Already Setting Up For 36

Now it's official.  The Arizona Coyotes will be moving to Utah next season.  Well, technically, Utah is getting an expansion team with all of the Coyotes' players, while the Phoenix franchise is being "put on hold" with the chance of being resurrected if Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo can get an arena built within the next five years.  So, basically, the Arizona Coyotes are getting the Cleveland Browns treatment.

For those of you who aren't old enough to get that reference, 30 years ago, when Art Modell announced he was moving the Browns to Baltimore, the NFL wouldn't let him take the Browns' colors, logo and history with him.  Cleveland was also promised the return of the Browns as an expansion team once the new stadium was built.  So, the Ravens entered the NFL as an "expansion" team in 1996, with the Browns returning to the league in 1999.

The NHL, for its part, seems committed to the Phoenix area.  That's why they're giving Meruelo the opportunity to bring the team back should he win the land auction and the arena project is completed.  Considering the Coyotes' success (or lack thereof) in their previous attempts to get a new arena in Phoenix, I'm skeptical that he'll be successful.  But, for argument's sake, let's assume he is.  That would bring the NHL to 33 teams, which obviously isn't a workable number.

Almost immediately after the Kraken joined the league, the talk began about where the NHL would expand next, even though expansion wasn't on the horizon.  The Salt Lake City thing wasn't even planned.  It moved quickly once it became clear that the Coyotes' situation in Arizona was not sustainable and they needed a more permanent solution.  Although, should the Coyotes return, that expansion talk will kick into high gear again, since the NHL would want to get back to an even number.

I've seen plenty of projections that the NHL will eventually grow to 36 franchises, which doesn't sound all that unrealistic.  It would split nicely into six divisions of six.  Which is obviously a much easier number to deal with than the 17-team conferences that would come with the league being at 34.  One step at a time, though.  Before getting to 36, they'd have to go to 34 first.

One of the cities I've seen mentioned the most, and even considered "inevitable" by some, is Atlanta.  Now, I personally don't see why Atlanta would ever be an option.  Yes, it's a Top 10 market and a chance to establish the NHL in one of America's largest cities.  Except the NHL has already tried and failed in Atlanta twice, with both franchises moving to Canada after a few years.  Maybe the thought process is third time's the charm?  But, it seems more likely it'll be three strikes, you're out.  So, why bother?

When the Coyotes relocation talk started, I actually thought the most logical place for them to move was Houston.  Houston's the biggest market that's never had an NHL team, and the Rockets' arena was built to NHL standards so that it would be able to accommodate a hockey team without having to do any major renovations.  They also had a very successful minor league team, the Aeros, for many years, which would give Houston a built-in fan base.

And, if we're talking about bringing the NHL back to cities that used to have a team, let's not forget Quebec.  Things are much different now than when the Nordiques left Quebec City to become the Avalanche.  Some of those problems would still exist.  Quebec City is still a francophone city that's smaller and further north than anywhere else in the NHL.  But that's not the reason the Nordiques left.  And you can bet a Nordiques redo would work just as well as the Jets' reboot in Winnipeg has.  Quebec also already has an NHL-ready arena, which is a major point in its favor.

Hamilton's been pushing pretty hard for an NHL expansion team, too, but I don't think there's any way Hamilton gets a team (either through expansion or relocation).  It's halfway between Buffalo and Toronto.  Do you really want to put a third team in essentially the same area?  Especially since they're all either Sabres or Leafs fans already?  Would they really abandon the team they've supported for years to adopt an expansion team instead?

There are a few other places that haven't been discussed nearly as much as those four, but I can easily see making a run for an NHL franchise if and when the "new" Coyotes need an expansion partner.  One is Kansas City.  The Penguins almost moved there in 2006, and the T-Mobile Center is a first-rate arena that hosts the Big XII men's basketball tournament every year.

Milwaukee has an AHL team, and I can see the NHL wanting to establish even more of a foothold in the Midwest by placing a team in Wisconsin for the first time.  And, while this one seems unlikely, Portland could be interesting.  The three-way rivalry between Vancouver, Seattle and Portland is perhaps the best in MLS.  Why not trying it in the NHL and seeing if you can recreate some of that same magic?

So, again, for argument's sake, let's assume Phoenix is back in the NHL as the 33rd franchise.  The other team to join the league would have to be from the East to balance out the conferences (although, they could always move Nashville to the East if they needed to).  Which would actually bode well for Atlanta's chances.  Then, when the NHL increases in size to 36 teams, Houston and Quebec City get the nod.

That would set up these conferences and divisions: EAST--Atlantic: Atlanta, Carolina, Columbus, Detroit, Florida, Tampa Bay; Metropolitan: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Washington; Northeast: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto; WEST--Central: Arizona, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Nashville, St. Louis; Northwest: Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Seattle, Winnipeg, Vancouver; Pacific: Anaheim, Colorado, Los Angeles, San Jose, Utah, Vegas

Does the NHL need to expand to 36 teams?  It does not.  At least not in the near future.  That's why the Phoenix situation will be an interesting one to follow.  Because the NHL seems set at 32, but with the promise to resurrect the Coyotes at an undetermined future date, they've essentially committed themselves to further expansion, as well.  That's, of course, assuming an NHL-caliber arena can eventually be built in the Phoenix area.  Which is by no means a guarantee.

