We have completed the first half of the course. So, it is a good time to summarize what we have learned so far. We started the course with looking at linear spring mass systems single degree and multiple degrees of freedom which are coupled to each other. It led us to coupled ordinary differential equations which were linear. We analyzed the we also looked at the stability of the equilibrium on the base states. We perturbed it about the base state and it gave us the coupled linear set of differential equations. We analyzed those equations looking for normal mode kind of solutions. It led us to an eigenvalue problem and we found that the eigenvalues are related to the allowable frequencies in which the system can vibrate and the eigenvectors contain information about the shape of the modes of oscillation. We then looked at the n going to infinity, the number of degrees of freedom going to infinity or the continuum limit. It led us to a wave equation. We looked at the wave equation subject to fixed-fixed boundary conditions in two kinds of coordinate systems Cartesian and cylindrical axisymmetric. In both cases we analyzed it using the method of normal modes and we once again found that it leads us to eigenvalues which contain information about the allowable frequencies in which the system can vibrate and eigenfunctions here which contain information about the shape of the modes of oscillation. In this case there were a countable infinite number of such eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. We then moved on to a non-linear problem, the non-linear pendulum. We introduced ourselves to elliptic functions. We found that the non-linear pendulum with just an initial angle perturbation and zero velocity can be solved in terms of Jacobian elliptic functions. We found the exact solution. We then also introduced perturbation techniques. In particular, we tried to solve the pendulum, the non-linear pendulum using a regular perturbation technique and we found that it leads to secular terms. We then learned that using the force phase portrait, we learned that the qualitative behavior is that the time period of the oscillatory motion of the pendulum actually depends on the initial angle of feature which is not captured in linear theory. So for that we looked into an alternative perturbative technique, the Linstead Poincare technique where we eliminated the secular terms and in using this we found the how the frequency of the pendulum depends on its initial perturbation angle. We then continued with more linear and non-linear oscillators. We looked at the damped harmonic oscillator, the duffing oscillator. We solved both using the method of multiple scales and we found the same behavior that the frequency depends on the initial perturbation amplitude. Last we studied the Kapitza pendulum. This is an example different from the remaining topics that we had looked at so far. In this the equilibrium state or the base state is time dependent because in the frame of reference in which the pendulum if we oscillate along with the pendulum then we find that the acceleration due to gravity becomes an oscillatory function of time. We found that this leads to a this equation still has the same two fixed points. We analyzed the stability of the lower fixed point by linearizing about the lower fixed point. It led us to a Matthew equation. The Matthew equation is an equation with periodic coefficients. We learned floquet analysis which allows us to analyze and make a qualitative inferences about the nature of solutions to such equations with periodic coefficients. We found that the Matthew equation contains in the space of alpha and beta which are the two parameters which appear in the equation. There are tongues which appear, their tongue shaped curves which appear and if you are inside those tongues one has exponential growth but it grows in an oscillatory manner and the frequency with which the solution oscillates depends on the tongue in which one is in. In general there are also stable oscillatory solutions but they may or they may not be periodic. So this is what we have covered so far. We have looked at a variety of mathematical techniques and now we are ready to start with the main topic which is the focus of this course introduction to interfacial waves. We will see that many of the things almost everything that we have learned so far will be utilized in interfacial waves. So let us start with introduction to interfacial waves. As the name suggests the first thing that comes to our mind when we talk of waves on an interface is probably the open ocean. So this is a cartoon of an ocean and we have made a very regular kind of a perturbation. So this is actually a Fourier mode a sine or a cosine wave which has been imposed. Now we will in this course we will learn how to analyze these kind of waves both in the linear and the non-linear regime. As I told you earlier you will find that here the equations of motion are all partial differential equations. If we look for small amplitude perturbations then we can linearize them. We will have to identify the base state clearly in every problem that we solve and then we have to linearize about the base state that will lead us to a coupled set of linear partial differential equations with linearized boundary conditions and initial conditions. We can once again use the method of normal modes to analyze those systems and it will lead us to a frequency relation or a dispersion relation. So let us learn how to look at interfacial waves. So as you will see as you will notice from experience if you take a glass of water so let us say this is the glass and this is the interface between air and water. So this is air and this is water. If I vary gently till the glass so as to be careful not to impart as far as possible not to impart any kinetic energy to the water then we know from experience that the interface always maintains its orientation. The interface for example will not look like this. The interface is not going to look like this. It is going to continue to look like horizontal. So we know that the natural or the equilibrium tendency of the interface is to remain perpendicular to the local direction of the acceleration due to gravity vector. This you can understand from the fact that this mass has a certain gravitational potential energy. If you disturb the mass so if I impose a perturbation so if I for example impose a perturbation of this form on the meniscus or the on the interface one is led to oscillations. If you these oscillations will typically damp out in time and after sometime the interface will once again become flat. It is easy to understand why these oscillations occur. Any perturbation on the surface actually increases the gravitational potential energy of the system and so the system tries to oscillate in an attempt to bring down its gravitational potential energy. You can think of it as being analogous to a spring mass system. So now this is the reason why under the influence of a gravitational field if you have an interface and if one introduces perturbations to the interface it sets up oscillations. There are many reasons why such oscillations can occur. You can have wind blowing, you can have the surrounding fluid which imposes shape perturbations on a finite amount of mass. We will look at various such examples of perturbations and how do they lead to oscillations or do they lead to instability as we go along. So let us now look at some examples. So we are mostly going to be concerned with waves on this interface but it is a just to get a sense of how the time period of these waves compares to for example the time period of another wave that we are all familiar with sound waves. Let us write down some representative numbers. So for example in the ocean so I am comparing sound waves with capillary waves. So it is called capillary ripples. So capillary ripples are basically waves which occur because there is surface tension between air and water. So just as gravity acts as a restoring force surface tension can also act as a restoring force. If you have a spherical mass of liquid surface tension tries to keep it spherical. Any deformation increases the surface energy of the system and produces a restoring force which tries to bring it back to being spherical. In the process if you inject a finite amount of potential energy one can get oscillations. We will look at such oscillations later. So these are capillary ripples then one can also have waves generated by wind and so on. So just to get some numbers so you can have capillary waves capillary gravity waves. So typically the restoring force here is the compressibility of the medium. Capillary ripples as the name suggests the restoring force is surface tension. Wind waves is a combination of gravity and surface tension. We will mostly be looking at these kind of waves where the restoring force is surface tension or a combination of gravity and surface tension. We will start with gravity driven waves first gravity driven surface waves. Just to get an idea of how does the time period of these waves vary. So these are typical numbers in the ocean. So we are looking at sound propagation for example in the ocean. So in the ocean the typical period of sound waves in the interior of the ocean is about 10 to the power minus 2 to 10 to the power minus 5 second. For capillary ripples it is less than 10 to the power minus 1 second. This is about 1 to 25 seconds. But in turn these two are much bigger than typically this the sound waves. So as you can see this is typically visible on the air water interface. But in many industrial situations as I had mentioned in the introduction to this course you can have a situation where you have flow being taken through a pipeline, heavy viscous oils. Water is can be used as a lubricant and so you can have a thin layer of water which adheres to the wall and then the inside part is a thick viscous oil. And so you have an interface between oil and water. Whatever we study here is also going to apply to those kind of situations. So we will think about air water, oil water and these kind of situations. So now before we proceed with our mathematical analysis let us make a number of simplifying assumptions. As you will see the equations of motion with where there is a unknown interface. You can see that in these kind of problems the shape of the interface is an unknown. We have to determine it as a part of the solution. So there is an additional unknown in the problem. And so this typically leads to initial boundary value problems which are mathematically quite difficult. So one has to make a number of simplifying assumptions. You will see that although these assumptions appear very dramatic but still there is enough physics left in the resultant equations which are obtained after making these assumptions. So let us make the assumptions. And we will start with some of these assumptions and as we proceed along in the course we will relax some of these one by one to understand what happens when each of them are relaxed. So our first approximation is going to be that we are going to assume that the medium is incompressible. So we are going to eliminate sound waves because sound waves as I said comes from the compressibility of the medium. So we are going to eliminate sound waves from our system. We are only interested in waves on the interface. When is this justified? So you can see that we will see later that G into H. So if you have a layer, liquid layer of depth H then and we are looking at gravity waves where gravity acts as the restoring force. Then G H is a typical upper limit of speed that these waves can take G into H and G is the acceleration due to gravity. So this incompressibility assumption is so G H is typically so G H to the power half is the maximum wave speed. We will see this later. And you can see that if this is the maximum wave speed then the incompressibility assumption is going to be good if my maximum wave speed G H to the power half is much much less than my sound speed. Remember that if we set the compressibility of the medium to 0 then the sound speed goes to infinity. So if my maximum speed is much much less than sound speed then on that scale I can treat the sound speed as infinite. So this implies that this is going to be a good assumption if G H is less than C S square. C S is the sound speed. We know the typical values of sound propagation speed in air and water. And this implies that this imposes a limit on the depth H. We can calculate that limit from this relation. This is C S square by G. So if the thickness of the layer on which waves are propagating which we are considering is much much less than C S square by G then we are justified in neglecting compressibility of the medium and ignoring sound waves. Let us calculate how much is this. So in water I will approximately take the speed of sound to be about 1400 slightly more than that and G is 9.8. If you work this out this approximately evaluates to 200 kilometers. So this tells me that as long as the layer on which the interfacial wave propagates so I am looking at waves on the interface. So as long as the layer thickness is less than 200 kilometers we are absolutely fine in justifying the speed of sound. Saying that the speed of sound is infinite compared to all other speeds in my all other way speeds in our system. You can see that this is much much greater than the average depth of the ocean. So even when we are looking at ocean waves it is perfectly justified to take the medium as incompressible when we want to analyze surface waves on the ocean. This is of importance when we look at wind waves. So this justifies our first assumption. Let us go to the next. We are also going to assume that the medium is inviscid. In a typical air water kind of a situation this is going to be not a bad approximation. The kinematic viscosity of water is approximately 10 to the power minus 6 meters per second. This is a small value and we will see that in most regions of interest it is saying that the fluid is inviscid is a good approximation. Of course using such kind of theories one cannot estimate damping. If one is interested in damping of waves then one cannot estimate damping. So that will be a limitation and we will discuss it towards the end of the course. Then the third approximation that we are going to make is irrotational. From your basic fluid mechanics you will recall that a flow is called irrotational if the curl of velocity is 0. The curl of velocity is defined as the vorticity in the flow. It quantifies the local rate of rotation. So we are going to assume that the flow is irrotational. This