It wasn't a political story so much as The Adoration of the Bayh Child with the three Magi all wrapped into one Politico national political correspondent by the name of Adam Wren, who's based in Indiana. His article on Friday was "Can a Democratic Dynasty Survive in This Red State?" The subtitle even casts young Bayh in the role of potential political savior for the Democrats: "A race for statewide office in Indiana could chart the way forward for national Democrats." This is a beatification of Bayh, a big bowl of fluff. It starts with a jog: "How else would a chiseled, 6’3 ex-Marine and ambitious Hoosier political scion celebrate but with some PT in the deep woods of southern Indiana?" And then we're told "as Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear — a fellow red-state Democrat with a family history in politics — recently said on his podcast, he cuts a figure like Captain America.” The fluff could be tolerable if there were some political substance to the coverage of Beau Bayh, grandson of Senator Birch Bayh and son of another senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh. Instead what is recorded from him is pretty much the empty platitudes you would expect from someone running for high school student body president. The reader is so besieged by hype-meister fluffery that it is hard to keep from bursting out laughing: “I’ve even heard people sometimes say he’s so good looking, he almost looks like he’s AI. But there’s no question that Beau looks the part,” says Mike Schmuhl, who managed a presidential campaign for a former Indiana mayor by the name of Pete Buttigieg, and who recently signed on as a senior adviser to Beau. ...Back on the trail, Bayh tears ahead of me on the narrowest of paths. We had planned a run earlier in the fall, but he had sprained an ankle while moving into a new condo. Now, each of his Saucony-shoed footfalls is measured and deliberate. ...On a sweltering day last August, Beau and I stepped up to the sweeping porch at the scenic French Lick Resort, where Franklin Delano Roosevelt whipped support at the 1931 National Governors Association conference for his 1932 presidential bid. We were there for the Indiana Democratic Editorial Association, an annual party confab where candidates convene before November elections and conduct party business by day — and grease relationships by night. Unfortunately, although Bayh is running for Secretary of State, Wren does not press him on the issues of election integrity such as voter ID, which has somehow become controversial in recent years since many Democrats (and Democrat Secretaries of State) consider it a grave sin to require such identification (looking at YOU, California). The closest Wren comes to extracting something even slightly controversial from Bayh was about abolishing the Electoral College: Beau’s grandfather, Birch Evans Bayh Jr., served in the Senate as the architect of not one but two constitutional amendments: the 25th Amendment, dealing with presidential disabilities, and the 26th Amendment, giving 18-year-olds the right to vote. He supported Title IX, barring sexual discrimination and expanding women’s sports. And he championed an unsuccessful amendment to abolish the Electoral College — a goal Beau generally seems to support, even if he can’t make it happen from the office he is pursuing. “In today’s day and age, I think it makes not as much sense,” he told me. “You have a politics where the person garnering a majority of the popular vote is not ultimately successful. I think that doesn’t make intuitive sense.” Not that he’d be able to topple the Electoral College as a secretary of state. What he could do, he said, is give Hoosiers the chance to back citizen-led ballot initiatives. And that was it. Not even a question from Wren about if Bayh would support Indiana joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which would essentially bypass the Electoral College by the compact states agreeing to award their electoral votes to the presidential election winner of the nationwide popular vote. Perhaps Wren can seek those answers for us from young Beau the next time he steps up to a sweeping porch with him on a sweltering day while gazing intently upon his Saucony-shoed feet.

