The Press Box - ESPN's Rece Davis on Year One of the College Football Playoff, Lobbying the Committee on TV, and the True Story of LANK

Episode Date: January 19, 2025

Hello, media consumers! Bryan and Joel are in Atlanta for the National Championship game and they kick off the weekend with an interview with ESPN's Rece Davis. They discuss the following: What worked with year one of the playoffs (2:06) His influence on the committee (6:05) Should first two rounds be at home campuses (20:18)? Working with Nick Saban and Pat McAfee (33:41) The real story behind “let a naysayer know” (47:25) Hosts: Bryan Curtis and Joel Anderson Guest: Rece Davis Producer: Brian H. Waters Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Did you know that scientific studies have found most people lie once every 10 minutes? In my new podcast, Truthless, I'm talking to people about the lies, they tell, from faking illnesses in high-pressure moments to making up stories on national TV. From Spotify and the Ringer Podcast Network, I'm Brian Phillips. Listen to Truthless on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Media consumers, welcome to press box from the National Championship game. That's right. Right?

The National Championship pregame. Pregame. It's Brian Curtis. It's Joel Anderson. Brian Waters back at the home office. Joel, we just interviewed ESPN's Reese Davis. Yeah. Host of Game Day, known for a number of things in his career, including one you got to ask him about right at the end of this interview.

Oh, man. Wouldn't that fun? He's so fun. I mean, there's one of those things you walk out of talking about Reese. You felt like maybe you might be buddies someday. You might get to hang out with him, some down the line. Like, hey, Reese, we want to do after this, you know? We did not do that, though, of course.

We did not do that. We got into what worked and didn't work in year one of the playoff. Should they have the first two rounds on home campuses, or should they play the traditional bowl structure in the second round? You asked a great question about, will the winner of this thing be necessarily a great team or just the winner of the playoff bracket? We also got to ask him a little bit about, like,

working with Nick Sabin and Pat McAfee. I felt like we were talking for two hours and I looked up up we were only like 40 but it was still like we covered a lot of ground with him today. Great lightning round at the end too. What is the Heisman vote he most regrets? Yeah. What's his favorite place to eat on the road? What's the greatest game he's ever seen? And

the true story of let a naysayer know. That's right. We had to get to the bottom of that I think. We did. Here's Reese Davis. We're here with Reese Davis, the pride of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Rees were sitting here at the end of the first ever 12-team playoff.

what do you think worked well what would you change in seasons going forward well the first thing that worked well and no matter what happens in the championship game i don't think i'll ever forget the friday night at notre dame and i thought going into the playoff that saturday was going to be the big deal the big day and i i acknowledge and understand the fact that it was notre dame probably added a little aura to it but doing four and a half hour game day darkness falling lighting up the pathway for the Notre Dame team to walk in amidst that huge crowd and the students still there and it was cold. And then the, I've been in that stadium many times and I don't know that I've heard it as intense as it was that night. I mean, that will be the lasting memory. That's the thing that worked.

The thing that in my judgment didn't work and needs to be fixed immediately is just seed the bracket. Just seed it. I mean, your reward for winning your conference is getting in the field. And I thought it didn't work having Arizona State, Boise State, deserving teams to make it into the field, did not need to get buys. And if it's four big 10 teams who get the buys, well, it's four big 10 teams that get the buys. It's just the way it is. As long as we're going to do it this way with using the committee to rank the teams, then just see the field the way they rank the team. then just seed the field the way they rank them and move along.

And I think that gives you a better situation because Ohio State has earned everything. But Oregon was placed in a disadvantage, and Penn State was given an advantage in the first couple of rounds, and that's not the way a tournament bracket, and that's what this is, should be seated. Do you buy the people that compare to the NFL when they say, what they prioritize division champions, right? It's not a perfect seating of strength or anything like that.

that. What do you say to folks to say, would they do that in the NFL? That is the way the playoff works out. It's obvious that that's what they try to do, and I understand it. But I think that if you visualize a sandwich, right, the top layer of bread and the bottom layer of bread in the NFL are really scrunched up. There's not a lot of distance. And in college football, there may be less difference this year than some years, but there's still a pretty vast difference. And because of that, you know, people talk about strength of schedule and how you're going to measure that and all those things are reasonable discussions. But it's pretty obvious that there are a couple of conferences and a few teams that aren't like the other ones.

And it doesn't mean they can't lose. It doesn't mean, you know, that Arizona State couldn't have or shouldn't have beaten Texas. But we're talking about seeding the field based on how you've looked, what you've done up to that point. I think the better way to do it is to whoever has done the best. Nobody gets an easy path, but they get a more advantageous path rather than being put at any type of disadvantage. You made the point about seating on the selection show at the end of the season. Is that you lobbying the committee to change things next year?

