Balls & Strikes

With the start of Spring Training games, we also get the start of MLB's experimenting with the automated balls & strikes system.  This is something that we all saw coming, especially after it was successfully tried out in the Minor Leagues.  It won't be used in the regular season, but that's probably coming as well, perhaps as early as 2026.  (Although, I'd imagine it might wait until 2027 since the current CBA expires after next season and that way they can work it into the negotiations.)

Minor League testing revealed that success rate on challenges was roughly 50 percent, and there was an average of 3-4 challenges per game.  Using those numbers as their baseline, MLB determined that two challenges per team was an appropriate number (with challenges retained if they're successful).  And only the pitcher, catcher or hitter can request a challenge...with no consultation from the dugout.  That's a huge point.  Because with teams only having two challenges available to them, it's up to the players to decide if it's the right moment to use one.

It didn't take long to get the first ball/strike challenge, either!  Cubs pitcher Cody Poteet successfully challenged a ball call in the first inning against the Dodgers on Thursday.  The replay was shown on the stadium scoreboard and took almost no time at all, so it really shouldn't affect the pace of play very much.  It'll probably take even less time than instant replay challenges, which can sometimes take minutes!

Since this is brand new, there will obviously be a bit of an adjustment period early in Spring Training, just as there was when instant replay and the pace of play initiatives were introduced.  And, since it's been used in the Minor Leagues for the past few seasons, the younger players will be more familiar with it than Major League veterans.  As a result, Reds manager Terry Francona has encouraged his veterans not to challenge balls & strikes during Spring Training.  We'll see how long that lasts!

Much like with instant replay, the ABS challenge system seems to be the best compromise.  Some people ("fans" mainly) will always want so-called "robot" umpires calling every pitch.  That system is far from perfect, though, and those who've seen it in action, especially the players, don't want it.  It would eliminate the art of pitch framing that many catchers have mastered.  It would also eliminate the human element of the home plate umpire calling balls & strikes.  Which some may argue is a good thing, but has also been a part of baseball since the beginning and most people don't want to lose.

"Robot" umpires wouldn't eliminate the need for a home plate umpire, either, which some people don't seem to understand.  There'll still be plays at the plate that require a safe or out call.  You'll still need someone to determine if the batter got hit by the pitch or if there's a check swing or foul tip.  Or if there was catcher's interference.  So, the home plate umpire's not going away regardless.

There's also a flaw in going to a fully ABS system that the Minor and Independent League trials have revealed.  Sometimes the ABS calls a pitch a ball or strike when it actually wasn't.  The system only registers whether the ball passes through the strike zone when it crosses the plate.  It doesn't account for bouncing in front of the plate first or other things like that.  In those cases, the home plate umpire can overrule the ABS.

So, going completely to the ABS doesn't seem like it'll ever be a viable option.  The system is far too imperfect for that.  And the human element of umpiring is still needed for all those judgment decisions.  But, umpires are people and people make mistakes.  So, in the interest of getting it right, using the ABS with a challenge system is the way to go.

And, as we've seen with instant replay, the umpires want to get it right, too.  So, if a challenge system helps them get the call right, they're all for it.  And some missed calls are more impactful than others.  Is there much of a difference between a 1-1 and a 2-0 count with the bases empty in the first inning?  No.  The difference between 1-1 and 0-2 with the tying run on third and two out in the eighth, though?  Different story.  That can be massive!

That's where the strategy element comes in.  Especially since it's being left up to the players (at least for now).  They have to decide when's the right time to use it.  And they'd better be right.  Because the last thing you want is to waste challenges and not have any left when you really need one.  So, yes, the players need to be aware of the situation and not just challenge for the sake of challenging (which we see in tennis far too often).

Only giving teams two (unsuccessful) challenges apiece is an important detail, too.  It was never going to be unlimited.  Then you'd have somebody questioning every borderline pitch and games would take forever!  They tried three challenges each and found that to be too many.  So, two it is.  Which seems reasonable and makes sense seeing as that's also the number of instant replay challenges teams get per game.

Instant replay has been tremendous for Major League Baseball.  The ABS system is essentially just the ball/strike version of instant replay.  And, with a roughly 50/50 success rate, the players will find out that the umpire is right half the time.  That may end up causing them to rethink their understanding of the strike zone.  At the very least, it might encourage them to limit the use of challenges to pitches that were glaringly missed instead of the borderline ones that could've gone either way.

This Spring Training trial run is simply that.  A trial.  This isn't like the recent rule changes where Spring Training was used for players to get accustomed to them.  So, it'll be very interesting to see how the ABS challenge system is received and how MLB chooses to move forward.  Full implementation (using the challenge system) seems likely.  It's really just a question of when.

What I hope the end result is, though, is something else entirely.  Hopefully it makes people understand how difficult a job umpiring is and gain a greater appreciation of the profession.  Because umpires don't set out to get calls wrong or "screw" teams.  They were all for instant replay as a tool that can help them get calls right, which is all they want.  Same thing with automated balls & strikes.  It's a tool.  A helpful tool.  And if it can help them get it right, they're all for it, too.