automatically implies that we are not going to analyze boundary layers which might be created in the flow. Such boundary layers are typically thin. They arise either near the interface itself or near walls. So we will be making some errors near the interface and near the walls. But in the bulk of the fluid our theory even when it is irrotational we will get the approximation correct. Now this also implies that v can be written as gradient of some potential. You can see that curl of gradient of some potential is 0 for regular function phi. We are going to say as of now that our domain is horizontally and vertically unbounded. So if this is our interface I will say that this is the x direction. So it goes from plus infinity on the right to minus infinity on the left and it will go to minus infinity below and plus infinity above. So I am not going to consider as of now any confining boundaries. We will revise this approximation once we have finished doing our first derivation. We will revise this and introduce boundaries and see what effect do boundaries have. Once again we will we are going to initially neglect surface tension. This also will be revised and then in later analysis we will look at the effect of surface tension alone as well as together with gravity. But the first example that we are going to do we will keep it simple and we will ignore surface tension and just keep gravity as the restoring force. So with those approximations what are the equations which govern our system? Let us first quantify the base state. So as I showed in the last slide so in our base state the interface is flat. So this figure in blue represents a perturbed state. The base state will be indicated by that blue by the dotted yellow line. The interface would be perfectly flat that is what it would do if there was no perturbation. We are going to introduce some perturbations and because of those perturbations the interface is going to move up and down as a result there will be some velocities induced. So in our base state the velocity field is 0 in the base state. So quiescent fluid interface is flat no motion inside. The only quantity which is going to be non trivial in the base state is the pressure field. The pressure is going to be hydrostatic. So the pressure is going to be hydrostatic. There will be a linear pressure profile as we go deeper into the pool. So with those approximations this is our base state and we are going to introduce perturbations about our base state. We are going to consider those perturbations as small amplitude perturbations and then we will proceed to find what is the oscillatory behavior about the base state. So let us proceed. So what are the equations? So because we have assumed that velocity is gradient of some scalar function phi we know that the medium is incompressible that was our first approximation. So we know that when density is a constant if the medium is incompressible density is a constant. So the continuity equation reduces to this. Note that this is an unsteady flow but density is treated as a constant so this is still the continuity equation. Now this immediately tells you that if you put v is equal to grad phi in this equation it leads you to the Laplace equation. So a lot of things that we will do in this course will involve solutions to the Laplace equation in various kinds of geometries. We will start with the Cartesian geometry first. So this is our Laplace equation which will govern the velocity potential. As I said before in our base state the flow is quiescent so the velocity potential is zero in the base state. However when we introduce perturbations at the interface it will cause the interface to move up and down that will in turn cause velocities to develop in the fluid inside. This velocity potential will govern those velocities. In addition we also have pressure so we are going to use the Bernoulli equation, the unsteady Bernoulli equation which will tell us how does the pressure fluctuate in time. How does the pressure field fluctuate in time? Here again because of the perturbations there will be a perturbation pressure field and we will see that the perturbation pressure field does not vary linearly with depth unlike a hydrostatic variation. So the unsteady Bernoulli equation is just del phi by del t plus p by rho plus half grad phi square plus gz is equal to some constant of time which can be typically taken to be 0 because it can be absorbed the c of t can be absorbed in phi. If it if you can write c of t as d by dt of some function f which is a function of time then you can redefine your velocity potential as phi minus f that in general will not alter the velocity field. So in other words we are going to take this constant to be 0 because this we will assume has been absorbed in the velocity potential. I urge you to go back and look up the derivation of this equation. You start from the Euler equations and then there is a vector identity which has to be used on the non-linear term in the Euler equation that will lead you to 2 terms when you say that the flow is irrotational one of the terms will go to 0 and the other term will be half grad phi square and then that will lead you to gradient of a set of whole quantities. So it will actually be the gradient of whatever I have written on the left of the Bernoulli equation and then when you integrate that you will get an unknown function of time which is c of t. So this is the equation so if we solve for the velocity potential then this is the equation that will govern the evolution of pressure. We will see later that in the way we will solve things we will not worry about the pressure field initially. There will be the Laplace equation and there will be some boundary conditions. One of the boundary conditions will arise by taking the Bernoulli equation and applying it at the interface. What are the boundary conditions? So the first boundary condition is the kinematic boundary condition. The kinematic boundary condition basically says that the interface is a material surface. Fluid particles which remain on the interface always remain on the interface they do not go into the bulk. So the interface basically remain is basically a material surface. So we need to so we need in some sense an additional equation of mass conservation which says that there is a surface which separates the two fluids and which is a material surface. So let us say so you can refer to this picture. So let us say that this is the so in this picture you can see that the interface is given by this very surface. Let us say that the equation of this interface is given in explicit form to us. So the equation of the interface is given as z is equal to eta of x, y, t. What is eta? Eta is just this perturbation and so you can see that eta is how much the interface deviates from the flat state. Obviously that deviation depends on where one is on the horizontal plane and so eta is a function of x, y and because the interface will in general fluctuate in time it is also a function of t. Note that by definition eta is not a function of z. So z, so when we come to z is equal to eta then we are on the surface. So this is the surface. This is the interface. So because this is a material surface one can always construct. So this is a z is equal to eta is the interface. So let us construct a function f which is a function of x, y, z and t such that f has a constant value everywhere on the interface. You can see that if I define f as z minus eta x, y, t then f is equal to 0 everywhere at the interface because the interface is given by z is equal to eta. So when z is equal to eta z minus eta is 0 and so everywhere on that blue surface which I showed you earlier capital F is 0. No matter where you are on that surface as long as one is on the surface exactly at any point on the surface the value of f is 0. f has been defined in such a manner and this is true at all times. So even when the interface deforms at every point f remains 0. So the kinematic boundary condition basically says that because the interface is a material surface and f has a unique value associated with it which is in this case is 0. So df the material derivative of f is 0. Let us work out the consequences of this equation. So we will have df by dt is equal to 0. Remember f is defined as z minus eta of x, y, t. So if I apply the d by dt operator, the d by dt operator is del by del t plus u dot gradient of f is equal to 0 and this is true only on z is equal to eta. Why do we have to mention this? Because this velocity in general is dependent on where you are in the fluid and so in this equation this velocity has to be evaluated at z is equal to eta. And so we are going to use one form but let me show you that this equation is consistent with what we would know if the flow was steady.  Why did we do this? We know that the unit normal to the interface is given by grad f by mod grad f. This is the instantaneous unit normal on the interface. So at any point on the interface if I want to calculate the unit normal which is normal to the local which is a local normal to the interface this is the formula. The plus minus indicates that it can either be from the pointing outwards or pointing inwards they are just 180 degree in the opposite direction. So this implies I can write this as mod grad f del f by del t plus u dot this is the local unit normal to the interface. Suppose the flow was steady. So my interface so let us let us say I am representing the interface as a 2D which we are going to do shortly. So the interface is not a function of y. So in the y direction there is no variation recall that the y direction is this direction. So I am just saying that my eta in general is a function of x and t. There is no y direction variation. As you can see here we have we have done that approximation while plotting this figure. So if I just make that approximation you can immediately see that I can draw a 2 dimensional diagram instead of 3 dimensions and at any x so this is x this is z and this is eta as a function of x t. So at different at every x you have a certain eta. Now suppose the interface was steady. So eta would just be a function of x. It is not oscillating in time or fluctuating in time. So in particular f del f by del t would be 0 because the only t dependence of f comes through eta. So this is 0. So for steady case steady case this is 0 and we would just have u dot n is equal to 0 or in other words this u I recall I told you is the u at z is equal to eta or the u on the interface the u at every point of the interface. So this is just telling us that the local so for a steady interface this is just telling us. So suppose I am at this point and this is the unit normal this is the n direction the local unit normal this is just telling us that u is tangent to the unit normal. This is what it should be because if the interface is does not fluctuate in time then the interface becomes a streamline. So at every point the local velocity the local direction of the velocity vector is tangent to the streamline. So this is just telling us that the local velocity vector becomes a streamline. You can also see that if we have 2 fluids this would be in general given by so if I have 2 fluid there would be one velocity coming in from the above fluid and another velocity coming in from the below fluid. And in order for the fluids to remain in contact their normal velocities have to be continuous. So u 2 dot n would should be equal to u 1 dot n at the interface the u 2 and the u 1s have to be representative of the values of the 2 fluids at the interface. So this is just continuity of normal velocities. So you can see the kinematic boundary condition. So we are discussing the kinematic boundary condition I will call it KBC. So the kinematic boundary condition has various forms but basically it is some kind of a mass conservation equation which basically ensures that the interface is a material surface and unless one has phase transitions or mass transfer happening there is no mass exchange between the 2 fluids. Now the form of the kinematic boundary condition that we will use is obtained from here. So we will write it as del f by del t plus u dot grad of f is equal to 0 and one has to remember that this is true only at z is equal to eta. Now with that in mind we will now decompose it into a coordinate system or x y z coordinate system.  From this definition of f is equal to z minus eta you can see that del f by del t is minus del eta by del t. I can shift that del eta by del t on the right hand side and make it positive. So this means that this is u del f by del x plus v del f by del y plus w del f by del z is equal to del eta by del t on z is equal to eta. Let us work on this further. So we have del eta by del t is equal to u del f by del x f is z minus eta x. So let me write f here. So f is z minus eta x y t. So you can see that del f by del x is going to have a negative sign. So this is going to be minus u del eta by del x minus v del eta by del y and then w del f by del z. So this will be plus w and again you have to remember that this is at z is equal to eta of x comma t. If I shift all the negative terms to the left hand side then I get u let me write the del eta by del t first plus u del eta by del x plus v del eta by del y is equal to w on z is equal to eta. This is the form of the kinematic boundary condition that we are going to use in our derivation. So this is the kinematic boundary condition. This is true only at the interface. This is not true anywhere inside. In any case eta is not defined in the bulk of the fluid. Eta is a surface quantity and is defined only at the surface. It tells us how much the interface deviates from flatness at that point where we are. So this is one boundary condition. The next boundary condition is just pressure. So we had one boundary condition which was kinematic boundary condition. We will also have a pressure boundary condition. Now we are going to as a first step we are going to ignore the dynamics of we are looking at an air water kind of a situation and to simplify matters even further let us ignore the motion of air that will happen. So we are assuming that the motion in the air is negligible. Hence the disturbances in the air do not set up any substantial motion and so the pressure in the air is just a constant. I can set that pressure to 0. We will have to modify this when we want to include the dynamics of the second fluid. We will do that shortly. We will also have to modify this when we want to include surface tension. We will also do that. But right now let us assume that the pressure imposed by air is just a constant. We can take that constant to be 0.


