Still Figuring Out the Schedule

As the NHL appears ready to approve an 84-game schedule moving forward, the SEC has spent more than a year trying to figure out whether it'll play an eight- or nine-game football schedule once Texas and Oklahoma join the conference.  Georgia Head Coach Kirby Smart called the never-ending discussion "the most overrated conversation in the world," and it doesn't look like they'll have a resolution anytime soon.  Which really is ridiculous if you think about it.

Let's start with the NHL, which isn't just more straightforward, it also seems to be essentially a done deal.  They just need the NHLPA to sign off on it and figure out the financials.  But, it looks like the NHL will be adding two games (I'd imagine starting in 2024-25), which is basically just putting back the two division teams every team lost when Seattle joined the league.

The NHL schedule is actually pretty balanced.  Teams play the 16 teams in the other conference twice each (32 games) and three games against the eight teams in the other division within their conference (24 games).  The remaining 26 games are against your division rivals.  Since there are seven of them, though, you play five division opponents four times and only three games against the other two.  And that quickly became a problem.

It seemed like they tried to rotate the division teams you only play three times in a season.  But that rotation resulted in two big rivalries, Rangers-Islanders and Oilers-Flames, being done with their season series in December.  More significantly, the Oilers and Islanders ended up having only one home game against their biggest rival!  Which is just no good, from both an attendance and TV perspective.

There was a very simple solution to this problem.  Adding two games brings you to 28 total against your division foes.  Or four per opponent.  Thus, you don't have to rotate who you only play three times.  (Before Vegas joined, they rotated two division opponents to play five times.)  It also gives everybody an extra home game, which, in turn, gives the NHL a little more flexibility in scheduling international or Stadium Series games.

So, it should really be no surprise that both the league and players are all for it.  I suspected that an 84-game schedule was on the horizon as soon as Seattle was approved as the league's 32nd team, simply because of the easier math.  Expect the 84-game schedule to be approved and formally announced fairly soon.  

Unfortunately, things aren't that easy in the SEC.  Despite knowing for a while that the addition of Texas and Oklahoma is imminent, they still can't agree on eight or nine games.  Some coaches would prefer eight games.  Others want nine.  The reasons for both opinions vary, but it's created an impasse that will need to get resolved soon.  Texas and Oklahoma join the league in the Fall of 2024, so they've gotta figure it out so that the schedule can be made.

They are able to agree on one thing.  No more divisions.  With the NCAA loosening the requirements for conferences to have a championship game, the divisional structure is no longer required.  Which also resolves one of the biggest issues with the SEC's current schedule model.  With divisions, teams face the same opponents year after year and rarely see teams from the other division (Georgia has still never visited Texas A&M...Texas A&M has been in the SEC for more than a decade).  Dropping divisions takes care of that.  They'll see every team at least every other year and will be guaranteed to play everybody at home at least once during the four years of a player's eligibility.

That seems to be the only thing they can agree on, though.  At issue in the eight vs. nine debate seems to be some teams not wanting to lose a non-conference (home) game and replacing it with a conference game.  It's true that eight more conference games will result in eight more losses for SEC teams, and with the CFP essentially rewarding teams for playing tougher schedules, the game that could get scrapped may be the guarantee game against an FCS opponent that the SEC team typically wins 49-3 without breaking a sweat.  Which, in turn, is often what funds the football program (and sometimes the entire Athletic Department) at some of these smaller schools.

However, the concern seems to be less about that as much as it is about adding another quality opponent.  Kentucky, which plays Louisville every year, is one of the biggest proponents of keeping it at eight.  Likewise, South Carolina (Clemson), Georgia (Georgia Tech) and Florida (Florida State) also play annual rivalry games against the in-state ACC school.  That rivalry game would mean they all have 10 Power 5 opponents already locked in each season, which, to them, feels like a lot.

Keeping it at eight would also make scheduling somewhat easier since teams would only have one permanent opponent, then go seven-on, seven-off with the others.  That brings plenty of its own problems, though, since most SEC teams have multiple opponents they'd like to see every year.  Either way, some rivalries will no longer be permanent.  And either way, somebody's gonna be unhappy, whether they go with eight or nine.

For example, Texas A&M would like to play Texas every year.  LSU would like to play Alabama.  Georgia has played Auburn 127 times and would like to see that series continue.  That wouldn't be possible with an eight-game conference schedule, though, since Texas-Oklahoma, Alabama-Auburn and Georgia-Florida (and, likely, Texas A&M-LSU) will be the permanent rivalries.  (I'm assuming the others would be Mississippi-Mississippi State, Arkansas-Missouri, Tennessee-Vanderbilt and Kentucky-South Carolina.)

I, personally, am a fan of a nine-game conference schedule in a 3-6-6 model.  That third permanent opponent would give teams a chance to preserve all of their important rivalries.  Yes, there are concerns that some teams would have easier/tougher schedules based on who their permanent opponents are, but you're never gonna find a formula that makes everybody happy.  That's why a compromise needs to be reached.  And soon.  Since they need to figure it out and make a schedule before Texas and Oklahoma join.

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has even said that they may come up with a short-term solution that's only in place for a year or two before settling on a final model.  It seems to me that's most likely what they'll end up doing, at least in 2024...probably in an eight-game format.  Moving forward, though, they'd benefit far more from playing nine conference games.  It's just a matter of getting Kentucky (and the other holdouts) on board.

The Race at the Brickyard

It's the last Sunday in May, which only means one thing.  Yes, it's Memorial Day Weekend.  But it's also the greatest day in racing.  The Monte Carlo Grand Prix in the morning, the Indy 500 in the afternoon, and the Coca-Cola 600 starting in the evening and running well into the night.  A full day of watching cars go around in circles (at least in Indianapolis and Charlotte).  A day that includes the Greatest Spectacle In Racing.

This year's Indy 500 marks the end of an era.  Tony Kanaan will retire after the race.  This is his 22nd consecutive (and last) Indianapolis 500.  He led the race in each of his first seven trips to the Brickyard and finally won in 2013.  More significantly, he's an all-around good guy and my favorite Indy Car driver.  And now he's retiring.  Yet another sign that I'm getting old.

TK is one of nine former champions in the field.  That's nearly a third of the starting grid.  And six of them are starting along the first four rows.  So, it's very possible that we'll somebody become a multi-time Indy 500 champion, joining two-time winner Takuma Sato and Helio Castroneves, with his record-tying four victories at the Brickyard.

The entire front row, however, is guys who've never won at Indy before.  In fact, none of the first five starters has won the race.  And, frankly, pole-sitter Alex Palou has looked very strong all month!  He's gotta be the favorite heading into the 107th running of the Indianapolis 500.  Palou has finished in the top five in four of the five races this season, is coming off a win on the Indy road course, and set the record for qualifying speed.  So, yeah, he's the one to beat.

However, the pole sitter hasn't won since Simon Pagenaud in 2019.  And Palou knows that a great lead-up means absolutely nothing if you don't cross the yard of bricks first after 200 laps.  Just last year, in fact, he started second before falling back to ninth at the finish.  He also placed second after a back-and-forth battle with Helio Castroneves in 2021, so he's handled himself on this stage before.  Which is why I'm still saying he's the favorite.

There are plenty of others capable of winning, though.  Starting with Santino Ferrucci.  Ferrucci challenged Palou's speed throughout the Fast Six qualifying, ultimately ending up fourth on the grid.  He's finished in the top 10 at each of his previous Indy 500 starts, which, combined with his fast car, gives me reason to be high on Ferrucci's chances to be there at the end.

Another potential first-time winner I like is Felix Rosenqvist.  He finished fourth last year and is starting third this year.  The other front-row starter is Rinus VeeKay, who, incredibly, has never started lower than fourth in his four trips to the Brickyard.  He only has one top-10 finish, though, and last year he was last!  I'm not sure what it is about race day.  He obviously has a fast enough car, but, as I was saying about Palou, what difference does that make if you don't put it together when it matters?

Then there's Pato O'Ward and Josef Newgarden.  O'Ward does seem to be on a path that will see him sipping milk in Victory Lane eventually.  In his three previous Indy 500 starts, he was sixth, fourth and second, and he nearly caught Marcus Ericsson at the line in last year's race.  Newgarden, meanwhile, has been a consistent performer throughout his Indy career.  I'm not saying he'll be there at the end.  I wouldn't be surprised if he is, though.

I'm also curious to see how Graham Rahal does.  There were 34 entries in this year's race.  Rahal was the one who got bumped out with literally seconds to go in qualifying.  However, Stefan Wilson suffered an injury in practice and can't run.  Enter Graham Rahal!  Rahal will ride as Wilson's replacement, extending his streak to 16 consecutive Indy 500 starts.  His car obviously wasn't good enough to get him in, but how will he do with his second chance?  In somebody else's car?

Rahal isn't the only one with an impressive streak of Indy 500 starts.  Will Power's also at 16.  Marco Andretti will be in his 17th straight.  Indy's own Ed Carpenter is making his 20th consecutive start.  This is Kanaan's 21st and last.  It's also No. 21 for Scott Dixon.  And, of course, Helio Castroneves has raced here every year since 2001, when he won as a rookie (and again in 2002...the first two of his four sips of milk).

