More On the NFL Schedule

Yesterday, I took a look at the NFL schedule as a whole and made some general observations.  Some good, some bad, some just random, but mostly focused on individual teams.  Today, I'm gonna look at it week-by-week, all the way from Week 1 and its plethora of national games up to the all-division Week 18 to start 2025.

Week 1: Playoff rematches all around.  The AFC Championship Game rematch in the Thursday night season-opener, with Lions-Rams on Sunday night.  And we already knew about the Friday night Packers-Eagles game in Brazil.  The Sunday afternoon slate is pretty weak.  Jacksonville-Miami is probably the best game in the 1:00 window, while Cowboys-Browns isn't a great national game, but it's the national game nonetheless.

Week 2: Thursday Night Football officially kicks off with Bills-Dolphins in Miami.  Last season, it was the final game of the season with the division at stake, so I'm surprised they put it this early.  Cincinnati-Kansas City is also incredibly early.  That's the national doubleheader game on CBS.  And the Lions just seem to be repeating their playoff schedule since they host the Bucs a week after hosting the Rams.  Chicago-Houston is the Sunday night game for some reason.

Week 3: They stay in the AFC East on Thursday night, as the Patriots visit the Jets.  This is also the first week with two separate Monday night games.  Jaguars-Bills is on ESPN, Commanders-Bengals is on ABC.  Personally, I think it should be the other way around.  Baltimore-Dallas is a pretty good national game in the late window.

Week 4: In Week 4, we've got another Monday night split.  Tennessee-Miami is on ESPN, Seattle-Detroit on ABC.  That's three home games, two of them nationally televised, for the Lions.  They were last season's darlings, and all of this early exposure indicates the NFL is high on their chances to do it again.  The previous team that America adopted, the Bills, will also get the spotlight on Sunday night in Baltimore.  I'm also very intrigued by that Chiefs-Chargers game, as the Super Bowl and College Football Playoff-winning coaches square off for the first time in Jim Harbaugh's return to the NFL.

Week 5: Jets-Vikings gets the London slate started on the first of those four-game Sundays.  The Giants are a late game on the same network as the national game, which means I've got them against the Seahawks instead of Packers-Rams.  Ravens-Bengals will probably be the most widely-distributed early game, while Cowboys-Steelers wraps it up on Sunday night.  If you still need more after that, Saints-Chiefs is the Monday night game.

Week 6: Last season, Detroit-Dallas had that controversial finish in the Week 17 "Monday" night game (that was played on a Saturday because of the Sugar Bowl).  This season, they meet early, which was a bit of a surprise to me.  I would've figured they make it the Thursday night game the week after Thanksgiving.  Both New York teams are playing home primetime games, the Giants on Sunday, the Jets on Monday.

Week 7: Our Super Bowl rematch is nationally exclusive.  As it should be!  Frankly, I'm shocked they gave it to FOX instead of putting it in primetime.  This is also a double-Monday night week with a twist.  Instead of getting one of the London games like last year, the ESPN+ exclusive is a second Monday night game this season.  Baltimore-Tampa Bay on regular ESPN, with Chargers-Cardinals only available via streaming.

Week 8: As I noted yesterday, Jerry Jones evidently campaigned for the Cowboys' game in San Francisco to be Week 1 Sunday night.  Instead, they held it for midseason.  Still on Sunday night, though.  There's also a matchup between the top two picks in the Draft when Chicago visits Washington.  And Baltimore visits Cleveland, which I bring up only because of how good the AFC North was last year and figures to be again.  Which makes all of those division games incredibly important.

Week 9: There is one good thing about an 18-week season.  Week 9 is the official midpoint not some random game midway through Week 8.  Anyway, the best Week 9 offering this season is Lions at Packers.  Last season, Green Bay's playoff run pretty much started with a win in Detroit on Thanksgiving.  The Lions should be the NFC North favorites again, but the Packers could definitely challenge them, especially if they get the head-to-head win.  It's also round 2 of Dolphins-Bills, so the AFC East could be essentially decided very early.

Week 10: Giants-Panthers in Munich concludes the international slate.  Cincinnati-Baltimore gets the week started on Thursday night.  The NFL clearly took Al Michaels' frustration about how bad the Amazon games were in that first season to heart.  Because this year's Thursday night schedule has some good ones, like that one.  Eagles-Cowboys is the national doubleheader game, but on CBS, not FOX.