Stanley Cup Playoffs, Round 1

I wasn't planning on doing a full Stanley Cup Playoff bracket this season.  Instead, I was just gonna do it round-by-round and hopefully spare myself some of the inevitable unpredictability.  Then my brother-in-law texted me asking to join his NHL Bracket Challenge league, so there went that plan!  So, I guess I'll have to make a call and stick with it.

Before I get to that, though, I've gotta say, the NHL's season-ending schedule was beyond stupid!  The season ended on Thursday, but some teams were done on Monday!  As a result, the Rangers will have almost a week off before the start of the playoffs, while six of the eight Western Conference playoff teams will have two days!

It makes absolutely no sense that each team's final games were spread out so much!  I'm fairly certain that they extended the season until Thursday because of TV (Thursday is ESPN's NHL night), but, if you want to satisfy your TV partners, why not end the season with eight Eastern Conference games on Wednesday and eight Western Conference games on Thursday (or vice versa)?  That makes more sense than having some teams who are done while others still have a back-to-back to end the season.  Or having Nashville sit there with 99 points waiting to find out who they're playing (at least they knew they were already in the playoffs).

The race for the final spot in the East was great.  It came down to Washington, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh fighting for one spot.  The Flyers played the Capitals and the Red Wings were in Montreal on Tuesday night, while Pittsburgh was waiting to play the Islanders on Wednesday.  It all got settled on Tuesday, but imagine if the Capitals or Red Wings could do nothing but watch the Penguins to play on Wednesday, hoping they'd lose, knowing that would determine their playoff fate.  (That is what happened in the West, where it was almost like the final day of the group stage at a World Cup, with the Kings and Golden Knights flipping positions with seemingly every goal scored in either game.)

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, it's time to move on to the unpredictability that is the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Just think about last year, when the Panthers only got in because Pittsburgh lost to Chicago at the end of the regular season, then took out a record-setting, President's Trophy-winning Bruins team en route to a surprise Stanley Cup Final apperance.  And the 2022-23 Bruins became the latest in a long line of President's Trophy winners knocked out in either the first or second round of the playoffs.  That's why I was so adamant in my desire to see the Rangers not win the President's Trophy!  Can they break the curse?

This season, meanwhile, Florida is a legitimate Cup contender.  So are the Rangers.  So are the Bruins.  And the Hurricanes.  That's just in the East!  Out West, you've got the Stars, Canucks, Avalanche, Jets and Oilers.  That's over half the field I can realistically see lifting the Cup two months from now.  But I can also see each of them losing in the first round (either Colorado or Winning definitely will).  Which is part of what makes playoff hockey so great!

Even though this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs and the early-round upsets have become expected, I do think that form will at least somewhat hold.  There are a few matchups between evenly-matched teams, but there are others where the higher-seeded team is very clearly better.  While we've seen that make absolutely no difference at times in the past, we've also seen superior teams start their Stanley Cup runs with dominant first-round showings.

Panthers vs. Lightning: As much as I didn't want the Rangers to win the President's Trophy, I did want them to win the Metropolitan Division.  Why?  Because I had absolutely no interest in facing Tampa Bay!  I doubt that's something the Panthers were looking forward to, either, but here we go.  The two Florida teams have won the last four Prince of Wales Trophies between them, so they're obviously both battle-tested.  And they'll make each other grind it out.  Ultimately, though, I think we see the same result as when these two met in the second round two years ago.  Lightning in six.

Bruins vs. Maple Leafs: Boston and Toronto both have a chip on their shoulder.  The Bruins, of course, suffered that first-round loss at the hands of the Panthers last season.  The Leafs, meanwhile, actually advanced to the second round for the first time in forever, only to become Florida's next victims.  They finally got that monkey off their backs, but you know they come in still thinking they've got a lot to prove.  Which they do.  So do the Bruins.  This'll be a great series, and it'll likely end the same way every Toronto series prior to last season did.  Bruins in seven.

Rangers vs. Capitals: Washington somehow emerged from that crazy, jumbled race for the final Eastern Conference playoff spot.  I'm still not entirely sure how.  The Capitals are, by far, the weakest of the 16 playoff teams.  Although, as we've seen, that means absolutely nothing.  That doesn't mean the Rangers should or will take them lightly, however.  I can see the Capitals taking a game or two off them, but definitely not four.  Rangers in five.

Hurricanes vs. Islanders: For the second straight season, Carolina meets the Islanders in the first round.  Last year, the Hurricanes won in six, with two of those victories coming in overtime.  This year, I can see it going either way.  Carolina is the better team, but the Islanders are on quite a roll entering the playoffs.  Either way, Sebastian Aho makes it to the second round.  Hurricanes in six.

