The Kevin Sheehan Show - Somewhat Informed Opinions

Episode Date: March 5, 2020

Kevin and Thom with several somewhat informed opinions today. They talked Caps to start then got to the Coronavirus. Skins' talk was specific to Dwayne Haskins today. Dominique Wilkins was a topic of conversation as well. Kevin and Aaron finished up with the Terps. <p> </p><p>Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a></p> Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You want it. You need it. It's what everyone's talking about. The Kevin Sheehan Show. Now here's Kevin. You're listening to The SportsFix. We're all back today. Tommy's calling in from Florida. Aaron's here. I am here. We have several different topics to get into. We're not going to start this show with something as interesting as, you know, beers and the kind of beer that we like and cheap beers and cheap beers in college. And a lot of people enjoy that conversation. I got. got a lot of Twitter feedback to that conversation. And a lot of different beers were thrown out as sort of their cheap beer, favorite beer when they were younger and in college. And I have had many people, you know, just say the beast. And I know that to mean Milwaukee's best. We always referred to it as the beast. And it was. And it was a good cheap beer.

And there were many others. but we appreciate all the feedback to that. Yes, we too. So I'm going to just open up. The Caps lost last night. They're in trouble, but we're not going to get into analyzing why the Caps are playing poorly or why Philadelphia is surging.

Because here's the thing about hockey. None of it means anything to the postseason. It doesn't matter. The postseason is a completely different season, and the Caps may lose the rest of their games. Well, if they lost the rest of their games, they wouldn't make the playoffs. But if they make the playoffs as an eight seed or a one seed, I don't think their chances are going to be any different, really. I mean, it's the way that

that league works all four top seeds in the East last year lost in the first round, and the number one seed got swept. So go figure, as they say. People should always, I mean, I look at every game like this. Barry Trott's is not your head coach. He was your head coach, and now he's not your head coach. And the guy who replaced them had never coached in an NHL as a regular, as a head coach. So I don't see how you can't look at the cats and not think of that move if they fold again in the first round of the playoffs. Well, you mean like folding in the first round of the playoffs is something they've never done before? I get that, but they found the one guy who got them past that. I know. I know that. And then they said goodbye.

It really is absolutely insane that Barry Trots, aka Trotsey, isn't the head coach of the Washington Capitals after winning the franchise's first Stanley Cup. It's ridiculous. How cheap are they? He goes to the Islanders and he turns them a team that was a wreck into a contender. Although right now they're not playing well. I know. The whole division, actually the Capitals are very fortunate. during this stretch last month, month and a half where they haven't played well, that the rest of

the division, with the exception of the Flyers, hasn't been great either. In the last 10 games, in their division, in terms of the teams that are in contention, only the Flyers have a winning record. The Caps have a losing record. The Penguins have a losing record. Columbus, the Islanders all have a losing record in their last 10, with the Caps playing sort of, you know, basically sub-500 hockey here over the last month, month, and a half, they're lucky they're still leading the division. I mean, only by a point over Philadelphia. But again, they're going to make the playoffs barring a real collapse here. And they're going to play somebody, and it's going to be a best-to-seven first-round series. And I guarantee you there are going to be a lot of people

that think that they can win that series. They probably will. Look at you. What a puckhead. I can't even come back with they're not getting enough traffic in front of the next. Yes, you can. Compared to what you've got. Well, you know, part of the problem here, Tommy, is that last night the power play was an issue. They were 0 for 5 on the power play. And really more importantly, and I know you know this, last night continued a season-long trend. They lead the NHL.

They lead the entire league in minor penalties. And they had a streak of like three of them in under five minutes last night in the second period that allowed the flyers to take over the game. Yeah, you knew that. There you go. You knew that. That's the game right there. That was the game, although they was 3-2 at the end of that period, but still, you know, they, I like Alex Ovechkin. I hope he continues to play well.

I don't think that they look to me, based on my hockey expertise, to be a Stanley Cup winning team this year. Of course, that's tongue placed firmly in cheek. Boston, I'm just going to mention what Barry Melrose says, this is what you do all the time. I know what I don't know, so I just listen to what people who do know what they say and just repeat what they say. So I'm going to do what you do all the time. Barry Melrose said the other night after Boston beat Tampa in a one-two showdown in the Atlantic. And by the way, they're the best two teams in the Eastern Conference too. And Boston won that game.

And Barry Melrose said, if you're an Eastern Conference team and you watch this game tonight, you pretty much understand that it is a major uphill battle on a best of seven against Boston. They are head and shoulders above the rest of the conference. So there you go. Bruce Cassidy, the old Capscoach. Yeah. Is he related to David Cassidy? Yes, he is.

Is David Cassidy still alive or did he just pass away? No, I think he's dead. Just recently, though, right? Yeah. But Susan Day, I think, is still alive, and that was the only reason to watch the show. David Cassidy's not that recent. It was about three years ago. Oh, it is three years ago now. Yeah, and he wasn't old at all. He was, oh, he was older than I thought he was. He was 67 when he passed away.

That's not old, Kevin. I know it's not old. I guess I thought, for whatever reason, he may have been in his 50s. I did grow up in the 70s. I'm a child of the 70s. with, you know, on Friday nights, Brady Bunch followed by the Partridge family. But then eventually, when I got more sort of mature from a television standpoint, you'll be happy to hear this. It went as follows. Sanford and Son, Chico and the man, Rockford Files. And Rockford Files, and that was the NBC Friday night lineup, right, Tommy, in the 70s? Yes. It was Sanford and Son with Red Fox.

brilliant. I saw him live in Vegas once many, many years ago, obviously before he passed away, but when he was still doing stand-up in Vegas. It was at the Hilton. I'm pretty sure I saw him at the Las Vegas Hilton. But it was Sanford and Son, Chico and the Man, and then Tommy's favorite show, my favorite show, and one of my favorite people of all time, James Garner, the Rockford Files would come on at 9. And that was my favorite show as a kid.

loved it. And then do you remember the show that came on afterwards? No. Wasn't it the show that Angie Dickinson? Policewoman? Wasn't it police woman? It may have been. It may have been. I was not a big policewoman fan. Me neither. I wonder if they keep track of like, you know, the television. I'm sure you can find it online somewhere. Hold on here. Here it is. So, 1970.

I think all the family would have preceded Sanford and Stuntles. No, Saturday night. Saturday night was all in the family. Saturday night was the CBS, all in the family. Well, it was Mary Tyler Morton, 9, Bob Newhart at 9.30, and following all in the- And then Carol Burnett, but following all in the family at 830 was... Might have been mesh. Might have been mesh.