Week 11: Philadelphia then immediately turns around and plays four days later in Washington.  There's also a Battle of Texas to conclude the week.  The best game, though, is the national late game on CBS.  Chiefs-Bills.  It's developed into a full-fledged rivalry, even though it's been incredibly one-sided.  Last year, the Bills won the regular season game, only for Kansas City to win in Buffalo in the Divisional Playoffs.

Week 12: It's usually a pretty good slate the weekend before Thanksgiving, and this season is no exception.  It starts with the Steelers-Browns rivalry and ends with the first Harbowl in 12 years.  The Bengals have their bye, so, unfortunately, not the entire AFC North will be featured nationally.  There's also a yummy playoff rematch between the 49ers and Packers in Green Bay, while the Eagles visit the Rams on Sunday night.  So, like MetLife, SoFi will also have a back-to-back Sunday night-Monday night this season.

Week 13: Thanksgiving weekend, which means six games in national windows.  Of the 10 that are not, a few are particularly enticing.  Eagles-Ravens gets the full national treatment at 4:30, while Texans-Jaguars and Steelers-Bengals are both early games.  That Rams-Saints game in New Orleans could have some potential, too.  The NFC South appears to be wide open, and I can definitely see the Saints being the team in that division that makes a run.

Week 14: Six teams have a bye in Week 14.  I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous!  All byes should be done by Thanksgiving.  Teams shouldn't have to wait until December to get theirs.  Anyway, I get my Chargers-Chiefs primetime game, while Round 2 of Packers-Lions gets it underway.  The Jets will also make a rare Sunday afternoon appearance when they visit Miami.

Week 15: With the Lions playing the Bills at home and having the CBS Thanksgiving game this year, I was certain that would be the matchup.  But they gave Detroit a division game on Thanksgiving instead and have Buffalo wrapping up a three-game homestand.  The Lions' schedule is very interesting.  They play three of their first four at home, then have a three-game homestand starting on Thanksgiving.  That's six of their nine home games in a seven-week period, with a lot of road games during the eight weeks in between.

Week 16: In order to play on Christmas, a Wednesday, they had to schedule two games on Saturday, much to the chagrin of those who'll want to watch the College Football Playoff first-round games that day.  Frankly, there was no way to avoid it this year.  What they do moving forward will be interesting, however.  The entire AFC North plays each other on either Thursday (Browns-Bengals) or Saturday (Steelers-Ravens), while the Lions visit the Bears.  Something that was noted on one of the NFL blogs is that both Detroit and Pittsburgh play all six of their division games from Week 11 onwards.  What's even crazier is that it wasn't deliberate!

Week 17: Because they had to predetermine the Week 16 Saturday games, NFL Network's Saturday tripleheader gets pushed back a week.  My (extremely) early guess is that Denver-Cincinnati will get the primetime spot, Falcons-Commanders starts the day (because no one will care), and Cardinals-Rams in the middle.  Of the already-scheduled games, we've got Cowboys at Eagles, Lions at 49ers and Jets at Bills.  Should be some good late-season matchups.

Week 18: And, of course, we wrap it up with all divisional matchups on the first weekend of the New Year.  My spidey sense is telling me that the AFC North won't be settled yet, so I'm tabbing Browns-Ravens and Bengals-Steelers as the ESPN Saturday doubleheader.  As for Game 272 on Sunday Night Football, let's go with Saints-Bucs, with Dolphins-Jets as the dark horse candidate.

Making the NFL schedule is a difficult process that requires many drafts, many reviews and input from way too many interested parties.  It goes without saying that with so many hands in the cookie jar, somebody's bound to be unhappy.  Which plenty of teams are.  Others, meanwhile, love it.  I fall squarely in the middle.  I realize it's not easy, but I'm often left confused by the final product.  This is definitely one of those years where I'm confused.  Way too many questionable primetime choices and way too many weeks with not enough marquee games.  It's not like I could do better, though, even if I tried.

17 Games, 10 Networks

In news that surprised absolutely no one, Netflix has secured the rights to the NFL's Christmas games for the next three seasons (I thought it was already part of the TV contract that FOX had Christmas rights, but apparently not anymore).  With Netflix added to the fold, there are now 10 different NFL rightsholders--6 TV networks (CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN, ABC, NFL Network) and 4 streamers (Amazon Prime, Peacock, ESPN+, Netflix).  And that doesn't even count NFL Sunday Ticket or NFL Red Zone.  It's a good thing that they're required to make games available on over-the-air TV in local markets.  Because it's becoming harder and harder to find all of a team's games!

