Will Cain Country - Jimmy Kimmel And Aaron Rodgers Go Toe To Toe

Episode Date: January 10, 2024

Story #1: Elon Musk versus Mark Cuban. Jimmy Kimmel versus Aaron Rodgers. See what the mainstream media is getting wrong about these feuds. Story #2: The corruption case against Trump in Georgia may soon full apart due to corruption and a romance between the special prosecutor and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Story #3: The Michigan Wolverines are the College Football National Champions! Who is the new 2024 frontrunner? Will it be the Texas Longhorns? Will sits down with legendary FOX Sports College Football and Basketball Play-by-Play announcer Tim Brando. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One, Elon Musk versus Elon Musk. Mark Cuban, and Aaron Rogers versus Jimmy Kimmel. Two, the corruption case against Trump in Georgia may soon fall apart due to corruption and romance between the special prosecutor and D.A. Fannie Willis.

Three, Michigan is your national champion with Fox's Tim Brando. It's the Will Cain podcast on Fox News podcast. What's up? And welcome to Wednesday. As always, I hope you will download rate and review this podcast wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple Spotify or at Fox News podcast. You can watch the Wilcane podcast on Rumble or on YouTube and follow me on X at Wilcane. Coming up today, a conversation with legendary sportscaster Tim Brando about national champion Michigan Wolverines, what could have been for the Texas Longhorns, Who's your frontrunner for 2024? But first, we've got to get through one huge story that could impact the future president of the United States and feuds in media and business.

Story number one. Elon Musk versus Mark Cuban, Aaron Rogers versus Jimmy Kimmel. Mark Cuban, as we've talked about, the front-facing governor of the Dallas Mavericks, has taken a position as of late, full-throatedly in support of DEI, in support of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I've talked about Mark Cuban a few times recently here on the WillCame podcast. I've gone back and forth with Mark on X. And I have had a private email exchange with Cuban as well, inviting him here to discuss with me on the Will Cain podcast,

DEI, the Dallas Mavericks, the sale of his organization to the Las Vegas Sands. Mark prefers, and I will say, say he's very open to communication. He prefers to do so through text, through X, through email. I told him I think too much is lost in that medium, nonverbal communication, tonal communication. And I promised, it meant my promise, that we would have a back and forth based upon mutual respect and goodwill. I'm not trying to have a gotcha moment. I know that's the best thing for short-term career success to go viral. But it's not really my style. And what more, if I'm being honest, I'm a fan or have been in the past, a fan of Mark Cuban.

Of course, that starts because I'm a big fan of the Dallas Mavericks. And I've been a big fan of his ownership. Look, you spend decades the fan of a franchise that wallows, not just a mediocrity, but at the bottom of the table, the bottom of the standings in the NBA, and the young, rich, committed owner comes in, and lead you eventually to a title in 2011 with Dirk Novitsky, and you can't help but always have a little bit of shine, always be a little bit of a fan. What more early on, it seemed like Mark Cuban had a bit of a libertarian streak. I even seemed to remember him saying at one time that he was influenced or appreciated the writings of Ayn Rand. And it all added up to me being not just a fan, but being proud of the owner of the Dallas Mavericks.

That hasn't always been the case, especially as of late. I think starting with Donald Trump, but notably starting in 2020, Mark Cuban seemed to be less the rebel and less the independent thinker. And more, not just a member of a choir, but an enforcer for group think. I cannot believe some of the things in some of the positions currently being championed by Mark Cuban. On the other hand, I'm also a fan of Elon Musk. I've told you, the first book of my New Year's resolution, one of my New Year's resolutions, to read 10 books in 2024, is Walter Isaacson's Elon Musk. I don't know, I think I'm a good 200-something pages into a 500-page biography on Musk.

And I think he's complicated. I don't think Elon Musk has any human being, someone who is perfect or to be perfectly celebrated. I think there should be a healthy amount of critical skepticism when it comes to Elon Musk. At the same time, I can't think of anyone else right now who's doing more to champion values that are not just core to the United States of America, but I think fundamental to the success of humanity. I mean, there's a part in this book that I absolutely loved. I think it's good for me to go ahead and share this part of what Isaacson had to write about Musk. I'll do a full review when I'm done with the book,

but this in particular paragraph really caught my attention. talking about Musk's interest in SpaceX. Isaacson writes, quote, his third motivation is more inspirational. It came from his heritage and a family of adventurers and a decision as a teenager to move to a country that had bred into its essence, the spirit of pioneers. Quote, the United States is literally a distillation

of the human spirit of exploration, he says, referencing Musk. This is the land of adventurers. That spirit needed to be rekindled in America, Musk felt, and the best way to do that would be to embark on a mission to colonize Mars. Quote, to have a base on Mars would be incredibly difficult, and people will probably die along the way, just as has happened in the settling of the United States. But it will be incredibly inspiring, and we must have inspiring things in the world. Isaacson writes, life cannot be merely about solving problems, Musk felt. It also had to be about pursuing great dreams. quote, that's what can get us up in the morning.

I love that. I love that from Elon Musk. Life cannot simply be about solving problems. It has to be about pursuing great dreams. That's what gets us up in the morning. What more, as the culture and the governance of the United States of America spins, in my mind, out of control, into a world of control and censorship, The only bulwark, the only pushback right now, I believe, is Elon Musk.

It's X. Look, this show where you and I are connecting right now is probably being run through some platform. I don't know your platform of choice. You could be watching me on YouTube. You could be listening to me on Spotify. You could be using Apple podcasts. But I can guarantee whichever of those platforms or others you're choosing to listen to me on, I am running a risk at any moment of being deleted, of being silenced, of being turned down.

