we'll always like we could have ten
straight years of Kansas happening, meaning you put all your
money into this roster, paid more than any program in
the country did for their roster, you bring back all
Americans like they did in Hunter Dickinson.

Speaker 1 (40:35):
And yet it just doesn't work. We could have that
happen every year.

Speaker 3 (40:39):
But I'm telling you, man, the height machine in college basketball,
no matter what, we'll never just we'll never have the mindset.

Speaker 1 (40:47):
Well, you know, we'll see. Yeah, they got a lot
of pieces, but how's it gonna work? Man?

Speaker 3 (40:51):
They got a good roster, but you know, how are
these egos gonna blend? And those are legitimate questions. But like,
if you see a team on paper that looks like
they could be special, they're gonna always be propped up.
But again just a reminder, and look, there's certain teams
they ended up being really good, and we can sit
back and say, yeah, we saw that coming. They were
really good, right, they did what was expected. But you

(41:13):
should always keep in mind as well that there are
teams that you know, you just don't know how like Indiana.
They never got a ton of preseason hype as far
as being like, you know, top ten.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
But I still say this to this day.

Speaker 3 (41:25):
Indiana had a good roster. They paid good money for it.
I think they fell flat on I think they paid
big for guards that clearly just couldn't couldn't adjust to
a higher level in the Big Ten. But like they
were a mess. I mean, Indiana getting beat the way
they did by Louisville and the Bahamas was a beautiful
thing to see, just to be honest with you, but

(41:45):
it should have never happened. But you don't just win
because you went out and bought a big roster with
great players. You gotta get the pieces that fed And
that's just that's one of the new ways of that's
one of the new wrinkles here in college basketball. Guess
I should say one of the new wrinkles of the
of the portal element that I think is gonna be
more beneficial is that we'll see continua. We'll continue to

(42:08):
see examples of teams that you thought they had all
the talent needed, but the pieces just didn't fit. It
just didn't align. And there's no way to know if
that if that's gonna work until you know you get
out there and play like coaches are going to try.

Speaker 1 (42:21):
To get a feel for a player's.

Speaker 3 (42:25):
I guess selflessness, right, will he will he be willing
to come in as a new guy and embrace whatever
roles needed for the greater good of the team, or
is he a guy that's that's here and he wants
you know, for example, PJ Haggerty leaving Memphis, I mean
he wanted four million dollars and a guarantee that he's
going to be the starting point guard. Like kids talented,
But is I mean, like you think that's gonna be

(42:46):
good for your locker room?

Speaker 1 (42:47):
Right?

Speaker 3 (42:48):
So that's that excites me because yeah, there's gonna be
some teams that look really good on paper, but I'm
always going to think back to my mind, like you
just don't know how it's gonna work, And coaches can
do every bit of crossing t's dotting eyes and still
just not knowing until they get out there and you
see how all these how all of it works together.

Speaker 1 (43:09):
And that's what I wouldn't say I have any fear about.
But when it comes to Louisville, I.

Speaker 3 (43:15):
Really do believe that one of the biggest factors in
them the team being able to kind of salvage what
seemed to be like I remember doing the show right
after the the acc SEC challenge when Louisville got mopped
by Ole Miss, and I remember thinking to myself, all right,

(43:36):
that wasn't a good look, but I still think there's
some pieces here to where this team might be able
to sniff the tournament. And I got bombarded with like
you were alrighty, your mind, your delusional, your cardboy home
homer and full effect here, and I'm like, I'm not
saying they're going to be great, but like they're playing
good teams. And they ended up this isn't and I
told you some moment, but they ended up obviously putting

(43:57):
together a pretty good season and they played some really
good basketball for a good chunk of it. And there's
a lot of components that went into that forward to work,
but I really think one of the most important ones
was that these guys they did work really well together.
Like there was no ego, there was no jealousy. It
was really just, hey, whatever we got to do to win,

(44:18):
and you always.

Speaker 1 (44:18):
Want that, but that's not as easy to obtain.

Speaker 3 (44:22):
So what I'm getting at is like Louisville could have
a team that is maybe more talented, with better potential,
more pro upside as far as the pieces and the personnel,
and they could play you know, a much tougher schedule
and not have nearly as good of a record and
it not work out. Because again, like I just think

(44:43):
last year was the perfect storm, and I say that knowing, yes,
how could it be the perfect storm? They had a
bunch of injuries and it seemed as if they never
got to even play as the team that Pat Kelsey bill,
which all that's true, but after that, that's when it
just kind of you know, they never felt sorrd for themselves.
They never worried about individual accolades. They just bought in,
played hard and one and competed at a high level.

(45:05):
And they were a reflection of the guy that was
coaching him on the sideline. And I hope that that's
easy to replicate. But we just don't know, you know
what I mean. Like that's why last year was so special,
because like I.

Speaker 1 (45:17):
Remember thinking, like, this is fun as hell. I don't
know how good this team is.

Speaker 3 (45:20):
I don't really know how they stack up with the
best teams in the country, but man, they're gonna fight
and they're gonna play hard, and that's always the expectation.
But obviously we had fallen far below expectation in recent years.
All right, quick break, we got two more were actually
I lied. We got an hour and a half because
we got to get a little bit early today because
the Louisville bads.

Speaker 1 (45:38):
But that's okay.

Speaker 3 (45:39):
We'll make the most of these next ninety minutes or so,
so keep it locked. It's coffee and company. We are
fueled by Thornton's right here on Sports Talk seven ninety