Stars vs. Golden Knights: We've got a rematch of the 2023 Western Conference Final in the first round of this year's playoffs, as Dallas takes on the defending Stanley Cup champion Golden Knights.  Vegas dropped from third in the Pacific to the second wild card by losing its last game, which gave it the far more difficult matchup against Dallas.  There's something about the Knights that just doesn't give off the same feeling as last season's championship team, but only a fool would count them out.  Regardless, I do think Dallas wins the series.  Stars in six.

Jets vs. Avalanche: After that three-team race in the Central, it was Winnipeg who ended up with home ice in the first-round series between legit Cup contenders.  That mattered far more for the Jets than it would've for the Avalanche.  While it would've been nice for Colorado, they can win without it.  I'm not sure the Jets could.  Frankly, I'm not even sure the Jets can even though they do.  Whoever does win this series, though, has every reason to believe it's just the start of something big.  Avalanche in seven.

Canucks vs. Predators: In January, I went to a Rangers-Canucks game at Madison Square Garden.  Until that game, I had no idea how good Vancouver actually was!  The Canucks are arguably the deepest, most well-balanced team in the NHL, and they absolutely deserve to be considered one of the Cup favorites.  First, they need to get by Nashville, which shouldn't be much of a challenge.  Canucks in four.

Oilers vs. Kings: Edmonton and LA meet in the Pacific 2-3 series for the third consecutive time.  So, needless to say, they're familiar with each other.  Especially at this time of year.  I'm still waiting for that Oilers playoff breakthrough that's been coming, but we still haven't seen yet.  (They did make the Western Conference Final in 2022, but were swept by Colorado.)  Edmonton has won its playoff matchup with the Kings in each of the last two seasons.  Make it three.  Oilers in six.

So, there you go.  Those are my first-round picks.  But, as I said, I filled out a full bracket going all the way to the Stanley Cup Final.  And I keep going back to that Rangers-Canucks game I saw in January.  They looked like the two best teams in the NHL then, and they're still the two best teams in the league now.  Thirty years after they met in that memorable 1994 Stanley Cup Final, they square off again.  And the result will be the same as 1994.  President's Trophy jinx?  What President's Trophy jinx?!  The Rangers get past the Canucks for the Cup once again.

They Knew Exactly What They Were Doing

Last week at an event in Paris, Nike revealed some of its Olympic track & field, basketball, soccer and skateboarding uniforms for a number of countries, including the United States.  The event featured several American Olympic and Paralympic track & field stars, including Rai Benjamin, Sha'Carri Richardson, Athing Mu and Tatyana McFadden modeling the uniforms, with images of both the men's and women's kits later released online.  To say those images caused controversy would be a bit of an understatement.  Which might be exactly what Nike wanted.

I'm actually amused by how stupid this controversy is.  Because it's not actually a controversy!  But that hasn't stopped the so-called "experts" from speaking out as if they know what they're talking about when, in reality, they have no clue.  And, frankly, all they're doing with their fake "outrage" is exposing their ignorance on the subject!

For those of you who haven't seen it, the controversy centers around the women's uniform.  The design that Nike chose to feature (which anyone who knows anything about track & field knows is one of many options) was the one-piece, bathing-suit style version, which has been called everything from "sexist" to "patriarchal" by critics.  (There were also some very humorous comments from members of the U.S. women's track & field team.)  Some have even questioned who designed them and wondered how women can be expected to perform in them.

When I first saw them, I didn't like them, either.  But my reaction was more "Boy, are these ugly!"  And also, "Why are they purple?"  (I think they're technically supposed to be primarily blue, but it definitely looks purple, just like how the Tokyo version of the same uniform was evidently supposed to be red, but looked pink.)  They're also essentially the exact same uniforms the British women's team has worn since Tokyo (Nike is a sponsor of British Athletics, but not the British Olympic Committee, which is sponsored by Adidas, so the British team wears Adidas in the Olympics, then Nike at all other times).

But, like I said, I'm amused by the reaction to the uniforms and some of the asinine comments from the critics.  Some of those critics include former Olympic runners like Lauren Fleshman, who was incredibly vocal on Instagram, but really just made herself look like an idiot.  Fleshman has been on multiple U.S. National Teams.  She should know as well as anybody that there are multiple options.  The women can even wear the men's uniform if they want!

That to me is the funniest part of the entire thing.  There were three American female track & field Olympians at the reveal.  They were all wearing different styles of the uniform, and NONE of them had on the one-piece in question!  Sha'Carri Richardson came the closest.  She wore the one-piece uniform, but it was with spandex instead of briefs.  So, there's obviously more than just the one option!  (As anyone who's ever watched track & field before already knew!)

It even got to the point where both Nike and USA Track & Field had to clarify there are many options for the women to choose from.  And they were both sure to mention that the uniforms were designed after consultation with numerous parties, including the athletes themselves!  Katie Moon, the reigning Olympic and World Champion in the pole vault, went on Instagram to not just respond to Fleshman, but to flat-out state that she prefers to wear the briefs, as well as her reason why.