A little bit. Yes. I think that when you've done something as long as some of us have, that it doesn't mean they have to, but it's like, hey, I've evaluated. I've made a judgment on it. Whether you agree with that judgment is up to you and the powers it be. And look, it's been great. It's been fun and, you know, to continue the sandwich analogy, I must be hungry or something. But, you know, maybe it's a little more squished down, a little more pinnined than some years. So, you know, maybe it wasn't, wasn't that bad.

Arizona State certainly acquitted itself well. And despite the turnovers and maybe the final score, I thought Boise State played well. So it's not. not that those teams aren't good. It's not that they aren't deserving of being in the field. I just think it should be it should be seated the way they do it. I mean, the NFL analogy is clearly what they were going for, but to me, this is a little bit more akin to the NCAA tournament. The automatic bid gets you in, but you're still bracketed wherever it is that they seed you. I was actually kind of surprised to hear you say it like that, like you're lobbying the committee sometimes when you're up there. So I just kind of, I'm curious, how much influence do you think

your voice has with the committee? And like, when did you realize? that you saying something on TV might impact what the committee might do. I hope they respect me enough to think about it. I'm under no illusion that it carries any real influence. And that goes for anybody else on our set. Because think about the people that you're talking to, if you say that. You're not trying to influence a lot of people who aren't accomplished, who haven't come up with ideas of their own,

who haven't made judgments about what they think is best. and it might not line up with you. That's why, you know, this whole idea that, you know, me or one of the analysts can influence who might get in. And I wouldn't look at it that way when I'm talking about who I like better, but something like this is procedural and, you know, sort of an overarching view of the playoff, I think is something where you say, I think this is wrong. I've said this to the committee members.

I think this is wrong. I think you guys should change this. Whether they do or not, it's not going to be because I said it. It's just, I just hope it gives them something to think about and they evaluate it. Maybe they're all smart guys and smart women. They may look at this and say, I hear what he's saying, I don't agree with that. And that's okay. But, you know, I think that part of what we do now in media that it's okay if you think

something like that should be changed, even if it's on your network. Say so. You know, I mean, it doesn't diminish the fact that, you know, Notre Dame, Indiana was a great scene that Texas, Arizona State was an awesome game. You know, all of those things are still true, and you're just taking things that you think would make it better. A lot of blowouts in the first round. You talked a little bit about this on game day.

How much should those blowouts tell us about which teams a committee should pick for the tournament going forward? I do not believe that performance validates or invalidates selection. There's so much variance, and what I mean by that is, I don't like this notion that you say, well, SMU got blown out there for, they shouldn't have been in. No, they either should have been in or they shouldn't have been in, whether they won or lost. You're making a decision based on what's happened in your evaluation of them up to that point. Teams don't always play the same. I mean, I worked for 10 years with Lou Holtz, and Holtz would tell me, said, you have a different team every week.

You know, so I don't like that. Like, you know, because if you look at that and you say, the you, You and BC went over Virginia. You said, well, Virginia shouldn't have been to one seat. You know what? They shouldn't have been in. I mean, so where do you draw the line? So to me, I do think it can inform you, though I think it's a nuanced difference maybe.

It can inform you if you're looking at, oh, okay, well, maybe my evaluation of the teams in the ACC, you know, wasn't correct. Maybe I didn't give enough weight to who they played within their conference, you know, when once they got to the championship game. Things like that can inform your future evaluations, but I don't think it's appropriate to look at how a team plays in a playoff or in a tournament and say, see, see, you know, I just, I don't think that's, I don't think that's realistic. Because if you do that, then you have to go to a team that clearly should have been in,

and Oregon got its doors blown off. You know, I mean, you're down 34-0. It was the best team all season. they beat the team that blew their doors off. Ohio State was playing at a different level and deserves all the credit, but Oregon didn't play its best game that day. It just didn't work out. And so that's another reason why I think it's really not the proper way to evaluate teams to look and say,

well, they played this way, therefore they should or should not have been selected. Don't you think, though, that that opening week of blowouts is going to impact the way people look at it going forward or four, you know, fair or not? Because people looked at that person, like, oh, man, you were at Notre Dame, so you got to experience the scene. Other people at home watching it on TV, and they're like, well, man, all these teams got their ass kick. That wasn't a lot of fun to watch. Do you think it will ultimately have some sort of lasting influence on what those happen going forward? I think that we need to look back prior to the last two 14 playoffs. Because prior, and there were some instances here and there, but the last two 14 playoffs had great.