It says here, this is 196767. Let me move back a year. Yeah, policewoman, Tommy. No, no, no, no, wrong. That's the wrong night. It was, oh, no, police woman. Yeah, it was Sanford and Son, Chico and the Man, Rockford Files, policewoman. And then, duh, CBS was on Saturday night, all in the family, the Jefferson's,

eventually, right? And then the Jeff, well, that would have been later, yeah. The Jeffers, because obviously the Jeffersons were a spinoff of All in the Family. Um, All in the family, MASH. Yep, you're right, MASH. Mary Tyler Moore Show, Bob Newhart show, Carol Burnett Show. And I'm looking at something that's really interesting. It's from, it's on Wikipedia. It's the 173, 1974 United States Network Television Schedule, and they've got ratings in here for these shows. First of all, these ratings are through the roof because as we know, as we know, there was nothing else but ABC, CBS, and NBC. There was no Fox, you know, back then. Aaron, imagine you're in front of a television, and by the way, you have to manually turn the channels, and you have Channel 4, which is NBC, Channel 5, which was local, and that's, you know, like cartoons. and stuff. And then Channel 7 was ABC, Channel 9 was CBS, and that's it. And that's basically all

you have. You had Channel 20, WDCA, which was, you know, a lot of movies. That was UHF back then. Right. You had to get that on a different dial. Right. So the number one show was all in the family, which I do remember. That was the number one show in the 70s pretty much for a big part of the 70s, right? Yes. All in the Family did a 31.2 rating as an average in this particular year. Then the second highest rated show was the Waltons, which was on Thursday night on CBS.

Not a Walton, France. I watched The Waltons, but, yeah, it wasn't like, you know. Monday Night Football was a very highly rated show that, year, but it wasn't, you know, the highest rated show, but still did an incredible rating. But anyway, what are we doing here? So I wanted to mention two things at the top here. One that'll take a little while. The first one is this. You know in 2012 when the Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl and they were going to open up the 2013 season at home is the defending Super Bowl champions like Super Bowl champions do on that Thursday night opening game of the year,

And the Orioles had a game scheduled that particular night as well. And the NFL and the Ravens asked the Orioles if they'd move it to an earlier start time because the stadiums, as we all know, are right next to each other. And the Orioles said no. Remember that? I do recall that. Yes, I do. The Orioles said, absolutely not.

You can go basically F yourself NFL and the Ravens. And so the Ravens ended up having to play that 2013 season opener as the defending Super Bowl champions on the road against Denver, which happened to have been a Peyton Manning spectacular. It was the beginning of the 55 touchdown season for Peyton Manning in 2013, and he opened that season at home on a Thursday night against the Ravens by throwing seven touchdown passes against the Ravens. And that was the beginning of an unbelievable season for Denver. Well, I bring that up because I was reading very early this morning that the Chiefs are going to open up, you know, this season next year is the defending Super Bowl champions. And on that particular night, that Thursday night, September 10th or whatever it is, the Royals have a game scheduled.

The Chiefs and the NFL, neither one of them had to even go to the Royals. The Royals came to them and said, hey, we're going to move our game on that date. We're going to move it to Tuesday so it's a day-night double-header. you've got that whole day to yourself. Midwest people are just much nicer. Part of it is the Midwestern, you know, politeness. And part of it is Peter Angelo doesn't own the team. Well, that's true, too.

So, I mean, there's not a level of antagonism. I mean, I think the Royals and the Chiefs have a long history of coexisting together, realizing there's enough there for both of them with their stadiums right next to each other as well. like in Baltimore, but there's no antelos to deal with either. I don't know who the owner of the royalties now, because David Glass, I think, who was the owner, I think either passed away or is very sick. I told you that I met him, right?

I think he passed away. Did I? I didn't. So John Sherman is the new owner of the Kansas City Royals. I met him, Tommy, in, I don't know, 1993, 1994, in Bentonville, Arkansas,

when he was the CEO of Walmart. And we were, we were dealing with major supermarket chains all over the country, and with the company that we had, and Walmart had us come in and make a pitch to their senior group, and he

was in the meeting. Because I looked at who their senior management team was, and David Glass, he was old then. So, to be honest with you, I don't even think I knew that he owned the Kansas City Royals. How long did he own the Royals? I don't know. I mean, you and Kaufman owned them in the 80s when they were really good.

I don't know when Kaufman sold him to David Glass. It might have been after the strike. Glass became the sole owner in 2000. He had bought in in 93 and then became Soled or in 2000. Okay, so that year, that's when he bought in. There you go. By the way, on the Chiefs thing, they don't have a good home schedule except for the Patriots. They have the Patriots on their home schedule.

With or without Brady, that's got to be the opening Thursday night game of the year. I guess it could be a division game. They play Houston. Yeah, I mean, without Brady, it just depends. think it's just as intriguing to see the Patriots with their new starting quarterback. Oh, I agree. It depends on who this starting quarterback is.

If it's jerks, it did them. It doesn't matter who it is. It's the Patriots without Brady for the first time in 20 years. I would be shocked if it's not the Patriots. All right, here's the other thing that I wanted to open with, and then we'll get to some Redskins topics and anything else that you want to talk about. Do you follow Rex Chapman on Twitter?

Oh, absolutely. One of the best. One of the best follows on Twitter. Rex Chapman, former NBA player, a great Kentucky player in college. And he does this thing all the time, block or charge, where he'll retweet a video of like,

you know, somebody pushing a shopping cart down steps very carefully. And then, you know, basically the whole cart and they go tumbling over. And he says, block or charge. You know,

it's those kinds of things that he tweets out. He tweeted out last night. a highlight reel of Dominique Wilkins. And he just tweeted, Neek, y'all, you know, at D. Wilkins 21. And I sat there and I watched it. And then I watched it again. And I just kept watching it over and over again.

Dominique Wilkins, more than anybody else, and you can start thinking of people, but more than any other player in the NBA. And I was thinking more about football and basketball, because I think baseball is very much a skill sport, and I think a lot of those guys from 25, 30, 30 years ago, highly skilled players could still play today. You know, you could pluck them from that era

and put them in this era, and they'd still be very good. But you know, and you don't make this argument, but I've made this argument before, that, you know, evolution, training, diet, all those things combined. It's a different athlete that exists today in the NBA, in particular, and a lot of those players I don't think would do as well. But one guy without question who would do well is Dominique Wilkins. Tommy, it's a,

like I sent this to my boys last night and, you know, they're sending back and they said, oh, you've sent me, you've sent me this before because I guess I've talked about Dominique Wilkins before. Nobody dunked like Dominique Wilkins. The human highlight reel, he had, first of all, he was 6-8, he had a 48-inch vertical. He had long arms. He had the ability to hang in the air, double and triple pump in the air. And nobody power dunked like Dominique. Nobody.

You know, when we've had the conversation about Len bias before, I've always told you and people who've listened that, you know, when he died, people said, we're missing out on the next Michael Jordan. I never felt that was true. I think his game was much more Dominique Wilkins. You know, he was a forward bias was, not a two guard. Dominique Wilkins was a forward. He wasn't a ball handling two guard.

And that's what you would have seen. A lot of what you see with Neek, you would have seen with bias. Bias was a phenomenal. If you take bias as highlight reel and watch them one after the other, they're very similar. But I would ask you this, give me off the top of your head people that you could pluck from yesteryear. And on the radio this morning, I said, you know, 25. plus years. So we're talking, you know, 70s, 80s, 90s, that kind of, early 90s, early 90s. And you could put into today's sport, any sport you want, and they'd look and thrive and

perform and produce in the exact same way. Like, you're absolutely sure of it. To me, there's no question that Dominique Wilkins would still, the 1985 Dominique Wilkins would be dominant in today's game. His head in these dunks, he was the first one where his head, was level with the rim. That's how high he was getting up. Okay. Are we just doing basketball? No, it can be any sport.