The fact that she had to say that, frankly, is ridiculous.  It's not sexist if the women are given options (which they are).  And it's really not sexist if they choose to wear a particular uniform!  It's obviously about performance.  If it wasn't, they wouldn't wear it.  Shouldn't it tell you something that they have the choice and still pick the one that the ignorant have decided is sexist?

Same thing in beach volleyball, which was inevitably going to be brought into the conversation.  They aren't required to wear bikinis.  Many of them do anyway.  Not just because they're more comfortable in them, but also because it's hot and because there's less places for sand to get stuck.  But they can also wear leggings or long-sleeved tops if they want to.  And there are Arab countries that have women's beach volleyball teams.  Those athletes obviously don't wear bikinis for religious reasons.

This is nothing new for track & field, either.  The one-piece uniform style in question goes all the way back to at least 1984 and 1988, when it was worn by Florence Griffith-Joyner.  Maybe even further.  It fell out of style for a little while in favor of the crop top and racing briefs, but gradually started to come back and was an option for every Nike-sponsored country at the Tokyo Games.  At the request of the athletes!  British sprinter Dina Asher-Smith likes the one-piece better than the other options and wears it all the time.

Comparing the men's and women's uniforms is also an incredibly dumb argument.  That's like asking why women's bathing suits cover their chest and men's bathing suits don't.  Because there are anatomical differences between men and women that make having the same uniform not only impractical, but impossible!  Meanwhile, both Nike and USA Track & Field have said the women can wear the men's uniform if they want to (just as the disgraced Marion Jones did), further invalidating that argument.

Track & field uniforms are also very event-specific.  They've never been a one-size-fits-all type of thing.  Throwers and distance runners have very different body types.  They're not expected to wear the same style of the uniform, and they don't.  Athletes can wear whichever style they want, and there's even been events where three Americans in the same race have worn three different uniforms.  Although, that may not be the case in finals in Paris.

Since 2008, Nike has had a different singlet just for the relays.  At this Olympics, for the first time, if an athlete makes it to the final in their event, they'll get a separate, finals-only uniform top, as well.  There's even a one-piece version of the women's finals uniform should they choose, as well as all of the others...which, with all of the different variations, number over 20.

But nobody's talking about that.  They're only talking about the "sexist" singlet that they saw on a mannequin (not even an actual athlete).  They are talking about it, though.  And that might be the whole point.  Because there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?  Suddenly people care and all sorts of articles are being written about Nike's Olympic track & field uniforms...which likely wouldn't have happened otherwise.  And Nike knows that.  We'll never know if it was deliberate or not, but Nike probably isn't complaining about the amount of attention this story has drawn.  In fact, it may have been exactly what they wanted.

Yankees Win, Theeeeeeeeee Yankees Win!

The summer between my junior and senior years of college, I went down to Baltimore for a Yankees-Orioles series.  Mr. Jim was gracious enough to get me a press credential for two of the games.  I majored in communications and wanted to get into broadcasting, so, on Friday night, as we're having dinner in the press box, he says hello to John Sterling and asks him if he'd be OK with me sitting in the Yankees radio booth that night...to which he agreed.

Towards the end of the game, the producer, who I'd been sitting next to the entire time, takes a look at my credential and I can tell he's upset about something.  I figured I'd worn out my welcome, so I was politely gonna just slip out of the booth.  As it turns out, that wasn't the case at all.  He was upset because he wanted me to go down to the field, but I couldn't since I didn't have field access.

He tracked down one of the Yankees' PR people, who escorted me down to the field so that I could bring a microphone down for them to do a postgame interview with the player of the game.  The player of the game in this case was Aaron Boone (yes, the same Aaron Boone who's currently the team's manager).  After the interview was over, my route back to the press box was through the Yankee clubhouse, as the players and coaches started filing in.  The first person I see?  Don Zimmer.

Needless to say, it was pretty cool.  And, as you can tell, I remember it fondly 20 years later.  Perhaps the most memorable part of the experience was John Sterling's kindness and graciousness.  He was so kind and gracious that I wrote him a letter afterwards thanking him.  He responded, sending the letter back to me with a note from him attached.

That's my John Sterling story.  So many others have their own.  His voice was the soundtrack of Yankees games for generations of fans.  Everyone has their favorite home run call (I loved "Bern Baby Bern" and "An A-Bomb From A-Rod"), and, depending on your fandom, you either absolutely loved it or were incredibly irritated by it when he capped the broadcast with his drawn out "Yankees Win, Theeeeeeeeee Yankees Win!"

Well, we've heard that signature call for the last time.  Because Sterling has announced his retirement, effective immediately, ending a 36-year run in the Yankees radio booth.  His last game (and his last "Yankees Win, Theeeeeeeeeeeee Yankees Win!") was last Sunday's victory over Toronto.

While the team didn't release any information other than their statement saying Sterling was retiring, the general consensus is that it was for health reasons.  Sterling turns 86 years old on the 4th of July and, after an incredible ironman streak, all of the travel definitely took a toll on him.  As a result, he's been phasing himself out, working a reduced schedule for the past few seasons.  Still, Sterling didn't give any indication he was thinking about retirement until Monday's announcement.

