First, we can reach a robust and verifiable field like this one to prevent iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons. The second option is we can bomb nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war. It was set back the program we can ensure that you ron would not be able to build a bomb. Third, we pull out of negotiations. Knowing that every time we have done so, iran has not capitulated, but instead advanced its program. Charlie sanctions will be removed pending on irans compliance with the deal. Secretary of state john kerry spoke from switzerland earlier. Secretary kerry not only will inspectors have regular access to all of irans declared facilities indefinitely, but they will also be able to monitor the facilities that produce the centrifuges themselves and the uranium that supports the nuclear program. They will be able to do that for at least 20 years. Charlie joining me now is ben rhodes, the Deputy National security advisor for Strategic Communications and speech writing and assistant to the president. He has been very close to the president on these issues and more. Im pleased to have him on the program. Ben, we know the outlines of this. We know this is a preliminary agreement. We know this is surprisingly specific in some cases. We know there are details to be resolved. I want to hear from you a couple of things how did the breakthrough come . Give us the sense of what finally happened to start the United States and iran and other countries on this historic journey. Ben well, charlie, the real breakthrough took place after president rouhani was elected in iran and he negotiated seriously and gave some indication he wanted to resolve it. What has taken place over the last several months has not been one moment where there has been a breakthrough on a single issue, but rather a lot of very hard work with our technical people sitting down with the iranian technical people figuring out how we can block their pathway to a Nuclear Weapon through its enrichment capacity and inspections and transparency regime. If i could point to one thing that was particularly important, secretary kerrys tireless effort allowed this to happen, but also our secretary of energy joined the talks five weeks ago and he was able to sit down with the head of the Iranian Nuclear program and hammer out these Technical Details and draw up the blueprints for what this deal would be which imposes the limitations on iran. Charlie i realize a rigorous inspection is crucial to this. Is there a judgment on the part of the United States that iran truly wants to achieve this objective . The removal of sanctions in exchange for them giving up the capacity to break through with Nuclear Weapons. Ben yes, charlie. I think what we saw in order to get to this deal is political will from tehran. Youll recall there was a deadline in november where we did not get there. The iranians put a deal on the table that was nowhere near our bottom lines. The question we have been testing is whether they would move sufficiently on the key issues for us, the different elements of their program and the inspection regime, to show that they are serious, that they would have a deal that is verifiable that would allow us the insurance that they are not achieving and advancing the program in ways that would allow them to acquire material for a Nuclear Weapon. They broke in that direction over the course of the last several weeks and that showed us they wanted a deal, not just a process that can break down where they tried to play a blame game. Charlie what was the single hardest thing to get them to do . Ben well, i think it was a number of things. First of all, on the plutonium side, we did very well on the sense that they are not going to develop weapons grade plutonium. The enrichment piece was very hard. How do we design enrichment capacity for iran that gets us what we need this oneyear timeline if they cheated, it would give us a ramp to make a decision on what action to take. That timeline, if they did throw out the inspectors. What we had to assemble was a set of pieces. How many centrifuges they are permitted to operate. They have come down by two thirds. The types of centrifuges. They would only use their firstgeneration centrifuges to enrich uranium. Importantly, getting rid of their stockpile. Putting together that equation so that they could feel that they were going to have a peaceful ability to access Nuclear Energy, but we would have the ability to ensure that we can verify they did not have an enrichment pathway to a weapon. That took a lot of work. Charlie are they sending enriched fuel to russia, outside the country, or not . Ben there are two ways when we talk about the Technical Details what we have agreed to is that they would not have a stockpile of highly enriched uranium and come down by about 98 . There are two ways to do that. One is they dilute the materials, neutralize the stockpile within iran. Another is they ship it out of the country. Those are the two mechanisms that are on the table to get this objective accomplished. What we will figure out in terms of the Technical Details is how much we will utilize shipping material out of the