On the opposite end of the spectrum are four rookies looking to do what was last achieved by Alexander Rossi in 2016...winning the Indianapolis 500 in their debut.  Three of them are starting in the back--Agustin Canapino, R.C. Enerson and the amazingly-named Sting Ray Robb.  Then there's Benjamin Pedersen, who made the Fast 12 qualifying and will be starting 11th.  So, he's probably a safe bet for Rookie of the Year.

Speaking of Rookie of the Year, shouldn't it just go to the highest-placing rookie?  I always thought it did until Jimmie Johnson won it last year.  The NASCAR legend was having a good run until an accident on lap 193 knocked him out of the race and he finished 28th.  Four other rookies completed all 200 laps, led by David Malukas in 16th place.  Johnson was Rookie of the Year anyway, I'm guessing mostly because of his name recognition.

Johnson had always said he wanted to race the Indy 500 at least once in his career.  "At least once" clearly means "once."  Because he'll be racing on Sunday.  In Charlotte at the Colca-Cola 600, after making a part-time return to NASCAR after a short-lived retirement (which led to his moonlighting as an Indy Car driver).

As for who'll win at the Brickyard, I keep coming back to one name.  Alex Palou.  He's starting first, which is where he'll also finish.  Palou wins from the pole.

Somebody Else Is Allowed to Win

That was my first thought about this year's French Open after Rafael Nadal announced he has to miss this year's tournament due to injury.  So, for the first time in nearly two decades, we know for a fact that Clay Boy won't add to his collection of Coupes de Mousquetaires.  In fact, he even hinted at a 2024 retirement, so, assuming he's back next year, it'll be his French Open farewell (with the Olympics presumably being his final tournament at Roland Garros).  Still, no Nadal means a wide open field.

OK, to call the field "wide open" is a stretch.  Because there are two clear favorites.  And they unfortunately ended up on the same side of the draw, so they can't meet in the final.  My No. 3 choice to win the tournament is also in the top half, which definitely looks like the stronger section.

World No. 1 Carlos Alcaraz might've been the favorite even if Nadal was playing.  He burst onto the scene last year in the European clay court French Open tune-ups and ended up reaching the quarterfinals, where he lost to Alexander Zverev.  Alcaraz went on to win the US Open and become No. 1.  And now he'll play a Grand Slam as the No. 1 seed for the first time in his career.  If he ends up lifting the trophy, I have a feeling it could be the first of many.

Novak Djokovic's strange odyssey saw him reclaim the No. 1 ranking from Alcaraz after winning the Australian Open, then giving it back when he had to miss the Spring U.S. tournaments because he's unvaccinated (the vaccine mandate for foreigners has since been lifted, so he should be good to go for the US Open).  Anyway, he's currently No. 3, which is how he ended up on the same side of the draw as Alcaraz.  Should Djokovic win his third French Open title, he'll move into a tie with Nadal at 22 career Grand Slam titles.

Stefanos Tsitsipas is that third favorite I mentioned.  He blew a two-sets-to-none lead against Djokovic in the 2021 final, then lost to him in straight sets in this year's Australian Open final.  If he were on the other side of the draw, I'd like his chances much better.  However, I also think the fifth-seeded Tsitsipas is absolutely capable of knocking off Alcaraz in the quarters...which would set up a potential semifinal matchup with Djokovic.

On the bottom half, meanwhile, are the other two semifinalists from last year--Casper Ruud and Alexander Zverev.  Zverev, who's actually reached back-to-back semis here, was going toe-to-toe with Nadal last year before he was forced to retire with a gruesome ankle injury late in the second set.  If he's healthy (which he appears to be), look for him to potentially make a third straight semifinal run.  I'm not sure I see him beating Ruud in the semi, though.

So, in the men's final I've got the same matchup as last year's US Open final--Alcaraz vs. Ruud.  Alcaraz won that one in four.  Should they meet in the final, I don't even think it goes that far.  Alcaraz wins his first of what I think will likely be many French Opens in straight sets.

Women's tennis, meanwhile, has been dominated by one player for more than a year.  When Iga Swiatek cruised to the title here in the pandemic-delayed 2020 tournament, it was the start of a meteoric rise to the top.  She inherited the No. 1 ranking when Ash Barty abruptly retired last Spring, then solidified it with a 37-match winning streak that included a second French Open title.  She also won the US Open last year.  So, yeah, she's the one to beat.

Swiatek had to retire in her quarterfinal match at the Italian Open, but seems good to go for Roland Garros.  If the injury hampers her at all, though, it's obviously an opportunity for someone else to step up.  Somebody like Ons Jabeur perhaps.  Jabeur lost in the first round last year, then went on to make the final at both Wimbledon and the US Open.  Clay is her weakest surface, but I still have a feeling she can make a run.

Three Americans also look like they could play deep into the second week.  Coco Gauff made her first Grand Slam final at last year's French Open.  In the round of 16, she could face Madison Keys, who's looked good through the clay court season.  Then there's Jess Pegula, who's ranked No. 3 in the world and was a quarterfinalist here last year.  She also made the doubles final in 2022, so you know she's comfortable on clay.  And, strangely, the American women have a history of success in Paris.

I also like Maria Sakkari.  She lost in the second round last year, but was a semifinalist in 2021.  Sakkari is seeded eighth this year, and I just like her draw.  Her road to the quarters doesn't seem too challenging, and I can see her beating Pegula.  The other quarterfinal on that side of the draw could be Jelena Ostapenko, the 2017 champion, and Australian Open winner Aryna Sabalenka.

Speaking of Sabalenka, her first-round match has all kinds of political undertones.  Sabalenka is from Belarus, so she's technically not representing any country right now.  Her opponent is Mariya Kostyuk, a Ukrainian.  Talk about tension!  It's obviously not anything she can control, but talking about the war is certainly she likely wanted to avoid heading into her first Grand Slam tournament as a Grand Slam champion.

As for who'll win the women's title, I think that's a pretty easy one.  Swiatek hasn't reached a Nadal-like level of dominance at Roland Garros, but she's No. 1 in the world and also the best player on clay.  Beating her will be extremely difficult.  I see her winning her third Coupe Suzanne Lenglen in four years.

In the final, I think she beats Sakkari.  I don't know why I'm so high on Sakkari.  Her history indicates I shouldn't be.  But I am for some reason.  She makes her first career Grand Slam final, setting her up for a potentially deep run at Wimbledon (which is actually offering ranking points this year!).

Now It's Time to Win One More

The United States has gotten off to an incredible start at the men's hockey World Championships.  The Americans started the tournament by beating host Finland and rolled through the rest of group play undefeated heading into their final game against Sweden...which they ended up winning in overtime.  That's 6-1-0 in the group round and the No. 1 seed for the quarterfinals, where they drew the Czech Republic.  And won again!

That's eight straight wins heading into the semifinals, where the U.S. will take on Germany.  The semifinals.  The round that's to the U.S. what Game 7 of the first round in the Stanley Cup Playoffs is to the Maple Leafs.  This will be their 12th semifinal at Worlds since the current format was introduced in 1992.  They're 0-11 in the previous 11.  That's right.  Eleven straight semifinal losses!  The United States hasn't made the final at the World Championships since 1950!

You'd obviously have to like their chances to finally snap that streak against Germany.  They easily could've gotten a team like Finland, Sweden or Canada (playing one of those teams or Russia is generally the reason why they haven't won a semi).  Instead, they got the Germans, who upset Switzerland in their quarterfinal, and the U.S. will undoubtedly be the favorites in that game.

Playing Germany, who they've already beaten in the tournament, could certainly be considered a bit of a break.  But the Germans did win Olympic silver (and nearly won gold) five years ago, upsetting Sweden and Canada in the medal round.  And, even though the roster changes every year, that World Championship semifinal is still a sort of mental barrier the U.S. needs to get past.

Of course, the reason why the U.S. hasn't done better than bronze at the World Championships in more than 70 years is a simple one.  The best American players are either resting after the grueling NHL season or still playing in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  The roster is still made up of mostly NHL players, but they come mainly from teams that didn't make the playoffs.

For the European teams, that's less of an issue.  There are, of course, also European players who are unavailable because of the playoffs.  But the European leagues are all done, so those guys are all free to play should they choose.  Plus, the World Championships are always in Europe, so they don't have the transatlantic travel to worry about, either.

It's really only the Canadians who can relate to the USA's situation.  Except the sheer number of Canadians in the NHL make it a little easier for them to field a team for Worlds that's still pretty stocked, even in the midst of the playoffs!  Whatever they've been doing has worked.  The last three gold medal games have been Canada vs. Finland.

What's interesting about Canada and the United States at the World Championships isn't just the final result for each team.  It's how they progress through the tournament.  Canada usually loses a game or two during the group round and has the No. 2 or 3 seed heading into the medal round.  Which ultimately doesn't matter at all.  Because they peak for the medal round.  They know they're gonna advance regardless, so their focus is on the three games they have to win at the end.  Not the seven at the beginning.

Yes, the more games you win during the group round, the better your seed for the medal round.  However, every medal round game is essentially a Game 7.  It doesn't matter how many group games you won.  You can win all seven, and you're still done if you lose in the quarterfinals.  Just look at the U.S. in Beijing.  Their only loss of the tournament came in a shootout against Slovakia in the quarterfinals.  One loss.  No medal.