everyone and welcome to Norris Cove I'm Yoshida today we're going to be doing our paycheck to paycheck weekly budget for me let's just hop paid on in I was supposed to do last week with you guys but I don't know just I think I was just messing around in that garden just most days but this is last week I went ahead and did it actually I think Friday or Saturday for the week we end up making $870 we had conscience of 211 42 which will actually be coming out this week because it's just sitting there because of the holiday we had go daddy 741 cloth and paper 38 community 30 amazon 1589 and 250 and over here I have my cash envelopes listed because I was holding on to some 5s and 10s and so I'll probably be doing a cash stuff and video later probably tomorrow so let's hop right on into this because I know and then I went ahead I know y'all said I'd like to see me kind of set this up but I was kind of high and I was like okay I need the overview we're still gonna do the monthly together but I needed the monthly overview so I went ahead and did that so we are on pretty much the second we do July which is the fourth through the 10th and where's my let me do this let me do the highlighting and I'm gonna I'm gonna tell y'all what I did to pretty much increase my income because you know we were having some slow weeks there for a moment okay so we are July 4th through the 10th and if we're new here our main income is hair I'm gonna guesstimate um I don't know how my week is looking honestly but I'm gonna guesstimate 600 and then we have nails and to my knowledge I won't be doing nails this week on Norris Cove I won't put zero I just haven't done any advertising sales or anything like that and maybe you know later I will and then I'm gonna do miscellaneous right now I'm not expecting anything so the total is $600 so let's look at the date so we have Walmart due which is today and I've already kind of paid it but I think that's $28 but it hasn't come out yet because of the holiday we have credit one and I think that's actually due today as well and we have paid that as well and that hasn't come out and that's 30 and we have Canva on the 7th and I think Canva is 13 77 and then we have booth rent due on Saturday the 9th and that's $250 now let me show you what I'm looking at that's why I needed to do this overview so this is this week right here Sunday is the 10th my car note is due on the 11th also I have Chase due on the 11th so what I used to do and what I like to do when money is there I like to kind of go ahead and start funding next week so I'm not writing I'm not going to write that down but I would need some money left over this week to kind of help with my car note and actually yeah like sometimes they take the car note on the no it should be fine so it'll probably come out like midnight here so I still need my car note on this week if that makes sense so I'm going to just make a note of it and chase I can pay that day up so let's move this out the way and let's do some calculating so we have $321.77 I don't know what size this one is my total I guess I don't have one so we have $321.77 so let's subtract that from $600 that leaves us with $278.23 I'm just going to put $278 so here I'll make the note that um car note two and I'm just going to put $181.60 on and so I want to do some cash envelopes this week but I'm not sure but I'm going to just put down grocery and I'm just doing 10 because my groceries are pretty okay right now and week ahead week because I will be gone on July 25th um like almost to the first because I'll be helping my niece with her baby because she has to go back to work so I'm taking a week off to help her and so I would like to have I don't really they want to pay me I don't want to um take from them because they're you know new parents so I want to have my bills paid so I'm going to put another $10 there so that'll be 20 so I'm not going to even doing subtracting but I know I'd have the money left so if we took the $278 let's just see this is just how my mind thinks and I like to kind of take y'all along the ride but um we were left with $278 from the $600 after paying bills so $278 so if I took the 181 that would leave me with $96.40 I should be able to use that 20 towards grocery in a week ahead and I'm leaving with $76.40 so I'm just going to put 76 here and that still leaves me um like I said just to play money miscellaneous money that you know just goes snacks or whatever so let's pop this back but yeah so this week is kind of that week when it's really not a lot to do but I have to be again um mindful of what's coming next week so to me when I was doing this this worked but again I hadn't been doing my budget so I was just scrambling so I definitely had to come back and do a budget with you guys because I've got to keep ahead of my bills so that's it for this week we've done the review of last week and the next video either be cash stuffing or I know I need to get into my monthly budget I haven't done that besides the overview um and I still really have not finished this because I like to know what is autographed and I have several accounts of things come out of so I need to make notes of that so when I have some time I'll do that and maybe I'll do that with you guys as well so that is it I hope you guys enjoyed today's video if you did do me a favor hit the subscribe button also hit that notification bell and leave your message in the comment section letting me know have you done your weekly budget and I'll see you guys in my next video


Hello everyone, it's very nice to welcome everyone here in the issue of major constitutional importance. From the numbers here you'd all been interested so that's fantastic. I'm delighted to welcome Professor Crawford, one of the co-ausers of the opinion that the UK Government published. He's good to speak for about ten minutes or so on his opinion. Yn ddod, Michael Viball a Dr Marcus Gearing yn gweithio'r gwaith ar y cyfnod EU. Mae'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio EU yn ymgyrchau'r semenau, yn y llaw yng Nghymru, yn y semenau, mae'n ddod yn ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod. Yn ymgyrch, yw'r hanfodol yw'r droswyddon? Hraeg ysbyt y Rhocau, fel y ddod y Llywodraeth, yn ymgyrch a'r 1 Eungwyn, bydd hyn yn Ymgyrch ym Mhwyloeddig, ein sgolwyd yn yn ein pleirwr yngellid, bydd hynny yn gwasanaeth, yn ymgyrch yn gwneud, yn ymgyrch a'r Ysbyt yw Llywodraeth, yn ymgyrch ymgyrch ymgyrch, yn ymgyrch ymgyrch a'r Serbych. Felly bydd hynny'n ymgyrch, yn ymgyrch ymgyrch, y Llyfrgell Great Britain. Mae'n rhaid i'r Prif Weinidog wrth gan y Llyfrgell Prif, rwy'n dechrau i'n ddigon i ysgogelio ar y llyfrgell. Roeddwn i'n mynd i'n dda i'r berthynas y Llyfrgell Great Britain yn fawr o Scot i ysgogelio ar y Llyfrgell. Fy gyrfa'r ysgogelio, mae'n cyfgau'r wneud yn fawr o'r llyfrgell i'r Llyfrgell. Mae'r cyfraith o'r cyfraith o'r llyfrgell yn fawr o'r cyfrif. o'r cymdeithas ymlaen o'r ffordd ymlaen o'r ffordd yn gyda'r newid ymlaen yw y mynd i'r ffordd ymlaen o'r ffordd. Mae'r ffordd, yn ymlaen o'r ffordd, yn yr hyn yn cymdeithio gan unrhyw gyda'r company, yn ymlaen, yn ymlaen o'r ymlaen o'r ffordd yn ymlaen o'r cymdeithio'r Ymlaen, oedd yn ymlaen o'r I-707, maen nhw'n ddechrau'r Llyfrgell, yr ydych chi'n gweithio'r ddweud, mae'n nodi'r cyflwyngau ac yn chweithio'r ddechrau. Rwy'n gweithio'r pro-agregau a'r ddechrau'r ddweud. Rydw i'n gweithio'r ddweud, mae yna gweithio'r ffordd maen nhw o'r rhan o'r tyflau. Ond rwy'n gweithio'r ddweud oherwydd, mae'n gweithio'r ddweud. Mae'n gweithio'r ddweud o'r hyn sy'n gweld i'r Brithyn Yn Gweithio. ein sylfaen hwn yn dweud i'r ymddur i ddwy Godef? dyfu'r canhwys yr un nesaf llath yng Nghymru. Let's talk about the 20th and 21st century, rather. Obusi, handlaethau'r dechrau fel ysgol Oldade yn ystod ysgolóaedd o losgosol.  The most useful thing in that very useful opinion was its emphasis on a clear answer to a clear question. The question that had been asked of the Cuwec electorate, was lost by only a few hundred thousand votes. Was are you in favour of the sovereignty of Quebec, which is a question that you might ask in a three hour unseen examination paper in advanced political studies? Most of the people who voted yes to that question actually thought that Quebec was already sovereign. We've learnt from that and the electoral commission has already established a clear question to which a clear answer will be given yes or no. The answer is yes. The second thing that's been learnt, I think, from the Quebec experience is that there will then be a period for negotiation in which one would expect most of the issues to be sorted out. I've been pitted against, well, the Scottish National Party in relation to debate. In relation to the Scottish National Party, I have nothing whatever to say. I'm not a member of the political party and never have been. However, I was asked by Her Majesty's government, the government of still for the time being of the entire United Kingdom, to set out what the international law position was and I did so in a paper which was annexed to the paper taken before Parliament a couple of weeks ago. The position is quite simply that, on all indications, if Scotland was to become independent it would do so by separation. From the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom would not fall apart any more than it fell apart on previous occasions. For example, when the Irish Free State separated in 1822, let alone the tragic loss of Australia. At a date still to be determined. The United Kingdom stays the same, despite all its tug-of-versations and changes. At the international level, there's really no doubt about that. No doubt whatever. It's happened on many occasions. There are only two occasions where the so-called rump state, and I say that about the United Kingdom with certain misgivings because the meat is so bad. The so-called rump state was held not to be continuous with the predecessor. They are Serbia, Montenegro and Czechoslovakia. In Czechoslovakia it was agreed between the two states that neither would claim to be a continuator. That agreement was honoured. Although I have to say there was still a tendency at the international level to regard the Czech Republic as a last recourse guarantor in respect of Czechoslovakia, despite the fact that everyone recognised that there were two new states which were promptly admitted to the United Nations. In the case of Serbia and Montenegro, the situation was obviously very different. First of all, there was the history and secondly there was the war. Thirdly, there was the plans for ethnic cleansing and greater Serbia. In those circumstances, the international community very rapidly took the position that Serbia could not automatically claim to be a continuator. Had the issues been resolved diplomatically at an early stage, which would have required Milosevic to fall under a bus, the situation might have been different. My perception is that continuity was held out as a possible plumb by the United Nations in return for cooperation, which was obviously not forthcoming at that time. At the international level it is perfectly clear that the rest of the UK will retain the veto, like the Russian Federation will retain the veto in 1991. We will remain a member of the United Nations and of the Security Council, and all other issues will be resolved on the basis of that continuity. Scotland will be a new state. Whether it claims to be the same state as pre-1707 Scotland is basically up to it. So long as nothing turns on it, everyone will