Will Cain Country - Jesse Watters: Inside The Liberal Mind

Episode Date: March 19, 2024

Story #1: In his new book Get It Together: Troubling Tales from the Liberal Fringe, Host of Jesse Watters Primetime, Jesse Watters spends 300 pages getting inside the mind of the most radical liberals. Today, Will turns the table to find out why Watters is the way that he is. Story #2: Hamstringing the federal government is literally the point of the constitution, but Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn't seem to think so.  Story #3: Giving you the formulas for picking the right teams for your NCAA March Madness Bracket with FOX Sports College Basketball Commentator, Tim Brando.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, get it together, troubling tales from the liberal fringe by Jesse Waters. Jesse Waters spins 300 pages getting inside the mind of the most radical liberals. Let's turn the tables. What makes Jesse Waters tick? Why is Jesse Waters the way that he is? Two, hamstringing the federal government. Literally the point of the Constitution. Literally the reason we have the First Amendment.

Why is that so foreign to a justice on the Supreme Court? And three, the formula for picking the right teams in March Madness, and can we rehabilitate Justin Fields with Fox Sports Commentator, Tim Brando. It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at Foxx, news.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, always on demand, wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. Just go hit subscribe. If you want to catch the Will Kane show in its entirety or in YouTube shorts or with exclusive interviews, right under the description of this live streaming show, there is a link to

subscribe to the Will Kane show. Do that. You can get us whenever and however you want by subscribing to the Will Kane show. We got a big show to with Fox Sports commentator Tim Brando, which is two days before we tip off March Madness. It's been a big week in free agency, and we're going to help you pick the right teams for probably the best sports moment of the year, March Madness. But let us get inside of one of Fox News's most famous, most prominent, and most cocky personalities. Let us get inside the mind of Jesse Waters. Story number one. He is the host of Jesse Waters' prime time.

He is the host of the five. He is a multiple-time best-selling author. And that will not unlikely be the case again because he has written a new book, Get It Together. Where Jesse interviews some two dozen radical leftists to understand why they are the way they are. What's up, Jesse? How you doing? No one told me you were going. going to interrogate me.

You knew that would be the case. I wouldn't have agreed to do this interview if I had known that. But go ahead. I think you secretly want to. I think you secretly want people to understand Jesse Waters. You, uh, you're, you're, hey, Jesse, you're an interesting dude. Before we get into why you've interviewed all these interesting people, you're an interesting dude.

You and I've hung out some behind the scenes. And I would say to the audience, like, you are the same dude behind the scenes that you are on camera. which I consider a really big compliment. But you are unique, man. Like, you know, in my 40-plus some-odd years of hanging out with dudes, I can verifiably say you're a dude. But you're a different, like, amalgamation of dude than I've ever run across. In your own words, you're arrogant, you're smug, you are cocky, you have faux humility.

And I know some of those guys, but I've never known one with self-awareness. I've never known one that understands he is all of those things, which makes one wonder, are you really? Are you really all of those things? We hung out once, Cain. Once. And the whole time I tried to get you out of my system. I mean, but sure.

Am I confident? Yes, Kane, you have to be a little confident in this business. You're overconfident. You're overcompensating. Everybody knows that. but I do I am humble I know I could lose this job

and I had probably no skills to fall back on you could probably do sports I couldn't this is all I have and I'm deeply self-aware about my limitations because my mother has driven those bad awareness into my brain since a very very young age

tell me about and I'm not trying to put you on the psychotherapist's couch you talk about her on the five and we're going to do this because you've done this to, again, some two dozen radical lefties. But, like, tell me about your mom. Like, isn't your mom on the left? Oh, yeah, far left. Mondale, Dukakis. Do I have to talk about my mother? Because she really, her ego is probably bigger than yours at this point. What I'm curious about is, and I'll tell you, like, you know, I grew up in a small town in Texas.

my dad was an attorney, he would have described himself as a Democrat, but there was nothing, like nothing that would have ticked the boxes, certainly of a modern-day Democrat or even, you know, an 80s Democrat. He was one out of self-preservation because he was a trial attorney, and he needed to be a Democrat in order to protect his profession. Like, you spent so much time wondering why all these other people are the way they are. How did you grow up with the mom in the far left and you end up conservative? She was a flower power, hippie, non-protester. That's where she came of age in the 60s, you know, in Ohio, four dead in Ohio. That was her rallying cry. And women's rights, reproductive rights, cane, it's, oh my gosh. And so I was raised, and my father is like that. too, although not that radical. I was raised to believe in caring, sharing, and making friends, and being respectful, being polite. And so I rebelled and became a right-wing agitator. And I've been

very successful at doing that. But I've also incorporated those core values, which are not liberal values. Those are universal values of respect, community. I just feel like I've made those values my own. And my mom's still proud of me. She's happy that I have health insurance. She's proud that I've written a book in English without a lot of grammatical errors. But aside from that, if I'm not on a show on Fox, she will not watch. She will not watch. She is She's revolted by the whole thing. She's excited that they're seizing Trump's properties that makes her happy. That's kind of where we are.

She thinks he's a threat to democracy. Like she thinks the dictator on day one hoax, she thinks that's probably true. When did you rebel? When did you become such a disappointment? I understand she's probably going to have helpful. I was always a disappointment. It was just the level of disappointment got a lot better. In college, I think I had too much to drink.

I remember watching C-SPAN and seeing all these Republican senators on the floor talking about their values, and they were the same values that I had been reading about that the founding fathers had espoused about personal responsibility, limited government, low taxes. And I, wait a second, I think I might be a Republican. So then I started listening to Limbaugh, and after that, forget about it. I was hooked. Yeah, mine was similar, by the way. again, it was more like teams back then. It wasn't really ideology-based. It was like, you know, oh, I guess my dad's a Democrat, so I'm a Democrat. But then mine was somewhere around probably

post-college law school, because I just wasn't very political in college. I cared more, as I still often do, about sports. But mine was learning about the Constitution. And that's one thing as we get into your book. You, by the way, and I'm not one for gratuitous compliments, Swaters. You know, I don't tell people their dog is cute unless it is. So when I say that I really, really like your book, I really do. I mean, I think it's really good and it's curiosity-driven, which is one of my favorite things. And I want to know why these people are the way they are, why they think the way they think. But you and I both just said that we became the way that we are or how we think by sort of learning our way into it.

did you find as you were interviewing these two dozen or so individuals did any of them had a similar path to you like many of them had a childhood trauma many of them and but did you find many as like you know what waters i researched i read and you know what i figured out this is a better way to organize society well first i just want to tell the audience that you are much smarter than i am i did not go to law school I did not have a career in sports journalism. I started at the bottom at Fox and then got lucky and failed up. So you are much more educated than I am. So it's still astounding that you have not been more successful than I have at Fox. No one can figure it out with all that brain power and creativity. I'm just maybe you'll figure it out one day.