The Rivals Meet Again

When the 4 Nations Face-Off was still just in the idea stage, the ideal scenario in most people's minds was the United States and Canada meeting in the final.  Well, everyone got their wish.  If that game on Saturday wasn't intense enough (three fights in nine seconds to start the game!), just imagine what it'll be like in the championship game!  And this is an exhibition tournament!  Now picture them playing for Olympic gold next year!

The 4 Nations Face-Off hasn't just been an unqualified success, it's given the NHL, NHLPA and fans everything they wanted and then some.  That first game will definitely go down as one of the most memorable in USA-Canada series history, and the championship game will likely join it on that list.  The USA and Canada have met a lot.  They haven't all been particularly memorable or significant.  Others certainly have.  Here, in chronological order, are some of those.

1960 Olympics: This is the only game on the list that didn't feature NHL players.  I'm including it, though, because of how important it is in series history.  The U.S. and Canada met for the first-ever Olympic hockey gold medal in 1920 and regularly met at the Olympics over those first 40 years.  And, since the Soviet Union didn't start competing in the Winter Olympics until 1952, often won gold and silver.

All of those games from 1920-60 had one thing in common.  Canada won.  That all changed on February 25, 1960, when the United States earned its first-ever victory over the Canadians.  That American team would go on to make history for another reason, of course.  They took home the gold medal, the first for an American hockey team. 

As we all know, Olympic hockey stopped being an amateur tournament in 1998, when NHL players first appeared for their national teams.  In the lead up to those 1998 Games, the NHL launched the World Cup of Hockey.  The first edition of that tournament (which has been held a grand total of three times in 30 years) was in 1996.  Which brings me to the next memorable USA-Canada matchup on our list.

1996 World Cup of Hockey: They met in Philadelphia during the group stage and the United States posted a 5-3 win.  They both ended up in the best-of-three final, and Canada won the first game in overtime.  The series then shifted to Montreal, where the United States earned a 5-2 victory to force a deciding game.  Two days later, the U.S. won again, again by a 5-2 score to become the first-ever World Cup of Hockey champions.

To this day, the 1996 World Cup squad is considered arguably the second-greatest American hockey team ever assembled, behind only the 1980 Miracle On Ice team.  Mike Richter was the tournament MVP, and the U.S. roster featured six Hall of Famers: Chris Chelios, Phil Housley Brett Hull, Pat LaFontaine, Brian Leetch and Mike Modano, as well as the likes of Bill Guerin, Gary Suter, Keith Tkachuk and Doug Weight.  Ironically, this group would form the core of the 1998 Olympic team, which crashed and burned spectacularly.

Canada also had a disappointing 1998 Olympics.  With Wayne Gretzky making his only Olympic appearance as a player, they lost to Dominik Hasek in a shootout in the semifinals.  Then they lost to Finland in the bronze medal game and the favorites left Nagano empty handed.  So, they both came into the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City with something to prove.  And what we got was the gold medal game everybody wanted.

2002 Olympics: If the 1996 American team was their best in the NHL era, the team Canada put together in 2002 was one of the best in hockey history period.  They had Hall of Famers left and right.  Mario Lemieux, Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Jarome Iginla, Rob Blake, Chris Pronger, Martin Brodeur in goal to name just a few.  The American roster was strong, too, but it was no match for a star-studded Canadian team on a mission.

Heading into the Salt Lake Games, it had been 50 years since Canada's last Olympic hockey gold medal.  That drought came to an end with a 5-2 victory in the gold medal game.  It was 2-1 Canada after the first period and 3-2 after two, then Jarome Iginla and Joe Sakic scored in the third to put the game away and cause delirium North of the Border.

As it turns out, that was just the warmup.  Eight years later, it was Canada's turn to host, and the Olympics were being played in an NHL city--Vancouver.  If Canada wanted to win gold in Salt Lake, they needed to win gold in Vancouver.  What we got was arguably the greatest Olympic hockey game ever played (with the possible exception of the Miracle On Ice game).

2010 Olympics: In case there wasn't enough pressure on the Canadians already, the tension became even higher after the U.S. won the group stage game, 5-3.  The U.S. was actually the No. 1 seed in the medal round, while the Canadians stormed through Germany, Russia and Slovakia to set up a rematch for the gold medal.  With the entire country of Canada watching.  Actually, most of North America was watching.

That gold medal game was an absolute classic.  Canada had a 2-1 lead late in the third period, with the Canucks' Ryan Kesler responsible for that go-ahead goal.  After the U.S. pulled the goalie, Zach Parise tied the game with 25 seconds left in the third period.  That set up one of the most famous goals in hockey history, Sidney Crosby's OT winner that gave the host country the only gold medal it cared about at the Vancouver Games.

Will the final of the 4 Nations Face-Off come anywhere near that level of excitement and national pride?  Absolutely not!  Not even close!  But that doesn't mean it can't be another memorable chapter in the USA-Canada hockey rivalry.  After all, that's exactly what everybody wanted when the 4 Nations Face-Off was conceived in the first place!