That's happened for me on Facebook now, right now. They can literally turn a knob to soft sensor engagement. You will just not see what I have to say. I just won't show up in your feed. On Spotify, you'll see episodes of my podcast flagged when it comes to COVID. There is not a safe environment. a free platform in America, but for X. And because of X right now,

and I'm not sitting here saying it's some perfect platform or that Elon Musk is the savior, although he's the closest we have to a savior for free speech. X is the place where, yes, of course, there is inaccurate information, stupid opinions, and some censorship. But it is the platform that is the freest. Without X, you're not able to push back on group thinking consensus and censored material. And that's all because of Elon Musk.

So I think my feelings towards both of these men, and I say my feelings, the reason I share my feelings is because every time I see someone's opinion on a media feud or a debate, it's always caught up in ad homonym. It's always caught up in character drama. Who do you like? Who do you dislike? like, who are you a fan of? Who do you hate? Pick your character. I'm only telling you how I feel about these two individuals to try to come clean,

to have everything on the table so that you can choose to filter my opinions through my bias and through yours. But I think it's fair to say to some extent I'm skeptical and I'm a fan of both Cuban and Musk. But when it comes to this issue of DEI, I'm having trouble not just seeing Mark's point of view. I'm having trouble finding the morality in the viewpoint from Mark Cuban. I want to share with you in exchange he continued to have over the days on DEI on X.

To Mark's great credit, he is willing to engage. Engage with me privately on email. Engage with me on X. Engage with many people on X. to Mark's great credit, he's not doing a hit and run on his opinions. He is replying. Like, he's not quote tweeting and trying to gain audience. He's at times with people with not great followings, just responding, just replying.

And I give him a lot of credit. I give a lot of credit to someone willing to engage, and especially if I feel like they're engaging in goodwill. But here's Mark engaging with an account that goes by the handle, the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole asks Mark Cuban, and your thoughts on affirmative action data showing demographic preferences at work? I think the blatant discrimination there should be recognized. I'm also happy to grab the Harvard admissions table if you would rather look. He's talking about admission standards or hiring preferences towards some races over others. affirmative action enables it, but DEI has put it on rocket boosters that white people are

turned down and black Americans are turned up to use the metaphor of what's happening on Facebook, given preference, given advantage, which on its face is racial discrimination. Now, you can make the argument that you think it is a moral or righteous form of racial discrimination. if you have that position, the burden of proof is on you. Because I do happen to believe that racial preferences and discrimination are a Pandora's box. You open it up and you unleash a manner of grievances and superficiality and tribalism. Much better to just judge one another based upon content of our character. But Mark responds to the rabbit hole.

He says, why would I care who Harvard does or doesn't let in their school? It's their school. Are you against private organizations being able to determine who they want to sell their educational service to? Do you believe in capitalism? Now, this is an interesting and make no mistake, controversial position from Mark Cuban. This is essentially the position of pre-Civil Rights Act United States of America. It has, you could argue, a principled if odious position, and history. It's free association. This is a private club, sir. You can't come in here. This is a

restaurant. We don't serve your kind. This is only for men. These races or these religions are not welcome in this country club. This institution is only open to people of this race. Mark seems to be making that case. When it comes, by the way, to education, an educational institution, because it's private in Harvard. Mark drawing the distinction I would assume here between a public entity, government, and a private entity, business, school, restaurant, club. But Mark and Rabbit Hole go on to communicate where Mark erases any potential doubt about the position that he is advocating. He says, you don't actually read anything, do you?

You should read the website. It's a for-profit school. if they want to primarily purple people leaders from Mars, it's their choice. In order for those Martians to become United Pilots, they first have to progress through a purely meritocratic system. They won't hire any Martians before they are qualified. Makes sense now? Now, I just told you exactly how perhaps principled,

but also odious this is, in embracing racialism. Discrimination. Here, the best way to do this, The best way to illustrate this position for Mark was from Rabbit Hole, who I think also exchanged ideas with him in goodwill. Rabbit Hole said the following. Let's switch around some words. It's a for-profit school.

If they want primarily white men from Alabama, it's their choice. He's replaced purple people eaters from Mars with white men from Alabama. It's a for-profit school. If they want primarily white men from Alabama, it's their choice. And then Rabbit Hall goes on. If the idea of an institution specifically seeking out white male candidates makes you uncomfortable, then the idea of an institution specifically seeking out candidates of any specific demographic should make you uncomfortable. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

If we are going to be a nation that opposes demographic discrimination, then let's be consistent in our principles. DEI is just bigotry with better branding. Don't fall for it and reject this horrible ideology. My suspicion is I don't see a response from Cuban to that, very well-reasoned argument from Rabbit Hole. My suspicion, if pressed, is that Cuban would not accept the language offered by Rabbit Hall. He wouldn't accept the changing of the terms from Purple People leader from Mars to white men from Alabama. And then what that means is Mark is actually not advocating for free association.

He's not advocating for private enterprise can discriminate. What he's actually advocating for is you can discriminate against some races. And that validates every single thing that anyone has suspected about DEI, that it is simply reverse discrimination, that it's okay to discriminate against white people, but no longer okay, obviously, to discriminate against black or brown. But if we are to believe that it is principally wrong to discriminate on the basis of race, you have to apply that to all races. I don't know why Mark has veered so far from independent thought. I don't know why Mark has veered so far from what I believe to be in a moral or veered so far from a moral position when it comes to race or DEI. There are those that are making the argument that, you know, he's running cover like so many people that project virtue.

meaning like if I do if I pay enough penance if I pay enough fealty if I say all the right things then I put up a shield from myself ever being called racist I don't know I don't know if that's what's being done by Cuban I mean there are others that are saying he's overcompensating for statements that he's made in the past and there's a video going around of him I believe it though was in 2020 and he's kind of doing that thing you know that a lot of people did where like you know the robin de angelo line of all white people are racist he's kind of saying I'm big at it We're all bigoted, you know, and he used an example. He says in first person, you know, if I see a hoodie wearing black kid on one side of the street,

I walk to the other side of the street. It's almost like he's trying to own his privilege or own his discrimination. And I don't know. I don't know if he's trying to overcompensate because the truth is then he's doing the same thing he's doing now. He's running right down the middle of the freeway. He's swimming right in the middle of the river of unthinking, not completely lacking independence. acceptable group thought.