Maybe it's... This is just for the record for the audience. This is the faux humility of a primetime host appearing on a digital show. Not true. I cracked open when I was lost in my early 20s, cracked open. What do they call it? Is it the G-MAT? The L-SAT book?

Second page, I shut it. I said, I'm not going to law school. It's too much. Those little word problems, the logic, forget about it. Couldn't do it. So now I just shoot from the hip, well. But, yes. I had struggles. You've had struggles. You probably were ridiculed and teased as a child because of your looks and your athletic abilities and your social skills. The girls hated you. You probably had a rough time in high school like I did. And then you grew out of that and you learned how to develop your skills. You were put to work somewhere. And I was. I always figured out that action created success. If you're sitting around and you're thinking about.

about things. That's not going to get you very far. But if you're busy and you're working and you stay hungry, you get up at 6 a.m. You work. You work. I was good at doing what I was told. I didn't have a lot of time to think about how I felt or how other people. I just do. I execute. Execute, execute, execute. And I did, well, a lot of these people who I spoke to for hours and they told me their life stories had traumatic childhoods, probably a little worse than yours. and I don't want to make light of this but these people suffered rape they suffered abuse

their fathers were barstool dads their moms, nymphomaniacs, neglected all kinds of horrible things and where some people grow out of it these people weren't able to grow out of it and so they had a lot of issues and then instead of working on their issues

they say I'm not the problem society's the problem none of these are my issues it's your issue And if we could just change society to fit how my problems are, then I'll be fine. So we have to get rid of gender. We have to get rid of prisons. We have to get rid of the border.

Then I'll feel better. And then my issues will be solved. But what does that do? All that does is make their issues are issues. Because no one's told these people to get it together. Did you have a mom or a dad that told you to get it together? My mom would look at me and she'd say, Jesse, get it. together and I okay got it together figured it out and no one wants to say that anymore we're

afraid of stigmatizing we're afraid of telling people to get it together because we don't want to be judgmental that's the meanest possible thing but the more we allow these people to not take responsibility for their lives the more we allow them to just do whatever they want whenever they want whether they drugs all the time whether it's cross dressing and dancing in front of children, whether it's mainstreaming, being attracted to minors, I mean, they're just going to go willy-nilly until we tell them to get it together. No. That's the title of the book, Get It Together, Troubling Tales from the Liberal Fringe.

And the book is broken down into various interviews Jesse did with archetypes, but real people. fall into some categories like the following. You have the open borders professor, the BLM supporter, the African nationalist, the anti-work inactivist. And it goes on, as you point out, to you know, those who describes themselves as trans women who identify as wolves. But the thing about it is, while that's somewhat comedic in terms of how you drew these archetypes, they're real people. And it is fascinating to hear their stories and kind of, you came at this, you know, despite your lack of, you know, introspection. You came at this with some real curiosity.

And in reading this, it's enjoyable because you kind of debate them, but you also interview them and you display a real interest, a curiosity, and who they are as human beings. Who was your favorite? Like, who was your favorite person that you interviewed in this process? The man who identifies as a wolf. I guess he's transgender. I don't know what we're calling him.

he, she, whatever. This is someone who's really, really troubled, but they're hilarious because they howl. I booked this wolf on my show and they went, woo! And they pranced around in the wilderness. And they say they go to wolf farms and they cuddle the wolves. Now, to me, I've always been fascinated with weird people. When I used to go out for the O'Reilly Factor on the streets, I used to interview some of craziest people of all time. And I would only get to talk to them for two or three minutes,

and then we'd wrap and I'd go to the next one. This was an opportunity for me to talk to these people for hours. And Will, they told me everything. In graphic detail, their life stories. Now, I don't know if you've ever had someone sit down for two hours, three hours, and tell you their full life story. Their parents, when they lost their virginity, the most traumatic experience, their financial status, their marital relationships, their ideological beliefs, getting fired, getting hired, their sex lives. They told me everything. Their addictions, their dreams, their nightmares.

I mean, one guy tells me his father was some sort of Native American, left him at a very early age. He was molested. He was into crack at like 17. He decides to go to Mexico and get involved in this tribe that smokes toad. And he goes to these reservations on the coast, just south of where cartel territory is, pulls these toads, squeezes the secretions, gives some of these psychedelic toad medicinals to one of the cartels' greatest assassins supposed to put you in a dreamlike stance,

supposed to make you closer to God. And this woman probably has 400 kills under her belt. And she sees the devil, throws up, has a bad trip. And he's just sitting there next to one of the most lethal women in South America, smoking toad, venom. This guy tells me this. And I don't know what to tell him. I mean, he says he's seen God. Now, have you seen God?

I know you work with Pete Hexeth. That's about as close as we're going to get. I mean, when someone tells you how they saw God, you're a great debater, and a lot of people see that on television, I'm not as good of a debater as you are. You're very quick, you're very argumentative, and that's why people don't like you, because you're not very agreeable. I know how to listen, and I'm more agreeable, and I don't like to jump. down everybody's throat because I don't have as much to prove as you do, but you are an excellent debater. And I, you wouldn't be able to pull off this book because you'd probably just yell at these people and debate them. I have a softer touch and that's what makes me mean. That's what

makes you do you. This is insanity. This is insanity. You're very good at debating. You'd probably out-debat me. I don't care if you beat me. It doesn't bother me. But you're very good. And that's why I will never debate you. Jesse Waters with a soft touch. You have this real, I mean it waters. There's a talent here that is just really unexplored and it deserves its own one hour exploration of psychotherapy. Yes. Yes. How do you wrap compliments and insults? And how do you get away with, you know, jumping down Jessica Tarlov's throat while with a little twinkle and smile in your eye remaining friends the minute it goes to commercial break? And even during the segment. And how do you manage to be so mean

while making me like you. Tyrus said that I get right up against the line so I don't get punched in the face. I'm very good at finding that line. I like to live on that line. Britt Hume told me the other day when we were in New Hampshire, he sat me down. He said, Jesse, I have a little advice. You have to stop interrupting Jessica. He said, it's bad TV.