Don't Overdo It

As soon as the first hit was delivered in the Canada-Sweden game on Wednesday night, it was clear that the players care deeply about the 4 Nations Face-Off.  The players are taking the games incredibly seriously and tournament's ratings have reflected how much fans have bought in, as well.  Which inevitably (and immediately) led to the calls that the NHL should drop its All*Star Game entirely and just play the 4 Nations every year.  Which would be a massive mistake.

Part of the reason the 4 Nations Face-Off has been such a hit is precisely because we don't see tournaments like this very often.  This is the first best-on-best hockey tournament with NHL players since 2016.  That's a huge part of its appeal, for both the fans and players.  Hockey players want to represent their countries, but (mainly because of NHL and IIHF nonsense) rarely get that chance.  Now that they finally have that opportunity, they're relishing it.

Next year, NHL players will return to the Olympics for the first time in 12 years.  That tournament will feature 12 countries.  This is just a warm-up.  Since it's a short tournament, it had to include a limited field.  In Milan, players from nations like Germany (Leon Draisaitl), Czechia (David Pastrnak) and Switzerland (Roman Josi) will be able to get in on the fun.  Pastrnak, especially, has been experiencing some serious FOMO during this event.

That's one of the reasons why the 4 Nations Face-Off shouldn't become a regular thing.  While the four countries that were chosen make sense, it would be incredibly unfair to players from every other nation represented in the NHL if they never got the opportunity to play in a showcase of this sort.  And, as I said last week, how would you be able to get away with not including Russia?  Especially since they'd field a pretty good team?

I think the NHL fears international oversaturation, too.  Which is why they're being very deliberate about NOT succumbing to temptation and making this an annual event, which would definitely get watered-down as it went on.  That doesn't mean the NHL isn't right to embrace international hockey, though.  The league and owners finally get it.  It's what the players AND fans want, which is only good for the game.  (More people are watching the 4 Nations Face-Off than NHL regular season games by a wide margin.)

Rather, the NHL wants to have an international tournament every other year.  In 2026, it'll be the Milan Cortina Olympics.  Then, in 2028, a revived World Cup of Hockey, which will be moved to the same in-season February window (after all three previous editions were held in late Summer before the start of training camp).  Followed by the 2030 Olympics, another World Cup in 2032, rinse and repeat.

The World Cup of Hockey will be an eight-team tournament.  It'll be interesting to see how the teams are selected, though.  It's being run by the NHL, not the IIHF, so the decision on Russia's participation is entirely up to the league.  Honestly, I don't see how you have a tournament without them.  Ditto about Czechia.  But who would get the other two spots?  Especially when you have three viable choices in Germany, Switzerland and Slovakia.  One option could be having the eight Olympic quarterfinalists "qualify" for the next World Cup.

While we're still three years away and a lot of decisions need to be made regarding the format and other details, it was notable that the Commissioner mentioned they were accepting bids from potential host cities in both North America and Europe.  Yes, the 2026 Olympics are in Italy.  But making the players travel to Europe in February for the World Cup of Hockey seems like it would be a mistake.  Especially when they could easily have one group play at an NHL arena in the U.S. and the other play at an NHL arena in Canada.  That, to me, would make much more sense travel-wise.  Especially since a majority of the players will be based in North America.

Even if the NHL decides not to play the All*Star Game in World Cup years, that doesn't mean it's going away permanently.  Nor should it.  Because that midseason showcase is too valuable a property to just do away with it entirely.  Teams that open new arenas generally get to host an All*Star Game within the first few years.  That brings in a massive amount of revenue for the home team and city.  Plus, you have the ancillary events like the Skills Competition.  Next year's All*Star Game is being used as an Olympic send-off (which was also the intent of the 2022 All*Star Game before the NHL opted out of the Olympics), so the two (international play and the All*Star Game) can coexist.

Could the NHL All*Star Game be better?  Sure.  The league understands that, too.  That's why they keep tweaking the format.  They went from conference vs. conference to North America vs. the World to captains picking their teams to a four-team tournament between the four divisions to last year's hot mess combining the four-team tournament with the captains' picks. 

Will the All*Star Game ever have the intensity of an international tournament?  Absolutely not.  Can it be competitive?  Sure.  It's really up to the players.  If they cared about the All*Star Game, people wouldn't be asking these questions.  So, ultimately, it's a matter of incentivizing it for them.  The 4 Nations Face-Off is still exhibition games.  But they have plenty of incentive, which has made all the difference.

Compare that with the dumpster fire that was the NBA All*Star Game.  After last year's 211-186 debacle, they tried something new this year.  It was somehow even worse!  It was so bad that there was more "entertainment" and commercials than actual basketball.  It didn't help matters that LeBron announced an hour before the game that he wasn't playing.  Format changes can only make so much of a difference when the biggest name in the sport is making it abundantly clear how much he doesn't care.  Lack of caring/effort has been what plagues the NBA All*Star Game.  That's what needs to be addressed.  Otherwise, format changes are just putting lipstick on a pig.

