Mike Johnson now knows what Kevin McCarthy was dealing with.
At the new speakers behest, House Republicans today relied on Democratic votes to avert a government shutdown by passing legislation that contains neither budget cuts nor conservative policy priorities. The bill was a near replica of the funding measure that McCarthy pushed through the House earlier this falla supposed surrender to Democrats that prompted hard-liners in his party to toss him from the speakership.
Johnson is unlikely to suffer the same fate, at least not yet. But todays vote laid bare a reality thats become ever more apparent over the past year: Republicans may hold more seats than Democrats, but they dont control the House.
Under McCarthy and now Johnson, Republicans have been unable to pass just about any important legislation without significant help from Democrats. The three most consequential votes this year have been the spring budget deal that prevented a catastrophic U.S. debt default, Septembers stopgap spending bill that averted a shutdown, and todays proposal that keeps the government funded through early 2024. More Democrats than Republicans have voted for all three measures.
Read: Kevin McCarthy finally defies the right
GOP leaders have struggled to pass their own proposals on spending bills, leaving the party empty-handed in negotiations with the Democratic-led Senate and the Biden administration. Like McCarthy before him, Johnson pledged that Republicans would advance individual appropriations bills to counter the Senates plans to combine them into legislative packages that are too big for lawmakers to adequately review. But in the past week, hes been forced to scrap votes on two of these proposals because of Republican opposition.
McCarthy surrendered to Democrats in late September after his members refused to pass a temporary spending bill containing deep cuts and provisions to lock down the southern border. When it was his turn, Johnson didnt even bother to try a conservative approach. On Saturday, he unveiled a bill that maintains current spending levelsenacted by Democratic majorities in 2022for another two months. He did not include additional funding for either Israel or Ukraine, nor did he include any policy provisions that might turn off Democrats. Johnsons only wrinkle was to create two different deadlines for the next funding extension; funding for some departments will run out on January 19, while money for the rest of the government, including the Defense Department, will continue for another two weeks after that.
The Louisiana Republican said that the dual deadlines would spare Congress from having to consider a trillion-dollar omnibus spending package right before Christmas, as it has done repeatedly over the past several years. That is no way to run a railroad, Johnson said this morning on CNBC. This innovation prevents that from happening, and I think well have bipartisan agreement that that is a better way to do it.
Johnsons decision to avoid a partisan shutdown fight seemed to catch Democrats off guard. The White House initially slammed his proposal, but once party leaders on Capitol Hill realized that the spending bill contained no poison pills, they warmed to it. Democratic support became necessary once it was clear that Republicans would not be able to pass the measure on their own. Conservatives couldnt even agree to allow a floor vote on the proposal, forcing Johnson to bring it up using a procedure that ultimately required the bill to receive a two-thirds majority to pass.
Republican hard-liners have been no more willing to compromise under Johnson than they were under McCarthy. The conservative House Freedom Caucus, which initially suggested the two-deadline approach, ultimately opposed the bill anyway. It contains no spending reductions, no border security, and not a single meaningful win for the American People, the group said in a statement. While we remain committed to working with Speaker Johnson, we need bold change.
Buried in that final expression of support for Johnson was the first hint of a warning. Conservatives have given the untested speaker some leeway in his opening weeks. Even McCarthy received something of a grace period; when the speaker negotiated a debt-ceiling deal with President Joe Biden, conservatives voted against the bill but didnt try to overthrow him. Hard-liners havent threatened to remove Johnson, but that could change if he keeps relying on Democratic votes. When McCarthy caved to Democrats on spending for the second time, he lost his job a few days later.
The former speaker and his allies warned his GOP critics that his replacement would find themselves in the same position: managing a majority that isnt large enough to exert its will. Im one of the archconservatives, Johnson told reporters before the vote, trying to defend himself. I want to cut spending right now, and I would have liked to put policy riders on this. But when you have a three-vote majority, as we do right now, we dont have the votes to be able to advance that.
Read: We put sharp knives in the hands of children
Johnson has now used up one of his free passes. The question is how many more hell get. In the coming weeks, the speaker will have to navigate a series of fiscal fights over funding for Israel, Ukraine, and the southern border. The bill that the House passed today buys Congress another two months to hash out its differences over spending, but it doesnt resolve them. Johnson vowed not to agree to any more short-term extensions of federal funding, increasing the risk of a shutdown early next year. The speaker will also have to decide whether to press forward with an impeachment of Biden that could please conservatives but turn off Republicans in swing districts.