And so now I'm trying to not interrupt Jessica so much. And I still get paid the same amount. I mean, I don't get paid more to interrupt her. So I just talk less and I sit there and I listen. And once in a while, you can't help but interrupt because she's so interruptable. But I try not to be too aggressive because you don't want to argue with women. As a man, it's never a good idea you're married. You can't really argue with women.

It's not a winnable situation. Yeah, you can't win the argument. You don't look good when you're yelling at women. So you kind of let... Honestly, you let Tarlov say her thing. When I was on the five, I got some feedback. People were like, Will, you're not the same guy in the five that you were on first take, to your point of being argumentative in debate.

Like, why aren't you as aggressive? This wasn't internally at Fox. This was just a friend. Why aren't you as aggressive as you were on first take? And I'm like, well, first of all, it's usually Jessica Tarlov. And going after Jessica Tarlov is not the same thing as going after Stephen A. Smith. like I look bad I look mean I want to be real I want to be real I don't try I'm not trying to put on a performance but like nobody likes the dude that is berating the woman ever right

and that's why I don't argue with Greg it'll come across let me get back to your book in just a second but you brought him up several times you brought up O'Reilly I was super offended as I was reading the beginning of the book on all the people that you interviewed when you got Jesse Waters' prime time looking for advice. I was notably missing. But one of the first guys that you mentioned was O'Reilly. So if I said, hey, Waters, what's the big break? You gave your faux humility of work. And that's not humble to say you worked yourself up at Fox. But, I mean, you had a great amount of talent, as we've, I think, sufficiently highlighted.

My question for you, my curiosity is, if you say, okay, at the age you are now, I don't know, what are you, like 45, if you look back and you say, the big break was X, was it breaking through on camera for O'Reilly? Was it getting the seat at the five? What's the big moment for Jesse Waters? Bill gave me the big break, and that was just sending me out into the field to cause trouble. He said he sent me into the field because I was bothering everybody at the office. I have a different idea. I thought maybe he recognized some talent that you say has been insufficiently explored. You said insufficiently explored, right? Because I would agree. I think there's much more time for that. Insufficiently explored, but sufficiently highlighted.

Sufficiently highlighted. So, yeah, just getting it. So I went for like almost 12 years. I was in 48 different states. I didn't even have time to think. He was like, you're going to Florida, then you're going to Texas, then you're going on the border, then you're going to Harlem, and then you're going to Connecticut. it. And then you're going to Canada. And I was just like, for years on the road. And that's really what made me who I am, that experience on the road, chasing people down, interviewing, interesting

people. And then I'd come back, we'd edit it. I'd go on and do the interview. And that's kind of what my big break was. All right, now let's apply that back to the book, get it together. So you gave us one detail, which I'm really surprised at both your time commitment and the level of your curiosity. You spoke to these people for two hours. That's incredible. I have to think some of them, like, I haven't read, I'm going to be honest. I haven't read it cover to cover yet, but I've read a good portion of the book. And I can say, like, the first one was maybe my favorite, which is the Open Borders Professor, because this is a self-styled intellectual, revealing to you why he is the way he is. I would have to think a guy like that at the University of Toronto knows who

you are, knows Jesse Waters, and he comes in with huge guard up. Like, I mean, there's got to be, how does this work? Like, how did you find them? How'd you book them? And how'd you get them to be so open with you, Jesse Waters? So Johnny and another producer of mine would go find these people, I'd say, I'd like someone that believes in open borders. And they tracked some guy down that was a professor that wrote a paper advocating for open borders. And they said, you know, it's not for television. I think when you tell people it's not for television, it kind of calms them down. You're not going to be live on TV, on Fox, for like three minutes. So you could just get like crucified and then we go to commercial. This is long form. It's for a book. They're in

that literary world. I'm going to give them a chance. There's no audience. And I'm just there to listen. And I got to tell you, that guy was the, that guy and the guy that was advocating for minor attracted persons. I call them pedophiles. He calls them, those two guys made me the angriest. And maybe the woman that said she didn't want anybody to have babies, those three people. Because I wanted to change her mind. The guy who was advocating for minor attracted people, I distrusted him.

And I thought maybe there was something devious. Jury's still out there. But this professor, you've spoken to academics. They're the hardest people to talk. to because they talk in circles and there's no there's no acknowledgement of what the results of these policies could be when you point out well this has happened well i mean this has happened well what about when the guy breaks into the country and he's caught with a gun and he's got a little girl in his garage what do you think should happen to him should he should be allowed to vote

stay in this country they don't like when you ask them questions academics they like to be the ones in charge. So for that gentleman, call him the professor, that was hard for me. But at the end, and you finish that chapter, there's this epiphany where you realize why he believes in open borders. Has a lot to do with his childhood, a lot to do with wanting to tear down institutions that he didn't think fairly protected him as a child. And a lot of it becomes about revenge, this revenge fantasy that he wants to see enacted against the country. And a lot of these people, you figure out at the end like oh my god wait a say i know why you believe that it's so obvious look at your mom look at your you know it makes sense and that's what the point of the book is these people have personality

disorders it's not an ideology you're not arguing with a rational person about public policy these are people with emotional issues they can't really be persuaded you have to start on a fundamental level when their children, having strong families, not being addicted to drugs, and parenting responsibly, and that's how you get good citizens. Right now, you look around, I don't see a lot of good citizens, but I think there's, I think we could pull it back, because you're a good dad, we hear. I'd like to think so. I try. No one knows how to be perfect. It's always kind of like being a little bit of an explorer. The only roadmap is like your parents and your community, but that's a recurring theme that you talked about that you reveal so much of it is about

and I want to use the word trauma loosely some cases as you put out it's real trauma it's stuff that happened to them but in all cases it's just sort of like my emotional centeredness whatever is hurting me becomes my ideology and they look for outlets to I don't know create some corrective mechanism some utopia are the names real like I'm curious did you change people's names Do they know that they're appearing in a book? Like, do they risk now? I'm curious about two things. Do they risk getting canceled and have they read the chapters about them?

Because you're pretty funny in the chapters, as you are in real life. You've got some asides, you know, you give us some internal dialogue while they're giving us their life story. I'm curious, their reaction. Some people we had to change their names. That was recommended by legal counsel. other people we kept the names in and we've had some of the people who we've interviewed for the book

come on Jesse Waters' primetime and do quick little interviews and they've all felt fine afterwards some people have not agreed to come back the person who believes in minor attractedness does not want to appear on Fox News

his name we did not put in there other people we can't find like the homeless junkie in Manhattan. We have not been able to find him. We hope he's doing okay. And some people I really don't care to talk to anymore, but everyone seems to be fine. We'll send out signed copies of the books and hope they read them. All right, last little bit here. So just personal stuff. How you doing, man? You're back. I mean, you start out with the back. I had a buddy that had back surgery. Didn't go well. By the way, you use your back as your window into empathy

for other human beings. So, all right. When I walk around. How's your back? My back's better. Thank you for asking. When I walk around pre-back surgery, I didn't think about other people. I walked around.