More format changes could be on the horizon again as early as next year.  The NBA All*Star Game moves back to NBC next season.  It'll be sandwiched by Olympic coverage and will likely have an earlier start as a result.  The NBA knows they need to put forth a watchable product.  What they've displayed in each of the two years is not it.  Could a switch to USA vs. the World be coming?

While the NBA is still predominantly American (70 percent), some of the best players in the league aren't.  The international team could include players like Victor Wembanyama (France), Giannis Antetokounmpo (Greece), Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (Canada) and Nikola Jokic (Slovenia).  Filling out the international roster might be tougher (and it would be easier for foreign-born players to make the All*Star team), but the point is you could do it.  And it would be a good game (assuming the players care).

International basketball can be just as great as international hockey.  Just look at the quality of the Olympic tournament!  NBA players were representing their countries and, most importantly, they cared.  That amazing tournament was the result!  The USA-Serbia semifinal and the gold medal game between the USA and France were two of the best basketball games I've seen in quite a while.

Regardless, both the NBA and NHL need to figure it out.  Because the All*Star Game is too much of a money-maker for the league to simply do away with it.  They just need the players to buy in.  Otherwise, they might as well just turn them into the joke the Pro Bowl has become!

Live From New York

As Saturday Night Live celebrates its 50th anniversary, you can't help but be nostalgic about all the great moments that have happened on the show over the past five decades.  Plenty of those moments have involved sports, obviously.  Athletes have hosted (some were good at it, others not so much).  Athletes have made cameos.  Athletes have been impersonated.  And there have been more sports-themed sketches than I can count!

My favorite episode hosted by an athlete has to be the 2001 episode with Derek Jeter.  The most ridiculous sketch that night was "Yankees Wives," when he dressed in drag along with David Wells and David Cone (who only appeared in that sketch).  There was also an outstanding piece during "Weekend Update" where he had a point/counterpoint with Red Sox fans on the topic "Derek Jeter sucks/No I don't."

Peyton Manning's episode in 2007 was also great.  Carrie Underwood was the musical guest in that episode, so it was going to be a win-win with me regardless.  But Peyton was legit funny, too!  (If you haven't seen his monologue from the time he hosted the Espys, I highly recommend you should.)  The best sketch of the night was probably the "United Way" digital short where he keeps screaming at kids telling them how much they suck at football.  He also had a separate "Weekend Update" appearance several years ago where he excitedly gives his review of Emily In Paris, complete with a beret.

Speaking of "Weekend Update" appearances, Caitlin Clark had one last season that was absolutely memorable!  Michael Che likes to make jokes at women's sports' expense.  Caitlin Clark showed up, as herself, to call him out and made him read some women's sports jokes that completely eviscerate him!  Add comedic chops to the list of Caitlin Clark's many talents!

The most recent athlete to host SNL was Travis Kelce in 2023, fresh off the first Chiefs-Eagles Super Bowl.  It was such a great episode, and he did such a great job as host!  As she was making the talk show rounds this week, Heidi Gardner mentioned that episode and actually apologized to Taylor Swift for a sketch where she's lying in bed with him the entire time!  There's also an absurd sketch where he takes his American Girl doll to tea and another where Jason shows up.

Other athlete hosts have included Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky and Jeff Gordon (among others).  J.J. Watt and John Cena's episodes were great.  The Rock is part of the Five-Timers Club.  It isn't just athletes, either.  George Steinbrenner has hosted SNL (the actual George Steinbrenner, not the Larry David Seinfeld version)!

One athlete who didn't host, but left a memorable impression nonetheless was Carmelo Anthony.  In 2011, there was an episode where Elton John was both the host and musical guest.  The first sketch of the night was ESPN Classic: Ladies Shot Put.  One of the "competitors" was Carmela St. Knix, who "stands 6'8 and used to live in Denver."  This was right after Melo was traded from the Nuggets to the Knicks.

Charles Barkley has hosted four times, but I actually think his best SNL "appearances" are in the Inside the NBA parodies.  Kenan Thompson plays Chuck in those sketches because of course he does!  It's just one of the many spot-on impressions of sports figures that Kenan does.  His Lavar Ball is absurd, and his David Ortiz is great!

Kenan's version of Big Papi always talks about food and reads promos for ridiculous sponsors.  It all came together when they did the SNL at Home episodes during COVID.  "Big Papi's Big Dominican Lunch" was three minutes of brilliance!  After reading off all the ingredients, the step-by-step instructions were: 1. buy a big-ass pot, 2. cook everything in the pot.  Then, at the end, we got Big Papi's recipe for chicken pot pie: 1. eat a chicken, 2. smoke a little pot, 3. eat a whole pie.

While I'm not as familiar with SNL's early years, there are a couple memorable sports moments I've learned about through the documentaries that have been released as part of the anniversary celebration.  In 1985, Hulk Hogan and Mr. T co-hosted an episode where Billy Crystal had both of them laughing hysterically throughout one sketch.  Then, in 1986, Billy Martin hosted the season 11 finale.  In an obvious play on George Steinbrenner's constant firing and rehiring him as Yankees manager, Billy gets "fired" by Lorne in the second-to-last sketch before setting the studio on fire at the end of the episode.  Only Jon Lovitz was saved, and they weren't even sure if SNL would stay on the air or be cancelled.