Okay. Well, I think Jim Brown, you know, would be one. I think, I think Larry Bird in basketball would definitely be one. You do? You could play. Oh, absolutely. That's not even debatable. Well, it is debatable.

No, because Larry Bird didn't have any physical skills then, and he was one of the greatest players who ever played. Right. So, I mean, what difference is that going to make? Go ahead, keep going. You know, I think my guy Willis Reed, a 6-10 240-pound power forward center with a great jump shot,

the first two shots of the game 7 of the 70, NBA final. I think Willis Reed could have played in any era and been a dominant player. Those are three off the top of my head. The names that come to my mind all the time are Carl Malone in basketball. You know, he was, if you took him from 1990, you know, five and put him on a 2020 floor, he would look just as imposing as he did back then. You know, the size of guys now, they're bigger and they're stronger and they're faster and all of that. But they're definitely bigger and stronger on average.

You know, Jordan was, you know, 6'6 in 190, right? LeBron is 6-8 and 275. You know, they're just bigger and stronger. Carl Malone was sort of ahead of his time. You know, he was 6-9, 6-9 and a half and 255-260. And by the way, skilled. Like, to me, Carl Malone you could take and put into today's game, and no one would know the difference that he came from 1995. He actually played into the early 2000s as well.

And let me point out, one last thing. I mean, I forgot Will Chamberlain. That's an obvious one. But Bill Russell would crush Carl Malone. Crush him. Crush him. Crush him. Okay.

Carl Malone. Sean Kemp physically and athletically would totally translate to today. Bo Jackson's the easy answer. Okay, after Dominique, for me, the easy answer is Bo Jackson. Bo Jackson may be, you know, he's certainly debatably the greatest team sport athlete ever. Now, we just didn't see enough of him because of the injury that ended his career after basically two and a half seasons. Wilts Chamberlain is the greatest team sport athlete ever. I'm talking about just pure athlete, not just production.

Yes, Wilts Chamberlain. I'm sure Wilts right. I'm sure a lot of people will be agreeing with you, and I'm not going to disagree with you on Wilt. Because my father says the same thing all the time. He's like, you have no idea what Wilt was. Wilt was the all-time great athlete, great basketball. He was just unstoppable. By the way, do you agree with me on Dominique?

You didn't really respond to Neck. Oh, no, yeah, yeah. No, I agree. Okay. Absolutely. A force of nature in any era. Oh. But I also think Pete Maravich could have played in any era as well.

Okay, so this is what I wanted to get to with this, because I knew once we listed a few people, we would get to Pistol Pete. I knew you would mention him. Because I, on the radio show this morning, I said Tommy would say Pistol Pete. So here's the thing about a guy like Marevich, okay? unbelievably skilled. Look, I don't really remember him in his heyday. I remember him at the very end, you know, like when he was in Boston, okay?

Or maybe briefly with the New Orleans Jazz, Tommy. You know, and they were a terrible team. But when I've watched, you know, a lot of highlights on Pistol Pete, and I watched that documentary, which was so good, the one where his sons and his former wife were featured. It's so excellent. He relied much more on skill than at. athleticism. Is that fair or not? Yes. In this day and age, where nobody relies on still, he would be even better.

Here's the thing that I think I could envision with somebody like Maravich. When I watch the highlights of Maravich or even some of the games that are on YouTube that he played in, he was not very athletic. He was slow. He, you know, was not, uh, look, He was incredibly skilled. He's one of the best ball handlers of all time, scorers of all time. I know all the numbers. I know what he did at LSU. Okay, he's the all-time leading NCAA score even to this day.

Average 44 points of game. I know, I know. Without a three-point shot. I understand that. I think in today's game, he'd be more of a specialist. I don't know that a guy like Marevich with the 6-8 long-armed, rangy, outrageously athletic defenders, that he's going to do all the stuff that he did back then.

Against, by the way, not only lesser athletes defensively, but in the 70s, Tommy, defense was not a priority in the NBA. I get that. I know that. I think he'd be much more to the specialist. I mean, he's not JJ Redick, okay? I mean, J.J. Reddick was the specialist. He's not in that category. I just don't know how many people, even with his incredible ball handling skill, he was slow.

Now, he was 6'5, so maybe he would have turned into a really good player on the post, like a passer from the post. I don't know how many people, Marovich, in today's game, he's going by. That's the only thing I, and he went by everybody back then, and was an incredible passer. And that's sort of the, it's not exactly the way I think about Byrd, because Byrd's also 6-9. You know, Bird was, Bird could play, you know, the power forward spot, could play the small forward spot.

And to me, still to this day, Byrd's one of the top three, four, five passers that weren't, that wasn't a guard I've ever seen, maybe the best, maybe the best non-guard passer in the history of basketball. I would agree. But, and so he'd still be able. able to do a lot of that stuff, and he'd still be able to shoot it. I mean, good, good God, Bird would have still been backing up on some of these threes, too. Anyway, anybody want to tweet Tommy at Tom Leverro, me at Kevin Sheen, D.C. with others. I mean, we didn't name a lot of guys,

but I think it's, just go, watch what I tweeted out on my Twitter page at Kevin Sheen, DC, from the Rex Chapman thing, and just, I'm mesmerized every time I watch Dominique. And I'm the same way with bias for different reasons. But if you do bias is highlight reel, he's got some dunks where his head is above the rim and he's coming down. And he's trying to take the ball, throw it through the basket, and drill a hole in the floor and take two people with them. I mean, really is spectacular in that way. And bias would have been much more Dominique than Kenny Smith, than Michael Jordan, I think. Anyway, one other thing, Tommy actually, and we didn't do a show yesterday, so I didn't talk about this with Aaron, but I did this on the radio show yesterday. So Tuesday night, I know nobody's watching the NBA, and I can't blame you, all right?

That's fine. LeBron James took a shot, and this would be your sort of, they're just shooting it. It was early third quarter, 10 and a half minutes to go. the game is against the it's against the 76ers. There's 20 seconds on the shot clock. He crosses half court and he fires up a shot from 36 feet. Like he, for LeBron, that's like two big steps over half court. And he just stopped and shot it. And he made it. And everyone celebrated it on social media. Were they doing, were they, were they? Okay. So Frank Vogel, the coach, was asked about it after the game. Did you think that was a good shot? And he said, no. And then he starts

smiling and laughing. And he said, but, you know, it's one of those. And when it goes in, it's a good shot. And, you know, like, I actually, and this is definitely an OK Boomer response. So I concede that point, but I don't really give a shit. It's disrespectful to the game, what he did taking that shot. That's, you know, when you see those shots at the end of the shot clock or the end of a quarter. That's one thing, totally different. And the length of the three-point shot, it's something we've talked about together over the last few years.

It's not just the three-point shooting. It's how far back they go. And anybody that knows anything about basketball and the geometry of a basketball floor and the makeup of it with 10 players on it, the further you can shoot threes, the more spacing is created and the harder you become to guard. Like, you know, everything in basketball really is spacing offensively. The more space you create, the more ground defenses have to cover to, you know, to stop you. So when people start pulling up from 40 feet, 35 feet, oh my God, the floor changes so much.