It'll really be hard for fans of the Kansas City Chiefs to keep track.  The Chiefs won't just play on six different networks, they'll have a game on every day of the week except for Tuesday!  In addition to the traditional Super Bowl champion Thursday night opener (and another Thursday night game), they've got two Monday night games, they're playing on Black Friday against the Raiders, and they have a Saturday game against the Texans before they face the Steelers on Christmas (a Wednesday).  (They will also actually play on Sunday 10 times.)

The NFL is also doubling down on the Jets primetime games even after what happened last year.  They'll try the "Aaron Rodgers opens the season on Monday night" thing again in San Francisco.  And somebody's got a really sick sense of humor because their home game against the Bills is also a Monday night game again.  They've also got two Thursday nights, two Sunday nights and a London game against the Vikings...all before their Week 12 bye.

Dallas usually gets the back-to-back Thursdays with the Thursday night game the week after Thanksgiving, but this year it's the Lions who will.  Detroit will host the Bears and Packers in those two games.  They also get the Sunday night opener in a playoff rematch against their old quarterback Matthew Stafford and the Rams.  The last Monday night game of the season, meanwhile, is an NFC Championship Game rematch in San Francisco on Dec. 30.

Jerry Jones reportedly asked the NFL to make the Cowboys-49ers game the Week 1 Sunday night game.  Well, it's not.  It's a Sunday night game, but it's in Week 8.  Instead, Dallas will begin the season in Cleveland in what will be Tom Brady's first game as FOX's lead analyst.  An interesting choice to say the least.  Speaking of interesting choices, they gave them the Giants on Thanksgiving.  The Bears are the Lions' opponent, so they obviously don't particularly care that both the Giants and Bears sucked last season.

Chicago has, in my opinion, way too many primetime games for a team that wasn't very good last year and probably won't be again.  I'd have to imagine that one of the reasons why is because of quarterback Caleb Williams, who they took No. 1 overall in the Draft.  The Commanders and Patriots also took QB's with the No. 2 and 3 picks, and the Bears play both Washington and New England in a three-week span.

What I find odd is that the Packers, a team that's always a huge national draw, have all of their primetime games backloaded.  After they open the season against the Eagles in Brazil on a Friday night, they have 10 consecutive Sunday afternoon kickoffs.  Then, starting on Thanksgiving, they have four straight national games--back-to-back Thursday nights, a Sunday night in Seattle, a Monday night at home against New Orleans.  Which means if the Packers aren't very good and end up getting flexed out of those games, we won't see them in primetime much at all.

Jacksonville's back-to-back London games seem to be a regular thing now.  They're the visiting team against the Bears (another national game for Chicago) before "hosting" New England a week later.  I must say, if Jaguars want to keep doing that, it makes sense.  Let them stay out there for two weeks, and one of the London road teams is already locked in.  The Germany game, meanwhile, is Giants-Panthers.

When they announced the Wednesday Christmas games, that meant those teams would have to play on Saturday.  It's the same four teams, just with the matchups flipped.  It's Texans-Chiefs and Steelers-Ravens, then Texans-Ravens and Steelers-Chiefs.  What's funny about that is how Houston didn't have a game that wasn't a Sunday at 1:00 kickoff until Week 18 last season, and now they're getting guaranteed back-to-back late season national games (one on a holiday).  This in addition to a Week 2 Sunday night game (why is Bears-Texans the Week 2 Sunday night game, BTW?).

That Saturday date was interesting for two reasons.  The first is because Week 16 is typically when the NFL does that NFL Network tripleheader.  The second is because the expanded College Football Playoff will be playing its first-round games that day.  Well, they're going head-to-head with the CFP, but giving them the Saturday night window.  The NFL Network Saturday tripleheader, meanwhile, got pushed back a week to Week 17.

Speaking of college football, Jim Harbaugh left Michigan after leading the Wolverines to the national title for a return to the NFL ranks with the Chargers.  I thought they might make them the Chiefs' opponent on opening night, but they went with Baltimore, which is coached by Jim's brother, John.  They haven't faced off since Super Bowl XLVII 12 years ago, when John's Ravens beat Jim's 49ers.  Well, guess who they've got the Chargers playing on a Monday night three days before Thanksgiving.