Which is why I think the decision to retire immediately has to be health-related.  When Vin Scully decided to hang it up, he announced it well in advance and was given a bit of a farewell tour.  Sterling would've been given the same had he announced that this would be his final season, especially this early.  Instead, he'll be honored at Yankee Stadium on Saturday before riding off into the sunset (although, I'd imagine they'll probably ask him to still come back to emcee Old Timer's Day).

Every generation of Yankees fans has had that voice narrating an era of the team's history for them.  From Mel Allen and Red Barber to Phil Rizzuto, Bill White and Bobby Murcer to John Sterling and Michael Kay, then Sterling and Suzyn Waldman.  There have been so many memorable Yankees moments over the past 36 years.  John Sterling was behind the mic for almost all of them.

After joining the Yankees in 1989, Sterling had an incredible streak of 5,060 consecutive games broadcast (regular season and playoffs) before missing a series in Tampa due to illness in July 2019.  Overall, Sterling called a total of 5,420 regular season and 211 postseason games over 36 seasons.  Once that ironman streak ended, he cut back his load, limiting himself to home games and shorter road trips (Boston, Philadelphia, Citi Field) in recent years.

Even then, he was a trooper.  Last season, Justin Turner of the Red Sox hit a foul ball into the Yankees' radio booth, and it hit Sterling in the head!  There was even an audible "Ow!" on the broadcast.  Sterling didn't miss a beat and called the rest of the game with a huge bandage on his head.  Turner signed the ball and sent it back to him the next day with a band-aid on it!

You know how beloved he is amongst Yankee fans not just because everybody has a John Sterling impression, but by the fact that anytime there's some sort of John Sterling promotional item, it's one of the most popular giveaway days at Yankee Stadium.  Every line extended around the block well before the gates opened.  Because everyone wanted to make sure they got their John & Suzyn bobblehead and t-shirt.

And let's not forget those individualized home run calls for every Yankees player.  It was always so much fun whenever they got somebody new to hear what he'd come up with for their first home run.  The wait was sometimes agonizing.  We just wanted to know!  Fortunately, two of the newest Yankees--Juan Soto and Alex Verdugo--both hit home runs on the opening road trip (that Sterling called), which got them calls.  Soto's was "There is a Soto photo...He's Juan-derful, he's marvelous," while Verdugo got "Alexander the Great."

I must admit that even though it's become a more regular occurrence in recent seasons, I'd still get thrown off when I'd be in my car, put the Yankee game on the radio, and not hear those home run calls.  John Sterling has been a fixture in that booth for so long that you notice when he isn't there.  Well, now he won't be.  That role instead belongs to Justin Shackil and Emmanuel Berbari, who are both young and will have a chance to forge their own legacy as the Yankees' longtime radio voice.  But, even they'll be the first to admit that they've got big shoes to fill.

The Best of the Best

After her EPIC takedown of Michael Che during her surprise appearance on Weekend Update, you can add "has great comedic timing" to Caitlin Clark's list of skills!  Now, as she gets set to become the No. 1 pick of the Indiana Fever (which is a WNBA team, not an STD Michael Che gave to women at Purdue) and embark on her pro career, she'll have her chance to prove her critics wrong.  We'll also get to see how she stacks up against the best of the best in women's basketball.

Clark's career at Iowa was great.  There's no denying that.  It was transcendent.  There's no denying that, either.  It was arguably the most influential career for any women's college basketball player in history.  But was it the best?  That's an entirely different question.  And a much more complicated one.

She's the greatest scorer in college basketball history.  That much is obvious, and the stats back it up.  Clark had more points than anyone, man or woman, ever to play Division I basketball.  Yes, there was all the discussion about caveats, some of which was justified, some of which wasn't.  But being a great scorer alone doesn't necessarily make you the best.  So, I'd argue that while she's one of the best women's college players ever, she isn't the best.

Iowa made it to both the 2023 and 2024 National Championship Games, losing both.  Had they won, would that change my perception of where Clark's career ranks?  Perhaps.  Leading your team to a championship (or multiple championships) is a very important factor.  That's why I rank these players' careers (in no particular order) ahead of Caitlin Clark's:

Breanna Stewart: You're gonna see a lot of UConn players on this list.  There's an obvious reason for that.  And Stewie's right there at the top.  She played four years for the Huskies.  She won four championships and was Final Four Most Outstanding Player every time.  She was also the first three-time National Player of the Year.

Sue Bird: When Sue Bird arrived in Storrs, UConn had won only a single National title in 1994-95.  By the time she left, it was the start of a dynasty.  Bird was a sophomore on the 2000 National Championship team, then, after the Huskies lost in the 2001 Final Four, they wouldn't lose again for a long while.  The 2001-02 UConn team was one for the ages.  Bird was the National Player of the Year on a team that went 39-0 before moving on to the WNBA and passing the torch to...