In the meantime, frustrated lawmakers from both parties are racing to leave Congress. Since McCarthys ouster, nine members, five of them Republicans, have announced their plans to resign or forgo reelection. Many more are likely to do so before the end of the year. After fewer than two terms in the House, GOP Representative Pat Fallon of Texas even considered returning to his old seat in the state legislature, which Republicans have long dominated, before changing his mind today. The frustration extended to other corners of the House GOP. We got nothing, another Texas Republican, Representative Chip Roy, lamented to reporters yesterday. He shouldnt have been surprised. At the moment, Republicans in the House have a majority in name only.
Bill Connelly is a writer for ESPN. He covers college football, soccer and tennis. He has been at ESPN since 2019.
Back in May, ESPN’s team of college football reporters voted on the sport’s best coaches for 2025. The results were about as you would expect: Start with the three active guys who have most recently won national titles (Georgia’s Kirby Smart, Ohio State’s Ryan Day, Clemson’s Dabo Swinney), move on to guys with recent top-five finishes or national title game appearances (Notre Dame’s Marcus Freeman, Texas’ Steve Sarkisian, Oregon’s Dan Lanning, Alabama’s Kalen DeBoer, Penn State’s James Franklin), then squeeze in a couple of long-term overachievers at the end (Utah’s Kyle Whittingham, Iowa State’s Matt Campbell).
The rankings made plenty of sense, but I couldn’t help but notice that the top eight coaches on the list all work for some of the richest, most well-supported programs in the country. There are some epic pressures associated with leading these programs — just ask Day — but there are also major advantages. It might only take a good head coach to do great things in those jobs, while at programs with smaller alumni bases or lesser historic track records, it might take a great coach to do merely good things. They’re such different jobs that it’s almost impossible to even know how to compare the performance of, say, Matt Campbell to Steve Sarkisian. Could Campbell have led Texas to back-to-back CFP semifinals? Could Sark have brought ISU its first two AP top-15 finishes?
The May rankings made me want to see if there were a way to apply stats to the conversation. If you think about it, we’re basically measuring two things when we’re gauging coach performance: overall quality and quality relative to the expectations of the job. I thought it would be fun to come up with a blend of those two things and see what the results told us.
Performance versus expectation
Gauging overall performance is easy enough. You could simply look at win percentage, and it would tell you quite a bit. From 2015 to 2024, the active coaches with the best FBS win percentages (minimum 30 games) were Day (.870), Lanning (.854), Swinney (.850) and Smart (.847). All ranked high in the May rankings. I tend to want to get fancy and use my SP+ ratings whenever possible, and they tell a similar tale. Looking at average SP+ ratings for the past decade, the top active coaches are Day (30.4), Smart (27.0), Lanning (22.3), Swinney (21.9), Franklin (20.3) and Freeman (19.0). They’re all in the May top 10 too.
Again, though, all of those coaches are employed by college football royalty. (Granted, Swinney gets bonus points for helping Clemson turn into college football royalty, but still.) Isn’t it more impressive to win 11 regular-season games at Indiana, as Curt Cignetti did in 2024, than to go 10-4 like Swinney did? Isn’t it probably harder to finish 12th in SP+ at SMU, as Rhett Lashlee did in 2024, than to finish fifth like Franklin did?
I’ve begun to incorporate teams’ performance against long-term averages into my preseason SP+ projections, and it seems we could use a very similar concept to evaluate coach performances. For each year someone is a head coach, we could compare his team’s SP+ rating for that season to the school’s average from the 20 previous years. (If the school is newer to FBS and doesn’t have a 20-year average, we can use whatever average exists to date. And for a program’s first FBS season, we can simply compare the team’s SP+ rating to the overall average for first-year programs.)
By this method, the 10 best single-season coaching performances of the past 20 years include Art Briles at Baylor in 2013-14, Jim Harbaugh at Stanford in 2010, Mark Mangino at Kansas in 2007, Bobby Petrino at Louisville in 2006, Greg Schiano at Rutgers in 2006 and Jamey Chadwell at Coastal Carolina in 2020 — legendary seasons of overachievement — plus perhaps lesser-remembered performances such as Gary Andersen at Utah State in 2012, Matt Wells at Utah State in 2018 and Brian Kelly at Cincinnati in 2007.