country and how much they will dilute in the country. What will be shipped out is all the fuel produced by their reactor in iraq so they dont have a plutonium pathway. Charlie do we know how much enriched fuel they have now . Ben yes. We know their 20 stockpile the high enriched uranium. This is the material that Prime Minister netanyahu had at the u. N. They have already gotten rid of that. Under this agreement, the stockpile of low enriched uranium they will come down by about 98 and they will cap that for 15 years. For 15 years, they are not going to be permitted to amass a concerning stockpile of these materials within iran. Charlie is it true the breakout time now is two to three months and you have extended it to a year . Ben yes. Right now, the estimates are if they did operate all of their machines and try to break out and acquire material for a weapon, that would be two to three months. Under the agreement we have reached for 10 years, that will be at least a year. There will be additional limitations that extend beyond 10 years like the cap on stockpile that i mentioned. That will ensure a breakout timeline that is significantly higher than two to three months, even several years after 10 years. The important point is these inspections will allow us to see immediately if they are cheating. If they broke the deal and trying to break out, we have a long time to make a decision about what to do about it. Charlie is there no question that they cannot and will not and do not have a Nuclear Facility that we dont know about . Ben this has always been a question because they have used covert facilities in the past. What we get with this deal is the best guarantee we have had against a covert pathway because we have daily access to all the nuclear sites, but we also can look across their entire uranium supply chain the mines and mills, the production facilities if they wanted a covert path, they would not just to have one building where they are doing something. They would have to have an entire covert supply chain in order to feed into that facility. That gives us a very strong hedge against iran developing a covert pathway. We are also going to be able, if we see something suspicious, to get access to that facility through inspections. Charlie you know the former chief inspector of the International Atomic energy agency. He said, it appears to be fairly comprehensive with most important parameters. He cautions iran maintains enrichment capacity which would be beyond its nearterm needs. Ben first of all, we do not believe there was any deal that could have been agreed to in which iran got rid of its enrichment capacity. Dismantled entirely. No other country in the negotiation would have supported us taking that position. What we have tried to do is assign practical needs to their nuclear program. For instance, the centrifuges they are operating, some of those will be converted for the purpose of medical research. They are producing medical isotopes for research. We tried to draw a line between what their capacity is and the peaceful purpose that feeds into. Of course, close off through the inspections and the limitations on the program any ability to transfer that capacity towards a weapons program. Charlie this was a negotiation, a very difficult negotiation. What did we give up that we did not want to give up . Ben charlie, first of all, the main thing that iran sought was sanctions relief. We always knew we would have to provide sanctions relief as a part of this deal. That is what is in it for them. What we have done though is weve had a principle of sanctions relief that number one, if the iranians cheat at any time, the relief we are providing can snap back into place. Number two, the relief is earned. Iran performs certain steps and in return, they get sanctions relief. It is phased in over time. We are going to work through the details and the scheduling of that as we work through the negotiations until the end of june. That is a critical issue for iran. Otherwise, this was about finding technical solutions. Iran, importantly to them, wanted to demonstrate they are very proud of their Scientific Achievement as it relates to the ability to access Peaceful Nuclear energy. But we needed to say is you cannot use a certain facilities in a certain way. If you have a reactor in iraq, that is one thing, but you have to convert it to a different purpose so it does not produce weapons grade plutonium. They have an enrichment facility that they buried deep underground. They have to convert that facility so the centrifuges are not enriching uranium. Finding ways in which iran is going to be able to have a program that can access Peaceful Nuclear energy, but these facilities are converted and the limitations that cut off these pathways. Charlie there are many people that believe the underground facility would be impervious to bombing. Is that an understanding the United States had . Ben the fact of the matter is that the facility is buried deep underground. It was a covert facility. There was no reason that iran had to bury that facility deep underground other than to hide it from the International Community. It is a complicated military