I was like looking where I was going and that was pretty much it. When I was recovering from surgery, I'm like limping in pain around Manhattan and I'm noticing other people in pain. I'd never notice other people in pain. And so that kind of got me thinking, maybe I should think about other people a little bit more at age 44. And I did, and I listened, and now I know more. Apparently, you can learn more by listening. That is also a big takeaway from a ball.

It's a revelation. Yes. Late in life, I discovered that. I'm glad your back is doing well. I've heard that 99% of back surgeries are failures, so maybe you're in the 1%. Really quickly before we go. When I fill in for you on your show, one of my favorite things is the production staff will randomly drop, well, Jesse says that's not something a man should do. And there's like a running

list of rules for men, one of which you and I've laughed about together on the five, and we agree, men should not drink out of straws, just flat out, hard rule. Your staff told me one that I don't know that I agree with, and you said men should not have best friends. So give me Give me like three or four of the men should not The rules for men according to Jesse Waters You reach a certain age where you can have friends But you don't call them my best friend

And this came up With one of my producers said they were They were away for their weekend with his best friend And he's like 40 I just thought that was a little odd Also men should not eat soup in public but there's some exceptions if you're in New England

and it's a chowder situation and you're on a dock on a wooden bench with seagulls and you have a lot of those what are those little like cracker things you can eat that way

but I wouldn't but and a heart and a nice bisque is acceptable like a thick bisque but I'm not I'm not into you know

vichy suha you know, at a restaurant in front of everybody men pursing their lips. Like, it's just not, I don't like when, I don't like when I, also when men eat ice cream in public, I do have an exception there. On vacation, you're allowed to lick an ice cream cone. I'd prefer you to eat it out of a cup with a spoon. But when men show their tongue around other men,

I don't think that's really masculine. I don't want to see their tongue. Some part of their body that I don't want to see. I don't think you needed to go to law school to have this, you know, shoot from the hip instinct that I think so far, at least when it comes to rules for men, is pretty infallible. I am with you on every single one of those. The ice cream cone, the soup, which I don't even eat soup, period, much less in public. So you don't eat soup? Even the bet.

You don't eat soup. You're anti-soup. No, it's prison food. I'm anti-soup. What about like a split pee with thick country ham? No soup. It takes a good meal and pours water on it. It's prison food. I eat some ham and peas, but why do I need water on top of it? Anti-soup. What about as an appetizer or on a cold winter afternoon in a cabin? drink a hot beverage or eat a salad as an appetizer okay so you're not you're you're actually did soup do something to you here we go here we go we could get into my anti soup instead you can get into the mind of troubling of the troubling liberal fringe get it together it's jesse water's new

book. Seriously, genuine endorsement. I really enjoy this book. I find it very curiosity-driven with a whole heaping help of Jesse Waters. All right, man. I don't know if it's just once, but it feels like we've hung out like half a dozen times. So you look to a bigger impression than I do. You're never around, though. You live, where do you live in Texas? Correct. Yeah, you live in Texas. And then you come here on the weekends and then you face off against Pegseth and Feats of Strength, and you're better at parlor games, and he's better at athletics. And it's all true. It's all true.

If it's darts, billiards, ping pong, shuffleboard, it's like you clean up. But if it's like basketball, you're in deep trouble. He's a D1 basketball player at Princeton. Right. But he gets me in football. He gets me in wrestling. But I appreciate your viewership, and I'll look forward to the invitation to the country club, or maybe there'll be a pickup lacrosse.

game and we can sit together and eat soup. Okay. Didn't you play water polo? That's what I thought. Okay, all right. He got me again. Thanks, Kane. Jesse Waters. Thank you. Get it together. Go get the book, the newest book, by

Jesse Waters. Shouldn't the Supreme Court Justice know that the point of the First Amendment, the point of the Bill of Rights, the point of the United States Constitution is to hamstring the government? That's next on the Will Kane Show. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms

and have helped raise $7 million. Visit go.com forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason and the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts. The point of the First Amendment, the point of the bill of rights, the point of the Constitution, hamstring the government.

Why? Let's answer that question. Why? Is that a mystery to a Supreme Court justice? It's the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Subscribe to the Will Cain Show in the description of this live stream right now. Just hit expand and you'll see a link to Will Cain Show on YouTube. Hit subscribe. You can watch and listen to The Will Cain Show whenever you like. The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments this week over whether or not the government can play a role in influencing social media companies to censor free speech.

Oral arguments were on Monday. And Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson had a fascinating exchange with the Attorney General of Louisiana, who along with the state of Missouri are suing to keep the federal government out of the business of censorship. I think you should listen to this exchange because it reveals a mindset and a deeper problem in the United States. So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech.

But in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. The government has a duty to censor speech. And the justice is concerned that by, limiting the government's ability to censor, you are hamstringing the government. Let's set a little bit of groundwork here, a little bit of 101, not law school 101, civics 101, the type of thing you might learn in fifth, sixth, or seventh grade. The United States Constitution was written with the expressed intent and purpose of hamstringing

the government from infringing upon the freedom and the rights of the people. Concerned that the Constitution in laying out the limited powers of the government wasn't enough, the founders controversially, and it is controversial, something that we can explore in greater depth, controversially adopted the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights then limited the powers of the government and their ability to infringe on the rights of the citizen, hamstringing the government. The very first right they enshrined in the Bill of Rights was the First Amendment, which included the right to free speech, showing the priorities of our founders in ensuring that the government was hamstrung in its ability to censor speech. But this is somehow escaped Supreme Court Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson. Now, let us first acknowledge that no right is absolute. There are limitations on the First Amendment. There are limitations on free speech.