Diana Taurasi: Taurasi picked up right where Bird left off.  She was a freshman on that 2000-01 team that lost to Notre Dame in the Final Four.  UConn went on to win the next three National Championships during what has since been referred to as the "Taurasi Era," including that incredible 2001-02 campaign.  Taurasi received back-to-back National Player of the Year nods in her junior and senior seasons.

Maya Moore: If ranking UConn's eras of dominance in order, it would probably go "Breanna Stewart Era," then "Maya Moore Era."  It's while they had Maya Moore that the Huskies went on their 90-game winning streak (which, it's crazy to think, is only the second-longest in program history!), including consecutive undefeated National Championships in 2008-09 and 2009-10.  The winning streak ended during the 2010-11 season, and they lost in the Final Four that year.  So, Moore had "only" two National titles to go along with her two National Player of the Year awards.

Tina Charles: It's easy to forget about Tina Charles (and Renee Montgomery, for that matter) because she was a teammate of Maya Moore.  But it's Charles who completes my all-time UConn starting five (joining the other four on this list).  She was the 2009-10 National Player of the Year and graduated as both UConn's all-time leading scorer and rebounder.  The Huskies won National Championships in her junior and senior years, going undefeated each time.

Candace Parker: Parker was hurt as a freshman, so she only played three years at Tennessee.  They were three damn good years!  In 2006-07, the Lady Vols won their first National Championship in a decade.  They repeated in 2007-08, the last title for the late, great Pat Summitt (as well as the program's most recent championship).  Parker was Final Four Most Outstanding Player both times and National Player of the Year in 2007-08.

Chamique Holdsclaw: Tennessee was a dynasty in the late 90s, becoming the first women's program ever to three-peat as National Champions.  Those just happened to come in Chamique Holdsclaw's first three years with the program (1996-98).  And that 1997-98 Tennessee team was one of the absolute best in history, going 39-0.  Holdsclaw was National Player of the Year that season, then won it again as a senior.

Cheryl Miller: The first NCAA-sponsored women's basketball tournament was in 1982.  It was won by Louisiana Tech.  USC, led by the great Cheryl Miller, won the next two.  She's much more than Reggie Miller's older sister.  She was the first women's basketball superstar of the NCAA era!  A four-time All-American, three-time National Player of the Year, two-time Final Four MVP, and still the third-leading rebounder in NCAA women's history.

Brittney Griner: As crazy as it sounds, Brittney Griner only won one National title at Baylor.  It's hard to believe because of how outstanding her college career was, but Baylor's only National Championship with Griner came during the dominant 2011-12 season.  Griner was National Player of the Year and Final Four MOP, as the Bears went 40-0.  She repeated as National Player of the Year the following season.

So, that leaves me with just one spot on my all-time women's college basketball Top 10.  With three players I want to include.  Which means that we're not looking at a Top 10 here.  We're looking at a Top 12.

One of those three is obviously Caitlin Clark.  What she's done is unmatched and simply too much to ignore.  Another is the woman whose team beat Iowa in the National Championship Game--South Carolina (and U.S. Olympic) coach Dawn Staley.  Staley's playing career at Virginia was actually very similar to Clark's.  She was a two-time National Player of the Year who led Virginia to three straight Final Fours...but no championships.

Finally, we've got Seimone Augustus.  She was there for the first three of LSU's five straight Final Fours in the mid-2000s.  They didn't win a title because they ran into three juggernauts from UConn (2004), Baylor (2005) and Maryland (2006), but Augustus was named National Player of the Year twice.  Sorry Angel Reese, but you're not LSU's all-time best player.  Seimone Augustus is.

Utah Coyotes

It's official.  After nearly 30 years in the desert, the Arizona Coyotes will soon be no more.  The franchise will be moving to Utah next season, ending years of uncertainty and financial instability as they tried to make it work.  This result seemed inevitable, however, and will hopefully go better than the Arizona experiment did.

Nothing is official yet, but Coyotes players and staff were informed about the relocation prior to Friday's game, so it's basically a done deal.  The formal announcement is expected next week.  The Coyotes will be sold to the owners of the Utah Jazz and begin playing in Salt Lake City under a new name next season.  The "Coyotes" name, logo and colors will remain with Phoenix, in hopes of reactivating the franchise in the future.

Ever since the team got kicked out of its arena in Glendale, the Coyotes have lived a nomadic existence as they looked for a place to play that would allow them to stay in the Phoenix area.  They've been playing at Arizona State's 5,000-seat Mullet Arena, which isn't anything close to an NHL-caliber venue.  The team has been losing money left and right since the move, but have no other alternatives at the moment.  That seems to have been the last straw that made the NHL finally pull the plug.

Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo's most recent venue plan involves a state-run land auction on June 27.  Should the team win the auction, that would become the site of their privately-funded new arena.  The plan for what would happen should the team not have the highest bid was unclear, but it likely would've involved staying at Arizona State longer.  Which is something they'd have to do anyway while the new arena was being built.