target. I will not get into our own military capabilities. Now that they are converting this facility, they would not be using centrifuges to enrich uranium there. Instead, they will be enriching uranium only at the one site which is their more longstanding enrichment facility. Containing the enrichment there was an important principle for us. Charlie have we made is part of this agreement an understanding of what they can do in terms of the technical enhancement of their process their enrichment process . Whatever it may be. Ben yes, centrifuges are the most important element of this. In the first case, what was very important to us was over the course of these 10 years, iran has different types of centrifuges. Ir1, ir2, ir6, ir8. As you get higher in numbers they are the most advanced centrifuges. They will be only installing and using the ir1s. They will pull out their more advanced centrifuges. That was very important to us because that limits their capacity to break out and produce materials for weapons. Those other centrifuges are going to be permitted to do very limited research and development on. As we said, that is going to be determined through a schedule that we set with the iranians so there are limits on those advanced centrifuges so they are not able to install them for the purpose of enriching uranium. Charlie you have been with this president for a long time. Is this historic if it is successfully completed in your judgment and, if so, what makes it historic . Ben absolutely. I have been with the president for a long time. I started working for him in 2007. We were having a debate even back then about whether or not we should engage in diplomacy with iran to try to resolve this issue. The reason why it is so important to the president , this gets fundamentally to the ability of nations to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. We have had a pattern of Nuclear Proliferation since the end of the cold war with india and pakistan obtaining a Nuclear Weapon, then north korea obtaining one. We want to break that pattern. If we can, through a very tough diplomatic process, have the world impose sanctions on iran for violating the nonproliferation agreement and then design this program that has strict limitations that can prevent iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon, that will strengthen the global nonproliferation regime. And, frankly, it would address one of the most profound threats to american National Security because the middle east is messy enough as it is. If we have a country like iran obtain a Nuclear Weapon, that would scramble the deck and you would see a Nuclear Arms Race and profound threats to our friends and allies like israel. If we can take that off the table, that would make us much more secure. Charlie according to scott shane in a piece he wrote he said, the deep divisions in american politics over the Nuclear Talks are precisely mirrored on the iranian side with hardliners deeply skeptical about whether iran is giving up too much, but irans Supreme Leader has publicly expressed support for iranian negotiators, quieting the skeptics and heartening iranians who yearn for a breakthrough in their countrys relationship with the world. And then this question im giving credit to scott shane could a deal and an easing of sanctions empower reformers who would like to see an end to the 35year cold war with america . Go ahead. Ben you are exactly right. They have politics in iran. The have a spectrum from hardliners to elements that are not nearly as extreme. We would do this deal in any case. 10, 15, 20 years from now, we would do this deal even if the Iranian Regime is just as difficult as it is today because we feel the deal works on the merits. However, a potential outcome of this agreement is strengthening forces inside of iran that are more moderate like the iranian people, the middle class that want to be connected to the Global Economy and the community of nations. It affords us the opportunity to test whether or not there can be a process over time of moderation in iran and among iranian policy. We are not betting on that. We are betting on the good deal. And even as we implement this deal, we still have sanctions on terrorism and human rights other issues that concern us. We want to see that behavior evolving and changing over time as well. Charlie it has been a busy day and you have been up all night. Thank you for taking time to come see us. Ben thanks, charlie. Charlie ben rhodes from the National Security council. Back in a moment. Stay with us. Charlie we continue with our coverage on the Iranian Nuclear negotiations. Joining me from washington is ray takeyh, a senior fellow at the council of foreign relations. With me is gary sick, a Research Scholar at columbia university. Im pleased to have both of them on this program. Ray, let me begin with you. What is your assessment of what you know so far . Ray it is an arms control agreement. It is more substantial than i thought we anticipated. It conforms to the parameters of the interim agreement. Iran will have a sizable enrichment capacity. The agreement will be sunset clause clause in the sense that will expire in 10 