On Friday’s Morning Joe, the hosts of the program discussed the prospects of Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Co-host Jonathan Lemire took issue with the attendance of President Trump, as he called the event “very problematic” and “incongruous” during a discussion with MS NOW’s reporter Fallon Gallagher and analyst Eugene Robinson on the dynamics of the event amid the press’s battles with the president. The program’s main stars, Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist, also made a slight mention of the dinner at the very start of the show as Scarborough compared Trump’s attendance at the dinner to the ending scene of It’s a Wonderful Life and called the event a “hoot”: I kind of look at it as the same kind of like the end of It's a Wonderful Life, where everybody - he gets Zuzu's petals and they get around the Christmas tree, and they're singing all the things. I mean, this is going to be a hoot, though. The president getting together with a group of people that he loves and admires as much as he loves and admires the press. But in the 9 a.m. hour, the show started to really take issue with the dinner. The segment was introduced with Gallagher, who wrote a piece on MS NOW’s website titled “Guess who’s coming to dinner? The guy you’ll see in court.”    Friday's Morning Joe took issue with Trump's attendance at the WHCA Dinner, as Jonathan Lemire called the dinner "very problematic," and Eugene Robinson pledged not to attend. Lemire also said there should be no more WHCA dinners, as he called this year's event "deeply fraught." pic.twitter.com/MwfETt7MvP — Nick (@nspin310) April 24, 2026   Gallagher wondered if Trump would “roast” the press or himself, but made sure to call the dinner awkward as “the president is battling with the press corps in courtrooms, not spending time with them in dining rooms.”  Gallagher went through some Trump words and lawsuits against the press. She decided to cite the case of Don Lemon and his alleged role in the storming of a Minnesota church amid the winter unrest as the “biggest attack”: But then, most notably, the biggest attack that we've seen legally from the president and this administration towards the press was, of course, the indictment of journalist Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for their role in covering an anti-ICE protest in Saint Paul, Minnesota. After she called the dinner a possible “detente,” the panel laughed at her as Lemire took it to a serious level, and seemed visibly upset at the Trump attendance and took some issue with the WHCA: I'm going to go the other way on that. Fallon. I think that, first of all, it's a really important list. I'm glad you raised it. I think far more likely that President Trump is going to take some sort of victory lap at this dinner, which I would argue is a very problematic dinner. (...) And Eugene Robinson, look, I'm a proud member of the White House Correspondents Association, which does incredible work. And the dinner does raise money for scholarships for journalists. We can do that another way. I think that this dinner, the time for this dinner expired, I would argue long ago, and particularly this year. It is deeply fraught. Robinson said he would skip the dinner events of the weekend because it seems too awkward amid a “war” on the press: There is this actual war going on between the free press, which is enshrined in the First Amendment, and this president. And it just strikes me as inappropriate, awkward, and I don't see what good is going to come from this. We'll see, you know. After Robinson asked Gallagher with worry about potential comments and jokes by the president at the dinner, as Gallagher wondered if “the roast is more on the attack end of the spectrum,” Lemire ended with some more pretentious comments:  But it does seem to be sort of an incongruous celebration of the First Amendment with someone who is restricting press access repeatedly. Lemire and some others in the press seemed a little too upset and impacted by the attendance of the elected President of the United States, someone whom they are paid to cover, at a dinner. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe April 24, 2026 6:01:35 AM Eastern (...) JOE SCARBOROUGH: “Wow. I tell you, tomorrow night's White House Correspondents Dinner, Willie, I kind of look at it as the same kind of like the end of It's a Wonderful Life, where everybody - he gets Zuzu's petals and they get around the Christmas tree, and they're singing all the things. I mean, this is going to be a hoot, though. The president getting together with a group of people that he loves and admires as much as he loves and admires the press. WILLIE GEIST: Deep respect, and so many members of his cabinet who share his respect for the press, will be seated at the table in the room that night. (...) 9:24:32 AM Eastern JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, President Trump has dinner plans tomorrow night with an unlikely group of tablemates. For the first time in either of his two terms, Trump will attend the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner. It's a tradition that dates back to 1921 that is intended to champion the First Amendment and press freedom. Let's bring in MS NOW Legal Affairs Reporter Fallon Gallagher, who has new analysis for ms.now, now titled “Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? The guy you'll see in court.” Fallon, take it away. FALLON GALLAGHER: Yeah. Jonathan, it's really significant that the president's coming. We know that he's planning remarks. He's working with a comedian. We don't know what that's going to look like, whether he'll roast the press, whether he'll roast himself. But what we can expect is that this is probably going to be a pretty awkward dinner arrangement. And that is because the president is battling with the press corps in courtrooms, not spending time with them in dining rooms.  