There's so much room in the middle of the floor. Anyway, I just thought in watching that, like people were giggling about it. I didn't see the social media response to it. And Vogel, you know, it's LeBron. You know, he basically works for LeBron. He's the coach of the team, but LeBron's really the coach of the team. And I just thought, it's early third quarter. You don't take two steps over half court with 18 seconds left in the shot clock

and fire up a 36, 37-footer. First of all, it's a low percentage shot. That's not the highest percentage shot they're going to get in that possession if they work at it. I wish he had air-balled it so much. I wish he had air-balled it. That would have been great. I just didn't like it at all. And he made it, and his range has gotten crazy deep as a shooter.

But, you know, Trey Young does a lot of that, you know, but usually it's at the end of a shot clock. But, you know, you come down to court, and you're supposed to play basketball, and it's supposed to be a team game to a certain degree. And you just sort of, you know, gallivant. you gallivant across half court and just throw up a 35 to 40 footer. What are you doing?

I know. You're just shooting the ball. But it's disrespectful to the game. Oh, it's not the game. It's not the game. It's something different. That is. Three-point shooting isn't.

I'm not with you on three-point shooting in general. I love it. That is. That's just, what's he? doing? Oh, by the way, if we can just do a U-turn real quick, just to step back to a subject, because this has always bothered me when you did this. You know, you like to watch old NBA films and make fun of players, and I remember you making fun of Jerry West. Nineteen 61.

How unathletic he was. Yeah. What do you think is a good vertical jump? Just a good vertical jump? For what? Professional athletes or me? For professional athletes? I don't know.

David Thompson had a 44 inch vertical jump. DT's was 44, yeah. Jerry West was 39 inches. That's a really good vertical leap. For a guy who's not athletic, 39 inches. I don't think I said about Jerry West that he was unathletic. In fact, I know I didn't say that. What I did say is that the ball handling in that particular series that I watched between the Lakers and the Celtics

that was on NBA TV from 1961 was so carefree and so sloppy. And there's just nobody guarding anybody in that game. Nobody's up in somebody's face. And the dribbling, I don't want to say it looked like Stanley in the basketball. ball episode of The Office. Remember when Stanley finally gets into the game? He's got one hand behind his back, and he's dribbling and he can barely keep it, you know, bouncing off the floor in front of him. But it was just, to me, I'm watching that, and I'm like, if Dematha played any one of these two teams, there'd be 17 steals and 30 turnovers by the

Lakers and the Celtics in this game. And Jerry West would have 70 points. I know he was very good as a shooter and a score, but eventually the ball has to be advanced with the dribble sometimes. Sometimes it does. And the other thing is none of those guys, Kuzi was in that game. It was, yeah, they were, they were. Now that is a different game.

They were strong hand. Two different kinds. I know. I understand that. But they were, all of them were very, you could tell, were sort of strong hand dominant. So if you're right-handed like West was, you could see how uncomfortable he was

if he was forced to go left. It wasn't the same. I don't know. That's two years ago now that I watched that, or whenever it was. Well, maybe as you get older, you'll realize how good they were. I know this, that even my boys

watched the Dominique Wilkins highlight reel and said, that's unbelievable. Like, you know, they're comparing him to Zach Levine and Blake Griffin. Like, Blake Griffin is a ridiculous, you know, athlete. And one of my boys said, well, what about Vince Carter? Carter did a lot of this stuff. And I'm like, yeah, that would be important. That's sort of the comp. I mean, Vince Carter is a young guy.

He had the hang time, too. But he was, he really was a totally unique guy, even, the time. I mean, and even today, he'd be dunking on people left and right. All right. Let's get to some Redskins stuff real quickly first. It's March. It's springtime. It's St. Patty's Day. It's going to be March Madness soon. And if you don't have a place to wager on the games when you're home, you know, faking sick or leaving work early, two weeks from today, by the way, two weeks from today, we'll have that first, you know, round of 64 Thursday all day games. You're filling out brackets, you're doing all that.

I want you to consider MyBooky.ag if you're looking for a place to wager and you want to wager. MyBooky.orgie.ag deposit with my promo code, Kevin D.C. for a 50% bonus. That's Kevin D.C. at MyBooky.org. They'll have every game. You'll be able to bet futures on teams to win the tournament. They've got bracket-style betting, in-game betting. They've got everything. They've got you covered. All right, my bookie.ag use my promo code, Kevin, DC. So, all right, Tommy, two things with you before you run,

because I know you've got to take off here in a little bit. The first is this. My friends and I, this one group of friends of mine, there's a group text going around yesterday, and somebody started it as follows. would you accept the coronavirus for a round at Augusta? And so it started this thing, and let me just say up front, look, we're sensitive to how serious this is and how angst-ridden people are, and that people died, and that people are in who, I don't think anybody knows anything about what's going to happen with this thing.

I do think that the president's advice last night on Fox, that if you just have a mild case, you should still go to, work is probably bad advice. I think you should listen to the CDC and health officials and not our president on things that deal with the coronavirus. But anyway, this started this long sort of group text of the things that you would deal with the coronavirus if you could get. A couple of people said, you know, Redskinned Super Bowl. And of course, the response to that was, no, let's be realistic here. Something that could actually happen, you know. And I said, coming off the Maryland loss the other night, which Aaron and I are going to get into a detail on here shortly, I said, I'll take coronavirus right now with a 3% death rate.

It means I got a 97% chance of beating it. And probably my odds are even higher at my age. I don't know if they are or aren't. I have no idea. If Maryland can just get to the final four, I think I would do that. because the heat I'm taken from Maryland fans for sticking up for Turgeon. You know, they can all go F themselves because most of them have no idea what they're talking about. But I understand the results aren't good enough, and I've always suggested that.

But I think I would take the coronavirus for a Maryland Final Four run or a Redskins, you know, like a good Redskins playoff season. Like, let's go win a playoff game or two. I would not recommend that you accept the coronavirus for anything that you want, because I would just be concerned about you being in that 3.5%. Yes. Look, I'm at the age. I'm at the age where you're more vulnerable to those kind of things.

I got a pneumonia vaccine. Did you get a pneumonia vaccine? I did not. Okay. I have a flu vaccine. You don't have a flu vaccine. I haven't gotten the flu shot. So my point is, yeah, I'm in a higher risk.

And plus, you know what? I mean, I've gotten everything I've wanted out of my sports life, you know? Exactly. I mean, I've got to be everything else is gravy, to be honest. By the way, people, we're just having fun here, okay? God bless and rest in peace the people that have passed away from this. And it could get really bad. the sports, a lot of these sports are trying to, they've got a lot of contingency plans, you know,

that are being debated here, including one for March Madness that says they'll play these games in front of empty arenas. You know, there's a lot, I know people who are losing tons of money, tons of money who have contracts related to sporting events and conventions and things like that that are being canceled. I know. Like daily. This thing is not good. So we're not, you know, we're certainly just having a little bit of fun with it.

Last thing for you before you run, and then Aaron and I have a few other things, including Jason Peters is not going to, apparently the Eagles are going to turn him loose in free agency. So the Redskins in the last couple of days have been tweeting out various videos of Dwayne Haskins working out, you know, and I'm not impressed by any of that. I'm impressed by the way he played. last year at the end of the year. And I'm, you know, as you know, I'm more optimistic than most that he can do it. But I was talking to somebody yesterday, and I'm not going to name the person.