Another rematch worth circling on the calendar is the Super Bowl LVIII rematch between the Chiefs and 49ers in San Francisco.  Surprisingly, it's not in primetime.  They gave it to FOX as "America's Game of the Week" in the late window on Oct. 20.  The 49ers' home games against Dallas, Detroit, the Rams and the Jets are all in primetime, as well as games in Buffalo and Seattle.  Two of those are Thursday night games, too, making San Francisco one of the few teams with multiple short weeks.

One of the articles I saw after the schedule was officially released made a good point about the good teams.  Because the NFL understandably wants to showcase them, they end up with more games in national windows than other teams.  However, because there are becoming more and more national windows, the good teams end up playing crazy schedules with multiple short weeks and multiple primetime appearances.  It's not even remotely consistent.  They aren't complaining about it because there isn't really much they can do, but it can definitely create a competitive disadvantage, especially when there's long travel involved (or if you're playing a team coming off a bye week multiple times).

Those are just some of my initial thoughts about the 2024 NFL schedule, with more to come in my next post after I get a chance to look at it more closely.  I will say, though, the NFL Schedule Release show is getting dumber and dumber.  The NFL itself announces a bunch of games ahead of time, then the individual schedules inevitably trickle out one by one before the show even airs.  Then the show is just three hours of talking.  They don't even actually unveil the schedule!  I know the NFL loves to eventize everything and it's an event.  But the show itself is a colossal waste of time!

Players Fighting Back

Domestic league seasons in European soccer end within the next few weeks, followed by the Champions League Final (Borussia Dortmund vs. Real Madrid) the first weekend in June, followed by the simultaneous Euro and Copa America, which will run until mid-July.  Then the preseason international tours start, leading into the start of next season at the end of August (with an Olympic soccer tournament mixed in).  If that sounds like a lot of soccer, it is.  So much soccer, in fact, that the players are finally taking a stand.

Next year, FIFA is launching the expanded Club World Cup, which will now be held every four years in the summer before the World Cup.  The 32-team event will be hosted by the World Cup host and used as a test event.  A 32-team tournament takes a month to complete, though, so it'll be just as long as the major international tournaments between national teams already on the schedule every other year.  So, players on top club teams (who, let's face it, are some of the best players in the world), could end up having a summer-long tournament in addition to their full league season (and Champions League) three years in a row if their team qualifies for the Club World Cup!

In order to make room for the expanded Club World Cup, the existing Club World Cup has been renamed the Intercontinental Cup.  That tournament between the champions of the six continental federations will continue to be held in December (during the winter break for the European leagues).  Since it's only six teams and single-elimination, with a ladder system where the UEFA Champions League winner gets a bye into the final, no one has a problem with the Intercontinental Cup (which is also seen as a bit of a reward since only continental champions are invited).  The expanded Club World Cup, however, that's a different story.

At issue for the players--and rightfully so--is the increased number of matches they're required to play in these new, bigger events.  It takes a toll on their bodies and they don't have the proper amount of time to recover.  Yet FIFA doesn't care.  As long as the money's there (and we all know it is), they'll keep adding tournaments (and adding matches), resulting in the players' schedules becoming even more overloaded in the future.  (UEFA is also increasing the number of guaranteed matches, and adding a block of matchdays, in the Champions League and Europa League next season.)

Meanwhile, the players' injury concerns are legitimate.  There was a report that came out last year in which 43 percent of players at the 2022 World Cup who were surveyed said that they experienced "extreme or increased mental fatigue."  It's not just mentally, either.  In the same survey, 53 percent of players said they either became injured or were more likely to be injured due to the schedule overload.

That, naturally, has spilled over into their club seasons.  Last season, there were nearly 700 injuries in the English Premier League.  A majority of those were classified as "soft tissue injuries" (sprains, strains, muscle tears, etc.).  And I'm sure there were probably a number of injuries that weren't reported, as well.  And trying to play through an injury, of course, means diminished performance and the risk of making it worse.

FIFPRO, the global players' union for soccer, produced an extensive report detailing its concerns with FIFA's ever-expanding calendar, citing things like the injury risks.  Their biggest issue is how they feel FIFA unilaterally makes these decisions and how it's "inherently abusive" to keep adding matches to the schedule, leaving the players with little choice but to comply.  They even threatened possible legal action if FIFA continues to ignore them.