And so, of course, there's always been tension between the president and the press corps. We saw that during Trump One, we've been using the phrase ‘fake news’ for over a decade now. But this is different because I'm looking at a lot of the litigation that's happening in Trump 2.0. I cover all of these cases very closely, and a big chunk of them can really be boiled down to the president versus the press. And so I looked at all of these cases, and they really fall into two categories. And the first is actions, often legal actions, that the president is taking to target journalists.  Now, of course, a couple of weeks ago in the briefing room, when he was talking about that Iranian downed fighter jet or, I’m sorry, the American downed fighter jet in Iran, he threatened to jail the journalist who first reported on that to find the leaker there. That was a clear escalation in a fight that we've seen in recent weeks. Now, of course, there's also been lawsuits. He filed a defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal for its reporting that the president had penned a note in the Jeffrey Epstein birthday book that was coupled with a naked drawing of a woman. We later saw that birthday book, and there was a note that fit that description with the president's signature on it. So he sued them for defamation. A judge threw out that suit last week, saying that the president hadn't met the actual malice standard that you need for defamation against public officials.  But then, most notably, the biggest attack that we've seen legally from the president and this administration towards the press was, of course, the indictment of journalist Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for their role in covering an anti-ICE protest in Saint Paul, Minnesota. So that's one big chunk. And we're seeing a lot of cases like that. That's just a few of them.  But then the other chunk is series where the press is fighting back for systematic restrictions that this administration is taking against the press. Now, of course, there were those executive orders that defunded NPR and PBS. You saw both of those organizations fight back in court and get a judge to block that action, calling it unconstitutional. But you also saw the president's systematic dismantling of Voice of America, which has been around since World War II, to combat propaganda global globally, and so a judge last month blocked that action. Of course, the administration is appealing that and that will go for arguments soon.  The other big one here, though, that we've been covering pretty extensively here at MS NOW is the Pentagon press case. The administration over at the Pentagon instituted that new restrictive press policy, basically limiting the way that the press can actually operate, where they can go, whether or not they need an escort, but also what they can report. Of course, you'll remember that that first restrictive policy had limits on whether or not the press could publish information that was coming from anonymous sources. So, that was really notable. The New York Times, of course, sued there, and a judge in a really scathing ruling, blocked that action, ordered that the Pentagon needed to reinstate those press passes to all of those reporters who opted to turn in their press pass instead of sign on to that restrictive policy that the judge said violated the First Amendment.  But all of these are the backdrop, and these cases are still ongoing as this president is set to go to dinner, which makes us wonder, maybe he's trying to view this as a sort of detente. Jonathan. LEMIRE: I'm going to go the other way on that. Fallon. I think that, first of all, it's a really important list. I'm glad you raised it. I think far more likely President Trump is going to take some sort of victory lap at this dinner, which I would argue is a very problematic dinner.  You just outlined part of the reasons why, indeed, he's filing a lawsuit against multiple news organizations. We should not forget that his administration conducted a raid of a Washington reporter -  Washington Post reporter's home. And this week, we learned, investigated a New York Times reporter. We know this president likes to insult and demean reporters all the time. We know that he has cut press access. You mentioned the Pentagon, also at the White House, you know, kicked, you know, reshaped the pool, kicked reporters out to portions of the West Wing.  He has put attacks on the press at the center of his second campaign here. And Eugene Robinson, look, I'm a proud member of the White House Correspondents Association, which does incredible work. And the dinner does raise money for scholarships for journalists. We can do that another way. I think that this dinner, the time for this dinner expired, I would argue long ago, and particularly this year. It is deeply fraught. EUGENE ROBINSON: Yeah, I - look, I'm skipping all the events this weekend and I would happily write a check to support the scholarship efforts. And I think a lot of members of the Washington press corps would also do the same. This just seems beyond awkward.  There is this actual war going on between the free press, which is enshrined in the First Amendment, and this president. And it just strikes me as inappropriate, awkward, and I don't see what good is going to come from this. We'll see, you know. Fallon, do we expect him to stick to the script? He's having a comedian write jokes for him. I cannot remember a time when the president has stuck to the script. Do we think he'll do so tomorrow night? GALLAGHER: I mean, like you said, this is a president who never sticks to the script. He always ad-libs. But this is also a speech that he's writing with jokes that he's working with a comedian on. I think what I'll be most looking for is whether or not these jokes are lighthearted, or whether the roast is more on the attack end of the spectrum. LEMIRE: All right. Well, the new piece online now at ms.now. MS NOW legal affairs reporter Fallon Gallagher, thank you so much. And Ashley, final word to you on this. But it does seem to be sort of an incongruous celebration of the First Amendment with someone who is restricting press access repeatedly. (...)