That didn't work for the NHL.  They were skeptical about the timeline and decided they needed something a little more concrete for next season.  As a result, the league told Meruelo that a sale would be the best course of action.  For his part, Meruelo will maintain a hockey presence in Phoenix, which the NHL also wants.  In fact, the sale agreement is expected to include a clause that gives Meruelo first dibs on an expansion franchise if he can get the arena situation figured out within the next five years.

(Before I move on, there's something about all this NHL expansion talk that's really been bothering me.  It's not just the idea that people won't shut up about it, even though the NHL literally just expanded and is at a nice, even 32 teams.  While expanding to 36 does seem like the next logical step, they aren't even close to there yet.  Beyond that, though, why do "experts" keep saying Atlanta is "definitely" getting a team when expansion does happen?  Atlanta, a city that's already lost two different teams to Canada!  Do they think it'll be third time's the charm?  Or is this just a ploy to get Quebec a new team once hockey in Atlanta fails again?)

Anyway, back to the Coyotes.  Meruelo will still participate in the auction and still hopes to build his arena on that 95-acre parcel of land in north Phoenix.  The complex will also include the team's practice facility, as well as a theater, housing units and retail space.  So, he doesn't want to just build an arena.  He wants to build an entire entertainment district (a la the Atlanta Braves).  It's all contingent on him winning the auction, though, so you can see why the NHL was hesitant to endorse the project...which would still take a few years to film, and they'd still need a temporary solution in the meantime.

The Delta Center in Salt Lake City, where the Jazz have played since 1991, isn't a permanent solution, either.  It's fine for a temporary facility, but the NHL has made it clear that hockey-specific upgrades must be performed in order for it to become the Coyotes' permanent home.  The difference with Salt Lake City, though, is that the Utah State Senate has already approved the funding for a renovated downtown entertainment district, which also has the support of the governor.  So, it looks like a new arena for the Jazz and Coyotes (that would also likely figure into the city's plans for the 2034 Winter Olympics) is happening.

And with a relocation to Salt Lake City and potential new arena, that will hopefully put an end to all the uncertainty surrounding the Arizona Coyotes.  In a way, you've got to give the NHL credit for sticking it out in Phoenix as long as they did.  Sure, some of the factors that led to the Coyotes' situation were outside of their control.  But it's also a franchise that had long been plagued by mismanagement and bankruptcy, including a span where it was owned by the league.  So, it's not like you couldn't see this relocation coming.  And, who knows?  Maybe all they need is a fresh start somewhere else (with that somewhere else being Salt Lake City).

Would the NHL in Phoenix have worked had the franchise not been so poorly run and had a stable arena situation?  Perhaps.  I guess that's why the NHL is committed to maintaining a presence in the area.  And it's easy to understand why.  Auston Matthews is one of the best players in the game right now.  He's from Phoenix.  If not for the Coyotes, he might not even be a hockey player.  Not to mention the size of the Phoenix market.  It's the 11th-biggest in the U.S., which will make it one of the largest not to have a full complement of teams in the four major sports (Phoenix also doesn't have an MLS team, while the Mercury are one of three WNBA franchises from the inaugural season still playing in their original city).

Salt Lake City, meanwhile, is about to become a two-team market after decades of the Jazz being the only game in town (they also have the Salt Lake Bees, the Angels' Triple-A affiliate, and Salt Lake City was one of the options being discussed for the A's before they settled on Sacramento).  I'm curious to see what the response will be.  There's no reason to think it won't be a successful hockey market, especially since they made it very clear they wanted the team.  And I don't think the NHL would be going there if it considered Salt Lake City a risk.  After all, look at how well they did with Las Vegas and Seattle!

But, is Salt Lake City ready to have a second pro team?  One that won't just be sharing an arena with the Jazz, but will be playing an overlapping season with them?  (They also have an MLS squad, Real Salt Lake, in addition to the Bees, and the Utah Grizzlies are a minor league hockey team that currently plays in the ECHL.)  I would imagine Major League Baseball will also be keeping a close eye on the success of the NHL in Salt Lake City as they begin considering cities for their next round of expansion, which seems like it will probably kick off once the A's officially move to Las Vegas in 2028.  

As for Arizona, it was an ambitious move when they relocated from Winnipeg to a completely untapped market in 1996.  They lasted a lot longer than some people thought, and their failure wasn't from lack of trying.  And it's certainly worth wondering if things might've gone differently had the team been more successful on the ice.  But, as one chapter ends in Phoenix, a new one begins in Salt Lake City.

This location feels so different than what's going on with the A's, too.  In Oakland, the fans are angry.  In Phoenix, does anyone even care?  Will they even miss the Coyotes?  The fact that I'm even asking those questions make it pretty clear that moving the team is the right decision.  For all involved.

Gold Is Where the Money Is

When the Modern Olympics were conceived 130 years ago, they were intended to be competition between amateurs.  While that seems like a quaint, romantic notion now, it really was a sign of the times.  In the 1890s, sports weren't a profession.  They were leisurely activities the well-to-do did to pass the time.