What the players seem to want isn't even necessarily a reduction in the number of games and tournaments.  They simply want to be involved in the conversation.  That's really the issue at hand, and it's one they were hoping would be addressed at this week's FIFA Congress in Bangkok, where representatives of all 211 national federations will be in attendance.

They're also unhappy about the timing of the expanded Club World Cup, which is scheduled to begin just six months after the Intercontinental Cup concludes.  That means six teams will have two global club tournaments in addition to their league season, domestic championship and continental competition all running simultaneously.  And that's just the club teams!  It doesn't even include National team commitments for friendlies and World Cup qualifying!  

It's not like any of these top players can sit out any of these competitions, either, so some of them could end up playing upwards of 70 games for club and country over the course of a season.  In that same report, FIFPRO compared the number of minutes played by today's players with those for a past from the same nation at the same age.  The results were shocking!  Kylian Mbappe has played 48 percent more minutes than Thierry Henry at the same age, and that's just one example!  And you'd have to figure that it won't just result in burnout, it'll lead to retirement at a younger age because of the toll so much high-level soccer takes.

On Friday, one day after FIFPRO sent its letter, FIFA issued its response.  They vehemently denied "imposing" the 2025 Club World Cup match schedule on players and rejected the suggestion that there was no consultation with FIFPRO before the decision to expand the tournament was made.  (Although, let's be honest, what else were they gonna say?)  FIFA even took it a step further and said that it was "like any other competition organizer" with regards to setting up and running an event, seemingly a shot at the domestic leagues that arrange their own summer tournaments.  (It basically asked why those tournaments are OK and the Club World Cup isn't.)

While it may seem like the expanded Club World Cup is the players' problem, it's not.  It was just the tip of the iceberg.  The last straw that made the players snap and finally speak out against it.  Because they're the ones who have to play in the games and tournaments that FIFA keeps adding to the international soccer calendar.  And, while "oversaturation" isn't the right word because there's definitely an appetite for these events, it'll reach the point soon if it hasn't already where they're asking too much of the players.

So, what's the answer?  That's what the players would like to sit down with FIFA and figure out.  FIFA's argument is a valid one.  The more tournaments, the more revenue, which is then distributed to grow the game.  But the players have a point, too.  They need time off just to get a mental and physical break, but the offseason gets shorter and shorter with every new event.

With the expanded Club World Cup (which, let's face it, isn't going anywhere), top players will be asked to play a major summer tournament three years in a row (Euro/Copa America, Club World Cup, World Cup), in addition to all of their other club responsibilities.  It's too much.  The players know it, and now they've made sure to let FIFA know it, too.

The New Normal

There's no denying that college sports have been forever changed because of the NIL laws and the transfer portal.  That's especially true for coaches, who not only need to completely change the way they recruit, but they also need to build an entirely new team every year.  While he didn't say it directly, it's why Nick Saban retired.  And he's not the only coach who isn't feeling this new era.

This isn't the first time college football and basketball coaches have had to adjust the way they go about recruiting.  In 2006, the NBA declared high schoolers ineligible for the Draft, leading to the one-and-done era.  During the one-and-done era, NBA prospects signed with colleges knowing they'd only stay for a year, so coaches would try to maximize that year before doing it all again the next season.

John Calipari was the master of the one-and-done at Kentucky.  He brought in multiple five-star recruits every year and it somehow worked!  Kentucky went to the Elite Eight or further seven times in 10 years, including four Final Fours in five years, one National Championship Game loss and the 2012 National title with Anthony Davis and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.  Calipari had at least one first-round pick every year he was at Kentucky, and most of them are one-and-dones who've turned into NBA stars.

Calipari didn't have the same level of success in his final few seasons at Kentucky, which coincided with the start of the transfer portal era and how coaches began using that as their method for building their teams.  Suddenly, the blue-chip freshmen weren't the recipe for instant success.  Instead, it became guys who played a year or two at another program, but were looking for a change (for whatever reason).  And the advantage of using the transfer portal, of course, is that you'd be getting experienced veterans instead of freshmen.

Probably the biggest coaching change of this offseason was Calipari's decision to leave Kentucky after 15 years for Arkansas.  And, with this new era of the transfer portal and NIL in mind, he's thinking of changing his recruiting style completely with the Razorbacks.  He won't stack his rosters with blue-chip recruits (who'll probably be much harder to lure to Fayetteville, Arkansas to begin with).  In fact, Calipari may not be stacking his rosters with many players at all.