SNL is still going strong nearly 40 years later, so we know the answer to the cancellation question!  It was actually in the Fall of 1986, during season 12, when sports and SNL converged.  Because of that memorable World Series Game 6 between the Mets and Red Sox, a scheduled airing of SNL was cancelled for the first time in its history.  They still did the show live, but it didn't air until two weeks later, with an apology from Ron Darling for the game going long at the top of the episode.

Another SNL-sports intersection came in February 2001.  That was Week 2 in the original XFL and the featured game between the Los Angeles Xtreme and Chicago Enforcers went into double overtime.  As a result, the SNL episode hosted by Jennifer Lopez started 45 minutes late.  Lorne was NOT happy!  And NBC immediately changed its policy so that any live sports coverage is cut off at 11:00 (with exceptions) whenever there's a new episode of SNL.

Jennifer Lopez also hosted the new episode of SNL that followed NBC's Olympic coverage on the second-to-last night of the Vancouver Games in 2010.  During Olympic coverage that night, Bob Costas correctly predicted that there would be "one or two Olympic gags" in that episode.  The one I remember most was where she was playing a news anchor doing the sports highlights and was terrified for the ski jumper when the ramp just ended and they went flying into the air.

That's just a sampling of the memorable athlete hosting gigs and sports-related moments on Saturday Night Live over the years.  I'm sure there are plenty I'm forgetting.  It's a standard go-to, especially around major events like the Super Bowl and the NCAA Tournament (the "NCAA Tournament Best of the White Guys" video was another classic).  It makes sense, too.  Because Saturday Night Live has always offered a satirical commentary on what's going on in the world and important in people's lives.  Sports have always been important to people (and, let's be honest, easy to make fun of), so they've always been an easy target.  And they will continue to be as long as SNL is on the air.

Mixing It Up

In a bit of tennis news that we all probably should've seen coming, the US Open will move to a Sunday start this year.  It was really only a matter of time until this happened.  The French Open went to a Sunday start a few years ago, and the Australian Open did the same in 2024.  Now the US Open will join them, leaving Wimbledon as the only Grand Slam starting on Monday.  And, considering the importance of tradition at Wimbledon, I don't see them going to a Sunday start anytime soon, either.

From a business perspective, it makes complete sense.  The US Open is already the highest-attended annual sporting event.  Adding a day means six more sessions for which they can sell tickets (day and night sessions at both Arthur Ashe & Louis Armstrong Stadiums, day session reserved seats at the Grandstand, grounds passes).  Arthur Ashe stadium seats 24,000 people, so that's at least 45,000 more tickets to be sold right there, plus 14,000 per session at Louis Armstrong Stadium.  The USTA isn't exactly hurting for money, but if you had the opportunity to make even more, why wouldn't you take it?

It doesn't actually change the schedule too much, either.  In fact, the schedule is unchanged after the first round.  The first round was extended to take place over three days instead of two, but, otherwise, everything is the same.  They're simply able to spread the matches out a little more, which means (presumably) fewer matches on each court and an earlier finish.  More significantly, it decreases the congestion on Monday and Tuesday, which helps with scheduling doubles matches.

Speaking of doubles, the other bit of US Open news that just came out definitely was surprising.  The mixed doubles tournament is being completely revamped and will no longer be played at the same time as the main draws in singles and men's/women's doubles.  Instead, it'll be held during the week before the main draw.  Not only that, it'll be limited to 16 teams and played over two days.

Matches will be fundamentally different, too.  Sets will be significantly shorter, played to four instead of six, with no-ad scoring and a tiebreaker at 4-4.  If it gets to a third set, that's a 10-point match tiebreak (which is a change that was already made a few years ago).  The only exception is the final, which will be played to the traditional six (still with no-ad scoring) in the first two sets before the third set match tiebreak.

The USTA, of course, is extolling the virtues of this revamped mixed doubles tournament.  Specifically, they mentioned the increased exposure for mixed doubles by making it, essentially, a separate event.  Every match will be played in one of the two main stadiums, with ESPN2 covering both days, including the semifinals and final in primetime for the first time.  The thought process is that mixed doubles will no longer be overshadowed by the other events.

Another argument being made is that it'll be easier for the players to enter mixed doubles since they won't have to worry about how it impacts their singles or doubles schedule.  The top players generally avoid playing mixed doubles for that very reason.  That obviously played into the decision, too.  They want the marquee names in mixed doubles.  The hope is that now they won't have an excuse not to play.  Or, even better, it will motivate them to play when otherwise they might not have.  A $1 million winner's prize is likely being used as another incentive to draw the top players to mixed doubles.

This idea didn't just come out of the blue.  Last year, they had a "Mixed Madness" event inside Arthur Ashe Stadium during US Open Fan Week that was very well-attended and a tremendous success.  The positive feedback they received from players, broadcast partners and fans likely served as inspiration for this revamped mixed doubles showcase.