On Friday, CNN This Morning previewed Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner by spotlighting a highly questionable choice by the White House Correspondents' Association—then compounding it with a guest selection that ensured a one-sided Trump-bashing fest. Substitute host Jessica Dean noted that the Wall Street Journal will receive the WHCA’s top honor for its report on a letter Donald Trump allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. Dean acknowledged that Trump has denied sending the letter and sued the newspaper over the story. But CNN didn’t stop at describing the report. It chose to display a graphic of the explicit letter—even as it described it as merely “alleged”—including the crude image formed by Trump’s signature. Instead of inviting a WHCA official or media reporter to discuss the dinner and the award, CNN chose Pete Dominick, a longtime warm-up comedian for The Colbert Report and an acidulous Trump hater. Dominick quickly launched into a tirade, calling Trump a “thin-skinned, insecure, immature, sad, mean, terrible president.” Dominick went on to insist—repeatedly—that the role of comedians is to “speak truth to power,” lamenting that no comic had been invited to perform at this year’s dinner. And here we thought the role of a comedian is to make people laugh. CNN Flashes Alleged Trump-Epstein Letter, Invites Colbert Comic to Rip Trump pic.twitter.com/0pCHrC2uDn — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) April 24, 2026 Dominick argued that the WHCA’s decision not to include a comedian was...injustice. "It won't be anywhere positive for democracy or a real celebration of the First Amendment because, Jessica, they didn't invite a comedian....There should be a comedian there. The fact that there's not a comedian there is injustice. It looks like they're trying to kiss his butt and appease him." The man was very upset they're bringing on a mentalist instead of a comedian. He absurdly alleged that Trump had “canceled Colbert,” a claim Dean did not challenge. "It's really bad for America and bad for democracy, especially because he's tried to cancel comedians. He canceled Colbert. He tried to cancel Kimmel and he couldn't." Throughout the segment, Dean offered no pushback to any of Dominick’s assertions. Instead, she teed up the discussion with a clip of Barack Obama mocking Trump at the 2011 dinner. He insisted "it's such an important moment, element of this dinner, to have a comedian there to speak truth to power, to make fun of the president to his face." But CNN didn't show someone mocking Obama. They showed Obama mocking Trump, the future president. The result was a revealing reflection of CNN’s liberal bias: an award centered on a disputed, denied claim, amplified by the show’s display of the letter itself, followed by commentary from an ardently anti-Trump comic—all without a hint of skepticism. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 4/24/26 6:53 am EDT JESSICA DEAN: Some of that reporting on Epstein will take center stage at the White House Correspondents' Dinner tomorrow night. The Wall Street Journal will receive the group's top honor for their report on a letter Trump allegedly sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday. You'll remember the president called the story fake and sued the paper for $10 billion. That lawsuit was ultimately dismissed. The reported author of that note will also be in attendance.  President Trump is set to attend and speak at the dinner for the first time as president. Joining us now, Pete Dominick, comedian and host of the Stand Up with Pete Dominick podcast. Pete, great to have you. I think I just kind of laid it out in terms of all the competing dynamics that are gonna be happening at that dinner tomorrow night. Trump obviously has been attacking the media, suing them constantly. What might tomorrow night be like?  PETE DOMINICK: Well, unfortunately, It won't be anywhere positive for democracy or a real celebration of the First Amendment because, Jessica, they didn't invite a comedian.  And the reason why they didn't invite a comedian is because they knew our thin-skinned, insecure, immature, sad, mean, terrible president wouldn't come.  And why shouldn't they? I mean, comedians are there to speak truth to power. I was at that dinner five years in a row. And I also worked for Stephen Colbert at The Colbert Report. And every night, at every taping of the Colbert Report, there was always an audience member who remembered his performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, I believe in 2006, when he questioned George W. Bush while he was right by his side, and his failure to find weapons of mass destruction.  It put Colbert on the maps, meant that his legacy, because he spoke truth to power in a way, right to the president at the time, that too many journalists weren't doing.  