I don't know. Maybe it's the market is running a business. And in business, DEI has not just become virtuous, but an absolute rock solid requirement. You know, if he's not making these arguments, how to his players, how to his workers, how do his institution respond if he held the point of view of, say, somebody like Elon Musk. And Musk, for his part, is responding very aggressively to Cuban. He's saying stuff like, you know, why don't you have any young, short or old short Asian women running point guard for the Dallas Mavericks? And then his quote tweeted, Cubans sort of like, you know, 2020 privilege penance speech and saying Mark Cuban is racist.

I don't, I don't, I mean, Mark Cuban is, I don't think Mark Cuban is racist. I don't know why Mark Cuban is playing word games and semantics and dancing around and missing the mark. I don't know why he's so far from what I think is an obviously moral position that the best way to stop discriminating on race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. That the best way for this country and for humanity to interact is to judge each other as individuals and to use as a source of judgment, content of character. not color of skin. Aaron Rogers versus Jimmy Kimmel. Last week on the Pat McAfee show on ESPN, Aaron Rogers said,

in popular telling, maybe in the way that it reached your ears, screaming across headlines of mainstream media, Aaron Rogers reportedly called Jimmy Kimmel a pedophile, insinuated that he was on the Epstein client list. That is what? sports writers have run with. Mainstream media has reported sports pundits have moralized on the character of Aaron Rogers. But then something interesting happened. Ethan Strauss, who has been

a guest on this podcast on several occasions, was a colleague of mine at ESPN. We didn't interact much when we were both at ESPN. Has not gone independent and has a substack, House of Strauss. I highly encourage you to subscribe to his substack, House of Strauss, did something that I don't think anyone else did in media. He decided to be a real journalist, and he did two interesting things. He, A, listened to Aaron Rogers' words, and B, did a little bit of research to put into context, this dynamic between Aaron Rogers and Jimmy Kimmel. I want to read you some of what he wrote. He gives a timeline of the interactions of Jimmy Kimmel and Aaron. Rodgers. And it dates back about a year. It dates back into COVID where Jimmy Kimmel starts

mocking Aaron Rogers, as everyone does, as is what's acceptable in group think for not just his choice not to get vaccinated, but Aaron Rogers stance in pushing back on the consensus of science when it comes to the vaccine. So some time ago, Jimmy Kimmel, because that's what Jimmy Kimmel is. He's a safe down the middle of the freeway. Swimming in the middle of the river, lefty, mainstream comedian. I think I saw a study from Outkick. 80% of jokes from late-night comedians that were politically targeted were targeted at conservatives. What that means is there's always an available bad guy or there is going to be consensus bad guys, safe positions to hold.

Not funny, but safe positions to hold. And Aaron Rogers, with his stance on the vaccine, became. safe. He became a bad guy, an easy target for comedians like Jimmy Kimmel. Now, Aaron Rogers' former teammate, David Bakhtiari, played offensive line for the Green Bay Packers. Apparently, sometime in the past year, he posted on X, a fake list of Epstein clients. And Bakhtiari included on that list, Jimmy Kimmel's name. Now, at this point, Strauss writes, and we can all think, okay, well, is Bakhtiari Rogers? is Rogers back Diari.

Their buddies are in the same camp. How much does that have to do with Rogers? And we just don't know the answer to that question because it was from Bakhtiari. Then, fast forward to just, what was it, a week or two ago, Aaron Rogers on the Pat McAfee show expressed an interest in who's going to be on an anticipated release of a list of Epstein's clients.

That's actually not a few weeks ago. That was actually nine months ago on the Pat McAfee's show. show. That's something like nine, ten months ago, Aaron Rogers was anticipating the release of some early anticipated release of a list of clients of Epstein. Then that spring, Jimmy Kimmel goes on his late night show and he mocks Aaron Rogers for wanting to know the names of the Epstein list. He called Aaron Rogers like soft-brained, said he needed to go back into concussion protocol for, I guess, I don't know what, like thinking there would be some revelation on a very serious story or having some anticipation of wanting to see the Epstein list.

Now you fast forward to just a few last weeks, and again on the Pat McAfee show, Aaron Rogers says that again, we're anticipating the release of the Epstein list, and this time he says there's a lot of people, including Jimmy Kimmel, that are really hoping that list doesn't come out. Now, the world explodes. Everybody says, Aaron Rogers calls or insinuates, The Jimmy Kimball is a pedophile. The Jimmy Kimball's going to be on the list.

And then Jimmy Kimmel goes to Twitter and threatens legal action just goes off on Aaron Rogers and basically says, I'll see you in court. Then on Monday night, Jimmy Kimmel, after having several weeks off, by the way, addresses it for the first time on the Jimmy Kimmel show. And he gives like a seven or eight minute monologue. And it is completely unfunny. It is devoid of jokes. he's obviously very bothered by this. But what Strauss did, then no one else,

not in media, and possibly not Kimmel, is go back and listen to what was said by Aaron Rogers. Here's the direct quote. There's a lot of people, including Jimmy Kimmel, that are really,

really hoping that list doesn't come out. Now, Rogers isn't, you can read in that. He's not saying, he did not say that Jimmy Kimmel was on the list. He certainly didn't say that Jimmy Kimmel is a petapile.