years. A greater enhanced verification regime. There are some positive aspects, but some troubling concerns that will linger. Charlie what are they . Ray the sizable enrichment capacity. The sunset clause on the expiration in which iran can have industrialsized nuclear capacity. The facility that the president has insisted has to close remains open. The fuel, the low enriched uranium is not going to be shipped out and will likely remain in iran, perhaps at a diluted capacity. That affects your timeline in terms of breakout capacity. It does restrict its enrichment capacity for a period of time. It does have some enhanced verification measures. Charlie is it a framework that was worth doing . Ray it conformed to the joint plan of action. It remains to be seen some of the details. I cannot say this is necessarily better than any alternatives. I think it has some weaknesses and some deficiencies and it has to be considered along the lines of advantages it has. Also, potential proliferation risks. Charlie gary . Gary i understand people being very cautious about what has happened, but this is far better than anybody anticipated that we were going to get. This is truly historic. One can disagree about what may happen 10, 15 years from now but compared to all of the other alternatives, without exception, that is very good. Just two years ago, we were only basically weeks away potentially from having enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. Charlie what do you think now two to three months away . Gary when netanyahu went in front of the uns general assembly, he held up this cartoon bomb and it was filling up with uranium. It was getting close to the top and within a few months, maybe weeks it could be turned into enough enriched uranium. That is gone. That has been diluted down eliminated. That whole threat does not exist anymore at all. We have moved back from that. Even now, they have 10,000 kilograms of low enriched uranium which is a lot. They are going to cut that down to 300. We are talking the other thing is really, if you want to get serious about this, if iran was lusting to break out and create a bomb, why in the world did they do this . Just from their point of view. If you really want a bomb in the worst possible way, you have just moved yourself like 20 years away. You will be the most inspected country in the entire world. Charlie ray, can you answer that question . Ray there are two paths you can go towards a Nuclear Weapon when you have been apprehended before maturity, before detonation. There is the illegal path. Continuing your enrichment capacity, reject any agreement and that risks sanctions. The other path is the legal path. You secure an agreement that preserves much of your capability. It allows you research and development. It expires after a period of time upon which you can move into an industrialsized capacity like japan. The illegal path is quicker and more dangerous. The legal path is longer and more safe. I think the iranians have chosen the latter. I dont think their nuclear bomb ambitions have changed. They have expressed themselves differently in a longer in timeframe it makes me believe they dont want the bomb immediately, but they have set an agreement that could preset those capabilities at a later point of time. Gary this strikes me as odd that we are talking about this is a separate path to the bomb. You know, netanyahu in 1992, 23 years ago, said iran was three to five years from the bomb. People have been saying they are dying to have a bomb. I think our secretary of defense at one point said they are hellbent on getting a Nuclear Weapon. They have not done it in the last 10 years. They did not do it. Charlie why do you think they have not . Because of sanctions or they have not made a decision . Gary they clearly have not decided to build a Nuclear Weapon. Everybody who was making these predictions is wrong. They have not done all the things that the naysayers and people of panic in alarm were making all this time. I think it has to be said. Actually, we have seen something happen here that is real. I think we should at least acknowledge it. Charlie other people in the American National framework have said they have not made a decision. Im not sure what they meant by that. What you think they meant by that . Ray i think what they are suggesting is that there is no hard evidence that iranians have made a decision to construct a bomb. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence. Iran has engaged Weaponization Research and Nuclear Energy research for which there is no real exhalation other than weaponry explanation other than weaponry. About three weeks ago, the negotiators, the current representative of the Supreme Leader, objected to the western inquisition saying americans have all these bombs but did not want us to have enough material for a single one. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest this country is interested in Nuclear Weapons and the projection of power capability. I think gary is right. That is not the first and foremost priority. It is to rehabilitate the economy, unify the elite, to address all the opportunities. I dont think we have signed an agreement that will forever for close the possibility of iran obtaining Nuclear Weapons should they desire to do so later. They will have the Technological Infrastructure and material. Gary we have not included any country in the world from using their capabilities to go for a bomb and they wanted to. That simply exists. It is part of the nonproliferation treaty. Ray that is actually not true gary members promised they would not build a Nuclear Weapon. They go ahead with their life. We had countries thinking about breaking out but backed away from it. In this case, iran has put us up under the most intense scrutiny. That is going to go away after 10 years. People are talking about a sunset clause. That is not really a sunset clause. The inspection of their centrifuge line and the mining and milling of uranium goes on for 20 years. This is i really think we should be honest with ourselves that this is in fact an accomplishment and with all of the concerns about what may happen 25 years from now, i will take the 25 years as opposed to a Nuclear Strike or a military strike. Charlie ray, you wanted to make a point. Ray iran has, as a member committed itself to not producing Nuclear Weapons and it has violated those obligations in the past. I realize those Security Council resolutions are likely to be disbanded. Nevertheless, there is a history of noncompliance. As we sit here today, we have to realize the fact that there is dissatisfaction. That should concern is with the regime. It is a very robust verification regime but it is not the most in history. Iran in 1991, brazil, south africa after he declared its nuclear facilities, subject to no inspections. I dont think those are in the cards in this case. Charlie people say no deal is better than a bad one. What is the alternative . Ray you try and go back and see if you can get a better deal. What we are talking about is saying no deal or this deal it is how to improve this particular deal. There is a negotiation process going on. In order for secretary kerry to improve this deal and make it worthy of the title of historic, he needs to address the 10year clause. He needs to suggest that iran needs to come clean because that is the only way you can have a viable verification system. You need to know where you have been to know where you are going. Secretary kerry has an opportunity to improve upon this deal and essentially make it such a profoundly important deal that the United States and its partners in the region can get behind it. Gary im sure the last 48 hours was spent doing exactly that. The talk about we could always get a better deal basically for anybody looking at this in any realistic way, we have moved so much further. From 18 months ago, we have moved from a position where iran have the capability to build a Nuclear Weapon in a short amount of time to a situation where it is 10, 15, 25 years down the line. That is significant. I think looking with green eye shades and examining it, i go back to where i started why would they be doing this at all if they really were that interested in breaking down and getting a Nuclear Weapon . There is really not a good answer for that. The other thing is basically what really happens if the negotiations break down, because we will insist on a unicorn deal. A deal that is perfect in every possible way but is impossible and does not exist. If we insist on the unicorn deal, we will get a unicorn end of it. Charlie ray, are you opposed to what they have done . Are you simply saying you want to point out there are weaknesses in this and then he to Pay Attention . Ray im not opposed to it. I agree with gary that secretary kerry has been tireless. I think this particular agreement has a lot of constructive advantages. Gary has pointed out some of them. Im trying to suggest there are some areas of concern about this. This sunset clause of 10 years. The notion of ballistic missiles, that iran is not going to ship out it enriched uranium as it has promised to do. All of this should be addressed in order to improve this deal and make it a more solid armscontrol agreement. This is an arms control agreement. For those that want to defend it, they should defend every provision. They should defend why the facility remains open. They should defend the notion of a 10 year clause. You need to defend the provisions of that agreement and its technical characteristics, not just say because it is better than war. When you say that, you really are saying any agreement is better than no agreement. Charlie i have to leave it at that. Thank you so much, ray. Ray thanks. Charlie thank you, gary. We will be right back. Stay with us. Charlie the president announced this afternoon a tentative nuclear deal where they have lots of things to work out. We see the framework for a deal. I know you have not had time to look at it. At first glance, how does it look . Adm. Mullen it looks, it is a framework and it looks pretty reasonable to me from a standpoint of the details. I think the devil is in the details and there is a lot of that that has to be revealed and worked out. Im taken back with the numbers i have seen in terms of some of the issues that iran agreed to in terms of the