Josh Garnett on KJR Sports Radio at 3 EST [UPDATE: With Details]

Submitted by Vader on December 19th, 2011 at 11:59 AM


Joshua Garnett
@IamJoshGJoshua Garnett
On KJR tomorrow at Noon tune in and no questions will be left un answered


Noon Pacific so 3PM for most of us.


[Ed-Ace: So, I guess that happened—must've aired earlier as well. GRMichFan posted a link to the 22-minute interview (both streaming and download available) and a quick summary:

Wants to go someplace with lots of sunshine and someplace that will get him ready for medical school.

So Us and ND only help with one of the two.  Hopefully the sunshine isn't a key factor.




December 19th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^

I know one question that will be left "un answered "


Interviewer: Where will you be attending school next fall?

Joshua Garnett: Every team in my top 3 is equal in my eyes. 

Look Up_See Blue

December 19th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^

If no questions will be left unanswered then certainly they're going to ask him who leads between his top 3.  I will be at work and unable to listen.  Will someone that listens to this interview summarize it for those that can't?

oriental andrew

December 19th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^

Serious(ish) answer to a not-so-serious question:

The tootsie website cites 3 actual experiments to answer the age-old question.  First up, some undergrad engineering geeks at Purdue created a licking machine (get your minds out of the gutter!  or not hur hur hur) which took an avg of 364 licks. 

Then, some dude (a doctoral candidate in ChemE) from Michigan (that's right) created his own, somewhat less-efficient, licking machine, which took an average of 411 licks.

Finally, some junior high kids in Pennsylvania used actual human test subjects (oh, the horror! not that horror) to run their own experiment and came up with 144 licks.

What this really tells us is that students across all ages and educational levels in the midwest are really really bored.  Note that the fate of the licking machines is unknown, although they have been reported to be in the possession of some lonely female engineering students...


December 19th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^

On a side note... This is during David "Softy" Mahler slot. He is the biggest University of Washington booster on the radio station (which is kinda ironic as he never went there - but he did grow up in Seattle).

I am expecting he is going to beg and plead with Josh to consider Washington pretty much the entire interview.


December 19th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^

While it's to be seen if the current success of the Stanford program has legs now that JH has left and Andrew Luck will be making oodles of money...they are a damn good football team.  And they've been a damn good football team for the last three years.

And Stanford wipes the floor academically with all BCS schools...up there with Harvard, Yale and Princeton for the top undergrad education

ND is a different story altogether


December 19th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^

Stanford has a few really good years and then usually goes back to mediocrity after the coach who guided them to those years leaves.  This is still Jim Harbaugh's team and Jim Harbaugh's QB.  With the infusion of wide-open football into the Pac-12 caused by the recent coaching changes, I can't imagine Stanford sustaining the kind of excellence that translates into top ten rankings and BCS bowls.  

I am guessing Stanford goes 7-5 next year and settles into the 6-9 win catagory, with an occasional good year.


December 19th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^

Especially when USC gets back to a normal scholly level, they bring in too much talent to be mediocre.

Stanford needs to keep doing whatever the hell Harbaugh was feeding, coaching their O-line.  While Luck was the big name, Stanford during the Harbaugh years would beat the living sh*t out of you physically. I had my fill of schadenfreude last year watching the Cardinal run their 3 TE set against ND again and again and again and again.

Kids like Garnett (if he chooses them) would be able to continue that legacy of bruising manball.


December 19th, 2011 at 3:49 PM ^

Stanford is good because of Harbaugh. He brought in the coaching staff, he recruited the players (Luck included) and he coached them well. He brought the spotlight to Stanford football.

They are still good because Luck's still there, and they won't become terrible in one year. But their time of being a top-25 team is over for a while.

turd ferguson

December 19th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

Hey, Josh. Thanks for taking my call.
<br>If, purely hypothetically, Notre Dame employed a win-at-all-costs raging dickhead as its head football coach, might that affect your decision?


December 19th, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^

I live in the Bay Area and the weather here is great, but Stanford has one of the most dull, sterile, and flat-out boring campuses of any large university I've ever seen. This is especially true from a football perspective. If you drive along El Camino in front of the stadium during a home game, you can barely tell there's a game going on. And very few people there even care about football. Even when they have top 5 seasons like this year and last year, the only games they even come close to selling out are Cal and Oregon. There's simply no comparison between Stanford and Michigan from the perspective of an overall football experience.  

If academics trumps everything else for him, then Stanford will be tough to beat, and I'll understand if he goes there. But if he's looking for an optimal balance between elite academics and elite football, then there's no better option for him than Michigan.   

Minus The Houma

December 19th, 2011 at 4:34 PM ^

UC San Diego has a really lame campus too, I don't know what it is about some of these California schools.  Some just don't seem to have a lot of character, especially in San Diego.  SDSU and Cal State San Marcos don't really impress me.

I have no idea what Michigan looks like but I have heard people compare it to Wisconsin which is pretty awesome in terms of campus, college town, and gameday.


December 19th, 2011 at 7:20 PM ^

UC-Berkeley's campus can be pretty lively. Still not a very attractive school from a football perspective though.

I think Madison : Ann Arbor is an apt comparison. Well, Ann Arbor with about twice the average blood alcohol level at any given moment. Seriously, Wisconsin has got to be the drunkest campus in the B1G. 


December 19th, 2011 at 8:14 PM ^

That seems a bit harsh. I'd agree that it's sterile, and calling "Shallow Alto" a college town in the conventional sense would be a hilarious reach, but at least the campus is somewhat cohesive architecturally and not wholly unpleasing to the eye.

- - -

Addressing the UCSD comment elsewhere, yeah, sterility is an issue there, too. But, I honestly like some of the architecture. Not classical or covered with ivy, but neat in its own way ...


December 19th, 2011 at 6:27 PM ^

Sunshine?  He really think he's going to get that much more sunshine at Stanford than UM?  Only difference in weather is it won't snow in Stanford.  Temp. wise it won't be much different.


December 19th, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^

This calls for a cat:

In the unlikely event you're serious:……

As noted elsewhere here, Silicon Valley is insanely sunny for much of the year. We're talking a long string of clear (as in cloudless), dry, and warm days.


December 19th, 2011 at 9:31 PM ^

And it's a cold snap. In December. As a Michigan native who lives in San Francisco, I can assure you that the weather in Palo Alto is WAY better. Mild, warm winters, lots of sunny days (average of about 162 vs. 75 in the Detroit area), and summers that never get too hot because of the low humidity. If this kid's about weather, no one on his list but Stanford has a chance.