Winning 10 straight games is incredibly difficult.  That's another reason why a loss in the group round may not always necessarily be a bad thing.  Especially for a team like the United States or Canada (or Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic or, when they return from exile, Russia).  Those top teams are gonna advance one way or another.  When they face each other, it's for positioning in the medal round.  Which can really make a huge difference!

I'm not saying teams shouldn't try to win every game they play.  Hockey players especially aren't wired that way.  What I am saying is that a loss during the group stage isn't the end of the world and could even be good.  Someone in the other pool might get upset, so you may end up with a more favorable matchup.  But mainly, it's my other point.  You can't go in expecting to win all 10 games you play.  But you've gotta make sure you win the last three.  So, if you are gonna lose a game, make sure it's one of the first seven.

Canada has used that approach a lot.  In 2021, the United States lost its first game against Finland, then won six straight and was the No. 1 seed in the medal round.  Canada started 0-3 that year, then lost its final group game to Finland in a shootout.  When they played during group play, the United States won 5-1.  When they played again the semifinals, it was 4-2 Canada.  Canada, which went 3-4 in group play, went on to win the gold medal.  (Canada was 4-1-1-1 in group play this year, BTW, with the shootout loss coming against Norway of all countries!)

Is it possible to win all seven of your group play games and also win the gold medal?  Of course!  Sweden did it in 2018 (when they beat guess who? in the semifinals), and so did Canada in 2014 (what is it about Olympic years?).  So, what the U.S. is trying to do this year, while difficult, isn't unprecedented.  They just need to finally get past the semifinals first.

Should they beat Germany, what happens in the gold medal game almost won't even matter.  Winning it would obviously be great.  It would be the USA's first gold medal at a World Championships since 1933 (the Olympics doubled as the World Championships in 1960, so the gold at the Squaw Valley Games was technically also a World Championship).  But getting there will mean getting past the biggest hurdle.  It would mean they won a semi.

NFL Flexing Its (Thursday Night) Muscle

Not surprisingly, the NFL was able to get enough owners to agree to what the league office wanted and will have flex scheduling on Thursday nights this season.  It's experimental for this season only, but the option rolls over into next year should they not flex any games this season.  But, who are we kidding?  Of course they're going to!  Kinda like how we already know they're gonna make it permanent moving forward.

Giants owner John Mara was very anti-Thursday night flexing when it was first brought up in March, and he remains vehemently anti-Thursday night flexing.  He was one of the eight owners to vote against it (it should be noted that it passed 24-8, just meeting the 75 percent threshold).  And he's right.  Thursday night flexing is a terrible idea!

Raiders owner Mark Davis was even more blunt in his assessment.  He's not a fan of any flex scheduling.  Not on Sunday night.  Not on Monday.  Not on Thursday.  His stance is, "make a schedule and stick with it."  (That, obviously, is a bit unrealistic, but his main point is a reasonable one.)

Mara's main concern is about the fans buying tickets to the game.  There's a big difference between Sunday afternoon and Thursday night.  For one thing, travel plans need to change.  For another, one's a school night.  And it's not exactly as if people can drop everything last minute to go to the game!  Even though they changed the proposal from 15-days' notice to 28 days, that wasn't enough to convince Mara.  He still sees more negatives than positives.

The counterargument (the one that 24 owners agreed with) is that the NFL also has a responsibility to the fans watching the game on TV.  It's funny how they care about that now when the Thursday night schedule last season was so bad that Al Michaels was openly critical of the quality of the games.  This is also the same league that took the Thursday night package and moved it from TV to streaming-only last season.  And the same league that took Peacock's $10 million for exclusive rights to a playoff game!

So, sorry, but I'm not buying that argument!  There's one reason and one reason only why they wanted Thursday night flexing.  It's the same reason they moved Thursday Night Football to Amazon and the same reason they improved the Thursday night schedule this season.  Money.  The league thinks it can make more money by flexing games from Sunday afternoon to Thursday night.  If they didn't, they wouldn't have pushed for it.

And that's exactly how the league is spinning it.  We already knew there would be Monday night flexing starting this season.  That was worked into the new TV contract.  Now, they have Thursday night flexing, too, so they have the ability to move a game into any of the three primetime windows.  Which they obviously see as a huge win, especially late in the season.

In addition to the four weeks' notice, they've put in some other provisions about Thursday night flexing that presumably alleviated some of the owners' fears.  Only the five post-Thanksgiving Thursday nights are eligible to be flexed (Although, who we kidding?  It's really only four, since there's no way they're flexing the Cowboys out on the Thursday after Thanksgiving).  They can flex a maximum of two games during those five weeks, and teams can only be flexed in once.  Teams are also still limited to a maximum of two Thursday nights and seven total primetime games on the season.

They can sugarcoat it all they want.  They can spout off all of these stats to make it sound like this is a good thing that benefits everybody.  But, who's it actually benefitting?  It's not benefitting the ticket-buying fans.  It's not benefitting the players.  It's benefitting one party and one party alone.  Amazon.  Amazon is paying a lot for the rights to Thursday Night Football, and the NFL is trying to keep its newest broadcast partner happy.  That's all this is.  And it's VERY transparent (no pun intended).

I'm shocked the players union went along with this.  Although, that assumes the union was actually given input.  The more likely scenario is that the league just did it and told the players to suck it up.  Because for all the preaching they do about player safety, this proves that they're all talk.  They don't actually care.  Not if it comes at the expense of pissing off a broadcast partner.

Players weren't enamored with the idea of playing multiple Thursday night games to begin with.  And I'd imagine their reaction to finding out they have a Thursday night game on short rest will be even less enthusiastic.  They don't like Thursday night games at all, but acknowledge the fact that they're good for the league, so they're willing to put up with the short week once a season.  Now they might have to do it twice.  With one of those potentially on short notice.

For a league that claims to preach player safety, they obviously aren't too worried about those concerns.  If they cared, they wouldn't have pushed so hard for this.  Instead, they're giving Amazon what it wants.  The players be damned!  Ditto about the ticket-buying fans!  But as long as Amazon is happy, that's all that matters!

It also isn't lost on me how this unfairly impacts some teams and indirectly benefits others.  For argument's sake, say they decide to flex out the Saints-Rams game in Week 16.  Now, instead of playing on Thursday night, those two are playing on Christmas Eve.  Some Christmas present!  Meanwhile, the popular teams who you'd figure are more likely to get flexed, may end up having to play on a short week twice while some teams don't have any short weeks.  (Excluding Thanksgiving and the season opener, there's room for 15 Thursday night games on the schedule.  Throw in Black Friday and that's 16 games....or, one per team, which is the fairest way to do it.)

Thursday night flexing is nothing more than the NFL's latest money grab.  As well as its latest middle finger to the fans.  They may claim it's what fans want, but they don't actually care.  All they care about is making sure Amazon's check clears.  This is further proof of that.

Possible WNBA Expansion

As the WNBA embarks on its 27th season, the league is thriving with 12 solid franchises.  It has firmly established itself as the strongest professional women's basketball league in the world, and this season will be playing a 40-game schedule for the first time.  They seem to be comfortable with 12 teams, but maybe it's time to think about expanding.

Since there are only 12 teams in the league, that means there are only 144 players on WNBA rosters at any given time.  Even taking injuries, pregnancies/maternity leaves, and additional players who may fill roster spots during the course of the season into account, that's still less than 200.  Which also includes a number of international players.  That's far fewer than are capable of playing in the WNBA.

In the early days of the WNBA, the league overexpanded.  There's no denying that.  It went from eight to 10 to 12 to 16 over the first four seasons.  That lasted two years before the Miami Sol and Portland Fire were contracted in 2002.  Since then, four original franchises have folded, while Chicago and Atlanta joined.  The WNBA has held steady at 12 teams, though, since the Sacramento Monarchs folded after the 2009 season.  That was 14 years ago!

All of the WNBA teams that have folded did so for financial reasons, so it's understandable why the league might be hesitant to expand again.  There may also be some concern about overexpanding again.  However, there's a big difference between now and 2002 (when the WNBA originally went to 16) and even 2010 (when they settled on the current number of 12).

When the WNBA first started, they got a little too ambitious for their own good.  That's a mistake I think they realize now.  They went from zero teams to eight to 16 over the course of five years, when they weren't established yet.  Now, they've got a quarter century of history on their side, and a whole generation of players who grew up watching the WNBA.  So, going beyond the 12 current teams wouldn't be overzealous.  It would be natural growth for a successful league.

Also consider the fact that when the WNBA started, all eight of its franchises were "sister" teams to NBA squads, even playing in the same arena.  They eventually went away from that model and to outside ownership groups.  There are currently three WNBA teams (Connecticut, Las Vegas and Seattle) that play in markets without an NBA team, and only a handful of the other nine share their arena with their NBA counterpart.  So, the WNBA has shown that it's beyond capable of standing on its own.

There are also plenty of markets that would make great WNBA homes.  The league was heartbroken when the Houston Comets, winners of the first four WNBA championships, folded.  How great would it be if they were revived?  (Especially since it looks like the Coyotes are probably moving to Houston.)  Likewise, the Sacramento Monarchs only folded because they couldn't find an owner.  It wasn't because of a lack of fan support.