I will just tell you that the person's, you know, sort of close to the organization, very close to the organization. And he said to me, you guys just keep bringing up Dwayne. And, you know, if he's the guy or if he works hard enough or what his commitment is. And then this Tuah stuff that came out the other day is really not something they should be dealing with right now. So I gave him your line on the Twah thing. I said, look, first of all, you got the number two pick in the draft, and there are two quarterbacks here. If you don't think there are going to be stories and rumors and the whole thing about Tua or the Redskins or Burrow or anybody else,

I mean, anybody in your position is going to get that. But if this really is going to bother Dwayne, then we got the wrong guy, right? I mean So he's like, no, no, I know what you're saying about that But it just, you know, you guys are taking it and running with it. You guys. So then I just said to him, I said, what are you talking about? Do you know all that work ethic stuff?

You know, all the commitment stuff? All the Dwayne stuff. Do you know where that stuff started with the Redskins? That's who put all this stuff out. It's always for going back. to the draft, okay? They didn't want them. Leaking, people from the draft room, leaking to people like Diana Rusini, among others. This was a Snyder pick. Okay, then you get Gruden, and you get Callahan, and you get Doug, and you get Rivera and Scott Turner recently, consistently talking about,

he's got to become a better leader, he's got to put in the work, he's got to be committed. Even Kevin O'Connell like here may comment. Right. And I said to this guy, I said, you guys are delusional that you think this is a fan or a media thing. It came from you. We would never ever talk about, no one would have ever talked about his work ethic or commitment or his lack of leadership if you guys hadn't A leaked it and then B said it either directly or indirectly. And you've done it recently even with this staff.

Rivera, Doug recently, Scott Turner, you know, they've all talked about, it's got to prove that he can be the leader. He's got to prove that he can really, you know, commit. And I said, I have absolutely crucified the team multiple times for the way you guys have publicly, you know, basically treated him and talked about him.

I said, this is a you problem. And I said, and I go, he goes, well, I mean, Twitter's, you get, and I, so I went to the Twitter account. You know, they're tweeting out videos of him and I'm like, first of all, that shit doesn't impress me at all. But it's a hell of

lot better than them, you know, getting in front of a camera and saying, you know, he's got to stop gallivanting or getting in front of a microphone and saying, you know, he's got to stop gallivanting all around like he used to do or whatever. But he's, you know, but, but then we get the, in the recent, you know, recent week to 10 days, we're starting to hear he's in the building. He's working hard. They're tweeting out videos, which you, you know, I'm happy about. At least be positive. but it's unbelievable. This is, you know, this is the thing with them. They're just, they haven't really understood how much of the problem is them over the years.

I've said that many times that you can't fix the problem if you don't know that you're the problem. You know, and it's arrogance that makes them think that, you know, it's always somebody else. But my God, there's no narrative that would have been, there's no work ethic discussion about Dwayne at any point if it didn't come from the organization through leaks and through direct, you know, interviews, essentially. It's just, so anyway, I let this dude have it. And he, you know, he's like, I see what you're saying, but we're really being positive. I shouldn't say we're being positive because now you believe that it's somebody actually inside the organization. It's somebody very close to the organization. I'll leave it at that. Somebody that talked to quite often about a lot of different things.

But anyway, they really, they just, I don't know, man. You know, and I don't know what the big deal is. Look, it's good that Dwayne Haskins is working hard and all that. Right. But he doesn't have to. He's Danny's boy. Well. Todd McSaid just said as much.

I didn't buy that quote at all. What do you think? He's making it up. Yeah. Oh, okay. Then our discussion is over. If you think, then you're just as dumb as the people who call your show. If you think Todd McShay is making it up.

He said it twice. So Todd McShay said on first take, do we have that sound? I forget if I sent that to you yesterday or not. He said it's two different times, by the way. Well, he said in January he basically urged, Urban Meyer not to take the job with this particular franchise. When Bruce was still there, or in late December, when Urban Meyer had come to

the Philadelphia. That's not what I'm talking about. And then the first take comment was, to me, did he make it up? No. I was exaggerating. I think it's just basically the default answer from everybody about this organization is that

I don't think he says that unless somebody told him. I disagree with you. Absolutely 100%. I totally disagree with you. The most powerful guy in that building besides the owner is Dwayne Haskins, not the coach. Yeah, I disagree

with you on that. I think McShay, and I think a lot of people do this. And, you know, by the way, they're not wrong to do it in that they're justified in feeling that way. In feeling that there's no way they would take a quarterback because

Chase, because Dwayne Haskins is the owner's guy, and there's just no way he's going to allow another quarterback to come in. That's a reasonable answer based on history. I just don't think that somebody told him that recently. I think that's just the way he feels. And I don't think that's a report.

It's not a report. It's an informed opinion. I can tell you what, if I said that, it would have been because somebody in the organization or close to the organization told me that. Yeah, not really. you've sort of suggested things like that many times without people in the organization telling you that. Your default on the team is always that somehow Snyder's going to get in the way and screw it up.

McShay's answer the other day could have been your answer right now. No, that's different than saying he won't let them draft the quarterback. I would never say that. I can totally hear you saying that. Well, that's wrong. It's not wrong. It's not wrong. I don't think it's wrong.

It's not even close to being right. So how would you say it? I would have said, based on Dan Snyder's history, it's very unlikely they're going to let anyone draft, you know, compete with Wayne Actions. They're not going to let him, them draft a quarterback. You don't think in an emotional moment in a conversation with me, you would say, Kevin, there's no way Dan Snyder's going to allow, then the draft a quarterback.

You don't think you'd say it? No, not without the context. Not without the context. You're wrong. You would definitely say it, the exact same way McShea said it. No, no, I wouldn't. I'll tell you what. Let's revisit this.

What are the odds that you're going to be right and one of the odds that I'm going to be right? On what? McShea's statement? Yeah. Well, I don't know that we'll ever be able to prove in the moment if he absolutely knew this is fact. Rather than it was just sort of, you know, based on the way he feels about the organization. How would we prove this? I don't know.

But if you could, how would you play CI? If we could prove it? If we could prove on what McShea said coming to reality or that McShay, somebody told McShay, Dan ain't letting Ron Rivera draft another quarterback. Iran likes Tua, but Dan's not going to allow him to do it. I would say that that that didn't happen. The odds are that didn't happen. Oh, gosh.

You know, just when I think that you actually, you know, exercise all the demons, you let one arise. Let me add to it, though. I don't think that Ron Rivera would be here as the new head coach if he had said to Dan, not really sure about Dwayne. And I need to know right now if I want to cut him or trade him or move on from him, that's okay with you.

I think that conversation took place already. I think they have an understanding. I don't think Dwayne's going anywhere. I don't think he's going anywhere. Anyway, I don't think they have an understanding. I think they have an understanding that Rivera likes Dwayne and thinks Dwayne can be a decent quarterback. I don't know that they have an understanding that Ron can't do something

that maybe if, you know, Burrow falls to number two, that he can't act on that. I would hope that he can act on it, and I would hope that Dan would let him act on it. I would hope that there's at least a honeymoon period here. You know, you could only hope. Did you read McShay's comments, or did you watch him? I read them. Yeah. Watch them, because I think you might have a different perspective.