A lot has changed since then.  Obviously.  Sports have become a multi-billion-dollar business, and it's very much a full-time profession for the athletes, many of whom are well compensated.  Even the Olympics have long since transitioned away from competition between amateurs.  While there are still plenty of amateurs involved, the Olympics have been mainly professional since the 1992 Games in Barcelona. 

Some countries even offer financial rewards for their medalists.  The USOPC, for example, will award $37,500 for a gold medal, $22,500 for silver and $15,000 for bronze in Paris.  That's actually on the low end compared to what some other countries give their Olympic medalists!  (Although, in fairness, with the number of medals the U.S. figures to win, that's an investment of well over $1 million being committed by the USOPC.)

It's not just countries that have the discretion to financially compensate Olympic medalists.  International federations are free to do the same.  And in Paris, World Athletics will become the first.  World Athletics President Sebastian Coe announced on Wednesday that the federation is earmarking $2.4 million of its IOC funding as prize money for the winners.  Gold medalists will receive $50,000 each (in the five relays, the members will split it).  While prize money will only go to the gold medalists in Paris, that will be expanded to the silver and bronze medalists, as well, in LA.

This, frankly, was a long time coming.  Track & field will be the first sport to offer Olympic prize money, but it surely won't be the last!  The question in LA won't be if any other international federations follow suit, but how many?  And, now that this can of worms has been opened, will the IOC leave it up to the international federations?  Or will they directly pay the athletes themselves?

The argument against awarding prize money at the Olympics has always been that athletes don't need any extra incentive to win an Olympic medal.  The Olympic medal itself is worth far more than any prize money.  While that's true, the awarding of prize money won't take away any of that prestige.  The Olympic gold medal is still the Olympic gold medal, the pinnacle of sporting achievement.  Also receiving prize money won't change that.

All the decision to award prize money to the gold medalists does is acknowledge the reality that these are professional athletes who deserve to be compensated as such.  The Olympics are no longer an amateur endeavor.  They haven't been in a long time.  Yet, the Olympics--the biggest competition of them all--remained the only major event that didn't award any prize money.  At the World Athletics Championships, they've awarded prize money since 1997, and they also have a $100,000 world record bonus.  So, this is nothing new for the sport.

World Athletics receives one of the biggest shares of IOC revenue.  The $2.4 million being set aside for the gold medalists is just a small portion of that.  Athletes will also receive less for winning in Paris than they did at last year's World Championships in Budapest, where the gold medalists earned $70,000 each.  None of that is the point.  The point is that winning an Olympic gold medal will get you paid.  A just reward for all the years of work put in.

Seb Coe was an Olympic gold medalist himself.  He's always been forward-thinking and athlete-first.  So, it's really no surprise that the sport he leads would be the trendsetter.  It's not the first time track & field has been at the forefront of change.  World Athletics first banned Russia because of the country's doping problems in 2015, long before the other international federations and the IOC.  Here we are, nine years later, and that ban is still in effect (although, now it's also because of the invasion of Ukraine).

Much like the NCAA and the NIL, the decision by World Athletics to award Olympic prize money is an acknowledgement of the athletes' role in generating that massive revenue.  They deserve a piece of that pie.  And $50,000 is not an insignificant amount, either.  That's $50,000 per event, too.  If Noah Lyles wins four gold medals, which is definitely possible, he'll earn $125,000.  Now, while that may not seem like much for a well-compensated brand name like Noah Lyles, just think about how much of a difference $50,000 can make for athletes from smaller countries (in addition to whatever they get from their national federation).

One of the most important points made in the World Athletics announcement was that prize money won't be paid until the ratification process has been completed.  Athletes must also successfully complete all of the anti-doping procedures.  That, to me, is the biggest potential issue.  We've seen Olympic results changed years after the fact because of doping violations.  (They're still changing the results from London, 12 years later!)  Now we're looking at the possibility of dopers receiving prize money, as well as the medal, that they'll have to give back, as well as someone who'll have to be upgraded and paid the prize money they're owed well after the fact.

Even still, there's no way to look at this development as anything other than a good thing.  It seemed like a natural and inevitable progression, too.  Representing your country at an Olympics is honor enough.  But these are also professional athletes, so the idea of them competing for nothing in the year 2024 really was kind of illogical.  Especially with the amount of money generated (for everybody else) by the Olympics.

In his statement, Coe acknowledged that.  Gone are the days when athletes competed for nothing more than per diem and national pride.  Track & field simply changed with the times, which Coe doesn't think is at odds with the IOC's ideals.  In fact, he thinks it only further emphasizes the IOC's focus on the athletes--the ones who there would be no Olympic Games without.  And, while IOC President Thomas Bach hasn't commented one way or the other, Paris 2024 President Tony Estanguet is all for it.

Throughout the leadup, they've been promising that the Paris Games will be unlike any Olympics we've ever seen.  We can add another innovation to the list.  The Paris Olympics will be the first where gold medalists receive prize money directly from their international federation.  So what if it's only in track & field?  It's a start.  And a big one at that.