But you can see how Jimmy Kimmel might read between the lines and say, you're saying that I'm a pedophile. But the problem with that is that ignores their entire history of Kimmel making fun of Rogers for wanting to see the list. Strauss writes, you can say that Rogers being coy here and he's insinuating that Kimmel is a petto, but Kimmel went right after Roger's interest in the information getting out. For Rogers to then suggest Kimmel doesn't want the Epstein list out,

seems pretty fair game. Actually, not even fair game, but a logical deduction. Roger says I want to see the list. Kimmel makes fun of Rogers for wanting to see the list. Rogers says Kimmel doesn't want the release of the list. Strauss goes on, right. Given that back and forth, the idea that Kimmel could plausibly sue Rogers over this seems totally insane to me.

I think tribalism and media is preventing people from making that basic assertion that Rogers gets lambasted for being a dangerous crank. Rogers could be criticized here for being petty and glib about a subject as serious as sex trafficking, but Kimmel is also acting out of sorts, given that his job includes mocking other people. You can't reasonably dump on a guy for wanting some information out there, and then threaten lawsuit when he says, you don't want the information out there. Or you can, perhaps, if the media is on your side. It's so interesting to me how few people care about the context or the actual words from Aaron Rogers.

They just made up their mind. Oh, no, he insinuated that Jimmy Kimmel Zepetto. Well, if you didn't know any of this other stuff, if you didn't try to put into context, he certainly didn't say it. So if you're relying on the insinuation and you don't want any background information on the insinuation, well, then you can come to the conclusion

that you already had and that you want to believe, which is that Aaron Rogers is a bad guy. That's it. That's the conclusion. No one wants facts, context, data, reporting, journalism, or background to get in the way of. Aaron Rogers, bad guy. By the way, bravo to the Pat McAfee show for driving this entire news.

One can say, why does this matter? It's two celebrities. It just matters because it's illustrative. It's illustrative of how every story is treated, how you are manipulated. Honestly, probably how Jimmy Kimmel was manipulated. Because Kimmel originally responded to one of these aggregators, influencers on X, who, in his own framing of what Rogers had to say on Kimmel, on McAfee, said that Rogers insinuates Kimmel's on the Epstein list, but Rogers didn't.

That particular influencer framed it as though that was said by Rogers, and Kimmel runs with it, and the Lebertar show runs with it, and Nick Wright runs with it, and the Washington Post runs with it, and the New York Post, and the New York Times, and then television channels, and everybody runs with him before you know it, it's calcified in your mind. Aaron Rogers called Jimmy Kimmel a petto. That's it. It's been distilled, simplified and repeated ad nauseum, and so that's all that matters. And you know what? Most people don't even care.

Don't care about what I just went through. Don't care about that. Will that's tortured? No, no, no. It's facts. It's the background. It just gets in the way of the conclusion. Aaron Rogers, bad guy.

In my own estimation, Aaron Rogers has owned Jimmy Kimmel in this. Aaron Rogers, he's prickly and his Strauss writes, he's a loner. And Kimmel has the reputation of a good timer, happy guy, comedian. But Rogers is the one, in my estimation, that comes off somewhat, not completely, but somewhat self-deprecating, certainly more thoughtful, certainly more careful in his estimation. Although I would agree that that formulation of what he had to say does leave room for misinterpretation. And that's why communication is hard, both speaking and listening. But Kimmel comes off as thin-skinned, can dish it out but can't take it. and completely, completely unfunny.

We'll be right back with more of the Will Cain podcast. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Tray Gowdy 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 Fox Newspodcast.com. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats. some ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast

at Fox Across America.com. Story number two, a story of romance and corruption in the corruption case against Donald Trump in Georgia. I want to share with you this article and I read to it directly because I think it's fascinating. As you know, one of the many criminal cases confronting Donald Trump is corruption and election interference in Georgia. That's being led by full County District Attorney Fannie Willis. Headline in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Filing alleges improper relationship between Fulton DA, top Trump prosecutor. Here's how the article reads.

District attorney Fannie Wallace, Fannie Willis, improperly hired an alleged romantic partner to prosecute Donald Trump and financially benefited from their relationship. According to a court motion filed Monday, which argued the criminal charges in the case were unconstitutional. The bombshell public filing alleged that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis using the Fulton County funds his law firm received. County records show that Wade, who has played a prominent role in the election interference case, has been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January 2022. and the DA, Fannie Willis, authorizes his compensation.

Now, this motion was filed on behalf of one of the defendants in this case, a former Trump campaign officials, his name is Michael Roman. And although there's no yet concrete proof of some of these allegations in this court filing, there certainly seems to be some smoke headed in the direction of something that could upend this case against Donald Trump. Again, from the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The document offers no concrete proof of the romantic ties between Willis and Wade, but says, quote, sources close to the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed they have an ongoing personal relationship. An ethics expert interviewed by the Atlanta Journal of Constitution said if the allegations are true, Willis was conflicted in the investigation and prosecution of the case and wasn't able to bring the sort of independent professional judgment to her position requires. The filing alleges Willis and Wade have been involved in a romantic relationship that began before Wade was appointed special prosecutor.