semi-final games. The ones prior to that, there weren't many. There were a whole bunch of blowouts in whom we just have four teams. There are a lot of blowouts in the NFL. And so it might, because there's always that knee-jerk reaction because you wish every game came down to a final scintillating play or near last play like Texas and Ohio State or Texas and Arizona state or, you know, or Notre Dame Penn State. You wish every game would be like that, but it's not going to be. And we, when we just had four teams, we had a whole bunch of semifinal blowouts. So it, to answer your question, it probably will affect the way the fans think about it, which might have some impact on the committee. And I think they do their due diligence and try really

hard to get it right. But I'm sure they will try to do whatever they can to make sure that the teams that they believe can give them the best games, make it into the field. I mean, but, you know, not to go down the rabbit hole of this, but like,

you know, the team, I guess first team out was Alabama. Alabama wasn't a playoff team. I mean, they, at their best, yes,

but there were too many times they were at their worst. You know, I mean, Oklahoma was, to me, the Oklahoma game was disqualifying. It wasn't that they lost. It was how they lost.

And the same with, the same with, the same with Ole Miss in some ways the loss to Kentucky because of who they lost to at home. You know, it's not that they got, you know, their doors blown off the way Alabama did, but, you know, they lost to a bad team. And then South Carolina lost to both of them. So I felt like that when you got to the end of the line with 12, you weren't even finding best or most deserving, whichever one you like to use.

The goal was to find the best, but once you get down to the end of the line, some seasons, you find who is less objectionable than the other one. And to me, that's where you got with SMU and Indiana. You understood, you saw it. Indiana hadn't beaten anybody. Did a great job of doing what good teams do first, and that's beating average to bad teams. Great job of that. Unbelievably improved. He's a great coach. But you knew they hadn't done anything, you know, in terms of, but they also hadn't done anything that was disqualifying. SMU got a real break in the way their ACCC schedule fell. Both teams still good.

And to me, those two teams, although to be honest, I probably would have favored Miami getting the last at large spot. But to me, it was reasonable that those teams were less objectionable than the SEC teams and maybe in some eyes less objectionable than Miami. A lot of people, me included, worried that the 12-team playoff would diminish the regular season in college football. How do you think the regular season held up? This year, great. We had a record or near-record number of top five matchups. But, Brian, you know, the one thing I think about is that fan behavior, all of us, me included, takes a while to get accustomed to new things, right? and I do think that over the course of time,

the be-all-end-all feeling of the regular season game that was unique to college football's regular season will be diminished. Certainly didn't feel that way on the final Saturday of the regular season in Columbus when Michigan won. But now this is going to be a case study of, oh, well, you know, if they win the national championship, they would have preferred to have beat Michigan, obviously.

Didn't stop them from winning at all. rather have the big ring and the big trophy. So I think as fans get more and more used to that, that we are, and I think I've said this to you before, I think that is a price that is going to be paid, probably time to pay it, and there is something on the other side. It does mean that some big 12 games late in this season that ordinarily would have been overlooked drew a tremendous amount of attention. you know, Arizona State and BYU, you know, right there at the end, the Colorado games at the end. You know, it changed things. New Mexico State, New Mexico was a game that had playoff impact at one point.

Yeah, it sure did. Also had Superdog impact, and let me tell you something. I whipped those Lobos home that night, Nevin Dan Peer, awesome. Oh, yeah, yeah. Not only the cover of the outright win, not that, you know, only for games of chance because gambling's wrong. Right. And there are no. And our PR person's in here. And you can't even joke about gambling because gamblers have zero sense of humor. They also have a complete inability to recognize facetiousness, as I found out. Yeah. So never uttered the phrase risk-free investment, even if it's clear that you're joking. They get all bent out of shape. You go, really? You think that? You can't walk walking down the street is not a risk-free investment. I mean, what's wrong with you? You know what people, they have no sense of humor of those people. I think it's because they lose their money gambling.

Well, I was going to say, they have a little bit on the line, right? Yeah, too much, maybe. Oh, man, well, I want to go in either two directions on this. Not you mention that, but I guess I'll ask this to stick what we were talking about a little bit before. So I wrote about this little further ringer about how, like, if Ohio State wins, this is a team that didn't meet its biggest rival, didn't win its conference championship, and we'll end up the national championship, or if Notre Dame wins, the team with the worst, you know, the worst loss of any championship caliber teams I can remember in the modern era.

Do you think that eventually people will get used to the champions, maybe not being the ilk of the 2019 LSU, 2020 Bamas, things like that? And they will just come to eventually accept that sometimes these teams are just champions, but they're not necessarily great teams. Yeah. I think we probably will get to that point. Those of us who, you know, follow and love college basketball have gotten to that. You know, I mean, maybe the Yukon team's last couple of years are great teams and exceptions to that, but there have been a number of years where you've wound up with a champion, credit, celebrate them, admire the accomplishment, not all-time great, not elite. The Ohio State, if Ohio State were to win, is going to be a really interesting study in that because

talent-wise, ceiling-wise, they are great. They look the part of some of those great teams. But the two stumbles in the regular season, particularly the one against Michigan, is probably going to keep them from being recognized as that. But it won't take any shine off the trophy. That'll just be for guys like us to evaluate when you're talking about all-time great teams and so forth. But I do think fans will become accustomed to it. And I think it's a really interesting juxtaposition.