Should the right owner emerge, it would definitely be worth trying again in Houston or Sacramento.  The other cities that have had WNBA teams in the past, however, would seem unlikely to be considered.  Especially when there are two current franchises that have relocated twice (from Utah to San Antonio to Las Vegas and from Detroit to Tulsa to Dallas).  If Houston or Sacramento didn't work out for whatever reason, though, there are plenty of NBA markets that I'm sure would welcome a WNBA team, as well.

Just off the top of my head, there are three that could be worth exploring.  The first is the Bay Area.  They may not want another team on the West Coast, when they've already got LA, Seattle, Phoenix and Las Vegas.  Or, since California's plenty big enough to have a second team, a Bay Area team could be exactly what they're looking for.  The only issue could be finding an appropriate-sized venue, since the Warriors' shiny new arena is probably a no-go.  They could play in San Jose at the Sharks' arena perhaps?

Then there's Denver.  If you look at a map of WNBA franchise locations, there's a big gap in the middle.  A team in Denver would take care of that.  It would also bring the WNBA back to a part of the country that hasn't had a team since the Utah Starzz moved to San Antonio after the 2002 season.  Philadelphia, meanwhile, would have built in rivals along the I-95 corridor in the New York Liberty and Washington Mystics.

I can also foresee taking advantage of LSU's popularity and placing a team in New Orleans.  I'm not sure they'd be able to sustain a team in that market, though.  It's kind of surprising that the WNBA has never tried Boston, but they've got New England covered with the Connecticut Sun, who've been around for a while and have that fanbase you'd be siphoning from.  Likewise, would they even consider extending the league's footprint into Canada and doing a team in Toronto?

Or, they could go to a non-NBA market, of which there's one very intriguing possibility.  Nashville.  I'm actually shocked the WNBA has never sought to capitalize on the University of Tennessee's popularity by placing a team in Nashville, which would obviously be able to take advantage of that Lady Vol fanbase.  To me, that's a massive missed opportunity.  And one that would be a no-brainer should the WNBA look to enter a new market.  Nashville makes way too much sense for the WNBA to have never even tried it.

The time is right for the WNBA to expand.  I'm not advocating going overboard like MLS, which just added its 30th team in San Diego.  But a two-team expansion would make sense and be sustainable.  Then, if the 14-team league works, maybe you consider adding two more a few years later and getting back to 16.  Anything beyond that would be too much, though.  I think even 16 is pushing it, but 14 seems just right.  Not to mention the fact it would add 24 jobs.  There are enough quality players not currently playing in the WNBA that adding 24 wouldn't water down the product.

Adding two teams to the WNBA would be good for all involved.  As for where those two teams should be, I'd revive the Houston Comets and try somewhere new.  I'm going to Nashville (and calling the team the "Bluebirds," after the legendary Bluebird Cafe).

The Gold(en Knight) Standard

As the Stanley Cup Playoffs move into the conference finals, the Vegas Golden Knights find themselves in a very familiar position--playing for the Clarence Campbell Bowl.  In just their sixth year as a franchise, they're playing in their fourth Western Conference Final/Stanley Cup Semifinal.  They haven't just been a model of consistency.  They've been one of the best teams in the entire freakin' NHL!

Consider: In 2018, they reach the Stanley Cup Final (and have home ice) in their inaugural season.  In 2020, they end up as the No. 1 seed in the West after going 3-0 in the seeding round robin the Edmonton bubble.  In 2021, they finished tied with Colorado for the most points in the league, only losing the President's Trophy on a tiebreaker.  And this season, they're the No. 1 seed in the West.  That's a pretty good six-year stretch for anyone, let alone an expansion team.  All they're missing is a Cup!

When the NHL put a team in Las Vegas and set up the expansion draft so that the team would be good immediately, I don't think they had any idea the Golden Knights would be this good!  Expanding to Las Vegas has gone better than anyone possibly could've imagined.  And, crazy as it sounds, the Golden Knights have become one of the NHL's model franchises.  Not only that, they're the gold standard by which all future expansion teams will be measured.

They aren't the first expansion team to find immediate success, of course.  The Florida Panthers made it to the Final in their fourth season.  In the NFL, both Carolina and Jacksonville reached the conference championship game in 1996, their second season of existence.  A year later, the five-year-old Florida Marlins won the World Series, then the four-year-old Arizona Diamondbacks did the same in 2001 (after winning the NL West in 1999, their second year).

I'm not counting the St. Louis Blues, who reached the Stanley Cup Final in of their first three years of existence, because of the way the playoffs were set up at the time.  The NHL put all six expansion teams in the same division, guaranteeing one of them would make the Final (and get their butts kicked).  Likewise, the 1998 Chicago Fire don't count since their MLS Cup came in the league's third season.  The NHL, meanwhile, is a firmly established league with more than 100 years of history.

There's another big difference between the Golden Knights and those other expansion teams.  The others were built to have that instant success, but they didn't maintain it.  Most of them didn't even try.  The Marlins traded the virtually entire team away that offseason!  Vegas got that early success, but wasn't satisfied to leave it there.  The Knights want to be good every year.

The closest comparison might be the Cleveland Browns.  The Browns won the 1950 NFL Championship in their first season in the league, their first of six straight NFL Championship Game appearances.  However, the Browns have a major asterisk next to that run.  They came over from the All-America Football Conference, and won all four titles in that league's four-year existence.  So they weren't starting from scratch upon joining the NFL.  The Golden Knights, on the other hand, were.

It shouldn't be this easy.  Expansion teams are supposed to go through growing pains.  Even good ones!  Look at the Kraken.  They were good last year and still missed the playoffs before making the playoffs for the first time this season (in Year 2).  Even that timeline is quick.  And we have no idea if they'll maintain it.  Even if they do, though, there's no way they'll be able to match what the Knights have done!

Las Vegas is all about entertainment.  Hence those ridiculously elaborate pregame shows before every single Golden Knights home game.  And they knew the novelty factor would wear off pretty quickly if the team wasn't worth watching (which is why I think the A's will suddenly become good again once they move).  But still, wanting to win and actually winning are very different things.  Especially for an expansion team.

Until the Golden Knights came around, expansion teams were always made up of rookies and other teams' castoffs.  There'd be a big-name free agent or two who serves as the face of the franchise, but, otherwise, it was generally unproven young guys or players other teams either didn't want or didn't care if they lost.  But the Golden Knights' expansion draft was set up so that they'd definitely get some pretty good players.  Which is exactly what they did.

Was the expansion draft set up to the Knights' benefit?  Absolutely!  And all credit to them for taking advantage of it.  By the time they did the Kraken's expansion draft a few years later, the other teams wised up and the player pool was very different.  They didn't want Seattle to pull a Vegas, which the Kraken didn't.

That generous expansion draft was in 2017.  It can't be used as the reason why the Knights are good anymore.  Only a handful of original Golden Knights are even still on the team.  No, they've kept it going because of shrewd trades and smart free agent signings.  Simply put, they have a front office that knows what it's doing.  Which is how, despite being in just its sixth season, Vegas really has become the model NHL franchise.  With no signs of that changing anytime soon.

Of course, there's one thing missing.  And, as successful as they've been, they won't consider the season a success until they win that ultimate prize.  You know that Cup is coming, though.  Whether it's this season or next season or some other time in the future.  And just imagine the party on the Strip once the Knights finally do.

Expansion or not, there are plenty of NHL teams that wish they could be the Vegas Golden Knights right now.  Which speaks volumes about how strong the franchise has become in very little time.  They're what all future expansion teams will strive to be.  For good reason, too.

A Long, Sad Goodbye

It might not be officially official yet, but it's pretty obvious to everyone that the A's are leaving Oakland for Las Vegas.  It reminds me of when the Expos moved from Montreal to Washington.  Everyone knew what was going to happen.  They were just waiting for the inevitable announcement confirming it.  What happened in Montreal 20 years ago was sad.  What's happening in Oakland may be worse.

The situation in Oakland has been bad for a while.  It's actually pretty amazing that the A's have stuck around this long.  The Raiders left.  The Warriors went across the Bay.  Yet the A's are still there.  They've tried multiple times to get the funding for a new stadium (in Oakland) that they desperately need.  They've failed every time, so they're stuck still playing in a cavernous stadium that's widely regarded as the worst venue in professional sports (for both players and fans).

They've also given fans very little reason to go to games.  They have the lowest payroll in baseball and have barely made an attempt to feign being competitive in the last couple of years.  Plus, the stadium's a piece of crap.  Yet they still raised ticket prices to make people watch a terrible team in a terrible stadium.  Is there any wonder then that Oakland's attendance numbers have been abysmal this season?

What's ironic, of course, is that the lack of attendance is the excuse they're gonna end up using to get out of Oakland.  Meanwhile, they're the ones choosing not to spend any money on the team itself or improving the stadium (although, I'm not sure how many "improvements" you can actually make to the Coliseum).  Which is almost certainly intentional.  Making it look like no one in Oakland cares makes it that much easier to move to Las Vegas.

There's the dedicated group of A's fans who doesn't want to see the team go and places the blame on the owners.  Their argument is that if the team gives them a reason to show up, they will.  And, even though the writing is on the wall, some of them will be A's diehards til the end. Unfortunately for that fan group, the end is approaching.  Even they know it.