length of time. There are a couple of issues that they have taken after 15 years, there is one after 25 years. From what i can see at this point, it looks fairly reasonable. When i got asked even when i was serving, i was asked about iran. I used to talk about very narrow space that diplomacy offered and that was so much better than the other options which are iran with a Nuclear Weapon which, i think, essentially weaponized puts Nuclear Weapons in the middle east and others will go after that. Or another strike by us or israel or by both. All of which, i think, generates increased instability and conflict in that part of the world. If there is any chance that we can avoid another conflict, as an individual who has led in two already, im willing to take that chance. This deal so far talks about very intrusive inspections, more so than has ever existed in the history of Nuclear Weapons. Im not unfamiliar with inspections that we did with the soviets which were very exhaustive. The concern is will anybody, will the iranians cheat on this in the long run . What were saying they will do in terms of numbers of centrifuges, their facilities, the level of enrichment which is very low 3. 5 , Something Like that the indications are going in the right direction. It is in the details and secondly in the enforcement that will prove whether this is the deal that makes a difference in the world. Charlie what would you worry about the most . Adm. Mullen i would worry about the intrusiveness of the inspections charlie whether you can be as intrusive to be able to verify . Adm. Mullen absolutely. The other thing about this whole initiative which gets lost in the focus on the deal is there is a tremendous amount of tension internal to iran represented by current president rouhani whos clearly a reformer and surprised he got elected and is then the hardliners. It is the hardliners that certainly you worry about, retaining control in a way that a Nuclear Weapon would be developed. So, is this the question is is this a step towards reform inside that country . Rouhani has his hands full. Sometimes in america, we have a tendency to just create or look at iran as one big monolith. In fact, that is not the case. This tension which will play out over his term. I think he is up for reelection in 2017. I think this deal could well possibly be part of a step in the right direction. And, there are other issues. The council of elders gets elected in the first part of the year. The parliament, which is now 21 hardliners against reformers those elections happen in the spring of next year. All of those are a possible roadmap to potential reform. There is clear risk in this. But, i think if iran does not reform and you end up with the hardliners continuing to be in charge, that is what i would be concerned about. Are they cheating, will they develop a weapon and will they in fact with the whole middle east in a drumbeat of potential Nuclear Proliferation which would be disastrous. Charlie they would not have agreed to this without the consent of the ayatollah. Adm. Mullen i think that is true. Charlie he had to sign on to this deal. Adm. Mullen i would certainly say that. President rouhani was not out here by himself without that endorsement. Charlie what is in it for iran other than the drawdown of sanctions . One question they argued long and hard that they wanted the sections eliminated before they begin to put all the things that we wanted them to agree to. What do they get . Adm. Mullen many of us forget in this is the persian empire. This is an historic empire that has a view of where they should be in the world. I think one of the things that is on this path is an opportunity for them to become a responsible, integrated member of the International Community in ways that they certainly have not over the last decade. I think it has been pointed out there is up to four president s that have been trying to work their way in an engagement, an outcome that would help to ease tension between our two countries. It is remarkable what has happened in these negotiations because we have not talked to them for over 35 years. I think that responsibility the ability to be a responsible player in the International Community. Sanctions have had an impact. Their economy is in complete tatters. I have been told that the previous president damage to their economy extensively, almost on an equal basis to what the sections have done. Charlie that is probably why he did not win. Adm. Mullen i also think this is not 1979. Iran has a youth bulge that is significant. Roughly half the population is under 30. They certainly are not aligned with a revolution specifically like 1979. I think the Supreme Leader also has those challenges that he has to deal with with respect and how he moves the country forward. Charlie i think Henry Kissinger said once that iran has to decide whether it was to be an ideology or a state. Adm. Mullen that is a great statement and i would hope this deal would put them on a path to be a state and not just an idea. Charlie an open up the conversation of the negative role they have played. Adm. Mullen this is the same country that has killed lots of americans in