And the same is the case for now.  . . .  DEAN: And look, you mentioned past dinners. Obviously, Trump has his history with this event. There is that moment. And I think it is a key moment when then-President Obama joked about him. He was in the audience. This was in 2011. I just want to play a quick clip.  BARACK OBAMA: In an episode of Celebrity Apprentice, at the steakhouse, the men's cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks. You didn't blame Little John or Meatloaf. You fired Gary Busey. And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night.  DEAN: And later on, there was a lot of talk that, like, that moment really affected President Trump and pushed him toward potentially running.  But this, to your point, this dinner has the potential to create moments over the years like Stephen Colbert with George W. Bush, as you mentioned, like that.  DOMINICK: Yeah, I mean, it's such an important moment, element of this dinner, to have a comedian there to speak truth to power, to make fun of the president to his face, and journalists and journalism as well. For the White House Correspondents Association to not invite a comedian is to, it looks like, to appease the president. And there's already so much erosion and faith in journalism, especially corporate journalism. It doesn't do them any favors either.  There should be a comedian there. The fact that there's not a comedian there is injustice. It looks like they're trying to kiss his butt and appease him, the only way they could get him to go. 

On Wednesday's The 11th Hour, it was sore loser time. MS NOW contributor Eddie Glaude claimed that Donald Trump was elected because of "greed and hatreds" after former CNN political analyst John Avlon quoted Bill Clinton in claiming that voters in 2024 supported "strong and wrong" over Democrats who seemed too weak on issues that were "distractions." During a discussion of the Trump administration's handling of the war on Iran, including War Secretary Pete Hegseth firing the secretary of the Navy, Glaude proclaimed: MS NOW's Glaude: Voters Elected Trump Because of 'Greed and Hatreds' pic.twitter.com/HT73JQvv1m — Brad Wilmouth (@bradwilmouth) April 24, 2026 The inmates are running the damn asylum. This makes no sense. And they're going to put -- first of all, we know that Donald Trump wasn't temperamentally or dispositionally prepared to be the President of the United States. We knew that, and we know that Pete Hegseth, well, what do we know about Pete Hegseth, right? There's a lot in his cup. So part of what we do know is that they're going -- these are the people we're going to entrust to put our loved ones in danger. So here we are in a war, and they're firing all of these people who have the competency to execute it. Ruhle then jumped in to recall that it was clear what voters were getting when Trump was elected: Is this about Pete Hegseth or Donald Trump -- or is it about the United States? Because you started your answer with, "We knew -- we knew all of this, right?" Pete Hegseth Donald Trump, this administration, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Miller, take your pick. Aren't they just a mirror looking -- this is who the United -- this is who the American voter chose. This time there were no surprises. And Congress confirmed all these people. Avlon then complained: "And there's a lot -- there's there -- for all the senators who approved the people they knew were unqualified, whether it's Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Kash Patel or Pete Hegseth, there's a special, you know, sin on their heads." Avlon's a true sore loser -- he ran as a Democrat for Congress in New York and pulled 44.8 percent. As there was a back and forth, Glaude wondered why voters voted the President into office: RUHLE: But that's the point. There were no surprises about them. All of the things about them we knew. GLAUDE: So the question is why? That's the question. The question is why? What were the superordinate values, those things that really motivated people to put the country in the hands of these folk? Avlon complained that voters will vote for "strong and wrong" as he soon jumped in: AVLON: Look, people were pissed off about the border -- they were pissed off about a lot of things that were distractions. GLAUDE: So the culture -- the culture war stuff. AVLON: Yeah, well, yeah. But let me just say -- and if you look at what happened, Democrats didn't have the confidence of folks for being strong on the stuff people cared about, and the Bill Clinton quote I always quote is the most important quote in politics: "People vote for strong and wrong every time." And that's what -- and now we're dealing with the downstream effect of that. And, of course, the strong man is always the weak one. Glaude summed up, "So our greed and our hatreds have come back to bite us in the ass," leading Ruhle to