While it's easy for the fans to blame the owners and the owners to blame the fans, the real culprit here (as I argued a few weeks ago) is the City of Oakland.  They've seen two of their three teams move and know what it'll take to keep the last one left.  Yet they won't do it.  Leaving the A's with pretty much no choice.  Whether they want to remain in Oakland or not is irrelevant.  The city is basically forcing their hand.

Twenty years ago, when MLB moved the Expos, it had just as much to do with Washington as it did with Montreal.  Major League Baseball wanted a team in D.C., and that was the way to get it.  Sure, the Expos had attendance problems and played in a not-so-good stadium, but their issues were mostly financial.  Had the situation been different, the Expos might still be in Montreal today.

Instead, there was the long, drawn out au revoir that started with speculation MLB might contract two teams, including the Expos, then having the team play a handful of "home" games in Puerto Rico for two seasons.  It didn't really soften the blow.  It just made things more awkard, in fact.  Everyone knew the team was moving, so, beyond the nostalgia factor, what reason was there to get (or remain) invested?

All indications are that Oakland's goodbye will be just as long, drawn out and awkward.  The A's lease at the Coliseum expires after next season, which means 2025 is the earliest they could move.  Except their retractable-roof stadium on the Las Vegas Strip won't be ready until 2027.  And that's if everything goes according to plan.  So, what do they do for those two years?  

Do they play in the current Minor League stadium in Las Vegas?  Or do they play an additional two lame-duck years in Oakland?  Is that even an option?  Oakland has made it clear that if the A's are planning on moving, they don't want them there anymore.  And do you really want four years of what we're seeing in Oakland right now?  Because that's not a good look for anybody.

I also find it funny how the team slogan is "Rooted In Oakland," and not just because of how ironic it is.  There are fans who act like the A's "belong" in Oakland, too.  Which, of course, is ironic in its own right.  They've only played in Oakland since 1968!  They started in Philadelphia and spent 12 years in Kansas City before moving to Oakland.  So, when they finalize the move to Las Vegas, it'll be the fourth stop in franchise history!

Of course, it's not a done deal yet.  The A's do have that binding agreement for land in Las Vegas, but the City of Oakland may make an 11th-hour deal for a stadium that keeps the team there.  That scenario's obviously unlikely, but it would be the city's way of showing they actually do care and actually do want the team there.  Because, frankly, it's been their lack of interest that got the A's looking elsewhere in the first place!

So, yes, this is the beginning of the end.  Much like the Expos, there were a few years of speculation about the possibility of moving combined with cautious optimism that they'd stay, followed by a few years of being resigned to the fact that a move seemed inevitable, followed by the "yes, it's really happening" realization.  The A's haven't reached that point yet, but it's getting close.  And everyone knows it.

Fans in Oakland seem to have already come to terms with it.  Which means the A's will spend their final years in Oakland playing in a mostly-empty cavernous stadium that looks and feels as old as it is.  It's a far cry from their heyday, when they won three straight World Series from 1972-74 and went to another three straight from 1988-90.  In those days, the Coliseum was regularly sold out.  Now you can count the fans individually.  And it'll sadly be that way until the A's long farewell to Oakland draws to a close.

New TV Quirks

This season will be the first under the NFL's new eight-year TV contract.  When the deal was first announced, we heard the highlights, but didn't really grasp how radically different some of the things they worked in would be.  Now that the schedule has been released and we know which networks have gotten certain matchups, though, we're seeing just how different things will look this upcoming season and beyond.

For starters, the NFL has gone all-in on streaming.  This will be the second year of Thursday Night Football being on Amazon, and ESPN+ will once again have the Jaguars' London game.  They've also added a Peacock exclusive game during the regular season and, as was announced today, a Peacock exclusive WILD CARD Game (we'll see how well THAT goes over)!  Plus, NFL Sunday Ticket is moving from DirecTV to YouTube.

Baseball fans aren't happy (and extremely critical) about the number of viewing options, many of which are exclusive, in MLB's TV contract.  Now the NFL is poised to give MLB a run for its money.  Because not only will all four broadcast networks have live games, so will ESPN and NFL Network.  And three streamers will have exclusive live games.  So, that's eight different places (not counting YouTube) to see NFL games this season.  Gone are the days when you know most of your team's games will be on either FOX or CBS.

Speaking of FOX and CBS, one of the most interesting quirks in the new TV contract benefits them greatly.  This is the first season of flex scheduling for Monday night, as well as the Sunday night flex scheduling.  ESPN and NBC's picks for games to flex into those national windows will be limited, though.  Because CBS and FOX get to keep many more games than before.

In the past, CBS and FOX were only able to protect a certain number of games each season, which was generally an exclusive national game in the late window on doubleheader weekends.  Otherwise, NBC pretty much got the pick of any game it wanted, which included some doubleheader games CBS and/or FOX couldn't protect.  It often resulted in a less-than-desirable doubleheader game because NBC took the game CBS/FOX wanted.

But now, with CBS and FOX each able to protect a game every week, they'll almost certainly choose to keep their doubleheader games.  That includes 1:00 games they move into the doubleheader window, which would then theoretically make the original 4:25 game available for NBC and ESPN.  It also means, perhaps more importantly for the two Sunday afternoon rights-holders, that CBS won't be at risk of losing the Chiefs and Bills and FOX will be able to showcase the Cowboys on America's Game of the Week as often as they like with no fear that NBC or ESPN will take it and leave them with only a random NFC West game to show nationally in the late window.

Take, for example, Week 8.  The Sunday night game is Bears-Chargers for some reason.  It's CBS that has the doubleheader that week.  But NBC won't be able to switch to Bengals-49ers, which will likely be the national doubleheader game.  They won't be able to take Rams-Cowboys or Vikings-Packers (whichever one FOX chooses to protect) that week, either.  Neither will ESPN.  So, the two primetime networks will essentially have to decide between their original game or the best of the remaining options.

What I think this will end up meaning is that, even with additional flexing options, we'll actually see less flexing this season.  Not more.  Because, barring the two best games of the week being on the same network, NBC and ESPN will only be able to move the third-best game of the week into primetime.  The NFL actually thinks that's a good thing.  Because teams like the Chiefs, Cowboys and Bills are already maxed out on primetime appearances.  This gives CBS and FOX a chance to know they'll get the marquee teams a certain number of times, as well, and it makes it more likely someone else will be the team that gets flexed into that spot.

That should make for a better Sunday afternoon slate, too.  With CBS or FOX (whichever has the doubleheader) able to protect its national late game, that guarantees a marquee matchup in the 4:25 slot leading into the Sunday night game, which is always the highest-rated broadcast window of the week.  That's before even taking into consideration the Monday night game.

They've also doubled down on the Monday night dual broadcasts.  This season, there'll be four weeks when ESPN and ABC air different games simultaneously on Monday night.  They're still trying to figure out how they want to work that, but it'll be a regular feature of the NFL schedule moving forward.  Especially now that ABC is back in the Super Bowl rotation, you know they'll want to make sure Joe & Troy are regularly seen by as many eyeballs as possible.

The week will begin with much better matchups, too.  Al Michaels was very vocal about the quality (or lack thereof) of last season's Thursday Night Football schedule on Amazon.  They had a bunch of stinkers and saw a bunch of bad teams.  This year's schedule is much better, which may simply be a response to that criticism.  Or it may be a reflection of the NFL's new-found commitment to streaming.

Amazon, of course, is the only streaming service to have a full season's worth of games.  They'll also get the annual Black Friday game, starting with this year's Jets-Dolphins matchup.  ESPN+, meanwhile, only has one--at 9:30 in the morning!  What's interesting about Peacock's, though, is that they're both on Saturday night.  And the fact that one of them is a playoff game is significant.  It'll be the first time that an NFL playoff game isn't available on traditional, linear television.  It's a sign of the times, to be sure, but also promises to produce significant backlash.

Another interesting thing that I noticed is every game in Week 18 is currently listed as "TBA."  Two games will be picked for ESPN's Saturday doubleheader and Sunday Night Football will be the final game of the regular season.  A bunch of games with playoff implications are also moved from 1:00 to 4:25.  None of that has changed.  The only difference is that no games will be "moved" from their original time since none of them have original times to begin with!

There are probably other quirks in the NFL's new TV contract that aren't as obvious.  For example, I know that there's really no longer an "AFC package" on CBS and an "NFC package" on FOX, and teams will have their games spread between the networks.  (Although, there definitely seems to be more NFC on CBS than AFC on FOX.)  One of the many things we'll have to get used to in the first season of this eight-year deal.

All Day In Paris

In a weird way, the three straight Olympics in Asia worked out well for NBC.  Especially in Tokyo, but also in Beijing, they were able to show a lot of competition live on TV.  Sure, a lot of it happened to be in the middle of the night, but there were also a number of events scheduled for the daytime hours, which meant NBC would be able to show them live in primetime--something they won't be able to do at either of the next two Olympics, which are both in Europe.

Europe is very TV-friendly for a lot of things.  NFL games in London can kick off at 9:30 AM Eastern because of the time difference.  Likewise, the EPL airs on Saturday mornings and Champions League games are in the middle of the American afternoon.  The French Open, Wimbledon and British Open, meanwhile, start early in the morning, but are done by mid-afternoon.