As far as single-season overachievement goes, that’s a pretty good list. And if we look at a longer-term sample — coaches who have led FBS programs for at least nine of the past 20 years — here are the 15 best performance versus baseline averages.
(Note: I’m looking only at performances within the past 20 years, so Nick Saban’s work at LSU (2000-04) or Michigan State (1995-99), for instance, isn’t included. I also went with nine years instead of 10 so Smart’s current nine-year run at Georgia could be included in the sample.)
Best performance vs. historic baseline averages for the past 20 years (min. nine seasons):
1. Chris Petersen, Boise State (2006-13) and Washington (2014-19): +12.8 points above historic baseline
2. Art Briles, Houston (2005-07) and Baylor (2008-15): +12.8
7. Lance Leipold, Buffalo (2015-20) and Kansas (2021-24): +9.5
8. Bobby Petrino, Louisville (2005-06), Arkansas (2008-11), Western Kentucky (2013) and Louisville (2014-18): +9.5
9. Gary Patterson, TCU (2005-21): +8.6
10. Jim Harbaugh, Stanford (2007-10) and Michigan (2015-23): +8.5
11. Blake Anderson, Arkansas State (2014-20) and Utah State (2021-23): +8.5
12. Steve Spurrier, South Carolina (2005-15): +8.2
13. Greg Schiano, Rutgers (2005-11 and 2020-24): +7.8
14. Jeff Brohm, Western Kentucky (2014-16), Purdue (2017-22) and Louisville (2023-24): +7.7
15. David Cutcliffe, Duke (2008-21): +7.7
If we are looking for pure overachievement and aren’t in the mood to reward coaches for winning at schools that always win, this is again a pretty good list. Petersen was spectacular at both Boise State and Washington, while Briles, Pinkel, Monken and Patterson all won big at schools that hadn’t won big in quite a while. (Monken, in fact, is still winning big.) Blake Anderson’s presence surprised me, but most of the names here are extremely well regarded. And Saban’s presence at No. 4, despite coaching at one of the bluest of blue-blood programs, is a pretty good indicator of just how special his reign at Alabama was.
Still, looking only at performance against expectations obviously sells coaches like Saban and Smart short. Saban is probably the best head coach in the sport’s history but ranks only fourth on the above list. Meanwhile, Smart has overachieved by only 6.0 points above the historic baseline in his nine seasons at Georgia thanks to the high bar predecessor Mark Richt set. But he has also won two national titles, overcoming Georgia’s history of falling just short and at least briefly surpassing Saban as well. If our goal is to measure coaching prowess, we need to account for raw quality too.
The best coaches of the past 20 years
If we combine raw SP+ averages with this performance versus baseline average, we can come up with a pretty decent overall coach rating. We can debate the weights involved, but here’s what an overall rating looks like if we use 60% performance versus baseline and 40% SP+ average:
I always like to say that numbers make great starting points for a conversation, and this is a pretty good starting point. Anyone reading this would probably tweak this list to suit their own preferences, and while it probably isn’t surprising that Pinkel is in the top 20, seeing him fourth, ahead of Meyer, Harbaugh and others, is a bit jarring. (I promise that this Mizzou alum didn’t put his finger on the scales.) Regardless, this is a fun mix of guys who won big at big schools and guys who won pretty big at pretty big schools. That was the goal of the exercise.
Maybe the most confusing coach in this top 20 is Dabo Swinney. Clemson had enjoyed just one AP top-five finish in its history before he took over 16 years ago, and he has led the Tigers to 2 national titles, 6 top-five finishes and 7 CFP appearances. And while they haven’t had a true, title-caliber team in a few years, they’ve still won two of the past three ACC crowns. How is he only 10th?
The main culprit for Swinney’s lower-than-expected ranking is his recent performance — it has been inferior to both national title standards and his standards. Since we’re using a team’s performance against 20-year averages, a lot of this rating is basically comparing Swinney to himself, and he hasn’t quite measured up of late.
From 2012 to 2020, Swinney’s average rating was an incredible 17.0, which would have ranked second to only Saban on the list above. But his average over the past four seasons is only 3.6.
Part of what made Saban so impressive was how long he managed to clear the bar he himself was setting in Tuscaloosa. Per SP+, his best team was his 14th — the 2020 team that won his sixth and final title at Bama. While Swinney was basically matching Saban’s standard 12 years into their respective tenures, Saban continued at a particularly high level for at least three more years while Swinney fell off the pace.