The focus that Ohio State has put on Michigan, the focus that Ryan Day has put on Michigan, the countdown clocks in the building. The number one goal, he set on game day, the week of the Indiana game, listing goals, beat our rival, is number one. Number one. And, you know, Nick Saban looked at him like, what? You know, because that's not the way he approached it. You know, you can do it different ways. But the juxtaposition to me is the way Ryan has approached it. And then he brings in Chip Kelly, who is famous at Oregon for nameless, faceless opponent.

We don't care who we play. And I love Chip. I never believed him when he said that. You know, but I think the idea was sort of similar to what Nick talks about, playing to be a champion, not to win a championship. and there's a subtle difference there. And I think nameless faceless opponent is a little bit of that mindset. I think probably the right balance is somewhere in the middle.

And a national championship for Ohio State might actually move that a little bit. That game will always carry huge significance, and it should. I'd be extraordinarily disappointed if it didn't. But you can't be talking about firing guys lost 10 names. You know, in his whole career because really only one of the losses was bad this year. No excuse this year. No reason in the world they should have lost in Michigan. Can't happen.

Got bad news for the people who didn't like it. The other three years, Michigan was a better team. They just were. You know, I mean, certainly last year they proved it. I thought they were better than two years before that too. And so they lost tight games, tough games to teams that were a little bit better than them. This year, bad loss. But everybody has them from time to time.

it there's just happened on, from their point of view, the most unfortunate stage. But a lot of that, I think there might be some mitigation in terms of the way everything's viewed if they, you know, finished off this run and win a championship. Another question for future playoffs. Should they play the first two rounds on campuses or should round two be like the traditional bowls? I like the on campus feeling. I would like to see them play the first two rounds on campus, particularly if the playoff has expanded further, certainly if it's expanded to 16.

I think it gives you better atmospheres generally. I think it's a little bit easier on the fans. I know it may not be any easier on the road fans, but easier for the team that has earned home field. Someone brought up today that one of the things that you can overlook is depending on when you do it on the calendar, you can wind up with no students on campus. I mean, I think Notre Dame and maybe Penn State too,

both move finals and move move move out dates on the dorms so that the students would be able to stay. But generally speaking, I would like to see the first two rounds on campus. I think it would help with the fans' ability to go and create atmospheres that won't feel, you know, anticeptic or generic, you know, because you have just a lot of corporate people who can do these things and you don't have you don't have Buckeye guy and Bucknut

who I guess they make every trip anyway but you know you don't have those guys the people who live and die with their teams making it because it's not just a financial thing if you start talking about three trips

it can be and it is a significant financial thing but the other side of it is even people who have the means might not be able to get away from their job their office, their practice, whatever it might be, in order to devote the time to three trips. And you want the hardcore fans and fans who love their team to be able to go to the games.

I would like to see the first two rounds on campus. We're talking about, you know, synchering with the format. But what about the schedule? Because I was wondering, and I mean, obviously the game hasn't happened yet. Right. But it does feel a tad anticlimatic this time of year, right? Like, I don't know. Like, it feels like we're later in the, we're later in the year, usually,

football is over by now, college football is over by now. Would you like to see, and some people have talked about this moving to regular season up a week or two so that the season can end a little bit more in that first week of January, as opposed to now, late January or mid-January. I think it would be optimal and whatever can be done to keep as many games on the traditional Saturday. And, you know, certainly the Friday night window was great, as I mentioned earlier. but keep the games close to the traditional days and then have as much focus as you can on New Year's Day is good. The problem becomes if you're going to fill New Year's Day with something a little more than just two semifinal games, then it becomes problematic with the schedule.

In theory, yes. Maybe I think we'll probably reach time when everybody plays on week zero and we'll, to start calling it week one then. If you move it earlier, you know, as much as we endured the cold for a couple of the playoff games, I mean, it is going to be hot, hot, hot in Texas and Florida and Louisiana. You know, if we are playing third Saturday in August in Baton Rouge, you know, it's going to be sweltering. But, you know, maybe that's the answer.

But I do think a long-term evaluation of when we play those game days of the week, Do you dare, do you dare try to match the NFL even more often than we did with the two, you know, two games, I guess it went head to head with the NFL games this year? I mean, all of those things I think should be evaluated and see what's best, what's best for the sport. ESPN got some criticism for its announcers' criticism of some of the teams in the playoff. I think of after that in Underday Indiana game game, again you mentioned Herbie coming on game day and saying Indiana got out classed and saying maybe there were some other teams that should. have belonged on the field and said them. What did you make of the criticism, ESPN, and your show got? It's nature of the beast.