iraq. This is a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism. This is a country that is linked very heavily to syria and the hezbollah leadership in lebanon. He clearly could be an opportunity for them to change. Charlie when you say a state supporter of terrorism, you are talking primarily about hamas and hezbollah . Adm. Mullen i have seen it in other parts. Charlie it seems to be sunni rather than shia. Adm. Mullen they have supported terrorism in that regard and it is mostly in that part of the world. Charlie the final four is here. Heaven for basketball fans. Some of College Basketballs biggest names will tip off at the final four on saturday night from Lucas Oil Stadium in indianapolis. The first game is duke against Michigan State. The Wisconsin Badgers take on the kentucky wildcats in the nightcap. Kentucky hopes to become the first Undefeated Team to win a National Championship since indiana did it in 1976. Joining me now is jay bilas, espns lead College Basketball analyst. Im pleased to have him back on this program. Welcome, jay. Jay great to be with you. Charlie size it up for me, if you will. It seems to me we have four great teams. Jay we do. We have got four of the best coaches you can possibly ask for which makes it compelling right out of the gate. You have got three number one seeds and a seven seed in Michigan State, which was probably underseeded by the committee, but hardly a mistake. The committee did a great job this year overall with the tournament. But, to have kentucky coming in unbeaten with a chance to make history with a 400 season and to have duke across the bracket if that were to be the final game on monday night, you would have one of the highest rated games in the history of basketball. A lot of fans not knowing who to root against if you go by the i hate Christian Laettner and the kentucky haters out there. There will be a lot of people not knowing which way to go. Charlie lets look first at the games that are on saturday night. Look at wisconsin versus kentucky and tell me how you see that game because wisconsin has beaten kentucky before. Jay i think it comes down to, charlie, kentucky is the best team. They have got the most professional players in the future. The most talent and have proven to be the best team. They operate very well at the end of games. In order to beat kentucky, you need to do three things. You have to be able to control tempo, be able to move the kentucky big guys around the floor so they cant camp out around the basket and you need to defensive rebound. Wisconsin does all those things really well. They have got the player of the year in frank kaminsky, a senior. They have big guys that can play out on the perimeter and that will be important. I just dont know if wisconsin will be able to defend for an entire 40 minutes against the depth of kentucky inside and do so without fouling. I think kentucky is too strong inside. Wisconsin can beat kentucky, but i think kentucky will play on monday night. Charlie the first game on saturday is duke versus Michigan State. Jay that is an interesting game because Michigan State has played really well over the last three weeks and has played its best basketball. Duke is playing at a really high level. Earlier in the year duke has much more talent than Michigan State does. They have a few lottery picks on the team, four freshmen. Duke was not a great defensive team earlier in the year. I think Mike Krzyzewski was talking about his team not communicating as well as he would like because they were young and had to play some zone. Right now, they are playing defense at a really high level. Outside of kentucky, duke has proven to be the best defensive team out of the final eight and the secondbest defensive team out of this final four. I think they have more firepower than Michigan State. The spartans can win, but duke is better. I think we are probably, absent something extraordinary happening, we will have close games, but i think we will have a dukekentucky final on monday night. Charlie obviously, it is too early to tell. I will not talk to you before monday night. Tell me how you see it if it in fact is, what many people think is the dream game, kentucky versus duke. Jay kentucky has more talent and depth. They have got a number of freshmen, as does duke, but kentucky has more upperclassmen. When we like to think about the narrative of kentucky being the oneanddone program, they have had six guys come back after their freshman year. Two came back from their junior year, including willie cauleystein who is in the player of the year race with okafor along with frank kaminski. I think you are looking at a much deeper, more physical team and much bigger in kentucky. I think that can probably be the difference. Duke can really shoot it stretch the floor and they have really good guards that never miss free throws. Kentuckys guards are bigger. They are 65. Devin booker is 66. They have tremendous size and length. I think the ability of duke to hang on the backboards and be able to guard inside i dont think okafor, although he can block shots, he is not a bigtime rim protector. I think the kentucky big guys can put him in some foul trouble. Duke