Comparing Saban, Swinney and Smart year by year, we see that Smart was hitting Saban-esque levels seven seasons into his tenure, but his rating has fallen off each of the past two seasons. Even Saban slipped starting in Year 15, even though he still had nearly the best program in the sport for a couple more years.
The best coaches of 2025
Six of the top seven coaches on the list above are either retired or coaching in the NFL now, so let’s focus our gaze specifically on the guys who will be leading college teams out onto the field in 2025. Using the same 20-year sample as above — which cuts off the tenure of Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz but includes everything else — here’s how the current crop of FBS head coaches has performed at the FBS level. We’ll break this into two samples: the guys who have coached for at least four years in this sample and the guys who have coached between one and three years.
Our May top 10 list featured eight guys who have been head coaches for at least four years; all eight are represented on this list, including four of the top five. (Sarkisian has averaged a 13.8 rating over the past two seasons, which is a top-five level, but his overall run as head coach at Washington, USC and Texas has featured a number of ups and downs.)
Maybe the name that jumps out the most above is Josh Heupel. I think anyone would consider him a very good coach (he’s 37-15 overall), but he doesn’t exactly draw any “best in the game?” hype. He benefited from a positive situation at UCF, where he inherited a rising program from Scott Frost in 2019 and produced big ratings in his first couple of years on the job. But his average rating at Tennessee has been a solid 14.0 as well; the Volunteers had been up and down for years, but he has produced four top-20 SP+ ratings in a row and two top-10s in the past three years. He might not be getting the credit he deserves for that.
All in all, I enjoy this list. We’ve got mostly predictable names at the top, we’ve got some oldies but (mostly) goodies spread throughout, and we’ve got room for up-and-comers like Jeff Traylor too. This 60-40 approach probably doesn’t give enough respect to the Chris Creightons of the world — the Eastern Michigan coach has overachieved against EMU’s baseline by 7.2 points per season, which is a fantastic average, but at such a hard job, his Eagles have still averaged only a minus-14.4 SP+ rating during his tenure. Still, this is a mostly solid approach.
Now let’s talk about some small-sample all-stars.
Four of the top six of this list coached in the College Football Playoff last season, and while the guys ranked fifth and sixth made our May top 10 list, the guys who won big at SMU and Indiana, not Oregon and Notre Dame, take priority here. I was honestly floored that Curt Cignetti didn’t make our top 10 list; he led James Madison to one of the best FBS debuts ever, going 19-4 in 2022-23, then he moved to Bloomington and led Indiana — INDIANA! — to 11 wins in his first season there.
On this list, however, Rhett Lashlee tops even Cignetti. I’m not sure we’ve talked enough about the job he has done at SMU. He, too, inherited a rising program, as Sonny Dykes had done some of the nitty-gritty work in getting the Mustangs back on their feet (with help from an offensive coordinator named Rhett Lashlee). SMU hadn’t produced a top-50 ranking since 1985 before Dykes did so for three straight seasons (2019-21). But after holding steady in his first year replacing Dykes, Lashlee’s program has ignited: 12-2 and 24th in SP+ in 2023, then 11-3 and 12th in 2024. Looking specifically at the 2021-24 range, as the game has undergone so much change, Lashlee’s 16.8 average rating ranks second overall, behind only Smart (18.0) and ahead of Kiffin (15.1), Cignetti (15.0), Odom (15.0), Heupel (14.0) and Day (13.9).
Along with quite a few others here, Lashlee made my 2024 list of 30 coaches who would define the next decade; he’d definitely still be on the list — along with new additions like GJ Kinne and perhaps Fran Brown — if I remade that list today.
An inquiry into the case of a hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses has concluded that “offences such as those committed by David Fuller could happen again”.
It found that “current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking”.
Phase 2 of the inquiry has examined the broader national picture and considered if procedures and practices in other hospital and non-hospital settings, where deceased people are kept, safeguard their security and dignity.
During his time as a maintenance worker, he also abused the corpses of at least 101 women and girls at Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital before his arrest in December 2020.
His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.
Phase 1 of the inquiry found he entered one mortuary 444 times in the space of one year “unnoticed and unchecked” and that deceased people were also left out of fridges and overnight during working hours.
‘Inadequate management, governance and processes’
Presenting the findings on Tuesday, Sir Jonathan Michael, chair of the inquiry, said: “This is the first time that the security and dignity of people after death has been reviewed so comprehensively.