However, the time difference also makes it impossible for NBC to show live competition during its primetime Olympic coverage.  That's the reality of the situation, but also something that likely won't sit well with people who don't want to watch taped events where they might already know the result (and also don't really seem to understand how time zones work).  Which left me very curious as to how they would handle primetime in Paris.

As it turns out, they don't just already have a plan, they've already revealed what that plan is.  I wasn't expecting any announcement about Paris Olympic coverage until sometime early next year (or maybe something in July to mark the one-year-to-go countdown).  So, I was shocked when NBC put out a press release the other day detailing what their coverage plan for Paris is.

Peacock figures heavily into those plans, which isn't surprising at all.  NBC has been prioritizing Peacock and has already moved a lot of its Olympic sport programming over to the streaming service.  And there's already been two Olympics since Peacock's launch, so we already had an idea of how it'll be used in Paris.  Which will be expanded beyond what was done in Tokyo and Beijing.

Every event in every sport, including all 329 medals events will be shown live on Peacock, which will have full event replays, as well.  This is being billed as an Olympic first, but every event has been shown live on NBCOlympics.com since at least London (maybe even Vancouver), so I'm not exactly sure what they mean there.  Although, Peacock will also have exclusive original programming, virtual channels and all of NBC's coverage, too. 

So, seeing as a lot of people no longer have cable (which means they won't have access to live coverage on NBCOlympics.com) and only use streaming services, watching the Olympics on Peacock shouldn't be much different than watching on NBC.  In fact, it may even end up being better.  Because you can not only watch everything that's on NBC, you can also watch all that extra Peacock-only stuff.  That includes the Opening Ceremony.

It's not just on Peacock where people will be able to watch the Opening Ceremony live.  NBC will also show it live at 3:00 in the afternoon on the East Coast.  That answered the first of my burning questions about their coverage plans for the Paris Games.  In Tokyo and Beijing, they showed it live early in the morning, then again in primetime.  But in Paris, it'll be ending (if not still going) as the primetime window is starting, which would certainly complicate things regarding a primetime replay.

The Opening Ceremony will be just the start.  In Paris, NBC will show more hours of Olympic programming on the broadcast network than ever before.  So, I guess that answers another one of the burning questions.  Just because they can't show anything live in primetime, that doesn't mean they can't show anything live at all.  Just the opposite, in fact.  They can show stuff live all afternoon.  Which is exactly what they'll do!

Daytime Olympic coverage is usually the shorter broadcast window, and not always necessarily live.  Not in Paris.  Next year, the daytime window will, from the sound of it, be the primary coverage window.  They're calling it the "daytime takeover," with at least nine hours of daytime coverage every day, including live finals in all of the marquee sports.

While the daily Olympic schedule obviously won't be released until much closer to the Games, nine hours a day indicates they'll start Olympic programming right as the Today Show ends at 9 AM and conclude the "daytime takeover" at 6 PM, when the local news starts.  That's 3 PM to midnight in Paris.  So, it wouldn't surprise me if they start even earlier on some days.  (I'm fully expecting USA to go live as soon as the day's events start, which could be like 4-5 AM.)

Clearly, daytime will be the place to be during the Paris Games!  What about primetime then?  It is, after all, the most important daypart for broadcasters, as well as the bread-and-butter of Olympic coverage.  So, if they aren't holding competition to show during primetime, what will they show?  Well, they're describing it as an "enhanced Olympic primetime show, providing three hours of edge-of-your-seat entertainment each night."

Frankly, all I got from that line in the press release is that the primetime block will be three hours long every night, most likely from 8-11.  The good thing about that is it's a set schedule with no chance of running long.  The bad thing is that it won't be anything like your typical primetime broadcast.  While I'm sure it won't be entirely competition-free, it sure sounds like the primetime show will feature a lot of those fluff pieces.  There was also no mention at all of a late night show, which makes me wonder if there'll even be one.

I'm very curious to see how this programming strategy ends up working out, but I think giving it a try is a smart move.  They're going to get criticized either way.  People will either be upset that they aren't showing events live or that they aren't showing them in primetime (when, again, showing live events would be impossible).  But NBC has also changed its approach with live programming in recent years and has been showing sports (and Saturday Night Live) live coast-to-coast.  No more West Coast tape delay.

And, if that's the case, why not try it this way?  Have the bulk of the coverage be live during the afternoon, as it is with so much other programming that originates from Europe.  After all, it just might work.  And, if it works in Paris, you can bet they'll try it again in Milano Cortina and LA, which will both have a significant number of daytime events, as well (in LA, obviously, everything will be live).

People are changing the way they watch the Olympics.  In this day and age, you need the instant gratification that comes with watching something live.  NBC understands that.  Which is why, for two weeks next summer, they'll have American viewers spending their entire afternoon in Paris.

NFL Schedule First Thoughts

When the Jets got Aaron Rodgers, you knew they'd get a ton of primetime games.  Them getting the maximum six (I'm counting the Black Friday game since it's national) with four of those at home, though?  Very surprising.  The Giants and Jets are also both home in the same week a lot.  Normally it's like once or twice a season.  This season, there's four, including twice in September where they're both hosting on Sunday and Monday night.

Also, why does the NFL love the San Francisco 49ers so much?  I don't understand it.  Yes, they're in the NFC Championship Game every year, but they're also one of the most overrated teams in the league.  And regardless, no team under any circumstances should get to play home primetime games on the two biggest days on the league calendar--the Thanksgiving and Christmas tripleheaders.  As for my thoughts on the rest of the schedule...

Week 1: I'm sorry, but the Lions were an odd choice as the Chiefs' opponent for the opening game.  Detroit should be good this season, but that's not exactly a marquee matchup.  So why do you want it to start the season?  Especially when there was a Super Bowl rematch there for the taking?  I'm not surprised that the once-annual Giants-Cowboys Sunday night opener is back now that the Giants are good again.

Week 2: They're doing that whole two Monday night games a few times again this season, starting with Saints-Panthers and Browns-Steelers.  Again, why are these prime time games in Week 2?  Although, it appears that all of the complaining Al Michaels did about the quality of the Thursday night schedule last season worked.  The first Amazon Thursday night game is Vikings-Eagles.

Week 3: Another Monday night double dip, with a much-more-appealing Eagles-Bucs matchup on ABC and a Super Bowl LVI rematch on ESPN.  The Thursday night game is Giants-49ers, as the Giants stay out west after playing the Cardinals.  Steelers-Raiders is on Sunday night, which, again, why?  The best matchup of Week 3 might be Chargers-Vikings, which is a 1:00 regional game on FOX.

Week 4: Personally, I think it's cool that the Jaguars are gonna play back-to-back games in London.  Their annual home game in the UK is against Atlanta.  This is the second of the two New York double prime times over the first four weeks.  Jets-Chiefs on Sunday night, Giants-Seahawks on Monday night.  Fun fact about Seahawks quarterback Geno Smith.  He was the QB who started for the Giants that week Eli Manning was benched, ending Eli's consecutive starts streak.

Week 5: Buffalo-Jacksonville in London is the first of many good matchups in Week 5.  Chiefs-Vikings in the national late game.  Cowboys-49ers on Sunday night.  I'm even on board with the Packers-Raiders Monday night game.

Week 6: Our third and final game in London is Ravens vs. Titans.  And the lovefest with the New York teams continues.  Eagles-Jets in the national late game, Giants-Bills on Sunday night.  The Monday night game is Cowboys-Chargers, as Dallas appears to be another popular early season primetime pick.  That whole two Thursday night thing will come into play, too, with the Chiefs playing their second Thursday night home game of the season (although, I'm not sure if the Kickoff Game counts).

Week 7: Oddly, there isn't anything that jumps off the page in Week 7.  The international series takes a week off as it shifts from London to Frankfurt, so no 9:30 game.  The best afternoon game on Sunday is Chargers-Chiefs in Kansas City.  Dolphins-Eagles on Sunday night and the NFL's favorite team, the 49ers, is in Minnesota on Monday night.

Week 8: Tampa Bay at Buffalo starts the week, so Amazon gets another good one (although, I will admit to having no absolutely idea how good a Brady-less Bucs team will be).  The Jets and Giants play each other.  It's a Giants home game, which means the Jets have 10 games at Met Life Stadium this season!  I'm also curious to see what the first Rodgers-less Packers-Vikings game in years will be like!

Week 9: Kansas City and Miami in the first-ever NFL regular season game in Frankfurt.  Aaron Rodgers on Monday Night Football yet again, with the Jets hosting the Chargers.  The Bills-Bengals matchup you kinda figured would be in primetime.  It was just a matter of when and on which channel.  The answers are Week 9 and NBC.

Week 10: We wrap up the international series with Colts-Patriots in Frankfurt.  Giants-Cowboys Round II is the FOX national late game, and the Jets are in prime time yet again, this time in Las Vegas to play the Raiders.  Broncos-Bills on Monday night.  And, interestingly, both Super Bowl teams have their bye before facing each other in Week 11.

Week 11: My guess is that they put the Super Bowl rematch on Monday night in Week 11 so that they could use it as a lead-in to the Thanksgiving tripleheader three days later.  Either that or it's the one game ESPN said, "We want that one!", so they gave it to them.  Cincinnati and Baltimore start the week on Thursday night.  Tennessee and Jacksonville, meanwhile, could very well determine who wins the AFC South.