Because I watched it when he said it, and to me it was sort of a conversational, sort of, you know, typical response of people in the league that followed the Redskins that know Dan's a problem and is meddled in the past and that he loves Dwayne and that, you know, there's no way he's going to let Rivera, you know, change. I just don't it didn't sound to me or come off to me

as a report or something that somebody had told him. It wasn't a report. Well, it was an informed opinion. I don't think somebody, informed by whom? Like you, Kevin. People in this business talk to people on background all the time. I understand that.

I have an informed opinion. You have an informed opinion at times. And they come to informed opinion. But that's something specific. Not based, yes. The fact that it's specific makes it more likely it's based on fact. Yeah. I didn't watch it and feel that way. You know, I'd like to actually now, now I'm really, really curious to know if, because, you know, to be honest with you, why wouldn't it have been a report if he knew that?

if it was a real good source, real good information. Well, because he didn't feel he had it strong enough to go with a report. There's that line. Everyone straddled that line. Yep, you're right. I agree with that. Would you also, okay, so would you also agree with the following, that there are a lot of people in sports media that cover the NFL,

that automatically right now, in their minds believe that Dan Snyder, without any information, would never allow Ron Rivera to draft another quarterback because he loves Dwayne Haskin so much. But they would present it based on the evidence of his past. Not necessarily in a talk show, opinion, you know, free-form environment. Whatever you say. I disagree.

Okay. Well, I just disagree. I mean, I know you've done it many times. don't think you've done it, but you've done it many times, many times. Many times when you're trying to make a point, you make a point as if you know and you're right and everybody else is wrong. And I do the same thing too, but there's no, I don't have an example right now, but I guarantee you there is a time where you didn't present it in a way where it was just in, just sort of an opinion, an informed opinion. I just, I don't believe that.

I believe that you take things sometimes that you don't know that you think you know and that you're probably right on and you make it sound very certain that you do know. No, I don't do that. I go out of my way not to do that. Yeah, well, you may not do that in print, but you do that on a podcast. Okay. What else do you have? I've already kept you past your deadline.

You had a deadline with me today, and I've gone over. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. You got to go? And you got me all exercise. Good. Well, go out and get some exercise. All right, Paul.

Let's see you. Bye. All right. We're done with Tommy for the day. We got him worked up a little bit. I don't, I really, I watched McShea. To me, it was a bit of sort of a throwaway line. In the same way that, you know, anybody would say,

do you really think Dan Snyder is going to let Ron Rivera draft a quarterback, you know, and supplant, potentially supplant his boy, Dwayne Haskins. I think he was more of that personally. Could be wrong, though. We weren't on yesterday, so let's talk Terps a little bit, Aaron. Okay. They lost to Rutgers.

Yes, they did. We sort of predicted that they would lose to Rutgers right here on the podcast. Saw it with the line. Yes. I bet it. I happiness hedged it and bet Rutgers. I hate doing that with my teams, but I've done it many times. So here's my essential take, because they're two big sort of thoughts.

Number one, I'm not happy with Mark Turgeon's results over eight years. So Maryland basketball fans that have been after me here recently, I don't think one sweet 16 in eight years is good enough. I think I've said that many, many times. It's got to get better. It absolutely has to get better, or they're going to have to find somebody else that can do better. All right. So that is an absolute 100% opinion that I totally stand on and believe in.

And I don't think I've ever said anything to the opposite. Number two is this. Mark Turgeon's a good coach. Those two things can be true simultaneously. Okay? Not every good coach goes to the Sweet 16 in the Elite 8 and the final four every year. I've never said he's an elite coach. I've never said he's a great coach. and I've certainly said many, many times, he's not our beloved Gary, because he's not.

You know, he hasn't achieved what Gary achieved. We used to get on Gary for losing in the Sweet 16. Like, you know, Gary got to Sweet 16 after Sweet 16, you know, losing to Michigan, losing to UCon, losing to Arizona, losing to St. John's, you know, losing to Michigan. All those Sweet 16s that he lost, and we were killing him for it. A lot of people were killing him for it. But you know what I knew in the moment then that he was a good coach? I felt he was a good coach.

Now, I understand the Sweet 16 year after year is different than just getting to the tournament, you know, pretty much since he got through those first few years. The tournament now is almost a given with Turgeon. What is this? Five out of six years. Is that what it is? Fifth out of six years? Yes, it'll be fifth out of six years.

So I understand Sweet 16 and just getting to the tournament are two different things. But my point is I think he's a good coach. I don't think he's a great coach. I think he's a good coach, and I think also the results have to be much better. Now, specific to the other night, the reason I didn't think, the reason I thought it was a bad spot for them were the reasons I outlined on the show. Number one, you're playing your fourth game in 10 nights and you're playing a team that's rested for six days. Secondly, you're playing a good basketball team. Rutgers is a good basketball team. Not good at home, actually great at home.

Great at home. Okay. The good basketball team, they are a great home team. They still might not make the tournament. You want to bet on that? I don't want to bet on it, but I think here's that. How about this? They're in the tournament.

With one win away from home? Yeah, they can lose on Saturday and then they can lose in the first round. They are in the tournament. But if that happens, I will bet you on that one. Right now. I mean, you know, right now, I think the next update to his thing, he's going to have them out of that last four-by situation and in the field. If they lose their last game and lose the first round of the big...

Well, first of all, they're going to be an underdog in their last game. That's fine. And they're going to be an underdog probably in the tournament. And that's why I don't think they're going to make it. Yeah. I will guarantee you the rut cruises in the field. I'll bet you right now, whatever you want to bet, no matter what happens. But the problem is, the odds are in my favor.

I'll give you odds. You come up with the odds. All right. We'll figure that at all. Yeah, because here's the thing. They would be setting a precedent if they make the tournament. Again, there. No team has ever made the tournament while only having one win away from home.

Rutgers only has one win away from home. You know what, though? We've both watched a lot of Big Ten basketball. You know, and I heard the box score readers and the standings readers talk about all the losses away from home. I've watched a lot of those games, you know, away from home. And a lot of those games were very winnable. You know, they didn't get through on a lot of those games.

I remember a game early against Illinois. They could have won a game at Iowa. They had the lead. Could have won the game at Maryland. They were very much in it at the end of the game. They had a chance to beat Ohio State on the road. I'm forgetting one. Last week was the Penn State game where they had the lead,

and Miles Dredd made a three with 4.2 seconds left to beat them. They're a good basketball team. I don't care what their road record is versus home record. I've watched them. They're exceptionally well-coached. Pichols very good. They have a very good playmaker, who's a pro, by the way, an eventual pro, I think, in Geo Baker. And we talked about him on the show the other day.

And I think they've got some shooters and they got some big dudes and some size inside and bulk inside. I think they're a good team. I actually think they're going to be a very difficult matchup. And I also think Maryland just matches up poorly with them. In the same way that I thought they matched up poorly with Illinois, Aaron, even though they took two from Illinois. You know, I don't like those teams for Maryland. I like Maryland actually matching up against a team they lost to, Wisconsin. I like their matchup against Michigan Sunday.