say, well you want to be an old state rather than a young state you can be. But don't let it make any difference to us, which is what France said to the Baltic States, with perhaps less justification. There is a case for going back when General De Gaulle was to Edinburgh, he referred to the Treaty between Scotland and France of 1249, which is earlier than the oldest British Treaty, which is always mentioned as the Treaty with Portugal, the 13 something or other. So the English has to be say long memories, but not as long memories as for Scotland. Turning to the two questions which are somewhat more vexed, the first is the European Convention of Human Rights. What happened with Montenegro is likely to be what happens here, that is that Scotland will succeed, if not automatically then with its acceptance to the European Convention with immediate effect. But the membership of the Council of Europe will follow, no doubt a formality, but will follow as a separate issue. Let me turn to the European Union. Now international lawyers and European lawyers have developed different cultural attitudes towards the European Union, starting out from the same starting point which is that this is a new subject of international law. The EU attitude to international law is that it is for lesser breeds without European law, if I can paraphrase Kipling. And the international law is very useful in dealing with ROW the rest of the world, but should be basically astute when dealing with the European Union. International lawyers feel if you scratch European law hard enough, you come to a bedrock of international law reflected by the fact that European law is basically founded on treaties, T-R-E-A-T-I-E-S, which are made by the normal constitutional form for treaties for the rest of the world. I can't propose to resolve that constitutional dilemma between the disciplines of European law and international law in relation to Scotland. What I would say is that you can never tell what the European Court is going to do next, and it may be the European Court will make the European Union into a sort of primordial right of the individual. So that we have an individual right to be members of the European Union in the way we have an individual right not to be tortured, or subject to inhuman degrading treatment of punishment, I should add. It's possible they will do that. It's not the view of the European Commission which says that the normal situation will be a treaty of accession by Scotland. Where David Edwards and I agree is that there won't be any particular difficulty in entering into that treaty. But there are things to be negotiated. Of course there are things to be negotiated in relation to England as well. I'm sorry. I said a terrible word. The rest of the United Kingdom. For example, there will have to be a reduction in votes and a reduction in the budget, and maybe some other issues, but they won't be very difficult and there won't be very many of them. There are more in relation to Scotland, for example the opt-outs. Scotland is going to need some and may not want others. And I think the rest of the European Union will not regard Scotland as having the same bargaining power as the United Kingdom has in relation to the opt-outs. So we will see. If I had to predict, I would suggest that the European Court of Justice, if it gets its hands on the point, which is a big if, will basically stipulate some form of negotiating process in the way the Canadian Supreme Court did in the session reference. But then there's nothing to be learnt from international law. Is there? Thank you. Thank you very much James. Thank you very much Catherine. As someone who teaches the laws of EU external relations, I spend a fair bit of time trying to help EU lawyers to see that international law is more than just messy or coloured by personal opinion. I'm also found trying to help international lawyers to see that the EU is more than just another international organisation. Both in neither are right of course. My concern is that there should not be such a dichotomy as EU law versus international law. Rather a new answer analysis is needed as to what roles these embedded set of legal rules can play and do play conditioned by policy and politics. From this view, although James Crawford and Alan Ball are very mindful of EU law in their recent opinion, they could engage in an even more in-depth analysis. The EU starts from a perspective of autonomy of the EU legal order. This means that almost like in a domestic legal system we find ourselves asking the question, is international law applicable and if so under rich conditions? Generally the CJEU decided in the ATA case relying on first corporate shipping most of international law is applicable to the EU although only a subsection applies directly to citizens. In the Cardi case the CJEU made it very clear that the validity of international law in the union's legal order is not limitless. It is subject to important EU values such as fundamental rights. In the recent 36410 case of Hungary and the Slovak Republic the court provided an interesting clarification on this point. Hungary thought condemnation of the Slovak Republic for denying entry of the Hungarian president for a memorial celebration. While the Slovak Republic argued that this relationship was governed exclusively by international law and Hungary argued that it was governed exclusively by EU law, the court of justice took a more nuanced view. As the court explained EU law does apply in such a context but a special exception also applies to the position of the president of another member state given his status under international law. In other worlds while one might be the norm and the other the exception both international and EU law must be considered together. For the present case this suggests assuming that James and Alan's conclusion on the UK as a continuing state and Scotland as a new state are correct, I defer to their expertise on this, that both extreme positions must be rejected. On the one extreme it could be argued that the new relationship would be solely governed by public international law. On the other extreme it could be argued that the newly independent Scotland would simply continue as an EU member state with no need for accession. There's plenty of EU law that applies to the question of membership especially withdrawal and accessions. In other words the CJEU would easily come to the conclusion that EU law does govern the question of Scottish membership possibly with an exception arising from international law. As such if the relevance of article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union is only discussed in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom this would be unfortunate. Article 50 might provide interesting insights also for the creation of a new state within the EU legal order as argued by David Edward. As is evident I agree with the view that these issues can and would be resolved in negotiations in which policy and politics become regressively but realistically relevant. The importance of the EU legal order and the continuation of applicability of EU law in Scotland make an entirely conceivable that a slim version of membership negotiations, very similar to the proceedings for Eastern Germany could apply to a former part of the EU. In that case such a new state, one that has already implemented the entire a key commentary, these negotiations could be rather straightforward. Of course this then also begs the question of whether a possible rest United Kingdom veto of Scottish EU membership could be regarded as illegal under the EU legal order an issue which might be interesting to explore another day. It should be highlighted that the court does, like many domestic courts, have a tendency to maximise the application of its own EU law. For example, in the recent C420 or 7, a post arbostelidus case, the judges concluded that a regulation limiting the application of the a key to southern Cyprus could not be used to block a judgement concerning property lying in northern Cyprus. The SAR case is also a good example in question. Although the formal treaty recognising the change in the European cold and steel community, mostly formalities, was not ratified by several member states for several years, the practical application of EU law was never called into question given that EU law in the region applied even before the SAR was returned to Germany. Jameson Allen's opinion is that the question whether a state is a member of the EU is hitherto been treated as a matter of international law, citing Commission President Barroso, just as the question of territorial extent of the state has been citing Hansen and Halbd Solon Flesbro. This is one place where certain nuances might be helpful. While I do not argue that they are wrong, the legal situation of overseas territories is perhaps more complicated than a unilateral decision by one EU member state as seen by the many works on EU law of the overseas. Different perspectives, these bothersome nuances, also become clear in the question of EU membership of the Eastern German lender in 1990. As noted in 1991 by Thomas Gilrich on East Germany's integration into the European communities in the Heidelberg Journal, I quote, the Commission, however, assumed that the automatic extension would be affected by a norm of community law, not further specified. Thus it was not compelled to deal with the question as to whether and how far the present international law of succession recognizes the principle of territorial flexibility. Since all the member states as well as the GDR were agreed on the mode of integration, the international law problem simply did not arise. Of course, we may hope that for EU lawyers international law might come to be seen as more than simply a problem. But if accession is governed exclusively by EU law, there's a strong indication that for instance withdrawal from the EU of a European territory of a member state could also be governed nearly entirely by EU law. To conclude, as an EU and international lawyer, I support the direction of James's and Allen's intellectual project in this opinion. It underlines the importance of negotiation and the principle of loyal cooperation which is applicable to all parties in this case and is to be applauded in the sense. While the nuance that I've attempted to signal in this brief commentary might further strengthen it, their overall conclusions are probably not wrong. In any event, they're certainly useful for an important public debate. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm going to focus on a caveat that the opinion mentions at paragraph 167 and also at paragraph 184. Namely at paragraph 167 it is acknowledged in the opinion that the rights of all current EU citizens might lead the European Court of Justice to take a different approach. I.e. not judging the effect of Scottish independence purely on the basis of international law alone. And at paragraph 184 the opinion says, and this is an important caveat, that this of course would only affect the position of Scotland within the EU legal order, but that would matter a lot for Scotland. So leaving aside the questions which I think have been very comprehensively addressed in the opinion of the effect of Scottish independence under international law such as admission to the United Nations. Let me focus on two questions. The first one is Scottish membership in the European Union. Now I agree with the opinion that the United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom, would likely be regarded as the continuator state of the UK as presently configured. Scotland is unlikely to be automatically a member of the European Union. Though I do think, and I think on that point the opinion is perhaps more pessimistic about the possibility, the probability of the European Court of Justice becoming involved, that if the Court of Justice were to be confronted with a question about the effect of Scottish independence it would also apply European Union law. The Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in respect of treaties to which the opinion refers in article 4 refers back to the internal law of the international organisation. Now there are some questions whether the convention applies to a structure such as the European Union, but even if it does there is a reference back to the internal law of the international organisation. Even if that law is perhaps silent on this question and even if there is no precedent, the Court of Justice is likely to apply also European Union law. Now what I found particularly interesting about the opinion is that there is a distinction, the analysis differs with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights. So the European Convention of Human Rights, the prediction is, is likely to continue to apply in respect of newly independent Scotland, even though Scotland would have to re-exceed the opinion says to the Council of Europe. Now I think it is quite likely in the case of Scottish independence that Scotland, assuming that Scotland would have to reapply, would have to apply for EU membership. Fundamental rights guaranteed by the European treaties and the economic freedoms under the treaties would also apply based on similar reasoning to all those who currently benefit from them. So I think in this respect, and again I think here the Court of Justice is likely to become involved at some stage and under a stage where it still matters for the outcome, in this respect Rockman style arguments are likely to come into play. The Court of Justice of the European Union is likely to be reluctant to deny the benefit of fundamental rights and economic freedoms guaranteed by the treaties to all those who currently enjoy them as a result of a reconfiguration in the political setup of a European Union member state. And I think international law itself on the question of nationality has been changing certainly the 20th century as a result of the human rights revolution. There is increasingly a shift away from identity conception of citizenship to one focusing on rights and the European Union legal order has gone further still in this respect. Writing more than 80 years ago the Harvard research in international law looking at nationality in international law said the following and I quote. The meaning and import of nationality have changed with the changing character of states. It that is nationality may acquire a new meaning in the future as a result of further changes in the character of human society and developments in international organizations. What better example than to think of the European Union and it is difficult to see how the Court of Justice would not take this into account if it were to decide cases involving Scottish independence.


For the Broncos, Jerry Judy, Cortland Sutton, see their arrows go way up when you bring a top eight, top 10 quarterback into the frame. Russell Wilson is locked in as a back end, QB won this fantasy season. I'd have him in that eight to 10 range. Jerry Judy and Cortland Sutton, both are wide receiver twos, with Jerry Judy having a little bit more upside than Cortland Sutton in this offense. I think that Jerry Judy is the perfect receiver to pair up with Russell Wilson as he loves to use those big body receivers. Also in the backfield, Javante Williams is gonna see his arrow go up as he may not have the same upside that he had last season as you would think heading into this season, but with Russell Wilson, you know, relying on the run a lot in his career, you're definitely gonna see an uptick in Javante Williams' floor, we should say. So I put him at a back end, running back one high end, running back two for this upcoming season redraft.


The results of this study suggest that lidar data can be used to accurately estimate forest inventory variables such as average height, top height, quadratic mean diameter, basal area, gross total volume, gross merchantable volume, total aboveground biomass, and stem density. This is true even when using a lower density of lidar points than previously thought necessary. This article was authored by Dave Etheridge, Dave Nesbitt, Doug Pitt, and others.


So, they're obviously in control because they controlled game one pretty much from start to finish. They did. That's pretty hard to do at Denver where I will remind you the nuggets were 34 and 7 at home. Westbrook, the game now is not designed for him. It's designed for Clay, Steph, Kyrie, Lillard, shoot. Do you hear any players complaining about LeBron having control anywhere? You know why? Because it's been beneficial for all the players in the league. Chris Broussard here and welcome to the brand new Hoops on Fox podcast. This podcast will give you your daily dose of all things NBA from Fox Sports, including the best content from Skip and Shannon, Nick Wright, plus special guest, fresh NBA content from myself, post game interviews from NBA stars around the league, and much, much more. Up first, Chris Haines is with Colin Coward to break down the Russell Westbrook shooting slump and the potential for a Ben Simmons trade. Remember the family, great to have you and how are you? I'm doing fine. So I could have brought out the hammer on Westbrook this morning. I thought you were. But I did not. And I believe it is very hard in life.  He's on Fortnite all day, but a 48 year old executive, hey, be great at tech. I didn't grow up with tech. And so it's hard to pivot Westbrook. The game now is not designed for him. It's designed for Clay, Steph, Kyrie, Lillard, shoot. No mid range. I don't care. And I look at Westbrook and he's not a broken player. He's a hyper athletic guard who is a relentless athlete. You're going to tell me the next five years he's going to click and become a great shooter. It's not who he is. Derek Rose. That's not who Derek Rose is. There's part of me that feels bad for Westbrook. The game has moved in a different direction and it's not built perfectly for him anymore. You are being lenient here. I saw you tweeting last night and saying, what would you say? Wait, wait, wait. Is he hit a triple double? I was for sure you're going to be relentless this morning and vicious. Couldn't I argue though, you know, what do you do with Westbrook now? Okay. Let me say this. There's a point. But I will say this.   So I would just say this, it's still up to Westbrook as key points in the game to make the right play. And if you're not such a shooter, they don't shoot a lot of threes. Go in and attack. Be relentless on the glass. And I think the problem with him is that, look, that three-point ball is killing O.K.C. right now. They were never good at it. They were never. They've been awful. They're awful. And the fact that Portland is making so many, like threes hurt. Threes hurt. And when you can't match that, you can't combat that. There's a real problem. And then that deficit gets higher and higher. And so I think for Westbrook, look, you know, I get what you're saying. He's never going to be those type of guys when you're talking about Steph and Dane, but what he can do, do it to the best of his ability and stay away from shooting eight, seven, three pointers a game.  That's all he has to do. Here's a criticism I would levy on Westbrook. I don't like the defensive effort. Most of all, Lillard's getting uncontested jumpers. Curry is left wide open. Some of this, is it possible, and I'm not just blaming Westbrook, that when your offense goes in the NBA, your defense can suffer because it gets into your head.  Offense is more important than defense. I don't like Russell's defense. I don't like, okay, these defense, you're letting a good three point shooting team. Portland last night must have had seven wide open threes. Paying attention to detail has always been an issue of Russ, particularly you're talking about the defensive end.  But he's not. And I don't know necessarily if it's his offense struggling on that end is why he's struggling on the defensive end as well.  He can't get wide open shots.  Those are demoralizing shots. And so that's what I'm saying. Like I get your point. You're being lenient, Kyle. Like you're evolving as a person, because you're talking about, you just mentioned that you're talking about 45-year-olds, can't adapt to time. You're adapting and changing and evolving because I was expecting, I thought I was going to defend Russ. I thought I was going to defend him. I thought you were coming with the heat today. But now I find myself, I got a pal on because of the lack of you not doing so. Yeah. I had the anvil in the car. I left it there. I just thought I thought, you know, it's easy today. He was minus 27, Lillard's plus 27. I could have brought up the anvil. Like I won the argument. The old, the old thing about the internet, they say Facebook won the internet. Stop arguing. I won the argument. Russ is hard to play with. He's not built for the playoffs. But in the end, I've just seen this so many times. I saw it with Derek Rose a lot. I'm like, the game's moving away from Derek Rose's strength. It's Ezekiel Elliott, the game moved right into his wheelhouse. He can cat, Lavian Bell. The game moved right into Lavian. Portland's not the fastest back. God, he's got great hands. And so all of a sudden, Lavian Bell goes from, yeah, he's a good runner. He didn't have breakaway speed.  