On the most recent edition of his "Ways to Win" podcast with former Oregon State Head Coach Craig Robinson, Calipari mentioned what his new approach might be.  "You may think I'm crazy," he said, "but I told my staff I only want to have eight or nine guys.  They're leaving anyway, and why would I develop a kid for someone else?  Why would I do that?"

With his first roster at Arkansas, that's exactly what Calipari will be doing.  He's already added seven players, one of whom is Boogie Fland, who had previously committed to play for Calipari at Kentucky.  That's no different than what other coaches who've changed jobs have done (Rick Pitino, for example, took about four guys with him from Iona to St. John's).  So, basically, he's just taking advantage of the system that exists now.

I applaud him for saying the quiet part out loud.  It was totally different when it was freshmen he knew were going to the NBA after one season.  He knew the deal.  He'd spend a year developing them for the professional game while also using them to help his team win.  But Calipari's got a point about the transfer portal.  Why spend all that time and effort recruiting and developing a player, only for him to transfer to another program and become your competition?

That doesn't mean I don't think the idea is crazy, though.  Only having eight or nine players, no matter how good they are, doesn't seem like a recipe for success.  Especially if an injury or two comes into play.  We saw that this season with the TCU women, who had to forfeit two games, then hold open tryouts just to add some bodies because they were down to six healthy scholarship players, which isn't enough according to Big 12 rules.  Whether the SEC has the same rules or not, I don't know, but it's still the risk you run with a small roster.

For his part, Calipari doesn't seem too concerned about that.  He even brought up the fact that he once used a rotation of six at UMass.  And Geno Auriemma has traditionally used a short rotation with the UConn women's program.  So, it definitely can be done.  No one's saying it can't be.  But is it smart?  That's an entirely different question.

Men's basketball teams are allowed to carry a maximum of 13 scholarship players, although many teams don't use their full allotment.  They'll also have a walk-on or two to round out the roster.  That appears to be Calipari's plan.  He'll have his eight- or nine-man rotation while relying on non-scholarship players and graduate assistants as essentially a scout team in practice.  This isn't an entirely new idea.  It's something women's teams have done for quite a while.  (It's worth noting here that these "managers" or "practice players" for women's programs are often men.)

While women's teams using male practice players is an accepted practice, the idea of using graduate assistants seems far more questionable.  I'm not talking about graduate transfers who are members of the team using up their remaining college eligibility.  GA's would be members of the basketball staff, and there are NCAA rules regarding how many staff members are allowed to actively coach.  Playing is not coaching, but it's still a staff member participating in practice, which would likely be frowned upon, if not entirely against the rules.

During the conversation, Calipari said that he's talked to other coaches about it, and some of them have mentioned similar strategies.  Will it be as extreme as deliberately not using 4-5 scholarships per season and limiting yourself to a smaller roster (or, at least, a smaller rotation)?  I'd imagine probably not.  But I can definitely see teams trying to find a way to make the transfer portal era work for them the way Calipari did with the one-and-done era.

Coaches can't develop programs anymore.  Not in this new age of college basketball.  So, why not try something new and see if it works?  I think Calipari's idea is nuts, but if anyone's likely to try it, he is.  And if Arkansas does adopt this model and becomes a consistent winner using it, you can bet other programs will follow suit.

Cities and Their Colors

During the Utah Coyotes' (that's what I'm calling them until they have a name) welcome event at the Delta Center, owner Ryan Smith confirmed that the team will be called "Utah" and cobranded with the Jazz in some way, but won't share the Jazz's colors.  He said that he doesn't want to be "like Pittsburgh" where all the teams share the same colors.  I can see where he wants the hockey team to have its own identity, but I also like Pittsburgh's approach where all three teams are black & gold.  Pittsburgh is the most notable example, but it's far from the only city whose teams match.

Pittsburgh (Black & Gold): It wasn't always the case in Pittsburgh, either.  When the Penguins first started, they wore powder blue and royal blue.  They didn't change to black & gold until January 1980 so that they could match the Steelers and Pirates, who were both the reigning World Champions at the time, as well as the city flag.  Black & gold aren't just the colors of Pittsburgh's teams.  They're the colors of the city.