Players, at least according to the press release, are on board with this change.  Jessica Pegula enjoys playing doubles and said she's excited to play mixed doubles during the first week.  Taylor Fritz participated in the "Mixed Madness" event last year and also sees the virtue of this format.  He even mentioned his experience with mixed doubles at the United Cup (the mixed-gender version of Davis Cup) and the Olympics.

Mixed doubles was added as a medal event at the Olympics in 2012, and plenty of top singles players jumped at the opportunity to go after another Olympic gold.  The Olympics is usually the only time we see some of these players play doubles, let alone mixed doubles.  It's obvious why.  It's because it's the Olympics. 

At the Olympics, you expect that.  Winning a medal for your country is all you care about.  At Grand Slams, meanwhile, the focus is on singles.  It's rare to see a top player play both singles and doubles, let alone all three.  The hope seems to be that more players will be willing to enter mixed doubles if it's a separate, stand-alone event.

That seems to be at least part of the motivation for this massive change to mixed doubles at the US Open.  Eight teams will get direct entry based on the combined singles rankings of the two players.  The other eight will be wild cards.  Nothing is mentioned about doubles rankings.  They want singles players, particularly marquee names, to play mixed doubles and think this is a way to get them to do that.  That's why the language in the first paragraph of the press release very deliberately said "a blockbuster field of the sport's biggest stars."

Personally, I don't know how I feel about this change.  Part of me has a feeling that it'll actually have the opposite effect.  Mixed doubles will fall further into insignificance, almost as if it's being relegated to the first week because it's not important enough to be featured with the other events.  It also feels gimmicky with the no-ad scoring and shorter sets.  Plus, there are players who make their livelihoods through doubles (both single-gender and mixed) who it seems like are trying to be pushed out in favor of bigger names.

But, at the same time, maybe it'll be a massive success.  So maybe they're on to something.  And mixed doubles is a great event, so giving it the spotlight and getting the top singles players to sign on may be exactly what's needed to let everybody know that.  I guess we'll find out.  And, who knows, if this works, the other Grand Slams might follow.

The Four Nations (and a Fifth)

The NHL is currently on a break for the Four Nations Face-Off, which is replacing the All*Star Game this season.  It's meant as an appetizer for next year's Olympics, when NHL players will represent their countries for the first time since 2014.  Of course, with only four nations (the United States, Canada, Sweden and Finland) participating, plenty of NHL stars who aren't from those countries won't be playing in the tournament.  So, it won't be until next year when we really get to see a best-on-best tournament that includes the likes of Leon Draisaitl (Germany), Roman Josi (Switzerland) and David Pastrnak (Czechia), to name just a few.

Sweden and Finland being the other nations to play in the tournament makes perfect sense, too.  They have the most NHL players from outside North America and were the only countries capable of fielding an entirely-NHL roster (which is important since this also an NHLPA event).  There's really only one other country that has enough NHLers to field a team, but can't.

I'm, of course, talking about Russia.  Russia's been persona non grata in the international sporting community for the better part of a decade and is currently suspended by the IIHF until at least the 2026 World Championships.  It's ultimately up to the IOC whether they'll be allowed to field a team Milan Cortina, and they're in the tentative field.  It would be shocking if Russia ends up playing in the Olympic tournament, though.

It's hard to imagine a best-on-best hockey tournament without Russia, and I'd imagine they'll wait to have the next World Cup of Hockey (which is currently scheduled for 2028) until Russia is eligible to play.  For a four-team invitational, though, you can easily get away with it.  Especially since the quality of the field doesn't really drop with just the two North American and the two Scandanavian teams.

Imagine if Russia was in the field, though!  They'd have the best goaltending in the tournament, and it wouldn't even be close!  I seriously don't know how you'd score on any of those three goalies!  Then you throw in the offensive firepower the Russians would have, and they'd arguably be the favorites.  A Russian roster might look something like this, and it would be pretty formidable:

Goalies: Sergei Bobrovsky (FLA), Igor Shesterkin (NYR), Andriy Vasilevskiy (TB)
Defensemen: Nikita Zadorov (BOS), Dmitry Orlov (CAR), Ivan Provorov (CBJ), Dmitry Kulikov (FLA), Alexander Romanov (NYI), Artem Zub (OTT), Mikhail Sergachev (UTA)
Forwards: Andrei Svechnikov (CAR), Valeri Nichushkin (COL), Evgenii Dadonov (DAL), Vladimir Tarasenko (DET), Kirill Kaprizov (MIN), Artemi Panarin (NYR), Evgeni Malkin (PIT), Pavel Buchnevich (STL), Alexey Toropchenko (STL), Nikita Kucherov (TB), Ivan Barbashev (VGK), Alex Ovechkin (WSH), Vladislav Namestinkov (WPG)

But, alas, Russia (or whatever name they're given at the time) won't be playing in the Four Nations Face-Off.  If this tournament becomes a regular thing (which I doubt...I think it's designed to be a one-off), I'd be curious to see how they'd work Russia in.  Would you make it a five-team event where they all play four games instead of three?  It's most likely irrelevant, but still an interesting question to ponder.  Just as it's an interesting question to ponder how well Russia would've done this year.