And let's move to this though. If Oklahoma City loses the series, and I don't think Portland's ever lost a series when they lead 2-0, Billy Donovan gets run, right? And I'm saying this, okay, at some point, Sam Presti had hardened, chose Westbrook, had Durant, didn't hug him, Victor Oledipo let him go. At some point, Billy Donovan's taking the hits here. There's one shooter on this roster. That's not Billy Donovan's fault. Is he going to get whacked? Look, they gave him extension before this season, you know, I was surprised that they did that. I saw it was I. Because I'm like, what did he do? What has the team done to warrant that? But at the same time, when you're talking about the holes that's in this roster, shoot, you need shooting. In this game today, if you don't have premium shooting, then you don't have a chance. Because threes add up. And when they keep adding up, that margin is a 10 point margin, 15 point margin, 20 point margin, it happens faster, faster than has ever happened in the game before. Oklahoma City is not built to go on a 14-nothing run. Portland is. Yes. You know, Golden State is. Boston can be. Houston can be. Utah's good, but they're not. The teams that don't shoot threes, it's hard to go on a 14-0 run. That used to be seven possessions. And that's why getting to your point, I think you were alluding to it. That's a management. That's not Billy Donovan's issue. That's not Billy Donovan. That's the kind of the way they constructed their team is the similar route and the way the Lakers went about doing business. Tough guys. Tough guys. Tough guys. Tough guys. Not enough shooters. By the way, listen, Hainsey, let's give me 30 seconds on camera here. Tonight's one of the greatest nights in America. You're not going to understand this. You're going to think of a weirdo. Tonight the NFL releases its schedule. I'm so glad my wife's under the weather. I don't have to entertain anybody. I can go home. That's mean. No, I love her to death. Just get upstairs. I got to watch this guy. I got to see who the Jaguars play. Tonight is the best night for nerds in America. I'm going to be sitting there all night just taking notes. You get to play when lost. It's the best. It's the best night. All right. Let's move to Chris Hain's. NBA guys are like, I don't get it. This is just a schedule. You lost me there. Okay. I was told last night from a source I really trust, Monty Williams interview with the Lakers. He is their number one choice. That doesn't mean he'll get the job because Monty's probably going to get the Sixers gig if they lose to Brooklyn or the Raptors. So let me just start with this. That means I think Ty lose the Lakers second choice. I think Ty lose going to get it. I was told last night, Chris, the Lakers are concerned about the optics that it's now LeBron's team. Have you heard stuff like that? I wrote that last week, actually, when Magic Johnson relieved themself. But yeah, that was always concerned. I was told, and I wrote that for Yahoo, I was told that when Magic and Polinky were compiling potential coaching candidates, then obviously they brought up Ty Ralu and Mark Jackson. And I was told at one point, Jeannie Buss said, I'm concerned with the perception of LeBron running things. This is a bus ran organization. We want to make sure that is clear. And so I understand all that, but at the same time, Colin, I think it's very important, especially where the Lakers are right now, it's very important to screw optics, screw perception, bring in the right candidate, bring in somebody who you think is going to be able to do this job at a high level and bring this franchise back to prominence. If optics and if perception is something that's concerning you and that's going to deter you from hiring the right guy, then I think that the Lakers franchise is going to continue to be in disarray. I want to go to the Warriors for a second, because I think Golden State's going to win that series. I think the Clippers, and I said this repeatedly through the season, they're really one of the best stories in the league this year. Milwaukee's a great story. The Clippers shouldn't be here. They traded their best player in the middle of the season. And in the last several years, they've traded their four best players, Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, Tobias Harris, and Deandre Jordan. They shouldn't be here. Lou Williams is their best player. I love Lou. He's your best player. You're probably not a playoff team. They are. Their bench is the best in the league. Doc Rivers has done a remarkable job. But I'm watching this Warriors Clippers series, and you know what I'm seeing, Chris? I'm thinking Kauai Leonard's looking at that team saying, man, the only thing they're missing is me. Could I make the argument that even losing this series by the Clippers, this has been an incredible advertisement as a free agent destination that we may have reached the tipping point with the lowly Clippers. They are now seen as a viable place to go for stars. I mean, even before the series started, you know, we all pick Golden State to advance. I actually picked Golden State to sweep them. You know, I have some Clippers execs killing me about that prediction. But hey, I think right now, the Clippers are putting themselves in great position, not just to lure Kauai, but have some other free agents, you know, start looking their way. Because they're one, you know, you can look at them in one piece away from going to that next level. I don't know if Kauai puts it to that next level of championship contending team, but definitely if you get Kauai signature, you got you going to get other guys on board willing to come over for cheaper. And they Clippers have cap space where they can get two max guys. So right now you look at it great coaching. They got a great culture.  Tremendous giving culture. Now, nobody's seeking minutes and points. Nope. So you bring a couple of stars on board all of a sudden the Clippers are in a place where they've never been before. Yeah, I think we're there. I want to talk about a team that is fascinating for a lot of reasons. The Philadelphia 76ers. Now they're not really a national story yet, but I find them to be absolutely fascinating. I think outside of the Warriors, they have the best talent in the league, slightly over Boston and Houston. You have the Manny William situation. Brett Brown, when I watch the sixers play, I don't know what I'm getting night to night. I don't know what I'm getting night to night with Simmons. Jimmy Butler doesn't get along with people. If I said to you one year from today, what are the sixers? First of all, do you think they beat Brooklyn? I do. I think their size is too much. I think they do. I think they've got a chance against Toronto. But a year from now, who is in Philly and who is not in Philly? Because this team's got four legitimate high-end players. That's a good question. You know, obviously they gave up a lot to acquire Tobias Harris and Jimmy Butler. No question. So it's hard to believe that they will let even one of those guys walk away in free agency this summer. With that being said, I think they bring back one of those guys. And if I had to pick, probably they bring back Tobias. So this time next year, I think Jimmy Butler is probably somewhere else. That's just my thoughts. I'm going to throw something at you. You trade Simmons. Now, it sounds crazy. I'll have my big and I have two pretty good shooters on the wing. You can get a ton for Ben Simmons. Ben Simmons does not, I've been told, get along great with teammates. He didn't make the Australian national team. Now, I'm not saying this because I don't like Ben Simmons. But if you look at Ben Simmons' game, I don't think it fits Embiid. And Jimmy Butler doesn't fit anybody. I'm just throwing this out there. If you had Embiid, your center anchor is there. You have two athletes, Butler and Tobias on the wing. You need more shooters, JJ Reddick's aging. Is it impossible to think they'd make that move? I don't think Simmons fits their team. I don't see them making that move within a year's time. Because I think you've got to let Ben, let the maturation process evolve. Look, this is the thing. Ben wants to be a point guard. And he can't handle that position. He thrives in that position. But in that position nowadays, you need spacing at that position. He's somebody who's reluctant to shoot. And so I think it's going to get to a point that if Ben Simmons, if they don't trade Ben Simmons, if he's a mainstay there, he has to obviously develop some range. But also he has to be open to moving to the small force spot. So then you can have a shooter at the point guard spot and shooting guard spot. So because they really, Jimmy Butler and Tobias, they're decent, but they're not. You need premium shooters. Yeah, this Philadelphia is a really fascinating team. I don't think these pieces work. And I love three of the pieces I love. And Ben Simmons and Butler are unbelievable talents. Next, Steven Jackson joins making CC to dissect the possibility of Tyloo coaching the Lakers.  I mean, who should they give control to in the organization? But do you hear any players complaining about LeBron having control anywhere? You know why? Because it's been beneficial for all the players in the league. He's done it for, it just hasn't been beneficial for him. The moves he's been making since he's been in the league has been beneficial for every player in the league. So like CC said, if I had a conversation with anybody on the Lakers and Kobe's not there, it has to be LeBron. Nobody else is smarter in the organization about basketball. I'm gonna go back to it, because you know I'm always the real one. They just upset that LeBron has been in control of his career since day one and he's a young black man that knows his worth. That's basically what the problem is. And to your point about how he's, players don't complain, you're not talking about just his teammates. No one. He has created, he has shifted the power dynamic within the NBA from team to player. It was, the big three in Boston was put together by Jenna's friend Danny H. My God. Since then though, the major moves in the league have been player initiated. They have been, it was LeBron's move the first time, the second time for whether people liked their not Kevin Durant's move and the Kawhi Leonard last year, the Anthony Davis attempted to this year and the way they have shifted that. Now on this specific instance, unless and until the Lakers hire Sam Presti or R.C. Buford or Bob Myers or anyone who actually knows how to run an NBA front office and has shown that ability, then of course they should lean on LeBron to a degree. But I don't even think they're leaning on him in this coaching search. I think it's just narrative. I think it's just optics. I think it's just, well, LeBron has the relationship with Ty Luzo. If we hire him, how will that look? And what better option do they have? I mean, because for me, especially with the basketball team, which I have seen that a player can immediately become a coach, can immediately become an executive, can immediately go and work in television because there's so many things that basketball, because you're learning all those things. As a football player, you only basically know one side of the ball. So you don't see that transition. So basketball players, they've been dominant in the NBA from a player to coach to front office standpoint for 40 years. LeBron is a basketball savant. Forget if you like him, forget if you don't. And Shaquille O'Neal told me this. I went to a practice with the Cavs and he sat me down. Here we go. Yeah. Stim the lights. Yeah, young boy. Smartest basketball player I've known. Remember the sets, you don't see the coach was calling some LeBron, called out their plays and everything. This was just in a regular practice before the championships and all that. So we need to give LeBron credit for the type of basketball mind that he has. He has the type of basketball mind in 30 years. If he's not Jerry West, I'll be shocked. So what does that mean? Does that mean that the Lakers should just go out and hire Tai Lu, bring him in? They want a title with him. He gets LeBron, LeBron respects him. Is that what we're all sort of gearing towards? And for some reason, Jeannie Buss doesn't want to do that. Well, I mean, if she wants to win, she has to have, she has to cater to LeBron because then the day he's gonna get this ship going.  