Those limitations exclude speech that is defamatory, fraudulent, speech that is illegal in its creation, such as child pornography. You have to violate a law to create a piece of content, then one claims his speech, and that is not protected because of its underlying illegality. There is also the direct incitement to violence. standard on when you can limit speech. Many people seem to think it's yelling, fire, in a crowded theater. That is certainly not the limitation on free speech. Set forth in 1969 in a case called Brandenburg v. the United States, that your speech, and this is important, and it is appropriate to understand in today's

day and age as people come after Donald Trump regarding January 6th, whether or not your speech directly insights violence. And by the way, the standard for that historically has been. has been basically, hey, boys, let's go kill them. It is literal direct incitement to violence. So yes, there are limitations on the First Amendment. But more importantly, we are seeing a, I think, unprecedented, at least in my lifetime, attack on the philosophical grounding of free speech. people hate free speech today in America, at least a significant percentage of the population

hates free speech today. Now, we should start out by saying, the United States of America is unique. When I say unique, I don't mean like, oh, we're cool. I mean, we are almost singular in our devotion to free speech. Every other country on the planet does not embrace philosophically or legally the idea that we hold so dear, not Canada, not the UK, not almost every other country. country in Europe and certainly not your third world countries where it's like say what you want to say that's a foundational ingredient in a constitutional republic almost every other

civilization has limited speech greatly and often under the banner of quote unquote hate speech the fly in the ointman is always who defines hatred and the definer the one who writes the dictionary retains the power and that's the point you know what we did here in the united states is unique because our very human nature is to yell shut up. We want to yell shut up. To anybody that we don't like what they're saying, it's an instinct. We can acknowledge it that exists within all of us. But the principle hopefully overrides the instinct.

We don't yell shut up, at least not societally, not legally. And we don't use the power of the government to enforce shut up on one another. And in the end, that's what this is about. It's about power. whoever writes the dictionary gets the power whoever sets the limits of free speech gets the power again human nature to have power over another human being and i don't think you know throughout our history we have had debates over vulgarity in the 90s when it came to music we've had debates over pornography we've had debates over extreme political speech dating back to the

1930s. We've had debates about the limitations of free speech, but I don't know that in certainly in my lifetime, and I don't know in American history, have we seen a bigger cultural movement embraced by at least a significant percentage of the population that is anti-free speech? I don't know that we've ever had a moment where the cultural embrace has been more rejected, where the embrace of free speech has been more threatened. And you hear it here from the best. bench, shockingly, of the Supreme Court of the United States, bring us to the deeper issue, or one of the deeper issues in what you're hearing from Kantanji Brown Jackson.

You are listening to a Supreme Court justice that doesn't understand or rejects those fundamental values, the protector of our constitutional republic. How did that end up the case? DEI. Diversity, equity, and inclusion. It's a fascinating exchange between four. former CNN host, Don Lemon, and ex-owner Elon Musk, about lowering standards in the name of DEI. It's a mystery to Lemon as they have this exchange. He can't really process a hypothetical.

If you lower standards, how does that threaten lives? How does that threaten anything? He can't come up with an example, and he asks Musk. And Musk talks about, you know, doctors, surgeons. Like, if you deprioritize merit, competency, if you lower the MCAT score necessity, or you lower the residency testing standards in practice, you're going to get worse surgeons, and that's going to cost people their lives. If you lower the standards for pilots, you get more airline industry, accidents. If you lower the standards for anything, the SAT, the L-SAT, you know, standards for a licensed plumber or electrician, if you lower, the standards, you get a worse product. Now, why would you lower the standards? Because DEI asks you to lower the standards in pursuit of a different goal, a different priority, racial equity, prioritize someone's skin color, maybe their gender, prioritize it over their

competency, lower a standard for a different, I guess, utopic goal or priority. And the Biden administration laid this out clear to us when they went to a point on the Supreme Court, contagi brown jackson they said they would only appoint joe biden said a black female there's argument isn't there in something inherently less than by someone who is female or someone who's black i would say in my estimation the greatest legal mind sitting on the supreme court the one who comes closest to the definition of genius is a black man it is clarence thomas he's an absolute constitutional rock star, an intellectual behemoth, the likes of which we will miss for decades, in the same way we miss Justice Anton and Scalia.

No, it's whether or not you'd place different priorities in seeking out a Supreme Court justice, and they made no bones about it, they made no secret about it. The Biden administration said, not that they would seek out the best qualified, the most competent, the one with the most merit, but instead they would prioritize someone's skin color and gender. And when you do that, you inherently lower the standards. You inherently lower the standards. You've said it blatantly. You've laid it out.

You did not say, I'm going to look for the best person. You said, I'm going to look for the best black female. Different priorities. And you get someone sitting on the bench that doesn't understand or openly rejects the foundational element that preserves this unique experiment in human history, this constitutional republic. the United States of America. The point of the First Amendment, the point of the Bill of Rights, and the point of the United States Constitution is to hamstring the government. Three pieces of formula to help you pick the perfect March Madness bracket.

And can we rehabilitate Justin Fields with Fox Sports commentator, Tim Brando, next on the Will Cain Show. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy, host of the Treg Goddy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com. Maybe the best sports week, few weeks, month of the year, maybe. We are entering sports nirvana, March Madness, picking the perfect bracket for the NCAA tournament. It's the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com, the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, and on demand.

Just subscribe on YouTube at Will Cain Show, or if you like listening to on podcast, subscribe at Apple or on Spotify. Joining me now to break down the formula for picking the perfect bracket, he is Fox Sports commentator Tim Brando. What's up, Tim? I'm good. Will, it's great to be with you. And I'm sorry I missed you while I was in New York. it was quick it was great it was uh all that the big east i thought would be and uh listen i've you know how much i love college football i know how much you love it i'm a big old school

war series guy super bowl's a super bowl football's football but listen these are the best three weeks in sports in this country the first thursday of the ncaa tournament which is upon us now is the best weekday in college athletics and the Saturday semi-final where four fan bases are on hand in a dome stadium rooting for their teams is the greatest day in college athletics, period, end of story. And I've been a part of all of them through my years, and I think I can speak with some clarity on it. At least that's the way I feel. It's the best, the absolute best.

I think one thing you said is unimpeachable. You said it perfectly. Okay. The best weekday sports event. Now, I think Monday night football is okay. It's gotten a little better, but it's generally been a little bit of a disappointment. The World Series will bleed into the week. You get weeknight games in the World Series. The NBA has weeknight games. But honestly, they don't compare it to Thursday and Friday. This coming Thursday and Friday are the best weekdays in sports. By the way, you just did Big East. Big East is kind of like considered. historically maybe the best basketball conference, and they've got Yukon this year, but it's no longer the best basketball conference, right? At this point, it's the Big 12 is the best basketball conference. The Big 12 is deeper, but a lot of it's mathematics because they've got more teams. So they're going to be deeper. They're going to get more teams in. But in terms of quality of depth this year

in college basketball will, the Big East was right behind the Big 12, which is one of the reasons is why there's so much controversy about Petino's team being left out, Seaton Hall being left out, Providence being left out. These teams were at or near the bubble, really, for the last month of the season. And what happened to them, really, was the bottom line was incredible bid stealing, the likes of which we've not seen in the modern era of the tournament since they went to 60. They went from 64 to 65. Back in 2000, they had a play in game to go to 65.

and then they turned it into 68. They expanded to 68. And what happened this week, I think it's going to push us to 80. I don't want that to happen, but I think it's going to happen because what NC State did in the ACC, what Oregon did in the final year of the Pac-12, and various other conferences stole a lot of opportunities for teams like Indiana State, who was 27 in the net.