I mean, anything, and it's part of the privilege and part of the responsibility that goes with being on that show, that it is going to get a reaction. And, you know, Kirk was just saying what he thought. And he wasn't, he certainly wasn't wrong about what happened on the field, you know, between Indiana and Notre Dame. the game wound up a 10-point game, but that, I mean, we all saw that. It was not a 10-point game. Clear that Notre Dame was at a different level.

At least that night, you know, I want to stick with what I said earlier. Get a different team. Maybe Indiana didn't bring its best that night. Not for lack of trying, but sometimes just doesn't work out. So the criticism is part and parcel of what we do. And college football fans are so passionate. They all think everybody hates their team. and even if you went to school at a place, well, then you don't love your school's team as much as I love my school's team.

So you're going to get that. And that is part of what makes it great. You have to be able to filter out which criticism is fair and should cause you to at least think and reconsider if necessary your position, sort of like what we were talking about earlier, if I view this as lobbying the committee to resell. seed. You know, they can dismiss it, but hopefully they evaluate it. And if a criticism is reasonable about something we say on our show, we should probably evaluate it. But it doesn't bother me. I don't want to, I don't want our show to ever be one that is afraid to say what we think and is afraid of taking the backlash. So, you know, I thought what Kirk said was not unreasonable.

It was his assessment of the situation. I didn't have any problem with it at all. What's the, I got, this is a two-part question. Because I don't imagine that you're a person looking at your phone and going through your Twitter mentions. Why not to?

How do you get feedback or criticism? Like, where does it typically come from? And what do you think is the most unfair criticism that you guys get? I think that we, well, this year, it was that we wanted the SEC teams in, and that it was good for ESPN to have the SEC teams in. We got Notre Dame in Ohio State. I mean, to me, that was what the people who criticized that missed is that once we got to the playoff, they're all our teams. You know, we have the rights to broadcast all of those games. So, you know, you think we don't like having Ohio State and Notre Dame.

whether against each other or against someone else. I mean, so I thought that was kind of unreasonable and therefore I dismiss that type of stuff. I'm not going to say I never look at it, but I try not to. I've used this story before, and I'm not going to say who the anchor was. We had a young anchor,

young woman who was anchoring her first show several years ago, and she texted me after the show and said, what do I do with this? and she showed me messages from some of the ESPN executives, time stamp one minute apart. One told her to tighten up, one told her to loosen up. She was too tight. So, you know, I say that as a both those people,

good television folks, best interest at heart of a new anchor, trying to help, but you will chase your tail if you are constantly reacting to what someone on Twitter said. I had, my wife teased me the other night because I've got, and I don't really know, I don't really know what I've said or done, but for some reason this idea that I hate Notre Dame has come up, which was ironic because I saw this literally after spending the entire evening

at Lou Holtz's 88th birthday party with a boatload of Irish boosters and former players and everything and some of my best friends in the world are Notre Dame people. I don't really know what it was. I don't really care. But she's like, this is really bothering you. I said, no, it's not. I'm having fun. And what I did was I responded to about three of them with a picture from, I think, 2017, Notre Dame, Miami game of the leprechaun and me both posed like we're going to fight. So this guy says, you know, I hate you. You're awful. You've always hated Notre Dame from the time you came out of the womb, whatever. And so I just responded with the, you know, the picture of the leprechaun and me like we wanted to fight. So you get you get some of it. Sometimes you might get it

from a producer. Sometimes you become aware of it by osmosis. Sometimes, you know, my wife or my kids might make the mistake of looking. Sometimes I make the mistake of looking. And, you know, but generally I try to avoid it. And if somebody calls me, you know, or somebody says something or if something gains traction, then you maybe say, okay, is the criticism fair? Is it reasonable? If it's not, dismiss it out of hand. You know, trying to explain yourself to criticism that is neither fair nor reasonable is an exercise in futility.

And so I just, I've done a decent job, if not fairly good, of adhering to that. Probably slip up from time to time. But for the most part, I think I've done a good job with that. Let me just follow up on the SEC thing because the background music here is this is the first year that the SEC belonged entirely to ESPN, the entire SEC schedule. And the Big Ten schedule belonged to three other networks. So there's a way of seeing the world, whether it's fair or not, of people going, okay, you guys belong to that network. It's like that old LSU chancellor said way back when there's the ESPN conference and the Fox conference, except it's Fox and NBC and CBS. You think it's worth on the air one or two times a season just coming on and saying, look, we know that our network boss has made a $3 billion deal with this conference.