Week 12: It's all NFC on Thanksgiving: Packers-Lions, Commanders-Cowboys, Seahawks-49ers.  Then the highly-anticipated first-ever Black Friday game between the Jets and Dolphins.  You know how important Week 12 is because the Sunday games are always good, too.  Bills-Eagles is the national late game and Ravens-Chargers on Sunday night.  Then the rest of the NFC North goes at it on Monday night when the Bears visit Minnesota.

Week 13: The tradition of having Dallas play its Thursday night game in Week 13 against one of the other teams that played on Thanksgiving continues.  This time it's against Seattle.  There's also a decent 1:00 game between the Chargers and Patriots.  An NFC Championship Game rematch in the national late game, Kansas City-Green Bay on Sunday night, and Cincinnati-Jacksonville on Monday night.  All three of those should be good.

Week 14: You can tell it's getting down the stretch when the primetime games appear very unlikely to be flexed out.  Case in point: Eagles-Cowboys on Sunday night, and the dual Monday night games featuring Tennessee-Miami and Packers-Giants.  The Bills-Chiefs game, meanwhile, is a CBS late game.  I wouldn't be surprised if that was by request.

Week 15: Lots of TBA's on the schedule since this is when we have that NFL Network Saturday tripleheader.  My very early guess for the three that'll ultimately be chosen: Vikings-Bengals, Broncos-Lions and Steelers-Colts.  As for the games already scheduled, Cowboys-Bills sure looks like the best.

Week 16: As my brother-in-law said (in more colorful terms), the NFL is basically saying to the NBA, "Christmas ain't yours anymore!"  Of course, Christmas is on a Wednesday in 2024, so there likely won't be one next season, but that's beside the point.  My biggest question about Week 16 was how they'd handle the Sunday night game on Christmas Eve.  Well, it's on NFL Network.  NBC has a Saturday afternoon game instead, then a Bills-Chargers matchup exclusively on Peacock on Saturday night.

Week 17: Just as I was wondering how they'd handle the Christmas Eve Sunday night game, I was wondering the same thing about the New Year's Day Monday night game.  The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl are the CFP semifinals this season, so they get their traditional slots.  Which moves the Monday night game (between the Cowboys and Lions) to Saturday.  As I expected, Miley Cyrus will get the boot because of Sunday Night Football.  And, how about finishing 2023 with Bengals-Chiefs in Kansas City?

Week 18: This season, they did something different with the Week 18 schedule.  Every game is listed as "TBA."  I guess they determined that's just easier, seeing as they sometimes wait until after the Week 17 Monday night game to finalize it.  Just based on who I think will be good this season, I'm saying the Sunday night candidates will be Chiefs-Chargers, Bills-Dolphins, Jaguars-Titans and Eagles-Giants.

Cricket In LA? Seems Unlikely

Starting with the Tokyo Games, the IOC began giving Olympic hosts the option of adding sports to the program that aren't among the 28 "core sports" for their individual edition of Games only.  That's why we saw baseball and softball's return, as well as karate's debut in Tokyo, and that's why breaking will be included for the first time in Paris.  Pretty soon, the Olympic program for LA 2028 will be finalized, and sports are already angling to be among the sports that are chosen.

One of the sports hoping to be included is cricket.  As recently as last week, the President of the International Cricket Council was bullish on the sport's chances.  The Los Angeles team in Major League Cricket, the U.S. league set to launch later this year, is building a 10,000-seat home stadium, and the U.S. is co-hosting the 2024 T20 Cricket World Cup.  They see the United States as a growing market with huge potential, which would only be increased by cricket's inclusion in the 2028 Olympics.

However, there's a big but regarding that argument.  They may be right.  Cricket may eventually become a big sport in the United States.  But it currently isn't.  And it won't be by next year, when the program for the LA Olympics is finalized.  So, I don't follow their logic.  It's true that the LA Olympics aren't for five years.  Even if it's popular by 2028, though, it won't be popular enough by 2024 to warrant a place on the program.

What cricket should be doing is angling for a place in 2032.  Because that's a no-brainer.  Cricket is hugely popular in the Commonwealth, especially in Australia, which won the women's tournament at last year's Commonwealth Games (where it was played for the first time).  So, it would make complete sense to hold men's and women's tournament in Brisbane.  In LA, however?  Not so much!  Especially when you consider the other sports in contention for Olympic spots, all of which are more popular in the U.S.

Now, it's worth noting that skateboarding and sport climbing, which both debuted in Tokyo and will also be featured in Paris, likely won't be considered "additional sports" in 2028.  They could very well be added to the list of core sports after the IOC's next review, just like golf and rugby were after Tokyo.  Boxing and weightlifting have been plagued by governance problems, and modern pentathlon's relevance has been questioned for a while.  So, it's easy to see skateboarding and/or sport climbing replacing one of them as a "core" sport come LA 2028.

Of course, getting dropped from the list of "core" sports wouldn't mean that they won't be contested in LA.  It's hard to believe that boxing wouldn't be included, even if they have to make it an "additional" sport.  Ditto about weightlifting, which has been featured since the very first modern Olympics in 1896.  Modern pentathlon, on the other hand, isn't very "modern," and is likely still only included on the Olympic program because it was invented by Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics, and has the support of Juan Antonio Samaranch, Jr., an IOC Vice President and son of the longtime IOC leader.

As for the sports that are being considered for LA, baseball/softball appears to be a virtual lock for inclusion.  I could get into why, but I don't really think I need to.  The only real question, frankly, is where they would play them.  Dodger Stadium seems obvious for the baseball tournament, but I wonder if it might be considered too big.  And USC is out since they're using Dedeaux Field (USC's baseball stadium) for swimming.  Softball I figure could easily be played at UCLA.  (Australia's also good at both baseball and softball, so you'd think they'll be featured in both 2028 and 2032.)

I wouldn't be surprised if breaking makes a return appearance in 2028, either.  One of the reasons they added it for Paris is because they're trying to make the Olympics more "youth friendly."  The Americans are good at it, too.  So those two things alone make breaking look like a virtual lock to be included again in LA.  Especially since they won't know what type of reaction the inaugural Olympic breaking competition in Paris will have received by the time they finalize the 2028 program.

There are three other sports mentioned to be in the running that I think have little to no chance of being included--flag football, teqball and sambo.  Teqball, while fast-growing, is simply too new.  Sambo is a type of wrestling that's similar to judo.  Do we need another martial art in the Olympics?  And flag football, while obviously popular in America, might not be big enough internationally to have competitive men's and women's tournaments.

Which leaves two sports where I can see it going either way--karate and lacrosse.  Karate's appearance in Tokyo was generally considered to be a one-off.  The Japanese enthusiasm isn't really matched elsewhere in the world.  But, as an individual sport with multiple weight classes (and two disciplines), I can see it.  Although, I'm not sure how popular it would be with the fans, which is why I can also see it not happening.

Then there's lacrosse, a sport that has been included in the Olympics twice--in 1904 and 1908.  The second of those tournaments consisted of a single game between Canada and Great Britain.  Lacrosse tournaments nowadays, though, are very international.  It's not just English-speaking countries, either, even if Canada, the United States, Great Britain and Australia are the strongest nations.  Lacrosse is played at the World Games and the men's World Championships will be in San Diego this summer.

Like baseball and softball, lacrosse is popular in both the United States and Australia.  Which means it, too, could also feature in both 2028 and 2032.  And that's the whole point of the additional sports.  Letting the host country take advantage of that popularity and include those sports in the Olympic program.

Except there's just one problem.  Lacrosse, baseball and softball are all team sports.  So, it would be a lot of athletes for only two sets of medals.  And the number of total athletes will still be capped at around 10,500, which would mean you have to pull those athletes away from somewhere just to get the roughly 120 for a six-team tournament.  Men's lacrosse and baseball need more like 25, so that would be a minimum of 150 athletes each.  (Although, I say you increase the athlete limit to 11,000 if you're letting the host country add sports.  That way you don't have to reduce quotas in other sports).

It's still way too early to guess which sports will be added for the 2028 Olympics.  If I had to guess, though, I'd say it'll be baseball/softball, breaking and possibly karate.  Pending whatever happens with boxing and weightlifting.  One thing I am pretty sure of, though, is that cricket won't be one of them.  No matter how optimistic they are about their chances.

Different Year, Same Problems

Brian Cashman preached patience when he was asked about the injury-plagued, underachieving Yankees a few days ago.  In many ways, he had a point.  The team they're fielding right now isn't even close to the one they expected, and you'd have to figure they'll improve as players are activated from the injured list.  It's also better to have this happen now than at the end of the season, which is what happened to them last year.  And it's true that they've been treading water and are only in last place because of how good the AL East is.

Except the problem is that this isn't the first time the Yankees have had to endure injuries and a slow start.  In fact, it's rare when they don't have a number of significant players on the IL.  This many at the same time?  No!  But when was the last time they made it through a season without multiple key players missing significant time?  Which, frankly, falls on the GM.

To his credit, Cashman has acknowledged some of his trade deadline acquisitions haven't exactly worked out, and he's taken responsibility for that.  Frankie Montas and Lou Trivino are just the latest example, but that list also includes Sonny Gray and Joey Gallo among others.  Instead of making the team better, they had the opposite effect.  They made the team worse.