Russia's absence will do nothing to impact the quality or competitiveness of this tournament, though.  We've been waiting nine years for a tournament of this type.  There hasn't been an NHL-level international tournament since the 2016 World Cup of Hockey.  Players like Auston Matthews and Connor McDavid are representing their countries internationally at the senior level for the first time.  So, yeah, it's a big deal.  And you can bet all four teams are playing to win.

They'll each play two games in Montreal before the action shifts to Boston for the third round robin game next Monday.  Then the top two meet for the gold medal next Thursday night.  I can see any of the four teams winning.  And whoever does will immediately be installed as the Olympic favorites.

Let's start with the United States.  This is arguably the greatest generation of American NHL talent ever, and it'll be exciting to see them all playing together on the same team for the first time.  I'd argue that the U.S. has the strongest goaltending in the tournament.  Connor Hellebuyck is the clear starter, but Jake Oettinger and Jeremy Swayman aren't exactly slouches.  And there's a ton of offensive firepower in the likes of Auston Matthews, Jack Hughes, Jack Eichel and the Tkachuk brothers (among others).

Canada, meanwhile, will need to rely on its offense.  The Canadian collection of forwards is far and away the best group.  Nathan MacKinnon, Connor McDavid and Sidney Crosby are all on the same team.  And, oh yeah, they've got the best defenseman (Cale Makar), too.  Goaltending could be a problem, though.  They don't have a Patrick Roy or Martin Brodeur or Roberto Luongo in net.  In fact, Canada has the weakest goaltending group in the tournament.  I'm assuming Adin Hill of the Golden Knights will be the starter.  It's really between him and the Blues' Jordan Binnington.  The goalie options for Canada were so bad that Montreal's Sam Montembeault made the roster as the third goalie.

Finland (which, don't forget, won the Olympic gold in 2022) has the most solid goalie situation.  Nashville's Juuse Saros is the clear starter.  I actually think the Finnish roster is the strongest overall group.  They don't have as many big names as the U.S. or Canada, but, I'm telling you, Finland is the sleeper team in this tournament.  Although, they did lose their best defenseman (the Stars' Miro Heiskanen), so let's see if that's a factor at all.

As for Sweden, they've got all of the best defensemen.  Victor Hedman, Mattias Ekholm, Rasmus Dahlin, Gustav Forsling and Erik Karlsson on the blue line.  And a forward group that includes the likes of William Nylander, Elias Pettersson, Filip Forsberg and Mika Zibanejad.  I'm curious to see which goalie they settle on as the starter, though.  The Devils' Jacob Markstrom is hurt, which was a big loss, so it's down to Linus Ullmark or Filip Gustavsson.  It's really a toss-up between the two.

What I'm about to say will sound crazy, but I actually think Canada has the weakest roster overall.  Based strictly on the fact that they have the best goaltending and will score enough, I've got the United States making the final.  Their opponent in the gold medal game is a tough call between Sweden and Finland, but I think Sweden has a slight edge.  So, my gold medal matchup is the United States vs. Sweden.

By winning that gold medal game, the United States will have the privilege/burden of being considered the favorites at the Milan Cortina Olympics.  I'm also curious to see how much different the Olympic rosters will look.  Because there are some big names who aren't playing in the Four Nations Face-Off (for whatever reason).  (Canada, for example, doesn't have Conor Bedard or Mathew Barzal, and the U.S. is missing Matty Beniers and an injured Quinn Hughes.)  Does the winner keep its Four Nations team mostly intact?  Or will the Olympic roster feature multiple changes?  You'd have to think the results might dictate that, and that some players are definitely playing for spots on their nation's Olympic team.

Ultimately, whichever of the four teams wins doesn't really matter.  That's not the point of the tournament.  It's designed to get us excited for the NHL's return to the Olympics in 2026.  And a tournament featuring 92 NHL players representing four of the biggest hockey nations sure is a great way to do that!  Just imagine how much better it'll be in Milan when all of the other countries are there too!

Appreciate the Greatness

In the two weeks since the Conference Championship Games, there's been plenty of whining about the matchup and people claiming they won't watch because they don't want to see the Chiefs and Eagles.  Most of the hate, of course, is directed at the Chiefs, who are making their fifth Super Bowl appearance in six years and going for their third straight title.  And I get it.  People who aren't Chiefs fans are tired of seeing them win, for whatever reason.  Which, frankly, is ridiculous!

Everything Nate Burleson said after the AFC Championship Game was 100 percent correct.  The Chiefs are just the latest team to be hated for, essentially, being too good.  Before them, people had the exact same complaints about the Bradicheck Patriots.  And, as the excellent 30 for 30 "Four Falls of Buffalo" (which aired last Sunday night) reminded us, 30 years ago, it was the Bills.  Which is more than a little ironic when you consider what team's fans dislike the Chiefs the most.