St. Johns was 35 in the net. That's the reason Petino's so upset. And in truth, I get what the committee was facing. I don't blame them necessarily. They got to work with the metrics they have. But it was unfortunate for a league as good as that to only get three teams in. You know, now, those three teams are elite. And I'll explain to you why I believe they're so elite a little bit later on.

But Yukon's a one, Marquette's a two, and Creighton's a three. Okay, so they're all good and they're all going to be around. and I may surprise you with my picks for the final four. But, yeah, the Big 12 is the best. It's the deepest. But the Big East, for being the second best league all season long, they really did take it on the chin. You bring up Indiana State.

We're deprived of his name is Cream Abdul-Jabbar. I don't know his real name, but he's like 6-10 lumbering, huge white center that can pass and wears goggles. So none of us get to see him now because Indiana State's left. out. All right, Tim, I'm going to run through. We'll get your final four picks along the way towards the end. But here's the thing, and I did sports radio for several years. The truth is, the NCAA tournament's a hard thing to talk about because very few people know something about these teams. It doesn't rate well, to be honest. Well, it rates okay, but like people

don't watch outside of their own team very often. We don't know a lot about. And so when we pick our brackets, we're being real here. We don't know a lot about these teams. So what I find fascinating is I've pinpointed three formulas. They're not mine, but I read a lot. And so they're my three favorite formulas for picking the perfect bracket. And I'm going to run these theories by you. You should have a great bracket. I'm going to run these theories by you and then see what you think. So the first one is kind of how you pick the first round or so. And there's a theory out there that the go go go style teams score a lot run up and down the court right when matched up against a plotting slow it down team yes the plotting slow it down team wins 80% of the time

80% of the time they beat the big offensive force and one of the matchups and i forget you'll have to maybe you have it in front of you Auburn's a go go go team and they're taking on a slow it down, grind it out team. Who do they have, Auburn? Yale. Yale. And I've seen people say, watch out for that matchup. Absolutely. Yeah. And by the way, if Auburn were to advance, okay, they would get Yukon, and that's a dangerous game. Yukon, even though it's the number one overall seed, I think got the worst possible side of the bracket of all of the four regions, because there are four conference tournament champions. I'm talking Illinois, Iowa State, Auburn,

all coming off winning major conference tournaments that are in their side of the bracket. So the good news for Connecticut is they get to play closer to home. You know, we're talking Brooklyn, we're talking Boston, we're talking that's where they want to be for their fan base. But the price they pay is that they are in a bracket that's absolutely loaded with not only really good teams, but teams that match up well.

Auburn goes 10-11 deep, which, by the way, Yukon can go 10 or 11 deep, but they got to get past Yale first, and that's absolutely the truth. Officiating has a lot to do with the game slowing down. When you play in physical leagues like the Big East, like the SEC, right, where they allow bumping and grinding because free-flowing motion is what they want, the supervisors of those officiators, the officials that are part of their conferences, They want them to allow play-ons and not be so quick with the whistle, all right? But when you get into the NCAA tournament, you're not going to have that same supervisor of officials.

You're going to get officials from other parts of the country that maybe come from finesse leagues that are going to call a guy breathing on you. And you can get an early foul difficulty with some of your more athletic players. That's one of the issues that bogs down a lot of bigs, guys like Zach Eadie, right? Ryan Coltbrenner, seven footers that play that are allowed to make contact with arm bars in the low post, maybe suddenly they're going to start calling that, and you get some of your best players on the bench, and that slows the game down, too. That's going to be buyer beware on some SEC teams, it sounds like. Okay, the second theory, and this one is much more widely held and known, and so what I'm going

to ask you to do is give me a team or two that you feel like satisfies this theory, is that In the modern-day tournament, what it has rewarded is experience. So this is where you see the rise of, you know, first Gonzaga, then, you know, teams like Creighton. So not the one in Dunn teams, you know, not Kentucky, but the teams that are holding guys for four or five years, and that have specifically, because the tournament's driven by guards, experienced backcourts.

So who do you think, if you buy that theory, satisfies the experienced backcourt? to drive them deep into the tournament. Well, it may not be the greatest back court, but to your point, look up coaches that have had tremendous success through the course of the modern era of college basketball in the NCAAs that are part of this tournament, all right? None better than Tom Izzo. Four, you know, we're talking multiple final fours.

We're talking 12 times he's gotten there, all right? Getting to Sweet 16s as a double-digit seed, not a problem for Tom Izzo. Last year, Marquette coming off winning both the regular season of the Big East and the postseason tournament got knocked out by Michigan State in round number two. Why? Because the program is built for long-term success. They don't necessarily care about winning Big Ten titles. They take on all comers. Their record is almost always going to have 10, 11, 12 losses maybe because they're playing such a very difficult schedule in November and December. made for TV matchups on neutral sites against quality teams.

You name them, he plays them. So they're always going to come in around an eight, a nine, a ten seed. They are the most dangerous team to play in the second round if you are the higher-seated team. I've got Michigan State in the Sweet 16 again. Now, that's based on the way I believe they've been playing lately. They played Purdue very well, although they lost the game in the Big Ten tournament.

I think they helped get Purdue knocked out a little bit later when Wisconsin got him and went on to the finals. But you see a guy like A.J. Hoggord. You see Tyson Walker. These are guys that have been with Tom all the way through. He keeps guys for three or four years. If you're looking for the blueprint for success in a deep run in the tournament, no better program to look at not only now, but over the last two decades than the Spartans of Michigan State. I love that. That's a deep cut. Gave us a specific answer on who satisfies that theory. All right, finally, here's this one, Tim. Okay, a lot of people, I don't know if people are familiar, but Kim,

Ken Palm ratings have become sort of the gold standard. I think for everybody but the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee. But for everyone else, it's like, how do he? And the net, the NAT, the NET, net, net, right? But it's become very respected in how we analyze these teams. Often, they don't play the same people. They don't play each other. How do we like normalize out when they all enter the same tournament?