The guys are gonna buy into Tai Lu. They're gonna buy in because LeBron buy in. Everything goes through LeBron. So you have to bring in the coach. You have to bring in the players. You have to go through him if you're not using COVID. The reason why they have to give LeBron more power is because on the initial, on the initial engagement, LeBron gave them all the power. LeBron came to Los Angeles without the recruitment. Man, he could have went on a world tour. I'm going here. I'm going here. I'm going to Philadelphia. Man, I need to talk to Joel M. B. To the San Antonio. He could, San Antonio, for me, I was like, man, let's go. Let's talk the pop at least. No, he didn't. Sadness, palatial estate, Magic Johnson had the address. Pools up to the front. No worries, no courting, no dating, no, and none of that. LeBron and LeBron in his contract demands gave them the no trade, gave it back. Right. I'm gonna give you a max deal for years. That's the max he could do. Gave them those things. So LeBron gave them control. Now in trying to get this organization back on the right track, they need to be able to give some of that control back to LeBron. And that's the normal way of doing business in the NBA. Short-sighted people and businesses are concerned about optics. Smart businesses are concerned about results. I'm gonna use you as an example for a moment. When you were, I don't know this for a fact, but I got a real good feeling. When you were first trying to get into broadcast and get into TV, I guarantee there was an executive in a room somewhere that hadn't seen you on TV, didn't know. They're like, ah, what are people gonna say if we hire the, wasn't they involved, they didn't need a punch of fan? Wasn't there an incident outside of Strip Club with a gun?  What we are going to get is good results on television for two years. And so they, I don't know, took a chance to write a word, but they went with it and it paid off. The optics on hiring Tyloo is a Bill Plashke column in Los Angeles Times. For five minutes in a grand scheme of things. I can read you the headline right now. Welcome to the world of the Los Angeles LeBrons. And it's a story about how it's his franchise and how Dr. Buss would be fine. If you went 55 games and you're in the Western Conference Finals, none of it matters. And if you hire Bill Walton to replace Luke Walton and you win 35 games, none of it matters. Like, it is what is the best move. And if someone, people give me a hard time, they think I have an ulterior motive with Tyloo. I know Ty little bit, but I'm not in friends with Ty. I have no real deep relationship with Tyloo. Present me a better option. Yeah, you're also not saying this is the best option, but if it is, you should be able to go for it. If there is, if Terry Stotz gets fired, if the Blazers go from 2-0 to 4-2 and he loses, and he gets fired in Portland, and someone says, hey, I think Terry, I'll listen to that. You bring me an established coach with, Stotz doesn't even have it, with a championship pedigree or a deep playoff pedigree, I'll listen to it. But if it's John Howard, who I don't know, Manny Williams, who, or the other options that we've heard, Jason Kidd, Tyloo's the best option. It's an added bonus. He won a championship. Oh yeah, with LeBron. Now, Gilbert Arena's his back with Christine Lehi to describe his time in the NBA. Does it bother you in general that you're not more widely recognized as one of the best scorers in the last 20 years? No, because it was, I didn't really get to, it's like I caught fire, but didn't get to really capitalize on it. For what I did, for people to still remember me, is beyond me, to be honest. Like, you know, three years. It's, that's it, it was three years. You know, it's like really, and in two years of real greatness. So it's like, I didn't really get to, I got hurt at 25, so I didn't really get to see, you know, like what Curry's seeing now, what Durant's seeing, what, you know, James Harden sees, you know, it's like, you know, I didn't get to that level. So it's like, for you to still know me, it's kind of like, well, okay, I appreciate it.  I was like, no, I didn't really get to, I didn't really get to expand on what I did. It was just a quick in and out. Following Skip and Shanda's sec, the Spurs lost to the Nuggets after losing a 19 point lead. The control of this series. Spurs. Oh, you've seen a lot. Want to say that louder? They're so light. Really? So faint. The Spurs. Thank you. You know who it is. They're not the Spurs, they're the Spurs. It made me sick, and I'm glad.  The Spurs are in control because they did what they wanted to do. To say the series doesn't start to their role team win on the opposing team. And it started early. It started the first game. So you going back home, Coach Popovich, sure he would like to be greedy. Take sweet stakes, win both games, and he was in position to do that up 19. But to go back to your building for two games and your split one-one, Coach Popovich has to feel well. They played well. DeMarco Rosen and Lamarco Soldridge, they've had no answer for those two guys. Lamarco Soldridge had it going Skip, and then he only took one shot in the fourth quarter. Had two points. DeMarco Rosen kept it going. But they let Jamal Murray, I think Derrick White must have, he must have stubbed his toe or something because Jamal Murray lit him up. 21 made this a series. Now they need to go on down to San Antonio, get one of those games, make it another series, so you can seven and not win by case of due, like I proposed to. But anyway, the Spurs are in control. They did what they needed to do. They went, they got one of these two games. Now they're going home. If they're serious to lose. So I thought you told me the Spurs weren't even going to make the playoffs to start with. Skip, I said. You guaranteed me that Denver's going to win this series, but now you're conceding. Are you conceding the bat? No, no, no, I'm not conceding the bat. Oh. I said the Spurs are in control. They are. Oh, interesting. They're in the cat bird scene, the proverbial cat bird scene. Oh, got it, got it. So they're obviously in control because they controlled game one pretty much from start to finish. That's pretty hard to do at Denver, where I will remind you, the Nuggets were 34 and seven at home. Guess what? That was the best home record in all of the NBA. Yes, it was. So the Spurs went in there and controlled game one, and then they controlled game two twice because they had two 19 point leads last night. They had one with eight 28 left in the second quarter. That's pretty good. And four 28 left in the third quarter, 19 and 19. And what happened? You know what happened? The Nuggets are a really good team. They're a really talented team. They're probably more talented than the Spurs are. Probably. They're a little younger, but they're probably a little more talented. And they were obviously the more desperate team, and my team took foot off gas, as Golden State did at home the other night, and bad things started to happen. We took your foot off the gas.  I mean the Nuggets, the Nuggets did. All right. Yeah, we, I played in Denver. So Jamal Murray owed his team because he missed a crucial late shot in game one in their building. They would've tied it, right? Yes, we would've tied the game. I think it was for the win, as I recall. It wasn't. I think it was for the win. Okay, yeah. But he missed, as Jenny pointed out, his first eight shots last night, and I was highly impressed. He just willed home his team in ways, cause he can really shoot it in ways.  Jamal Murray just got going, and once he got going, he went twilight zone hot. He went crazy hot. And to your point about Derek White attempting to guard him, what they started to do was, they put a man who's literally a Rocky Mountain by himself, the Joker. They put Yokeych out on the perimeter picking for him, and just knocked Derek White down time after time again. And Ernestine Turnamy said, is it legal for him to be that big? I said, yeah. Cause he's, he's like a monster, she kept saying. He's a monster. Yes. He's just too big, right? Can you be that big? That thick, that heavy, and that agile? But you know what Skip? In this comeback, the guy that, I'm gonna mention three guys before I get to Yokeych, obviously Jamal Murray went crazy in the fourth quarter, but Gary Harris Jr. in the third quarter. He saved him. 14, cause yeah, this was about to get out of hand, Skip, and he kept them close, and they ended up winning the third quarter by three points. And Paul Millsap. Hmm. He's beastie too. They call that foul on him. That wasn't a foul that he did on Aldrich Skip. You know that too. So you're hanging on every possession of Spurs games. I thought you said they were broccoli. I thought you said you can't watch them.  I think you're turning into a closet Spurs game. No, I'm not. But I know we were gonna talk about this game especially. Things were not looking very good for me early on, especially in that third quarter when they were down 19. I was like, man, Skip got to be the lucky. I said, why can't I win a bet against him? I said, this is the luckiest man alive. Why don't he go to Vegas? He should have put down 100,000 on Tiger to win. Yeah. I should have. Cause you lucky. There's my way. I'm just smart. Skip, no, no, no, you're not smart. There's no way you should have won a bet in which a team was down 31 points. You should not have won that bet. So stop saying. I liked the Clippers to win that game. I just didn't know how. Skip, they were down 31 points to the defending champs with the best player and the finals MVP two times. And they came from 31 down.  You're supposed to call me. You keep telling me Kevin Durant's way overrated. No, no, no. I can't tell, but I just want to know one thing. Let that had been LeBron James. And his team lost to 31 points. And he always starts back to LeBron. Ooh, we ain't beating Steph Curry up in Draymond like we would have done LeBron. If that had been LeBron lost to 31 point lead as the number one seed to a seed. I agree. And didn't talk to the media. It didn't talk to them. Oh, Kevin Baylor. This is what I'm talking about. This is my drama. Kevin Durant has two feet out the door. And those are two big feet. Yeah, that's the toxicity that's around Kevin Durant, huh? Is that the toxicity we talking about? I got some toxicity in the locker room. I think they got a little dissension. I think there's a lack of trust. Like he's just going to jilt us and leave.  Don't play again Friday. When the nugs play y'all again? Thursday. Thursday. Y'all about to catch up another.  They are! What are you trying to do, the reverse? No, no, no, no, no, no. You guys are controlled.   But I want you to catch up. Well, you wanted, but are you predicting it? No, I'm not predicting it. Oh, okay, thank you. They're going seven games. What did I tell you before this series started? This will be the toughest of the three series that San Antonio is about to play. The three series. The younger middle three, you're not playing three. This is a hard one. This is tough. This is seven versus two. They are the two seed for a reason. And last night, I would have won if the referees And don't do that. Wait a second. If the referees hadn't allowed the home crowd, and you know that crowd, it gets loud there, the crowd began to control the referees' whistles. And the turning point of that game, because it was still right there to be one, with 441 left in the basketball game. Could we see what happened to Bryn Forbes as he tried to stroke another beautiful three from the perimeter? Boom! He gets knocked down. They went Broncos on him. They went, it was like a Broncos double team. He tried to sell it. He didn't try to sell it. He got knocked down by two of them and they swallowed their whistles. That ain't Clay Thompson. That's not Steph Curry. He didn't get that call. You know what? James Harden would have gotten four free throws on that. Four. They would have said you get four free throws because you got knocked down. Bryn Forbes hasn't earned that kind of call. So what happened within seconds? Greg Povich, because Jamal Murray eventually made another shot and it was going crazy. So he tried to run up the sideline and catch a ref's attention to call time out. And the ref turned and said, get back in your box. You know who gave him that tech? The only guy to throw LeBron James out of the game. Is that that? Change fifth journal.  