I like their matchups against Indiana a little bit, thinking about the league teams. I don't like the Illinois Rutgers style or even the Penn State style for Maryland. And so you had a team who's great at home, had lost one team, who had six days rest, who needed the game, okay, for tournament status. and they got it. That was a huge resume win for Rutgers the other night. Senior night, the most, apparently the most sought after Rutgers ticket at the rack in years. Place was jinned up, juiced up, ready to go.

Playing a Maryland team, and yes, I'm making excuses. There are also reasons. And we talked about some of these on the podcast the other day. Also catching a team playing their fourth game in 10 days. all right, the third of the four on the road. Neither one of us, did you consider the other night to be a bad loss? It's not.

You expected them to lose. Yes, I did. I said, well, here's what I said after. I think I tweeted this out after. This wasn't a bad loss. It was actually an expected loss in Vegas, and that's the problem. That it was an, that Maryland losing to Rutgers was not a fluke,

was not an upset. was expected. And that's, to me, the kind of the problem, the overarching problem with this scenario is that two weeks ago, we were talking about this as a Final Four team, a Final Four candidate.

We were talking about a Big Ten run, a team that could go deep in the tournament. I still am. I don't see, because now if we're saying that Rutgers is, and yes, there were with rest and everything, but now we're talking about,

well, now it's probably actually a coin flip game to make the Sweet 16. We're going to face an evenly match team in the round of 30. What do you think they're going to be seated? Four right now. Assuming they don't turn, let's say they don't, you know, they get the win against Michigan and they, you know, maybe win one game in the Big Ten. They don't get a big, like a big win in the that's a three, four. It's, it's more of a three. I mean, actually, it would have been nice to have seen Florida State lose that game last night, which I had, I had Notre Dame.

I'll say that. There's a painful loss. Two is out of reach barring winning the big tournament. Disagree with that. I think if they win Sunday and they get at least a share and they win two games, I think they have a very good chance to still be a two. If they get to the finals, it's a lock that they're two. That's what I would say. You know, Palms still got him as a two.

Did you know that? I didn't. Because he essentially says, look at the teams below them, that nobody else is making the case. Kentucky lost the other night, etc. We always just look at our team and forget about it. That's why the bubble's always so soft. because you've got to still fill out the field.

By the way, I'm not hung up on the seating. I'm more hung up on sort of the way they played. You know, Rutgers was, you know, you say that the problem was that Maryland was an underdog to Rutgers. Michigan State went to a better team with, granted, there were the, you know, rats. It's debatable as to whether or not they're better teams. Penn State's better than Rutgers. I actually don't believe that they are. They split with Rutgers this year.

I think they're very comparable teams. I think Penn State's better. Okay, that's your opinion. I've watched enough of both of them. I would say they're very, very comparable teams. I think both of them are really good teams, by the way. I think they're much better than most people think because of their names. Even if they're comparable, and again, I will grant you, there were circumstances in this.

Michigan State was favored. They got the job done. Maryland was not favored. They didn't get the job done. And if we think that Maryland should be around the same level as Michigan State, That shouldn't be the case. Right. You know, when Rutgers started to prove themselves, you know, in early January,

they haven't been an underdog at home. They were a much bigger favorite against Michigan and Illinois and, you know, Purdue, and where else are we? Indiana and Minnesota, they were a bigger favorite against those teams. You know, in Illinois, they were playing a ranked team on February 15th, and they were a four and a half point favorite at the rack against Illinois. They were only a one point favorite. favorite against Maryland the other night. So I mean, we, we understand that. Like, if Michigan State

had played at Rutgers the other night, Michigan State may have been minus one, tops, you know, pick them. Because I think Michigan State actually right now is a better team than Maryland. Yes. You know, and I think that Vegas would perceive Izzo and that team coming off the win against Maryland is a team that's better than Maryland right now. But Michigan State would have potentially lost that game the other night, too. Look, they were getting their ass. kicked. They were down 19 to Penn State. Penn State relies to me too much sometimes on perimeter shooting. And I like both of the teams. I think both of the teams are going to be difficult outs in the tournament. They're both going to be in the tournament. But anyway, the point, overall point

is the, because let's talk basketball now, because this is what I get from a lot of the people out there. I get, Turgeon never has his team ready to play. You know, they're behind in every single game. He doesn't have them ready to play. You know, this is not a team that's going to be able to go very far, because if you fall behind by 17 to every team, it's going to catch up with you as it did, you know, at Rutgers and against Michigan State in the last two games.

Okay, so we're going to deal in, like, facts here. Maryland, prior to that Minnesota-Michigan State Rutgers run, where they fell behind by 17 at Minnesota, 18 against Michigan State and 20 plus against Rutgers had the lead against Ohio State, had a big lead against Northwestern, had a massive lead at Michigan State. They were up 15 in the first half at Michigan State,

and then actually fell behind and then rallied late to win. Nebraska, big lead they had to hold on for dear life at the end. That's actually the opposite of what many of you have complained about. Illinois, they were behind in that game, but it was a two-point game at halftime. Rutgers at home, they were up big at half, or they were, actually, actually, Rutgers at home, they were behind at halftime. Iowa at home, they were up big at halftime. They were up at six or eight, something like that.

Anyway, the point is, it doesn't happen every game. They're not falling behind in every single game. He doesn't not have them prepared for every single game. That's just not true. It's been true about a couple of games where you can say they fell behind. Now you can debate whether or not it was because if they were ready or not. The other night, so that's number one. Okay, the whole, he doesn't have them ready.

And then number two is never wins the big, can't win a big game that matters. What was that Michigan State game in East Lansing a couple of weeks ago? What was the Illinois game this year on a Friday night? What was the Indiana game on the road on CBS national television on a Sunday when they came back, not from 15 down. They had a lead in that game, big lead then gave up the lead, and Indiana had the lead, and then Marilyn rallied late and won that game. Come on. He's won a lot of big games this year. This has been the year. You can look at it and say, they've won a lot of big games. Big games that you're probably right, they didn't win in the past. But this year, you know,

they've won big games. Here's the other thing I've heard, okay? I've heard they just don't win the games they're supposed to win. Which game were they supposed to win? I got one game, Aaron, on their entire schedule this year, that I think they should have won that they did. One. Can you pick out which one it is? There are a couple. I think at Seaton

Hall, they should have won. That's the one. Okay. That's the game. At Seaton Hall, no Miles Powell, the big guy with the foreign guy, both of them out. They're two best players out. Marilyn went to Seaton Hall and lost by four.

To me, it's the only bad loss this year for Mark Turgeon, the only one. If you want to tell me that Rutgers is a bad loss, then you're going to have to argue against all the points I gave you as to why they were favored and why I expected them to have a really tough game. I didn't think that they should win that game. If you want to tell me they should have beaten Michigan State because of the atmosphere and because of, you know, the flash mob, well, Michigan State has Tom Izzo, has Cassius Winston, and Marilyn had beaten them in East. Lansing. That was a big game for them. I didn't think they should win that game. There are no other games on the schedule that they should have won. None. Every other game they lost, they were an underdog in. They have seven losses on the year. They were an underdog in six of the seven.