But we are aware of this. We know this. But here is our take on what team should be in the playoff, who's up, who's down? It's a fair question. I don't know that it would be completely effective because people are going to hear what they're going to hear. So I think the better way to do it from my perspective is to be as honest and as fair as you can be about teams, whatever conference they're in. And if the subject comes up, don't pretend that your employer has an affiliation with a particular conference. But I don't really think that you would gain a lot by coming out and saying that because you're going to get, oh, yeah, sure, of course.

that's what they'd say, sure, I still don't believe you. And so I don't really know what would necessarily be gained. I think the number one thing is to be very diligent to make sure that you're not being overly influenced by where you are and what you see. Because, hey, look, I mean, this may prove that theorem, but generally speaking, the atmospheres in the SEC are different. You guys have been all of them. Most of them are.

almost all of them are doesn't mean that every team in the SEC is better and you know that's always been the thing that I've always got people say SEC versus Big Ten which ones you know the better way to evaluate is which team you know just because Mississippi State has an SEC patch on their jersey it doesn't mean everybody at ESPN automatically thinks they're better than Iowa you know nobody thinks they're better than Iowa so you know it's I don't know I think all of this messaging gets gets lost by sort of the hyperbolic, overreactive contingent of people who want to buy into that narrative that the Fox guys only want to push the Big Ten guys and the ESPN guys only want to push the teams from the SEC.

And I think those of us who care about our credibility and our job performance really work hard to try to be fair to everybody. That's why, you know, that's why it's been really important for us to go places where it's not our game. And I think that probably speaks more volumes than us saying something. I mean, we went to, you know, we went to Indiana, Washington, Big Ten Network. We went to Ohio State, Oregon, which was Peacock, I think, NBC or Peacock. We went to, went to Ohio State, Indiana, which was Fox. We went to Texas, Michigan, which was Fox. So I think it's really important for us to continue to do that. As long as people, you know, recognize that, then

also Ohio State, Penn State. So, you know, that's getting close to well over a third, if not close to half, and kids have forgotten somebody of our schedule of games that weren't on our air. And we've had a history of doing that, and I think that is probably more important than any statement that we can make

that would probably be dismissed anyway. Well, you could sign if Nick would be fun to work with at all? Not in the least. Okay, all right. Now, I thought that he would be great. I did not realize he would be extraordinary, almost instantaneously. I knew he had a great sense of humor. I've been thrilled at how well that has come through on TV.

I think the dynamic and the relationship on the air and off that he has with Pat has really helped that. Are you a fan of Broadway or the movies or TV? Are you a fan? odd couple worked on Broadway, it worked on the silver screen, it worked on television, and even things that aren't called the odd couple, if you have this perceived juxtaposition of personalities, and somehow they get along and the chemistry is great, it always plays, you know, and it's not manufactured. I mean, Nick said to me early, he said, you know, he's so full of energy and so much out there, he goes, I can't really be nervous when he's around, so it's

helped that. They've developed a friendship. One of the cool things, and I hope they don't get mad at me for sharing you. There's a small group of us, and we somehow ended up basically having dinner every Friday night, and there were laughs and stories and stuff. I mean, I don't think I want to say what was said. It wasn't dirty or anything like that, but the reason not say, I saw Nick Saban laughing so hard. He was crying, literally crying at one of these dinners one night. McAfee out of nowhere pops up owes the mentalist and FaceTime, owes the mentalist while we're sitting at a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. These types of things build chemistry.

And they get along really well. There's great respect both ways, Pat, for who Nick is and what he's accomplished, and the same from Nick to Pat, both what he accomplished as a player and what he's accomplished as a broadcaster and a businessman, because Nick's a strong businessman as well. So the relationship has been awesome. The dynamic has been tremendous for the show. And I think it's really allowed Nick to show America a side of his personality that a lot of us knew was there. But he also worked very hard to keep a profound secret for many people for a number of years, you know.

Has he gotten me with a deez nuts joke yet? He has not gotten me with a deez nuts joke yet. But maybe it's coming at some point. So fascinating to me because the first several decades of game day and continues to be was about the relationship to an extent between Kirk and Lee Corso. Father, son, coach, player. Now there's a second relationship, which is also coach player, father, maybe delinquent son, something like that. I didn't say that. I think I would probably own up to that.

But it does add a different field of the show. And Joel and I talk about this all the time. We can say people watch television shows for information and about college football. What they watch television for, in my opinion, is relationships. So they come back. So that has got to have added just a different relationship to a show that already had an established. No question about it. And people like to watch people that they're comfortable with.