You loved it. That's LeBron. LeBron has to know better. Pop needs to know better. Not to mess with Kane. He teed him up. Not to mess with Kane. He teed him up. He teed LeBron up. It completely changed the game. The floodgates opened after this right here. You're watching what happened. Get him Kane. You say, how can you tell me to get back in my box? I'm trying to call time. That's Kane. I'm trying to get your attention. The citizens Kane. Citizen Kane, okay. Way to go. I don't like when it shifts the momentum though, because then the whole game, the whole game just went crazy. You can't be running out on the court. You can do just to get their attention. They're going up the court. Hey, I want time. I want time. Time out. Time out. What are you doing to me? I like the way Air Malloy do it. Air Malloy do that thing quiet. Yeah. Little tiny teeth. Yeah. Air Malloy. Nothing like these there. Well, the referee's choked last night, but it's okay. No, no, stop doing that skill. Yeah, because we proved to Denver we could have two 19-point leads in the same game on their home floor. And collapsed. And collapsed. No, we just got shot off. No, you got collapsed. Yeah. Say it with me. It was like Ray Allen reborn. No, we're not doing the Ray Allen. Is it a Ray Allen? You went Ray Allen. No, he did. Yeah, he did. I've never seen anything like it. First of all, Ray on the hip, like one shot in that fourth quarter. So stop. And you know what, speaking of Derrick White's defense, how about his offense? What do I tell you? This team goes as Derrick White goes. Do you see what your stats tell you? Yeah. He shot 11 times last night and made seven of them. Yes. He shot one time in the fourth quarter. You're talking about Lamarcus. How about Derrick White getting the ball in his hands? You know what? He's tired. No, he's not tired. Yes, he did. You see what Jamal Murray, that altitude, tried to come up and fight through that pit? Let him, because he held off the first rush at the first 19 points, he was the one who shot them right back. I get it, he dunking on people. I'm like, oh, look at Lil Derrick White. You can stroke those threes too. Actually, I got a cousin named Derrick White. Do you really? I do. Okay. And can he dunk? I don't know. Can't dunk. How should I put this? Right now, he's in Club Med. Oh, one of those. Okay. Well, sorry about that. Yeah, he'll be sorry. He should have been sorry before he did what he did. But that's not the hurdle there. I think game four, I might bet you on game four. I feel the nukes gonna be that one. They better get one of these, or they're gonna be done, man. No, we don't.  Finally, Matt Barnes at Catino Mobilear with Whitlock and Wiley to break down the Katie versus Patrick Beverly rivalry. He's apologizing for disappointing his owners, his coach, but after the game, he kind of was a little feisty and sane. He kind of enjoyed getting into it with Patrick Beverly. Question, do you like KD's attitude here? I like his attitude now. I like his attitude in the moment. I thought it was a lighthearted tussle. And it lasted three, four quarters, but I think the referees kind of took it a different way than the spirit of what they were engaging. One, that is Patrick Beverly, and two, KD did everything with a smile. So it never got to a point where I thought, oh my God, this is going to boil over into some issues. But I do like him taking a deep breath, realizing what this fan base is doing, hanging on to his every word and breath. Is he staying? Is he going? So everything gets translated in that lens. And he's like, yeah, you know what? I'm here for y'all. It may not only be a couple more months, but you know what? Let me respect y'all in this moment. Led the league in technicals during the regular season. Did he get suspended? Led, he's got two, one game into the playoffs, five, and five more in soccer. They use up all the time they can.  He didn't go too far and get suspended.  All of us, right? You've been around people before where you have you and your group of guys, right? And it gets rowdy and y'all loud.   Right? I think that's what the referees did, because where we're from, you talk crap to each other. It brings, it builds the energy. So I have no problem with that. Now, listen, if that game was close, I seriously doubt Kevin would have done that. You're up about 20, right?  He bothers you so much, but yet we're used to that.  And then that he got caught up in that. I don't, you know, I don't feel there's something wrong with that. I mean, for me, it's, the refs are always overreacting. I mean, like you said, this is, this was lighthearted spirit of the game. The fans loved you. So when Katie got kicked out, his teammates were all for him. I like it from a standpoint of, you know, he's letting Patrick Beverly know all these little antics you have going on aren't going to work. And like Kat said, if it was a closer game, Katie wouldn't, wouldn't have got, I guarantee he wouldn't have that second take and got kicked out.  I still have my normal night, you know, I shot 50%, 25 points, you know, five assists, three rebounds, whatever the stat line was, it was pretty consistent.  So, you know, what Pat Beverly does, doesn't always show up on the stat sheet. You, you want a person like that on your team, but I mean, he's guarding the best player in the world. So he's going to have to do more than that. How can we not argue that Patrick Beverly didn't win here though? He got KD tossed out of a game. He now has two technical files. KD fell for the bait. Oh yeah, definitely. I ain't, look, somebody, I don't play chess, somebody told me, hey, a pawn took out a bishop and that's big. I mean, so I was like, okay, respect to that. I think if the game was closer, it would have never happened. Like, that's how you don't win. KD, KD led the league in text, but KD's very calculated. He might go the rest of the playoffs and not get one more tech. I feel that. You know what I mean? So I just think two techs is a big, if you look at the big picture. The guy that led the league in technicals, if you had to bet, you think he's getting no more technicals than the playoff. I seriously doubt he'll get, what you're doing, now what you're doing, you're playing with the words. He won't, for real, no. He won't get technicals when games are that tight. I don't think that will happen. He's not a Draymond Green. And he understands the history of what it did for the Golden State Warriors a few years back. Yeah, and I think, like I said, even though he led the league in text, they were calculated. I think he knew what he, I used to have calculated techs. I knew if I did something, I was gonna get a tech and I knew what it would do for my team around, up and down, whatever the situation would be. And I know KD's the same way. He knows he's too important to be at it against when it matters, but the last game didn't matter. When you're the best player on your team, two-time finals MVP, I'm just not sure you should be taking these kind of risks. And y'all said he's not Draymond Green. The longer he stays in Golden State, the more he starts to look like the seven-foot shooting Draymond Green.  For the better. For the better. Thank you. Can you say that, Matt? For the better. You know what I mean? He was always kind of in his own little bubble before, and I think Draymond brought it, like this is who KD has always been. I think Draymond brought it out of him, but I don't see it as the bad thing. I see it as I'm the best player. When I wanna talk, I'm gonna talk. When I need to play, I'm gonna play, but he just let Patrick Beverly know like we're not going with this. Great point by Matt. How about this? LeBron James for so many years, just about a few years back, he started saying that he was the best. I mean, it's been 16 years. We all know he's the best. One of the best things smoking, right? Like sliced bread, just amazing. No, now he's saying it now, you could have been saying that then too.  No, I'm gonna say I am the best, not what you're gonna do. And it's smart in the first playoff game. Look, it's a series that more than likely, we all know they're gonna beat the clip. But I got a tone setting moment. Coaches just always say, I need a tone setter. Like go out there, and he knew it wasn't gonna have impact on the game. We're still gonna win, but I'm gonna let you know Patrick Beverly, I'm gonna let the whole playoff snow. You're not gonna keep bullying me. It ain't coming that way. He's stepping into Draymond's lane. That was Draymond's role. No, not necessarily. Only reason you say that is because he's on Draymond's team. If he wasn't on Draymond's team, you wouldn't say it like that. You wouldn't even compare the two like that. But because he's with Draymond and DeMarcus, right?  Yeah, you are kinda like that too. Nah, listen, he is one A, one B best player in the league. So that's great. But I'm saying that's great. He can also make mistakes. Everyone does. And get caught up in, again, just remember what that team is, because of Boogie, because of Draymond. I'm not sure if I want KD, my best player, setting that tone. Let Boogie and Draymond be the emotional ones. But those two are different than KD. Like Matt said, KD will not do that when that game is started. It means more when KD does it. I mean, everyone's coming to him. So when you have that person coming back at people, it means more, you know what you're gonna get from Boogie and Draymond. Sometimes wildcard, you gotta pull him back. But KD was smiling the whole time. I like, he jumped in his face and laughed. You know what I mean? Like I said, if it was an important game or it was back and forth, it wouldn't have happened. But like I said, I calculated. Y'all got kids. Y'all got kids.  No. No, I know where you're going, but you know what I do respect it. It's probably like it's KD doing it and not Draymond. And Draymond would have responded with like, here you go again. He has to learn. KD doing it out of character. My bad kid actually doing something good or the good kid doing something bad. He's not out of character. He led the league in touch. He shot 50% that game. Steph and Curry had 40, he's shooting from 40 feet out. It was a fun thing and he's laughing when he's doing it. It was more of a like Sunday play early in the morning. But set the tone, set the tone, set the tone for the whole series, for this series and the rest of the play. I'm not going for it. I'm not gonna have it. And now that's gonna get Draymond and Boogie more protective now. Like I'm gonna take, if anything else comes your way, we got you. Yeah, I can't believe, why wouldn't we see it as Patrick Beverly set the tone? No. How, how's he set the tone? What tone? What tone is he set? Do you hear the winds? Yeah. First of all, are they down three or one? Was this a pivotable moment? No. Patrick Beverly, you're not doing nothing. He didn't set the tone. I didn't even see him. I can get in KD's head. Patrick Beverly's head was at his waist. He wasn't even bobbled him up though. Patrick Beverly. And he been loving him. He says it's Arkansas. All them games, they boy. That's all he got. That's all he got. Draymond and LeBron are cool. But LeBron baited Draymond into some dumb stuff in the NBA finals and it cost him a championship. Thank you for listening to the Hoops on Fox podcast. Don't forget to subscribe and leave a five star review, letting us know what you think of the show.