Most of those Chiefs complaints seem to center around officiating and the fact that they seem to receive beneficial calls.  Roger Goodell even addressed it at his Super Bowl press conference, and the NFL Referees Association released its own statement the next day.  They both said the exact same thing.  It's ridiculous to even suggest.

Your perception is your reality, obviously, so statements from the commissioner and the officials' union will do nothing to do anything to change anybody's mind.  But, if you look at it objectively (not with a Chiefs-hating lens), you'll see how absurd it is.  Even taking the questions of integrity out of the equation, why would the NFL be stupid enough to risk a $20 billion-a-year business trying to rig a certain result? 

It's asinine to think they'd be that dumb simply because you don't like a particular team.  If it was your team, would you have a problem with it?  Of course not!  That's the other reason why it's so crazy to suggest that!  If your team was on the receiving end of the favorable calls that the Chiefs get, would you think it was good call?  If so, that might just be proof that the officiating is fair (whether people want to believe it or not).

All of that talk about nonsense overshadows what we've been witnessing over the past six years.  Greatness.  The Chiefs are the first team ever to reach the Super Bowl five times in six seasons, and they're looking to be the first to win three in a row.  (That's another thing that's been annoying me in the two weeks since the championship games.  Packers fans chiming in with their reminders that the Chiefs wouldn't be the first team to win three straight championships.  They wouldn't be.  No one's claiming they would.  They would, however, be the first to win three straight Super Bowls, which is an important distinction that has been made time and again.)

Anyway, if you don't want to see the Chiefs anymore, there's a very simple way for that to not happen.  Beat them!  The fact that no one has been able to isn't a sign of a rigged system.  It's a sign that what we've been seeing in Kansas City over the past six years is actually something pretty special and will be appreciated as such in time.  Frankly, it should be appreciated as such now.  Because what Andy Reid, Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce & Co. is unprecedented.

The Chiefs win so many different ways, too.  The AFC Championship Game was the first time all season they've scored 30 points.  Meanwhile, they're 17-2 (and one of the losses came in Week 18, when they didn't care at all).   So, they're not outscoring you like in years past.  They've been winning because of their defense, with some late Mahomes Magic sometimes sprinkled in.  And the fact that they win so many close games, especially with late comebacks, shows just how good they really are.  The Chiefs are never out of the game.

Take their three Super Bowl wins.  They've all followed a similar script.  The Chiefs trailed in the fourth quarter of all three.  In the last two years, they've kicked a late field goal (for the win against the Eagles, for the tie last year).  Last year, they were down by a field goal in overtime, too...and drove for the game-winning touchdown.  So, basically what I'm saying is that you need to play all four quarters against them.  If you don't, they'll make you pay.

(Also, this stuff has nothing to do with the game, but they're just quirky little stats that I found interesting.  This is FOX's third time covering a Chiefs Super Bowl.  They've had a different broadcast crew each time.  In Super Bowl LIV, it was Joe & Troy, then Burkhart & Olson two years ago.  Now, it's Burkhart & Brady.  Speaking of Brady, prior to Super Bowl LV, we'd never had a home team win the Super Bowl.  Then we got it back-to-back with the Bucs and Rams.  And that could be immediately followed by the first-ever Super Bowl three-peat.  It's also just weird that Kansas City can make it four in six years with the wins coming against the same two opponents: San Francisco & Philadelphia, twice each.)

Super Bowl LIX: Chiefs (17-2) vs Eagles (17-3): Kansas City-I think this year's game will be very similar to what we've seen in the Chiefs' last two appearances.  The Eagles are better than they were two years ago, when it was really left up to Jalen Hurts and the defense was a clear weakness.  That's not the case anymore.  Philadelphia's defense is the biggest positive difference for them this season.  And, not to mention, they had Saquon Barkley rushing for 2,000 yards.

Saquon has shown all season that he's a master at the big play.  It's why he won Offensive Player of the Year.  You obviously have to be aware of his presence, which opens up things for Hurts.  Saquon is still the Eagles' No. 1 offensive option, so the run game will be key.  If the Eagles are able to run the ball as efficiently as they hope, they'll wear out the Kansas City defense.  If the Chiefs can stop the run and get off the field, that puts the onus on the Eagles' defense stopping Mahomes.

As we've seen time and again, one of Kansas City's greatest strengths is its ability to hang around.  The Chiefs are never out of a game.  And the longer you let them stay within striking distance, the better the chances they'll take advantage.  So, the Eagles not only need to control possession, they need those long drives to end with points.  Preferably seven.  If they can do that, they have a very real chance of winning.  If not, we're likely looking at a three-peat.

Seemingly no matter what over the past three years, the Chiefs have found a way to stay motivated and used it to fuel their success.  They've been thinking about a three-peat since the confetti fell in Las Vegas last year.  And, I've learned better than to bet against Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes.  That's why I think we'll see NFL history in New Orleans.  Kansas City lifts the Lombardi Trophy for the third straight time, cementing its status as one of the greatest NFL dyansties of all-time.

Conference Championships: 1-1
Playoffs: 8-4
Overall: 185-99