And from the time I started on this show in 2015, Corso, it's always said, it's entertainment, sweetheart football is our vehicle. and I think that you still see the entertainment, you certainly get the football information, but that relationship, hopefully among all of us, but specifically between the two of them, with them being the two newest members of it, has added a dynamic that has, you know, that is impacted and changed to show. It's given it another relationship for people to invest in to further your point. So I think you're right about that. If people feel like the people that they're watching like each other care about what they're doing and are enjoying

themselves, then they are more likely to be entertained and more likely to be engaged. Did you all have to do anything in particular, whether on the front end or once you're on air, to accommodate Nick or, and Pat, like, has there anything that's sort of changed because you brought in these two big personalities of? I mean, not that I can think of. What are you thinking of specifically? I'm just wondering if like there was just, well, you know, we got a different sort of preparation or whatever or anything like that. No, I mean, I would, the only thing I can think of that, and this is not really that big a deal, is, you know, when you're dealing with someone who's relatively new to television, at least certainly Nick's new week to week, but he's done a lot of TV for us and his own TV shows and things like that. dealing with the aspect of time that there might be occasions where I feel like a conversation

has gone long enough, whether that's just because I feel like that from a content standpoint, or maybe it's, you know, we have to be out for a top of the hour break or something like that. And the idea that maybe you didn't get something in that you prepared, that you wanted to about a team or something. a couple of things. One, there might be another opportunity in that show to do it. And there will certainly be another opportunity down the line. I think, you know, kind of getting the feel for that. But, you know, minor, minor stuff. I mean, he's worked really well with our producer, Jim Gallero, who, you know, has gone over, you know, gone over tapes and stuff like that. And, you know, and I'll talk to him, you know, from time to time about the film room segment, which has evolved into a way to get

a concise thing to watch about usually not always but usually another game that might be important but not the marquee game of the day so you know he's been able to do that and it sort of uses his expertise and actually i stole the idea i've been pushing it for a few years with all of us from from the clips on x from his coaches show where after the after the game he'd stand in front of the screen and say this happened on this play and we've modified it a little bit you know you've multiple plays sometimes. But, you know, other than prepping things like that and

talking to him about how it's going to work, there not really any other types of accommodations. And as far as Pat goes, I mean, I mean, he runs his own show for three hours every day. I mean, so he has a really good feel for that.

And then I've never been around anybody who has the ability to connect with a live audience the way he does, you know. at least in terms of a broadcaster. You know, I guess maybe you could say, you know, some type of musician singer, something like that might be able to a comedian,

which, you know, which he can also do. He's done, you know, he's done stand-up before. But, you know, he really connects with a live audience. And I think, you know, all of those things didn't really cause us to do anything different. But, you know, the one thing that we've changed in the right now, and this is to Jim's credit. We used to feel like top of the show, you know,

after I do the scene set, Let's go out and let's get everybody to touch. Somebody say something, big picture, you know, just whatever. And after a while, Pat became so good at, you know, picking up on chance or getting a call and response or whatever it might be. They were like, we just call it basically. We'll introduce him. We'll let Pat cook.

Somebody wants to chime in, go ahead. If not, we'll go to the slate. You know, because it's so good, why do we feel like everybody has to do something? If somebody wants to chime in and, you know, jab at him. or have some fun with him. Have at it. Go ahead. But, you know, there's not going to be a time we say, okay, everybody's got to get a swing at this here. And it's worked pretty well, I think. Last one for me, Reese. You're a University of Alabama guy.

Joel and I both went to football schools. Well, how quickly you people forget. Where did you guys go? TCU and Texas, respectively. Okay. All right. Could you do your job as well as you do it if you went to, say, Harvard? Hmm. Where did I grow up? If I, so you're, let's say if I, muscle shoals, grew up in muscle shoals.

I grew up still loving college football, but had gone to Harvard. But made a poor decision in terms of your alma mater. A lesser decision. I would like to, I would like to think so. I mean, you know, my son's an Ivy League guy. And, you know, I think he could do this job pretty well. He loves it too. Probably do baseball better.

But I'd like to think so. I think it's less about where you went to school and more about well. whether you have an actual deep love for the sport. If you do, I think it doesn't really matter much where you went to school. And that also, you can have a deep love for the sport if you grew up not caring at all, and then you went to Texas or you went to TCU or Alabama or Florida or wherever and developed that love while you were there. I'm not saying you have to have had it from the time you were for,

but as long as you developed it somewhere, you know, I think you can do this job. I have a quick Can we do a quick lightning round? Yep, and I'll enter quickly. All right, cool. Best game you've ever covered. I'll say Alabama, Georgia National Championship game here,

200 Devante. I was here for that game. So great. Yeah, that was great. Favorite venue. Skewed by this year. I'm going to say Notre Dame. Really?

Yeah. What was it before that? I think before then I would have said Saturday night and Tiger Stadium in LSU. What's the best place to host the game day? Any place where the crowd is jacked up and usually a place where we haven't been. Best game day crowd this year, hands down, easy, cow, easy. Yeah. This is going to be, I don't know, you may not answer this.