Who's actually good and who's not? And there's a theory. So it goes like this. Teams that have won the national championship and or therefore made a deep run have consistently been in the top 40 of offensive and defensive efficiency. So they're good at both. They're roughly, if you're, you know, top 40-ish, and this is, according to this theory, 95% of champions satisfy that requirement. and the teams this year that are in that same range of high in offensive efficiency, high in defensive efficiency are the following.

Yukon, Purdue, Duke, Arizona, Auburn, Creighton, Houston, and Marquette. If this theory is correct, your national champion comes out of those eight or so teams right there. Yeah, absolutely, spot on. I mean, it is true. And also teams historically that have won at all, it's a pretty small group, okay? Not many different teams have won national championships. And when you start talking about winning multiple national championships, then we get into that area of, and I know you love to hear this with football,

blue bloods, all right? Blue bloods. Like a team, for instance, that's struggling right now, all right? They're having a bad year. You know, Dickinson, they got out of the transfer portal, and he got hurt. And so he hasn't been able to play. Kansas, even though they have gotten bombed, Houston beat them about two weeks ago by 30. And then Houston, in their own conference tournament, got blown out by more than 30 by Iowa State.

And yet Kansas is a four seed in this tournament. Well, there's a reason for that. Okay. They have historically been a team that scores and a team that defends. well this year they're not the same team which makes them ripe in my opinion you know you run up a lot of names that are familiar with college basketball but not kansas not this year and that's that's the problem that bill self's team is going to have so if you're looking for a team to go ichne early in this tournament that falls into the category of normally being one of those teams that's ken palm loves it would be the jhawks we see the brand and we say oh let's pencil them in Not so fast. Not this year anyway. All right.

And just another nugget for the audience. I mentioned the go-go-go-go teams versus the slow-it-down teams. We talked about Auburn versus Yale, which is a four-versus 13. Here's two others to keep your eye on. St. Mary's versus Grand Canyon. St. Mary's is the slow-it-down team. Grand Canyon would be the speeded up team. And if I can read my own writing here, is it Moorhead State?

who's a, I believe, 14 seed against number three seed Illinois. So that'd be a huge upset if Moorhead State took down Illinois. Oh, big time. All right. So who is your final four? Tim Randolph. I think Illinois is one of the deepest and best teams in this field. And I think that the one thing on Grand Canyon, and you're right about their style versus their opponents, but this is a very dangerous team.

And the percentages, the percentages of 12. beating fives is incredible when compared to, say, 13s beating fours, right, or 14s threes, that you can almost count on two 12s beating two fives out of the four. The closest to 50% on a higher seed beating a lower seed is the 12 versus five day. All right. So who is your final four, Tim Brando? Well, you mentioned, gosh, I think all of them. If Yukon, even though they got the toughest road, like I said,

the committee, as hard as they were on the Big East, because of the bid stealing in the conference tournament championships, will Yukon got a very tough road with all those conference tournament champions in there. I think Auburn, if they can get past Yale, could push them. I think the potential of Iowa State being a real problem because of the way they defend. could be, or Illinois, a team with Terrence Shannon, who might be, if they can make a run to the final four, the player of the year in this upcoming NCAA tournament. He sat out about a month of the season because of some allegations that were not proven in a court of law, and he was able to come back to this team. And you add him with Hawkins and all of the other stars on that team, Brad Underwood's got a really tough outfit if they happen to play against you.

coming. I still like the Huskies. They're too complete. They can beat you in too many different ways. If their top two players don't score, no problem. They got other guys and reinforcements that can get the job done. The combination of Samson Johnson, who could offset Donovan Klingin, the seven-footer, the rim runner, who was just devastating in the Big East tournament, blocking shots and scoring points. They're just too good. So I like the Huskies to get there. I also think they'll win it all again. I think that we're going to see the first back-to-back national champion since Billy Donovan and the Florida Gators did it in 0607. My other three, oh, by the way, Arizona is going to come out of the Carolina region.

So out west, I see Arizona, the team that's got the most firepower other than Connecticut to score and to beat you is Tommy Lloyd's team. He's got a collection of outstanding talent, quick guys, plus an international flavor to his team. was once Mark Fuse international recruiter that helped build Gonzaga. He's a great coach, and I think Arizona will get there and essentially be a home team. And the other two, if you're looking for a team to beat Purdue, look no further than Creighton. Why? Zach Eadie will meet his match in Ryan Colt Brenner, the defensive player of the year in the Big East.

He is a guy that blocks shots and can score points, and now he's strong enough in his upper body that he can play 36. 37 minutes. That wasn't the case a year ago. And even though Purdue is a team, I really wanted to get there this year because, you know, Matt Painter is probably the greatest coach in the game right now that's not been to a final four. I really believe Creighton, uh, Coach McDermott's just got too much. Trey Alexander can score. They've got outstanding, Ryan Shireman is, uh, Baylor Shireman is probably the best player in the big east. Most of the country doesn't know that much about. Keep an eye on him. He's up 50. He wears number 15. He wears number 15. He wears number He's a left-handed version of Larry Byrd.

I mean, he's really, really good. And I think he can be a star. And this team, Creighton last year, was one bad call and one second away from beating San Diego State, or they would be going back to the Final Four for the second time in two years. And the other team, Tyler Colick, will be back for Marquette this week. He's going to play. And that makes this Marquette team a driven team, a team playing with an edge to the committee's credit. They did not drop Marquette off of the two line. They kept them there, even though they lost a

few games late in the season and in the conference tournament. I think Marquette is going to come through that region where Houston is. Houston's coming off a 30-point blowout loss to Iowa State. I think the lingering residue is going to make them struggle in this tournament because they sometimes, when Shed's not right, they don't necessarily score as much as you need to. You've got to have guys that can get you buckets. Marquette's got that, not just Colic, not just Oso Igaro. So count them three big East teams, all three back in the Final Four. You know what kills me about this analysis. That'll be the first time that's happened, Will, since 1985, when Ewing and Georgetown, Villanova with Pinkney and Little Louis and Mullen and those guys, Walter Berry, took St. John's

to the final four in Lexington. Big East teams plus Arizona in your final four. I'd say what kills me about this analysis is it's not one, it's not two, but it's three former coaches at the University of Texas who are leading really good programs. Chris Beard, Ole Miss isn't there this year, but they will be. Trust me, he's got Ole Miss on the way. Rick Barnes has got Tennessee in there. It's like, what is it, a two-seed?