So don't tell me that they should have lost, that they lost games that they should have won. That's not true. Lastly is this, and I'm sorry to do this to you, for the people that had, that tweeted me and said, you know, the biggest problem is, is he doesn't make adjustments, adjustments. That's why they get behind. That's why most of you have no idea what you're talking about. It's the same thing we have, same conversation we have in football. Half-time adjustments. They didn't make half-time adjustments. And then, you know, if I'm on the phones on the radio show, well, what adjustments do you think they should have made? I don't know, but they clearly didn't make any adjustments. He clearly didn't make any Do you know that Mark Turgeon not only makes adjustments in game, he probably makes too many adjustments.

If you said to me, you know the adjustment he needs to make is to stop making so many adjustments? I would agree with you on that. Let me list all the adjustments he made in game trying to get something going the other night. He switched defenses consistently, which by the way he's done so much more this year than in previous years. He plays multiple zones, plays multiple kinds of man-to-man defenses, and he tried them all against Rutgers the other night, all of them. Offensively, they've been running a lot of five out, but he then went to a lot of post stuff, tried more sell on the post, tried sticks on the post. They ran a lot of different sets. By the way, he's got more in-bounds plays than almost any coach I watch on in-bounds pass plays. He makes adjustments. He actually says. sometimes makes too many. And here's the other thing. They should have picked up the pace. I mean, should have adjusted. They should have run. They're walking. Look, I had a problem with pace last year with

that team. It's a slow team. But let me explain something about basketball to some of you who don't know anything about basketball. When the other team shoots 49.5% and outrebound you, you can't run. To run, you need to get stops and rebounds. the other night Maryland got very few of both of those things. You sound like a youth school parent with some of these things, some of you. You can't run if you don't get stops and rebound. Well, you can run after a made shot. Izzo does.

Roy Williams does. Yes, you can. You can. But when a team's shooting 50% against you and they are out rebounding you, you can't run. and I'll tell you, Pichael, great job as a coach, gets back on defense. Good defensive team, Rutgers is. I will not be surprised if Rutgers wins a game in the round of 64. Like if they have to be in the first four, wouldn't surprise me if they won that

and then won an additional game as a 12-seed or is an 11-seat. They're a tough match-up. It depends on the type of team you play. Here's the problem with Maryland with a Rutgers team. Is Maryland doesn't have a lot of depth, and Maryland doesn't have a lot of physical size. And they got beat up at the rim. And then, oh, by the way, they went six of 32 from behind the ark. And again, if you think it was Turgeon's fault that out of those 32-3s, 25 of them were wide open, feet-set looks. If you think that's a problem that he missed those shots,

I'll tell you what, if you watched closely, he schemed up a lot of those shots. Now, also, Cowan made a lot of those plays. Cowan got a lot of people off of penetration. Cowan should have had, I don't know what he had an assist the other night. He should have had double digits and assists. If they had shot the ball poorly the other night, Cowan had three assists in the game, he should had 10. He made seven passes to people, he made 15 passes to people who were wide open that couldn't make a shot. That's a bit of a problem. Now, the next part of this is, are you concerned, Kevin. I'm not concerned about them being the kind of team I thought they were, which is a team that can make a deep run. I don't know if they can win a national championship. In fact, out of the

Big Ten, I would say Michigan states the team that probably is best suited to win a national championship. Can they make a deep run? They absolutely can. But the concern would be this, is you've got guys that have good strokes. Wiggins has a really good stroke. Cowan does too. obviously sticks does Dante Scott does they've got good strokes they got to shoot it better you can't go six for 32

and beat a good team on the road on senior night rested that's well coached that needs it you cannot go six to 32 now did they shoot too many threes I don't know they were all wide open threes

you know sometimes you let guys with good strokes who can be good shooters who are streaky you tell them to keep firing them Did I want Hakeem Hart in the game as much as he was in the game shooting threes? No. I did not understand the fascination with Hakeem Hart.

In fact, I think Sorrell Smith may have worked his way back into the rotation in front of Hart. But if they shot it poorly the other night from behind the arc, meaning, you know, instead of 6 of 32, 11 of 32, and had 15 more points, don't look at the final score because Rectors sort of got out of control there at the end, it would have been much more of a game. And we would have said they shot it so poorly and they lost a close game. Well, the other night they shot it atrociously and got blown out. But they got blown out in a spot which made sense to me.

Every team in this Big Ten has gotten blown out a couple of times and lost a couple of games in a row a couple of times. So they're good team and they will beat Michigan. The Michigan game sets up in an opposite way. Michigan's going to be coming in on short rest. Maryland's going to have plenty of rest. It's Maryland at home. It's Maryland's Senior Day.

These things matter. Emotion, et cetera. They'll beat Michigan. The matchups better, too. I like Michigan as a matchup for Maryland much more than I did Rutgers. I thought the Rutgers game at home, if you recall, Aaron, was going to be a tough game. And it was. They were down four or five at halftime in that game.

Had to come back and win that game. My prediction is they beat Michigan, they go to the indie tournament, and I have no idea what they'll do there. Wouldn't surprise me if they won it. Wouldn't surprise me if they lost their first game. I'd like them to win a couple games so that they can get to that two level and have a chance to play Greensboro, New York, which is really more, you know, the seating sort of comes with the ability to play in those locations.

Greensboro, by the way, even if they get a four is still in play. It is. That's true. Because of the way everything's just kind of falling out. they just need to make sure that too many of those big East teams don't pass them. That's kind of the key there. New York's still in play if they're four. You don't know how this whole thing.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. New York is, but that gets kind of random when you get to it. As far as Greensboro go, there's a very clear formula. Yeah. Stay in front of more of the big East teams. Nothing that's happened here during this very brutal stretch of, you know, these four games in 10 days. One and three, the three losses to teams that are going to the tournament.

Ohio State, Michigan State, and Rutgers. Nothing about it really concerns me. I have the same concerns I had before, which are scoring droughts, inability to put the ball in the basket consistently, and yes, the defense hasn't been as good recently. I think it'll be much better when they get into the tournament and they're playing teams that aren't as familiar with them.

In fact, I think it's going to be a good tournament for the Big Ten in general when they get out of this 20-game grind. But no, the other night was not Mark Turgeon's, fault. Am I disappointed that they lost the game? Of course I am. But it's the beauty of the happiness hedge. Want a little bit of money in the process. Whatever the line is against Michigan, five, six, whatever it is, I'm telling you right now you can put it all on Maryland. They're going to roll on Sunday. And then you'll feel a lot better. What did I tell you early in the season? There are going to be some days we come in here after a Maryland game and we're really excited and we think we're good

and there are going to be some days we come in here after a tough loss where they don't look very good that we think they're going to suck. It's a brutal league, tough, long season in this league, and every fan base in the Big Ten has felt that way. Bottom line is, their one win away from at least a share of a Big Ten title. It's a hell of a season, actually. I don't want it to end early in March. Trust me. He's still got to get results in the tournament. What else? Anything else? Nothing? You sure? I'm sure. Okay. That's it for the day. We'll be back tomorrow. I think Ben Standing's going to join us. We're going to go through a lot of the free agency stuff and some of the stuff that he's starting to learn on the athletic about the team. So he'll join us tomorrow. So tune in for that. Have a great day.