What's the worst? Oh, that's easy. Playoff Saturday morning at Ohio. state was brutal. I mean, they were like hardly anybody there. And then by the end of the show, the Tennessee people had run all of the Ohio State people out of the pit. Now, extenuating circumstances. Typically, when we go to Ohio State, it was great. But this year, because students were out, night game, it was like four degrees or so you had to be a hearty soul to come out for the show. But it certainly was far different than what we'd experienced the night before.

and what we had experienced in our prior regular season visits to Ohio State. So, yeah, that was a flat crowd. That one might deserve an asterisk. The biggest robbery in Hinesman Trophy history. Okay. I was not alive for this one, but it's Paul Horning over Johnny Majors. That's what the damn fans think you hate them. Yeah, maybe so.

They were two and eight. So that's the biggest one. In modern, boy, I don't want to say this because I'm, I'm very, very fond of the person who won it that year. Peyton Manning, but not the year you think. Not 97. The right guy won it in 97. Charles Woodson should have.

Peyton Manning should have won at 95 when he was a sophomore. Wow. I've said that long time. No, no, no. Can I amend my answer? Yes. I'm sorry. I also like both of these guys.

And this one, he won deserving Heism, the winner. I felt some guilt here and I'll tell you why. RG3 over Andrew Luck. I thought Andrew Luck was, I became like they teet Lou and Mark, Lou Holt Smart may tease me

that I loved Andrew Luck so much as a quarterback prospect. And by the time Andrew got to that thing was a Heisman Trophy favorite that year going into the season, I became so concerned that I wasn't being fair to anyone else that in retro

respect, I think I was unfair to Andrew in casting my ballot for Robert. That is the only He's a very fond of Robert. He's a great guy and great player. That's the only Heisman trophy vote I've ever cast that I regretted, that I thought I didn't do the right thing. And it was because I was so worried about being unfair the other way that I didn't give Andrews due. And I don't think I was the only one. So I would say out of all those I said all those were reasonable minds can differ, and certainly this one too. But I'd have to put Andrew Lott not winning it right up there, too. Favorite place to eat on the road?

Ooh, okay. I've got one for you that you guys might not know. I mean, good people Clemson, they think I'm going to say smoke and pick, and I love smoking pick. There are a number of other restaurants. There is a restaurant in Auburn called Acre. it is unbelievable. And I love Chuck's Fish in Tuscaloosa.

I love five acre in Auburn. And I'm told that's not even the best dining experience in Auburn. They have a culinary school. And if you go in there and have like an entire dinner experience, which had issues I couldn't join my basketball colleagues for this, they all, to a man said, best meal I've ever eaten in my life. And I'm like, well, I just, I ate an acre the next night. might have been the best meal I've ever had.

But yeah, that's a great place to go. Best player you've ever seen? Boy. Derek Thomas. Or Barry Sanders. Yeah. Were you as surprised as I was that the end and Link really did stand for naysay? That's all I knew.

Okay. I mean, I had no idea about the author. And, I mean, because I knew that Tarion and Jalen had been marketing that merchandise since, you know, that had become a thing since August. You know, Nick is, you know, Nick's told the story about talking to them and they made the shirts. And everybody, you know, the thing that surprised me about Galloway and Pat is they hadn't apparently opened their eyes and looked around. Those shirts were everywhere in Pasadena, everywhere. You know, I mean, Jalen wore one to warm up with the Rose Bowl. And so I had no idea.

Even when they interrupted me and started, I had no idea what they were talking about. So we go to the sound after I go on, I make the joke, you know, that's a professional lead in or whatever. And so I'm like, and so Desmond is trying to delicately tell me. And I'm like, I'm not getting it. comes over we do the rest of the show go to commercial break i look at me you joey's still being joey laughing you know joey is a guy you know joey loves to throw a smoke bomb and you know to and to the cry and go who did that you know and hide his hand you know come up sneak behind

him you know punch you on one side of the shoulder and go hey he i am you know so joey's still cutting up and i love joey were great friends finally doesman said okay and basically leaned in and spelled it out for me. And, no, but I had no idea that there was a alternative meaning. I still tell Joey that I said, that's because your mind's not pure. I said, that's why you thought that, Joey. So anyway, Reese Davis, we will catch him on game day where he will be sending coded messages to the committee.

Not coded. I'm just going to say it. Just uncoded messages to the committee. Just seed the bracket, guys. Every single week. Reese, thanks for coming on the press box. Thank you, guys. All right, that is the press box. I'm Brian Curtis.

East Joel Anderson, Productions Magic by Brian Waters. We're back with much more Sunday night from Atlanta. Talk to you that.