It says they traveled to Napa Valley and Florida, and they cruised the Caribbean together using tickets Wade purchased from Norwegian and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. So she pays him close to $654,000 to prosecute Trump. He takes her on romantic getaways to Napa, to Florida, and on cruises together. back channeling benefits to her from the DA's office, improper use of funds, and not the kind of independence you would want from a special prosecutor into a very important case against Donald Trump. What more, the special prosecutor, Wade, appointed to this, was not approved by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, as required by law. It says he doesn't have the allegation, the filing, the motion says he doesn't have the credentials, including that he's

never prosecuted a felony case. There's also reporting out there that Wade went to Washington, D.C., and met, I believe it is with the DOJ, met with someone affiliated to the Biden administration when it comes to all these prosecutions against Trump. Nathan Wade, Fannie Willis's lead prosecutor met with Biden's White House counsel on May 23rd, November 18th, 2022, before inditing Donald Trump, Biden's leading presidential opponent. This casts not just doubt, but skepticism and cynicism, which were already baked into the cake, on these prosecutions of Donald Trump, and threatens to totally undercut it. This is corrupt. This is corrupt among the most corrupt things you could think about in a prosecution. And if true, it's proven true,

this motion, it should be the end. Enjoy. Georgia of any case against Donald Trump. And it should cast, although on the surface unrelated, it should cast motivational and ethical shadows over every one of the prosecutions of Donald Trump. We're going to step aside here for a moment. Stay tuned. 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 the quiz.com.

come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. I'm Dana Perino. We can officially say that the first round of voting in the 2024 presidential election cycle is upon us. The candidates have campaigned and now it's time for the voters to decide. This week, campaign consultant Kellyanne Conway joins me to prep us as we head into the Iowa caucuses and beyond. Don't miss this one. Available now wherever you download podcasts. Story number three. Michigan beats Washington for the college football national championship. Fox Sports, Tim Brando joins us to talk about Michigan's defensive line. Washington's quarterback Michael Pinnock's.

What would happen if Texas were in the national championship game? And who is his frontrunner for 2024? Here is Tim Brando. Tim Brando, he's back again here on the Will Cain show. Man, it's great to have you back. Record-setting performance coming back within two weeks. time frame. Unfortunately, it's probably in part because of your accurate prediction that Texas would lose to Washington. But I don't know, Tim, as we stand here today, National Champion, Michigan.

Are you surprised by Michigan? No. At the beginning of the season, in my preseason top 10, I picked them to win the whole thing. But I did, as you know, when I appeared with you a couple weeks back, say the winner of the Texas Washington game, in my opinion, would win the national championship. So I reserve the right to make alterations as we go along, okay? At the beginning of the season in August, I like to just put out a projection, which is more of a prediction. It's not, it's not designed to be a starting grid, you know, like a preseason AP poll or a college football coaches poll. I don't believe in that. But I do believe in testing my knowledge as it relates to preparing for the season, who really has the goods and who doesn't.

And I thought a couple of things in picking Michigan to win it all back in August. Will, I was considering the major factors are always number one schedule. Okay, schedule is always number one when trying to pick in the summer who's going to win it all. Number two, players returning, okay, and then number three, and I think this is a major factor, consistency, within the framework of that team, is there going to be some consistency? And I thought

they had all three of those measured up. Their non-conference schedule was weak, which because they're in the Big Ten really didn't matter as much. The only other league that having a weak non-conference schedule doesn't matter in is the SEC. Because the metrics are such with the

power structure of the college football metrics, as long as you play SEC opponents. It doesn't matter if you play garbage non-conference. It will prop you up in terms of the overall metrics. And that's always helped the SEC. It's one of the reasons why they've only played eight conference games versus nine in all leagues besides the ACC. So, no, I'm not surprised that Michigan was able to pull it off. I was surprised that the stage appeared too large for Michael Pennix and Washington in the aftermath of really almost pitching a perfect game.

I mean, Texas, you and I both know, had a chance to win it because of a kind of a screwed up rule that the NCAA hasn't changed and because of some sloppy play calling after they got a two-touchdown lead and maybe some shoddy clock management by the coaching staff, but Texas did have a chance. The Washington defense, though, inside the red zone was the difference, And I thought that might be a factor in the win against Texas. And as it turned out, it was. But just for you today, though, because you had me back so quickly, I wanted you to know that I brought a prop, the horns in 24, okay?

The horns in 24, just for you, Will, okay? I got the head, you're ready. You're saying 2024 national champion Texas Longhorns? I'm saying I'm considering it very strongly. Yes. I think that, particularly if Quinn Ewers is back, I think what Sark was able to accomplish through the course of the regular season, I thought they might have a disappointing year, to be frank with you at the beginning of the season.

I thought they were going to be in 23, the equivalent of what Texas A&M was in 22, you know, preseason number six in the country, and they had a losing year. I thought it might be that bad. Texas has been up and down that way. I couldn't have been more wrong. and after watching that game against Washington, a game that they really deserve to lose by, let's say, at least double digits, they had a chance to win.

And that tells you a lot about their personnel and about, you know, the guy at the mission critical position. Think about this. J.J. McCarthy came back. So did Corm come back. A lot of Michigan players, after losing to TCU the way they did, felt a need to return. I think Sarkesian could go through a,

similar thing here. As of this taping, we don't know what yours is going to do, but I get the feeling he is going to come back. And that's step number one. The personnel around him and the infrastructure within that coaching staff, I think, is really solid. A lot of that coaching staff is part of the Alabama structure from years earlier. And Sark was smart. He got a really good staff to be around him. And that was what helped Jim Harbaugh, not only in the wind this past night, but Also, throughout the course of the season, he was out for six games. But Sharon Moore had no problem running that offense. And when you watch that defense anchored by a defensive coordinator that he got from his brother, John, with the Baltimore Ravens,

I mean, Jess did a great job running the defensive calls and really got into Pinnock's head. And that was the difference. Just mentor the defensive coordinator for Michigan, get an exquisite job in holding that team to just 13 points. think any of us thought that they could hold Washington to 13. I want to come back. Let's put a pen in Texas because I do my audience a disservice if I focus so early and often on the Longhorns, but I will not ignore what you said or my questions about Texas. But I need to give this national championship what it deserves. And it doesn't deserve this question to start, but you brought it up, so I only follow

my curiosity through the course that it follows. You brought up Harbaugh missing six games. I have to ask then following that up, do you think this national championship will either come with an asterisk because of the alleged sign-stealing cheating scandal, or do you even think at some point it runs the risk of being vacated depending on how this investigation unfolds into Michigan? No and no. And let me tell you why.