“Inadequate management, governance and processes helped create the environment in which David Fuller was able to offend for so long.”
He said that these “weaknesses” are not confined to where Fuller operated, adding that he found examples from “across the country”.
“I have asked myself whether there could be a recurrence of the appalling crimes committed by David Fuller. – I have concluded that yes, it is entirely possible that such offences could be repeated, particularly in those sectors that lack any form of statutory regulation.”
Sir Jonathan called for a statutory regulation to “protect the security and dignity of people after death”.
After an initial glance, his interim report already called for urgent regulation to safeguard the “security and dignity of the deceased”.
On publication of his final report he describes regulation and oversight of care as “ineffective, and in significant areas completely lacking”.
David Fuller was an electrician who committed sexual offences against at least 100 deceased women and girls in the mortuaries of the Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital. His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.
This first phase of the inquiry found Fuller entered the mortuary 444 times in a single year, “unnoticed and unchecked”.
It was highly critical of the systems in place that allowed this to happen.
His shocking discovery, looking at the broader industry – be it other NHS Trusts or the 4,500 funeral directors in England – is that it could easily have happened elsewhere.
The conditions described suggest someone like Fuller could get away with it again.
BBC director-general Tim Davie has said MasterChef can survive its current scandal as it is “much bigger than individuals” – but the corporation must “make sure we’re in the right place in terms of the culture of the show”.
After the report was published, Wallace, 60, said he was “deeply sorry” for causing any distress, and never set out to “harm or humiliate”.
Torode, 59, said he had “no recollection of the incident” and said he “did not believe that it happened,” and said he was “shocked and saddened by the allegation”.
Mr Davie said the BBC’s leadership team would not “tolerate behaviour that is not in line with our values,” while BBC chair Samir Shah acknowledged there were still pockets within the broadcaster where “powerful individuals” can still “make life for their colleagues unbearable”.
They said several BBC staff members had been dismissed in the last three months, following an independent review into workplace culture.
More on Bbc
Related Topics:
Wallace, who was sacked from MasterChef last week, is not included in that count as he was not directly contracted by the corporation, but employed by independent production company Banijay.
The corporation has yet to decide if the unseen MasterChef series – filmed with both Wallace and Torode last year – will be aired or not.
Image: BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place, London. Pic: Jordan Pettitt/PA
News of the findings in the Gregg Wallace report came just hours before the BBC was deemed to have breached its editorial guidelines by failing to disclose that the child narrator of a Gaza documentary was the son of a Hamas official.
Media watchdog Ofcom subsequently launched its own investigation into the programme.
While the 2024-25 annual report showed a small rise in trust overall for the corporation, Mr Davie acknowledged it had been a year which saw the reputation of the BBC damaged by “serious failings” in the making of the documentary.
The BBC boss acknowledged: “It was important that the BBC took full responsibility for those failings and apologised for them,” and later in response to a question, called the documentary – Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone – “the most challenging editorial issue I’ve had to deal with”.
He went on: “The importance of fair balance reporting, the need for high-quality homegrown programming in the face of massive pressure, I think has never, ever been greater. And I believe my leadership and the team I’ve assembled can really help the BBC thrive in that environment and very competitive environment.”
Image: BBC Director-General Tim Davie. Pic: PA
BBC boss has chair’s ‘full support’
Despite a series of failings in recent months – including livestreaming the controversial Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury last month – Mr Davie insisted he can “lead” the organisation in the right direction.
When asked if he would resign, he replied: “I simply think I’m in a place where I can work to improve dramatically the BBC and lead it in the right way.
“We will make mistakes, but I think as a leadership and myself, I’ve been very clear, and I think we have been decisive.”
He said the organisation was setting a “global standard” for media.
Mr Shah, reiterated his support for Mr Davie.
“Tim Davie and his team, and Tim in particular, has shown very strong leadership throughout all this period and he has my full support.”
The report also revealed its top earners, which saw former Match Of The Day host Gary Lineker top the chart once again.
Meanwhile, Australian children’s cartoon Bluey proved a boon for the broadcaster, and was the most watched show in the US across all genres – with 55 billion minutes viewed.
The top 10 shows watched over Christmas 2024 were also all from the BBC.
Recent annual reviews have been overshadowed by the Huw Edwards scandal and allegations of a toxic environment around flagship show Strictly Come Dancing.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.