Is Tennessee a two-seed? and Shaka Smart there with Marquette. That's like three guys from UT, you know, and couldn't do it at UT, but can do it everywhere else. I tell you what, the other great players, since you mentioned Barnes, I've got Arizona going. I don't have Tennessee getting there either, but Dalton Connect is a player. If you're doing a – if you're in one of those fantasy deals and you're trying to pick players to score a lot of points, Dalton Connect is your guy, okay, the kid from Tennessee. But I know people are going to say, oh, Brando, you do all these Big East games,

you're jaded, you're, no, this is about matchups. And you put all three of them in the final four. I think Creighton has a great draw. And I think the one number one seed that could give, that they could beat is Purdue. I wouldn't pick them if I didn't like the matchups. And I think Marquette's in a similar situation. They are in a side of the bracket that doesn't have a. a dominant big, and that's their issue. They struggle in their front court. Their back court

is tremendous. Shock as smart, as you know, traps, this defense is always solid. They get turnovers. They turn them into easy points. I think that's their strength. Yukon's best team, period. I mean, end of story. And then Arizona, I think, is the next best team, period, end of story. Well, really quickly, before we go, Tim Brandon, I did want to ask you about this. I've done this on the show here over the last couple of weeks. I am fascinated by every Friday. we do a sports exclusive of the Will Cane show. And I'm fascinated by the lotto-ticket concept in the NFL. You cover the NFL.

The idea that these teams who are all in on quarterbacks worthy of a top ten pick, some two to three years later, have decided they're not worthy of being a starter in the NFL. It seems to me, you know, there was a story one time, I think it was in the New York Times, about this guy who would go down to the Diamond District and he would sweep the streets. You know, he'd sweep the sidewalks.

in the crevices between the sidewalks. And he picked up diamond dust and little diamond nugget. And all this, you know, and he collected. There's also stories of guys who used to do that on the OTB slips. They'd go get the trash thrown out at the off-track betting slips. And inevitably there'd be winners buried in the trash or on the streets if it's diamonds. And I just think that, you know, the NFL casts, you know, winning tickets away too quick. And so if I asked you.

but you know honestly armando salgoro of the miami harold was on he said well yeah but will which of these lotto tickets have ever worked out like you can't come up with that many and it's a decent point it's hard to find brett farves you know especially in modern day NFL but you know i'm looking at justin fields with the steelers i'm even looking at mac jones now with the jaguars and i just don't know that their careers are written i don't know that i'm willing to be someone even trellance with the cowboys I'm not ready to go. That guy's nothing more than a backup. I think I love the Steelers getting fields. I don't know what the Jaggers are going to do with Mac Jones because he's not going to get that job. But he should have some job. I mean, how about this?

Forget job. These guys should have opportunities, Tim. Yeah, yeah. The problem now with the NFL is the money is so big and it happens so soon that the pressure on the general managers of these teams, or if it's in the case of Jerry Jones, and it's been his biggest problem, I think, is this willingness to, we got to cash in now or you're done.

Jerry, I think, unfortunately, allows his heart to overtake his head, and he winds up staying with guys too long. You know, I think he put all of his, he put everything in the Romo basket. And then there's Dak, who has this amazing period when Romo gets hurt. Now, now Dak is that guy. So you could argue that, and people, if you notice, the pundits will always go after Jerry because he's his own GM. So they think you've got to have somebody else to do it and that Jerry gets too involved.

There's probably some substance to it, but I think it happens too much with him. You can't always blame it just on him. A lot of it, I think, has to do with the culture that you've got. And ultimately, the teams that have always been really successful have created a culture where as long as the guy running the team is comfortable with his guy. Brad Purdy is a great example of that with Shanahan. You know, San Francisco seems to be just fine with Mr. Irrelevant still being their quarterback. Okay, it's not like he laid an egg in the Super Bowl.

Find your guy and pay him appropriately and feel good about it. Now, because it's more about how much money are we paying, how much are we invested, we can't look stupid. If he's going to make us look stupid in another two years, let's get him the hell out now. And, you know, cash our chips in. Let's start over again. I think that's what happened with feels here.

And that's because the organization's messed up. Not because his game is messed up. That's because the organization is screwed up. So this is one of those cases where I'm with you. And yeah, it can't always be Jerry Jones's fault all the time in Dallas. Okay, but that's what the pundits in the NFL want to have you. you believe. By the way, do you ever notice that in the National Football League, every network has to have seven guys on their desk, seven different guys giving an opinion that last

about, oh, I don't know, one sentence each? You ever notice that? We got way too many people over-analyzing the NFL. We get way too many opinions. I'd rather see on a set, a host, two analysts, and let's spend that money elsewhere. Because everybody is going, is he trying to find the next new guy. And that's not just with the game on the field. It's what the executives doing television. It blows me away. It just, it's overkill.

And I think GMs make that mistake, and NFL franchises are making it over and over again. Yeah, and I know you're on the clock before you have to pay him, but I don't know. I just think there's something left with Justin Fields. I do, too. I'll put it. By the way, I'd be excited if I'm a fan of the Steelers.

right but by the way do you remember how many people were going after houston when they made that pick i mean i'd say they hit the lottery and not everybody was high on that pick and that kid's got an unbelievable future so you know listen it's hit and miss but you know quarterbacks are not pitchers and they're being paid like major league pitchers and when you invest that kind of money we're talking 30 million 40 million I mean, that's, wow. You know, it wasn't out of hand in the NFL until recently. It's now gotten that way, and it's making guys that are GMs panic. And I think, for your point, that's what's being illustrated.

Yeah. Yeah, it's 30, 40s a bargain, by the way. It's up to 50, 60 million for quarterbacks a year. Drew Brie. All right, Fox Sports commentator, Tim Brando. Awesome to have you on today on the Will Cain Show. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Will. All the best, my friend.

All right, take care. All right, that's going to do it for us today here on The Will Kane Show. Awesome episode with Jesse Waters. Go check out his book, Get It Together. I meanness in all sincerity. It's really entertaining. It's also insightful. It's really inside the mind of why people think the way he think.

That's why I was excited to have Jesse on to find out why Jesse thinks the way he thinks. What made Jesse the way that he is? Get It Together, Troubling Tales from the Liberal Fringe, Jesse Waters. You can also go subscribe to the Will Canes Show. on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple to revisit that interview or any other episodes of the Wilcane show. I'll see you again next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime

members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.