All right? First, I think the first no is because, At this point, we know the NCAA can't legislate in more than, say, five or six years, okay? They had a huge FBI investigation of all these programs in college basketball. It was big news. Kansas is going to get hit. LSU, Auburn, all these guys are going to get hit. Nothing happened.

Nothing happened. Kansas raised the trophy, won a national championship. Nothing happened. It takes too long for them to get their information. In fact, it takes so long that they wind up leaking their stories to print media so they can put pressure on the Big Ten Commissioner to use some nebulous rule about sportsmanship to force Harbaugh to sit for three games at the end of the year after he'd already served a three-game penance to begin the season.

So, no, I don't think so. By the time they could vacate it, I believe Division I won't have the NCAA to deal with any longer. I think the commissioners of college football now understand that the NCAA can handle the men's basketball tournament and make a lot of money for them, the women's basketball tournament and make a lot of money for them, and also those 80-plus non-revenue producing sports that everyone champions at all of these campus locations, but make little, if any, money on. In fact, they operate them through the auspices of Title IX in some respects and pay for it through what? ball, division one. So it's time now for the commissioners of the power leagues to take complete

governance and also dole out all the penalties themselves. Rid yourselves of the NCAA. That's the very body that puts you in the position it was in with NIL and the transfer portal, which turned the sport upside down and put it in such a mess that they are now asking, of all people, Congress, to try to help them. I got news. You're not going to get a lot of by going to Washington, D.C., and trying to get anything done on either side of that aisle when it comes to sports. So, no, I don't believe – we do see, I believe, bibliography and footnotes, meaning there will be some notations assigned to what happened with Michigan, but I don't think it asterisk.

I think that would be unfair to the players. And I think that's the issue here. And I think that's the question, the follow-up, what you described about the NCAA is a bit like, you know, well, I didn't get punished by the law because the law no longer exists to the extent that we're talking about the NCAA. The asterisk conversation is more about like how this national championship exists in the public's mind. And I agree, it's not fair to the current players. And my suspicion is it won't, it won't have a caveat in the public's mind about this one. Do you think Jim Harbaugh's gone to the NFL, Tim? Yes. Yes. I don't see him staying. Why

would you stay, Will? I mean, you've got at least two teams that would just really love to have you probably. I think the L.A. Chargers and the Chicago Bears, those are two organizations. I mean, Kevin Warren, the old Big Ten commissioners

now in charge of the Bears. I could see that connection possibly happening, and the bears have got a choice to make as to whether they want to hold on to Justin Fields or maybe make another move, which means Jim could come in and handpick his guy to be the face of his franchise

if he wanted to go there. If you wanted to go to L.A., there's a lot of money, a lot of revenue there, a lot of glitz. It might be great for the league because the Chargers are trying to establish themselves in a city that really looks at the Rams as being maybe their team, but the Chargers has sort of lost ever since they got out of San Diego, and he could bring a lot of buzz into that city. And as I said, with ownership that is dying to become more relevant with its organization, and having Herbert as your quarterback is a pretty good place to start, too.

Right. So I could see either one of those spots as being where Jim would want to land, and he can leave now knowing that he accomplished everything he set out to accomplish. Let's say this about Jim Harbaugh, okay? I realize he's quirky. He's not wired like most coaches are wired. But in so many respects, he faced the music to a point where he even took a pay cut at his alma mater for three years. You know, after that disastrous COVID season of 2020,

he had lost all those games in succession to his big rival, Ohio State, and they were ready to run him out on a rail. He looked at himself in the mirror and said, you know what, I've got to make some changes. Don Brown, his old defensive coordinator, who was really an outstanding coach, but was running a defense that was antiquated and trying to deal with an offense as good as Ohio states. And if you want to stay at Michigan, you've got to beat the Buckeyes.

made that change. And he brought in an associate of his brothers who meant a lot to him and somebody that he knew about from his days with the 49ers in Jess Mentor. And that made a big difference in what that defense was all about. And they got tough not only up front, but tough in their secondary. Why would you want to stay there when you could actually just pass the baton to Sharon Moore, who did a great job the offensive coordinator while he was gone, got those three big wins, at Penn State against Ohio State the rival in the end, and then carried that program right into the Big Ten title game before he returned. He could just hand that off and stay connected to his alma mater

and not have to worry about serving any additional suspensions because of what he deems a witch hunt from the NCAA. He can go right into the National Football League and begin anew and start going for the next great challenge. And I think anybody in his mid to late 50s, which is where Jim is, would like to do that. Sabin did something similar when the Miami Dolphins had parked their airplane. Wayne Hazzink had parked his airplane in the Baton Rouge airport after he won a national title in 2003.

And a year later, a year plus, he was on his way to the Dolphins. It didn't work out. And so college was still waiting. He came back and got the Alabama job because he chose Dante Culpepper over Drew Brees. So, I mean, think about how history changed because of that decision that he made while a pro coach. I think Harbaugh wants to have that opportunity to make those decisions again. He got Callan Koppernick and that 49ers organization really through the help of Alex Smith in a lot of ways, all the way to a Super Bowl, only to have his brother win that Super Bowl title in 2012 in New Orleans.