quip, "Just so you know, Eddie's currently winning this segment. The pressure's on." Transcript follows: MS NOW's The 11th Hour April 22, 2026 11:11 p.m. Eastern EDDIE GLAUDE, MS NOW CONTRIBUTOR: The inmates are running the damn asylum. This makes no sense. And they're going to put -- first of all, we know that Donald Trump wasn't temperamentally or dispositionally prepared to be the President of the United States. We knew that, and we know that Pete Hegseth, well, what do we know about Pete Hegseth, right? There's a lot in his cup. So part of what we do know is that they're going -- these are the people we're going to entrust to put our loved ones in danger. So here we are in a war, and they're firing all of these people who have the competency to execute it. STEPHANIE RUHLE: Is this about Pete Hegseth or Donald Trump -- or is it about the United States? Because you started your answer with, "We knew -- we knew all of this, right?" Pete Hegseth Donald Trump, this administration, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Miller, take your pick. Aren't they just a mirror looking -- this is who the United -- this is who the American voter chose. This time there were no surprises. GLAUDE: Yes. RUHLE: And Congress confirmed all these people. GLAUDE: Yes. JOHN AVLON, EX-CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And there's a lot -- there's there -- for all the senators who approved the people they knew were unqualified, whether it's Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Kash Patel or Pete Hegseth, there's a special, you know, sin on their heads. But, but -- RUHLE: But that's the point. There were no surprises about them. All of the things about them we knew. GLAUDE: So the question is why? That's the question. The question is why? What were the superordinate values, those things that really motivated people to put the country in the hands of these folk? RON INSANA, THE MESSAGE OF THE MARKETS: Being primaried, believe it or not. It's self interest. GLAUDE: No, self interest on certain -- RUHLE: John, to you and then to David. AVLON: Look, people were pissed off about the border -- they were pissed off about a lot of things that were distractions. GLAUDE: So the culture -- the culture war stuff. AVLON: Yeah, well, yeah. GLAUDE: Ah. AVLON: But let me just say -- and if you look at what happened, Democrats didn't have the confidence of folks for being strong on the stuff people cared about, and the Bill Clinton quote I always quote is the most important quote in politics: "People vote for strong and wrong every time." And that's what -- and now we're dealing with the downstream effect of that. And, of course, the strong man is always the weak one. GLAUDE: So just really quickly -- sorry, John. AVLON: Yes, sir. Yeah. GLAUDE: So our greed and our hatreds have come back to bite us in the ass. AVLON: Yep. GLAUDE: And we're right here. DAVID ROHDE, MS NOW SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: I think in the Republican -- RUHLE: Just so you know, Eddie's currently winning this segment. ROHDE: I know. RUHLE: The pressure's on.

Asked to comment on his faith in himself after becoming the top pick in the National Football League draft Thursday, Fernando Mendoza responded by stressing his faith in God. Mendoza, a Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback who led his Indiana University team to the national college football championship earlier this year, was asked a question by Sports Writer Hondo Carpenter in an interview following being picked: “When you look back at your career, through high school to Cal to IU to the Raiders, it’s really been a journey of faith, both your personal faith, but also betting on yourself. You could’ve gotten more money or gone other places, but you chose to go to IU because of the coaching. “I'm just curious, how much is faith, in you, not just your spiritual faith, but your faith and trust in you and what you do in your team part of who you are as a man?” But, Mendoza didn’t separate his faith and trust in himself from his faith in God in his answer: “Well, first off, I’m a man of God and I think God has a plan. He’s blessed my family, blessed me and I just can’t thank him enough. And second of all, I think that fortune favors the bold and that, sometimes, when you’re bold and you bet on yourself, it’ll work out, most of the time. But, if it doesn’t work out, at least you’ll be able to at least sleep easy at night 20 years down the road knowing that you do everything possible to accomplish your goals.” “And, that’s what I look forward to doing: doing everything possible to accomplish my goals with this football club and helping any way I can,” Mendoza concluded. Mendoza has not been shy about praising and crediting God in post-game interviews, such as in his interview after beating Miami in this year's college national championship game.