Ditto with some of the free agents who've signed with the Yankees under Cashman.  Carlos Rodon, this offseason's big free agent prize, is yet to throw a pitch in Pinstripes and is already looking like a $162 million mistake.  And let's not forget the ridiculous amount of money Aaron Hicks is being paid to take up a roster spot and be completely useless!  (Nobody's gonna be stupid enough to take on that contract, so just suck it up and DFA him!)

Meanwhile, the team goes into every season with one goal and one goal alone.  It's the same every year.  Win the World Series.  Which is something they haven't done in 14 years!  They haven't even won the pennant in 14 years!  They aren't even close! 

Yes, they consistently make the playoffs, but they aren't anywhere near as good as the Astros, the team they know the AL pennant will go through.  Winning the AL East is obviously the main goal, but they also need to build a team that can be competitive with Houston.  Which is something Cashman consistently has not done.

George Steinbrenner never would've stood for this.  To him, 14 years without a pennant would be completely unacceptable!  He would've changed managers and/or GM's multiple times by now.  Yet Cashman and Boone have not only kept their jobs, they had their contracts renewed!  Hal Steinbrenner is most definitely NOT his father!

Hal obviously has significantly more patience than George.  However, Yankee fans got pretty used to George's "World Series or bust" approach and grew to have the same attitude.  Which is part of what makes Hal's insistence to "stick with the plan" on Cashman and Aaron Boone all the more frustrating!  Yankees fans want results and aren't getting them, yet the owner is sticking with the guys who continue not getting results.

It was Einstein who defined "insanity" as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  That's exactly what Brian Cashman's been doing for more than a decade!  (I don't think it's a coincidence that the Yankees' World Series absence started in 2010--the year George Steinbrenner died and Hal took over day-to-day operation of the team!)

Another popular quote is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  Under Joe Torre in the late 90s, it wasn't broken.  Cashman was the architect of the team that won four World Series in five years and six of eight AL pennants from 1996-2003.  So, yeah, it made sense to stick with what was working.  In the last 20 years, though, the Yankees' only pennant came in their 2009 championship season.  Yet this is somehow considered OK for an organization that values winning over everything and consistently has one of the highest payrolls in baseball?!

Which brings to mind all those other cliches about complacency and how change is a constant.  How many times has a team that was on the brink of a championship or frustrated about how a good team keeps coming up short made a change simply because they felt they needed one?  The 2018-19 St. Louis Blues immediately come to mind.  They fired their coach midseason and won the Stanley Cup!  Yet the only changes the Yankees ever make are to the on-field personnel!  The decision-makers in the front office (who actually put that team on the field), meanwhile, keep their jobs despite the fact they've long overstayed their welcomes.

So, the way I see it, there's only one solution to the Yankees' continual plight.  It's something that, frankly, should've been done a long time ago.  Because there's been one constant throughout this 20-year run of not-the-type-of-success-they've-been-looking-for.  Brian Cashman.  Blame the manager and players all you want, but Cashman's the guy who put all of them in place, and he deserves to be held just as accountable as them.

Does Brian Cashman deserve all of the blame for the state of the team?  Of course not!  Plenty of it should be directed Aaron Boone's way, too.  And some of the injuries are simply bad luck (although, they did fire the training staff a few years ago, hoping that would help with the injuries...it hasn't!).  But the number and frequency of injuries year after year represent a bigger problem, which, again, falls back on Cashman.  As do the free agent and trade misses.

Cashman has also done a lot of good during his time as Yankees GM.  I'm not saying he hasn't.  But the time has come for someone else to be making those decisions.  Theo Epstein twice got out of dodge before he wore out his welcome.  Cashman wore out his welcome a while ago, but he's still there.  Which means Hal needs to finally act like his father and do what needs to be done.  Unless he wants to go yet another season with a pre-World Series playoff exit (if they even get that far).

Coyotes to Houston?

To call the Coyotes' arena drama over the past few years a "saga" would be an understatement.  That saga may soon have a new chapter after the City of Tempe, where the Coyotes' planned new arena will be built, holds a referendum about the funding.  If it fails, it could result in the Coyotes moving again, likely to Houston, possibly as early as next season.

This news, frankly, isn't much of a surprise.  The Coyotes declared bankruptcy in 2009, and things haven't really gotten better since then.  They got kicked out of their arena at the end of last season and had to settle for using Arizona State's 4,600-seat Mullett Arena as a temporary home.  Not only is it by far the smallest venue in the NHL, it's most decidedly not up to NHL standards.  But the Coyotes were really left with no other choice for the time being.

Houston, meanwhile, is the fourth-largest media market in the U.S.  It's actually kind of crazy to think that Houston has never had an NHL team.  They had the Aeros in the WHA, but they weren't included in the WHA-NHL merger.  There was also an AHL version of the Aeros that drew very well for 20 years (in the arena they shared with the Rockets) before relocating to Iowa.  The Houston hockey scene has remained strong ever since, even though it's now been a decade since the Aeros left.

The idea of a Houston NHL team isn't exactly a new one, either.  Houston's been brought up as an expansion candidate multiple times, and is often the city targeted when a team is thinking about moving.  The difference this time, though, is that it looks like the NHL coming to Houston may actually happen.

And Houston sure makes a lot of sense.  First and foremost, it's a huge market, with the massive potential audience (both in-arena and TV) and sponsorship possibilities.  Not only that, there's already an established fan base.  So going to Houston wouldn't be too much of a gamble.  Especially since they wouldn't need to take on the additional risk of building an arena.  The Rockets and Aeros successfully shared for years, so there's no reason to think it wouldn't work with an NHL team.  Houston would simply become the latest city to have both its NBA and NHL franchises play in the same arena.

Obviously, the Coyotes moving to Houston would mean the end of NHL hockey in Arizona.  Which, sadly, has felt inevitable for a while.  Even if they get the arena situation figured out, it'll still take a lot for the Coyotes to remain viable in that market.  In 2018-19, their last full season playing in an actual NHL arena, they ranked last in attendance, only averaging around 11,000 fans a game (which I'm sure included a lot of visiting fans who liked the idea of a trip to Phoenix in January).  And the financial struggles have been a constant, even since the bankruptcy.

Many of these problems, unfortunately, have existed ever since the Coyotes moved to Arizona.  They really only left Winnipeg because of the financial troubles that plagued all of the Canadian franchises in the mid-90s.  It's the same reason the Avalanche left Quebec for Denver.  Despite strong fan support, they couldn't find an owner willing to keep the Jets in Winnipeg, so instead they went to Phoenix at a time when the NHL was still trying to build its presence in the Sun Belt.

Phoenix seemed like a reasonable place to try, too.  It was one of the fastest-growing cities in the country, and the Suns had just built a new arena (which would quickly prove to be unsuitable for hockey).  So, it was a market worth exploring.  Especially if the team turned out to be good, that would increase the interest.  Plus, the potential rivalries with the Kings and Ducks were there.

Unfortunately, the team has never really been very good in the almost 30 years it's been playing in the desert.  I'm not just talking about the constant ownership changes and financial struggles, either.  It's the on-ice product.  Outside of two stretches (they made the playoffs in five of their first six seasons in Phoenix, then three years in a row from 2009-10 to 2011-12), they haven't been particularly competitive.  And the biggest names to be associated with the Coyotes after that initial run in the late 90s were a past-his-prime Brett Hull and Wayne Gretzky's foray into coaching.  So, that's not exactly good, either.

It's not like this is the first time there's been talk of moving the Coyotes, either.  They nearly moved to Seattle a decade ago until they found a local ownership group and were able to secure an arena lease.  That 15-year lease was voided by the City of Glendale barely two years into the deal.  The Coyotes ended up playing there until last season anyway, after which they were politely asked to find somewhere else for their games.

In hindsight, the Phoenix thing didn't really work out.  The Coyotes have been plagued by financial trouble, constant ownership changes and lack of fan support.  Winnipeg, meanwhile, got NHL hockey back a few years later, and the current Jets are thriving.  Which is ironic, since the reasons the original Jets moved to Arizona were primarily financial.

Of course, the hockey in Phoenix experiment hasn't been a complete failure.  Auston Matthews is from Arizona.  He's turned into one of the best players in the NHL.  I'm not saying he doesn't still get into hockey without the Coyotes.  But there's also no way that the first-rate youth hockey facilities where he learned to play exist if there's not an NHL team in the area and the interest in the sport that comes with having one.

While this isn't a done deal and the Coyotes may end up staying in Arizona, it seems like that would simply be delaying the inevitable.  A lot would have to change to make Phoenix a viable NHL market.  And there have been so many challenges even when the Coyotes were good, that I'm not sure there's a way to turn it around.  Which means that the Phoenix experiment will likely end the same way the Atlanta experiment did (the Thrashers, ironically, became the new Winnipeg Jets!).  With the team relocating.

So, whether it's to Houston or somewhere else, and whether it's next season or a few years down the road, the Arizona Coyotes' days in Arizona certainly appear to be numbered.  Frankly, it's a surprise they've lasted this long.  Because a change of scenery is perhaps the only thing that will make the franchise profitable.  Give the NHL credit for trying.  But the Phoenix thing just didn't work.  It's time to cut their losses.