I think he's ready for another challenge, and he can still be the man that did something that hadn't been done in 48 years, and that's win an undisputed national championship at Michigan. And, you know, the one they got in 97, they had to share. Yeah, he's been toying with it for years. What happened to Michael Pinnock's? He was, as you said, he pitched a perfect game against Texas. He, I think the fasting status, he was something like 19 for 20 for over 300 yards simply to his wide receivers. He couldn't miss.

And I don't think this is a fan-based thing for me to say, but those receivers weren't wide open. Texas actually did a decent job of covering those receivers, and he was dropping it into buckets. And then last night against Michigan, he couldn't hit wide open receivers. And look, Michigan's defense put more pressure on him than did Texas, but he didn't sit in a pocket forever and pick out guys with Texas. In fact, what was awesome about him in my estimation was he was stepping up in the pocket. You know, pressure would come from the edge, and he stepped up and then delivered strikes. And against Michigan, he couldn't step up. He couldn't deliver strikes.

He was missing wide open receivers. It was a different Michael Pinnix. Yeah, it was a different defense, too. If you recall, the narrative going in with Texas would be, well, they will stop the run. They'll stuff the run. And then we'll make them one-dimensional. Well, the one-dimensional was Michael Pinnock's, and he was on. I mean, he was absolutely on.

And while he did get the pressure from Texas on occasion, he was able to maintain his composure and before he stepped up into the pocket, sometimes he'd veer to the left or veer to the right and never keep his eyes not down the field. This time he had to take his eyes off of his receivers because he was in retreat, which met with a four-man rush. Michigan was getting off the edge,

particularly their defensive ends, were getting past those tackles. You think about those penalties, particularly late when Washington had a chance. You know, they made the changes in their defense. they made the adjustments necessary to not get boat raced on the ground the way they did in the first half

and they started stuff in the run in the third quarter, got back into the game. But when they got the ball offensively, every time Michigan made a mistake in their secondary, either Washington dropped the ball or Pennix missed an open receiver.

Okay? The one to O'Doonezay in the first half, I think, really jumps out at you because that was a bust and that should have been a touchdown. And instead, he just airmailed it. And then in the second half, he had one to Odunzei. It could have gotten them back into the game. And 73 gets called for a holding call.

And that was your football game. After that, a poor punt. And then one pass, the Love Lady, the tight end by J.J. McCarthy. And they were down on the doorstep to make it a two-score game. And that pretty much ended it. You know, well, I've been in the business a long time. Michigan is a program, even though it hasn't won a national title. they've played on large stages every year all the time okay it's just a program that understands

how to be in the microscope how to swim in that certain kind of fishbowl all right and j jay mccarthy in that program played in a much larger game in a bigger environment in their minds the week before against vaunted Alabama a team that just running out onto the field sometimes could strike fear into hearts of men wearing a different uniform Michigan looked like they were ready for that stage. Washington did not. Michael Pinnock's for the first time looked to be at times stargazing, like, oh, this is different. And once you see that in a player, especially at the mission critical position, that can become a problem.

And then when Michigan got to him, now they didn't sack him six times like they did Milro, but they didn't have to. They were more concerned about defending that wide receiver cord to make sure that. they got physical with them. And I thought that's what they did. They were physical and got away with some potential pass interference calls that didn't call. Once they set the tempo and the officials let them know that they were going to allow that jousting, they were knocking guys off their pass routes. Polk and McMillan were not getting where they wanted.

O'Doonesa, I mean, he had single coverage one time and really didn't get hit at all, but lost his balance because I think he got so excited that he, He knew he was unmanned-to-man coverage. And so everyone's timing was off. And I think it really started with Michael Pennix, knowing that maybe the adrenaline flow was too strong. They sped him up, Will, in a way that Texas could not. He never had composure all the way through against Texas,

but against this Michigan defense, they sped him up. And when I say speeding him up, I don't mean his feet as much as I think his mind. Okay. And he wasn't just that he was missing receivers. He wasn't seeing receivers as well. It wasn't just bad throws. He didn't see open receivers. Okay, I'm going to wrap this up into this question.

So first of all, for me, Tim, the MVP of the game is the Michigan defensive line. 73 got absolutely tortured. 73 of Washington, the offensive tackle, got tortured during that game. Holding penalties, false starts, you know, giving up the rush. that Michigan defensive line, to me, when I watch that game, if you said what makes Michigan special, that's the answer. It's not necessarily the running backs. And that kind of leads me, and they're good. I'm just saying, what makes you special? What was your national championship quality? And it was the Michigan defensive line. And so, you know, I know I'm a homer, Tim, but I said to myself, and I said to you before the game, I think Texas beats Michigan.

I think Texas beats Alabama. The only team I'm worried about is the Washington team that showed up at the Sugar Bowl. I'm not worried about the Washington team last night. It's the one that showed up at the Sugar Bowl. And so I will say this. And this is going to lead us to the Michigan defensive line and my hypothetical about Texas. I do think Texas, I know Texas could have beat Alabama because they did beat Alabama. I can't believe Texas was in the game with Washington, to your point.

I think that Washington, Texas had no business. being in that game, and yet somehow they were, which is kind of a testament to Texas. It is. And then there's Michigan, and I still have this thought in my head, well, Texas would have stuffed Blake Corum in that running game for Michigan. And I'm not convinced J.J. McCarthy, he's not going to do to Texas what Michael Pinnock's did. I don't know that he could have put that game by himself on his shoulders and won it.