starting Justise Winslow at the four, whos 66, that makes them awfully small. I think the size and depth of kentucky would be the difference in that game and i would favor kentucky heavily. That does not mean duke cannot win. It would remind you a little bit of dukeunlv in 1991. That the overwhelming favorite would be the unbeaten team, but i think this is a different makeup of a duke team that is not as experienced as the 1991 team. It would actually be a bigger upset if duke were to be kentucky this year. Charlie duke has to have a good game from Justise Winslow, doesnt it . Jay i think so. Winslow may be their most valuable player right now. Their best player is okafor but their most valuable has been quinn cook, because of his leadership, hitting key shots, his defense on the perimeter. But, i think the last month maybe since Mike Krzyzewski moved him into the starting lineup. That has really given the lineup a lot of punch. It made it really difficult to match up with. I think he would be a difficult matchup for kentucky but the problem is winslow would have to match up with kentuckys big guys and i think that would be awfully difficult. That is really intriguing and would be a lot of fun to watch but, boy, the chess pieces calipari gets to move around are a lot bigger than what Mike Krzyzewski gets to move around. Charlie compare the two coaches. Calipari, krzyzewski. Jay they are both hall of famers. I think by sunday, monday, whatever the date is the hall of fame makes its decision, you will see both of them in the hall of fame. Calipari is a great basketball coach. He comes across differently than coach k does. Coach k seems to present an image different than calipari. They are both unbelievably good coaches. Calipari gets as much out of his players as anybody i have ever been around. He has done it at different places with different teams. It is not like he plays with these lottery picks and has always done that. He did it with a bluecollar approach at umass. He built up the Memphis Program and went to the final four in 2008 and has been a constant in the final four since he has been at kentucky. He has got a great group of players here. Not just great talents, but they are great guys. I would put this group, the kentucky players, as good guys up with any team in the country. You know coach k as well as anybody. He is maybe at the top of his game more now than he has ever been and that is remarkable given how many years he has been in it. I have played for him. I had the opportunity to be on his staff. Im a believer. He has had me at hello. I got to tell you, i dont think he has ever been better than he is right now. I find it remarkable that for all the years he has been in it, he is at his best in what appears to be the tail end of his career. He is really amazing. Charlie are there momentum advantages on either side . Jay i would think there is kind of a mental edge for whoever is playing kentucky because it is almost like they have nothing to lose, the old cliche. It is funny, charlie, i dont sense this Kentucky Team plays with any tension that they are afraid to lose or hanging onto something. They want to hang onto this undefeated season. They dont play like that and dont act like that. I think they play with a free mind and they are not afraid to lose. I think they understand that losing is a possibility if they dont play well or somebody plays great against them. I dont sense that there is any tightness to them. They have a great demeanor out there. They get along great together. They are not they dont talk any noise to opponents. They are very respectful. They do everything we claim that we want in a College Basketball team. For some reason, people dont want to accept it from kentucky but they are unselfish. They have sacrificed for the good of the team. They do the old play for the name on the front rather than the name on the back and they play defense as a team. The stuff if another team did it, we would be celebrating this great sacrifice, but somehow if it is kentucky, we have taken a cynical attitude. I dont. I think their players are great guys. I have been impressed with them. Charlie you are picking kentucky . Jay i have since the beginning. I saw them in the bahamas this summer. I was there when they played six games in eight days in august. When i saw them up close, i was like, if they play their best, nobody is beating these guys. Theyve even had an injury this year. They lost alex poythress, a junior that started for them last year in the championship game. They lost him to a knee injury nine games into the season. Most teams, you lose a player of that caliber, you are very hurt. They did not miss a beat. That is an amazing thing that nobody really talks about. They lost an outstanding player and they kept rolling. Charlie jay bilas, thank you so much. Jay thank you. The pleasure is mine. Charlie thank you for joining us. See you next time. The following is a paid advertisement from starvista entertainment and time life. Somewhere beyond the sea bobby darin, frank sinatra, dean martin. Volare tony bennett, Nat King Cole johnny mathis. Its not for me
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.