But on the other hand, I don't know what that Michigan defense would have done to Texas's offense. And I have to give them credit in that Michigan defensive line, they may have made Quinn Ewers look worse than Michael Pennix. And so I'm not as confident today in my prediction, hey, Texas would have won if they gotten past Washington. Yeah. Here's the thing. Texas now knows perhaps who they are going into next season. Okay. I really believe in different levels of success can carry you to a championship eventually. Okay. Now, Think about it. Think about the road traveled by this Michigan team. And you've got a lot of six-year guys that were on this team returning. Okay. Now, we won't have as many six-year guys moving forward with the COVID thing out of the way. Okay. But you're going to have five-year guys with NIL. You know, like the yours situation being what it is. And his stock, perhaps not being what he thought it might be a year ago at this time, he may stay for another year. And I think that's a great thing for Sark. It's a great thing for the program. ultimately, I think that Texas, a lot of those talented players,

are going to follow the lead of their quarterback's decision. But think about what Michigan went through. First they had to slay Ohio State. First things first, they did. Then they got to the playoff. They got embarrassed by Georgian. They got to the playoff again against the team they thought they should beat, and they spit the bit.

But then they came with more resolve the following year. And I think that road traveled, okay? scarred. When you get scarred that way, it brings you that much more incentive. And to your point about the defensive line for Michigan, let's not forget that defensive line was well aware that the offensive line that they went up against every day in practice had been a two-time Joe Moore award-winning offensive line. They didn't win that award this year. Who did? Washington. That gave them an even greater incentive, a bigger chip on their shoulder to play with. And I'm telling you, coaches use this stuff all the time. And I think that Sark won't even have to do it with the veteran players.

But if he has his quarterback returning and enough of the skilled talent to go with it, we know Texas recruits at a high level. And we know that the NIL money is limitless. I mean, they're paying their backup quarterback a freshman over $2 million in NIL. I think they're going to be okay there. All right. So bottom line is, I think the infrastructure at Texas and their road traveled and they can finally say now they've traveled that road. They've gotten to the CFP. It's going to serve them well if they can go into the SEC and get it done. Listen, the SEC road is a difficult one to travel.

But you can get away with getting into the playoff in the coming years, Will, with multiple losses. Okay, we're going to see a lot of two lost teams in the college football playoff. And I think chances of Texas making the CFP in the top 12 next year are really, really good. And all you need to do is get there. And at that point, it becomes about matchups. Okay? Once you get to that scenario, there's 12 teams, there's, oh, there's six teams, there's four teams. Now it's about the matchups you get. And I like Texas's chances. I really do of getting there in year one in the Southeastern Conference, particularly they've got Michigan. They go on the road to play Michigan during the regular season. They

got Georgia at home. They play Ole Miss. It's going to be a tough schedule. But my, well, I did wrap it up in Texas. It was also, my point was to compliment Michigan. That defensive line is what was special, I think, about Michigan. So this will be my last question, Tim. I'm going to wrap up a couple of things into this question. You brought up preseason rankings earlier, and I'm not a fan. I think they're just reputational.

I mean, there's some extent where you can say who's returning and who was good last year. But they set a public perception that's hard to overcome that last. well into the season, and maybe even the entire season long. We need to see what we can see on the field to start. So what I'm going to ask you is the controversial question. In terms of, you know, people make the joke that the playoff committee has decided after the playoffs has been conducted to award Alabama, the national championship, they are the best team.

So the best versus the most deserved. Michigan won. There is no doubt about that. do you think Michigan was the best team in the country? And I say that for a couple of reasons. Here was I saying, oh, I think maybe Texas would have beat Michigan. I got a text from my producer last night who's a big Florida State fan, you know, and they're all so bitter right now that they can all.

To be honest, Florida State fans, you're intolerable. To be honest, they're intolerable right now. But I get it. I get where you're coming from, Seminoles. But he said Florida State would have beat Michigan because of their defense, which I don't think anybody believes it's not a seminal. But I know that Georgia fans believe they're the best team in the country. So I'm going to ask you this, Tim, who's the best team in the country for this past football season?

Well, as a commentator of college football, all right, wearing gray today, okay, I'm going to tell you right down the middle that I'm always going to look at what I witnessed, based on the preconceived ideas I had in August. I thought they were the most efficient team, the most solid team. and the deepest team, and to go 15 and O, you've got to be there. That's rarefied air. So regardless of what anybody wants to say about my team could have done this or should have done that if we'd had the chance,

the bottom line is only a few teams, I think it's four, have gone 15 and O. And that LSU team that won in 19 was one for the ages. I think this Michigan team is one for the ages, although they're completely different in terms of the makeup of their teams. They're completely different. But to your point about the way you're thinking about Texas, the way you think about your team, that issue will never go away from college football, Will, and I pray that it never does.

Why? Because unlike the National Football League, we're not concerned with fantasy numbers. We're not concerned with betting lines. We're concerned with our way of life being represented by, by God, our team, beating that team, and proving to that fan base, our way of life is better. than yours. And that's what's separated college football forever. And it's why I love it so much. I love that answer. Our way of life. That is awesome. That is the way I want to end this podcast. I've often sung the praises of college football that it represents the remaining

vestiges of regionalism in America, which is great. It's a pushback on the monoculture that we are becoming, which the NFL is part of. And you're right, our way of life. What a beautiful way to put it and to end this conversation. Congratulations to Michigan. Hale to the victors. Always great to talk to you, Tim Brando. Thank you. Thank you, Will. Happy New Year. There you go. I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Tim Brando. He's great. We've enjoyed having him on the last couple of weeks. I think we should hear more from Tim Brando. And I will hear more for you really soon right here on the Will Kane show. See you 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. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in 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.