New York (Blue & Orange): Much like Pittsburgh's city flag is black & gold, New York's city flag is blue & orange.  The Knicks, Islanders and Mets all share the color scheme.  The Mets wear blue & orange simply because they combined the colors of the Dodgers (blue) & Giants (orange), but it certainly worked out.  And, no, the Islanders don't play in the city, but they have "New York" in their name, so they still count.  New York also has the three rhyming teams (Mets, Jets, Nets).

Toronto (Blue): This is probably the most famous example after Pittsburgh of a city's teams sharing colors.  The University of Toronto is the Varsity Blues, which is why the Argonauts and Maple Leafs adopted the color.  Then the Blue Jays came to town and made it three blue teams.  The Raptors and Toronto FC are the only outliers.  In Toronto FC's case, it was deliberate.  They intentionally chose red as their primary color because all of the other Toronto teams are blue.

Washington (Red, White & Blue): With Washington, it certainly makes sense to have most of their teams match the U.S. flag.  The Redskins/Commanders have, of course, been doing their burgundy & gold thing as long as they've been a franchise.  What's funny about the other teams, though, is that the Capitals and Bullets/Wizards both started with red, white & blue, then introduced new colors and a new logo, only to go back to red, white & blue.  The Mystics are also red, white & blue, while the Nationals obviously are, as well.  DC United is the only outlier with its red & black.

Los Angeles (Black & Silver): When the LA Kings were founded, they wore purple & gold to match the Lakers.  Then they switched to their now-familiar black & silver when they traded for Wayne Gretzky.  That's while the Raiders were still playing in LA, so they ended up matching them instead.  Of course, that's no longer the case, and all of LA's teams have their own unique color schemes (the Angels, in fact, wear red because the Dodgers wear blue).

Seattle (Navy): Both the Seahawks & Mariners have had different color schemes throughout their history, but they've both settled on a look that's primarily navy with a shade of green as an accent color.  Then the Kraken showed up and gave Seattle a third team whose primary color is navy.  Seattle has almost two completely different distinct looks, since the Storm and Sounders both wear green, and when/if the Sonics are revived, so will their green & gold color scheme.

Las Vegas (Black): Las Vegas has been a professional sports town for less than 10 years, but all three of its Major League teams have something in common.  They all wear black.  For the Golden Knights, it's black & gold.  For the Raiders, it's black & silver.  For the Aces, it's black & red.  Will the A's follow suit or stick with the green & gold that has become their familiar look?

Even if they don't share colors, cities show the connection between their teams in other ways.  The New York Football Giants were named after the New York Baseball Giants.  The Chicago Bears were named after the Chicago Cubs.  St. Louis had the baseball & football Cardinals for a while.  When the WNBA started, Sacramento already had the Kings, so the WNBA team was the Monarchs (and used the monarch butterfly as the basis for their logo).  Houston kept the space thing going with the Rockets, Astros and Comets.  Here are some others not involving defunct WNBA teams:

Dallas (Stars): Texas is the Lone Star State, so this one makes sense.  The Cowboys' star logo is one of the most iconic in sports, and with the Stars, it's obviously their name!  The Rangers used to prominently feature a star as part of their logo, but they've since been relegated to either side of "Texas."  The Mavericks and FC Dallas have both incorporated a star, as well.  Only the Wings haven't.

Buffalo (Buffaloes): There are only two Major League professional teams in Buffalo.  And both the Bills & Sabres have incorporated a buffalo into their logo from the start.  The Bills' logo is just a buffalo.  Even the Triple-A baseball team is the Bisons.

Baltimore (Birds): Much like Buffalo, Baltimore only has two Major League pro teams.  They're both named after birds.  Both make sense.  The oriole is Maryland's state bird, and the Ravens are named after the Edgar Allan Poe poem.  So, it's probably more coincidence than anything deliberate, but it's still a theme.

Atlanta (Birds): Baltimore isn't the city that's got a thing for birds.  At one point, three of Atlanta's four Major League teams were named after different types of birds (Falcons, Hawks, Thrashers).  Now it's down to just the Falcons and Hawks, plus the non-bird Braves and Dream, as well as one of the 85 soccer teams called "United."  Some are suggesting the NHL could go back to Atlanta with an expansion team, though, so maybe we'll get another bird if that happens.

In the grand scheme of things, that's not a lot of teams from the city that share the same theme (whether it be similar names or an identical color scheme).  But it's enough of a sample size to say that it's common enough.  So, if Smith wanted to use the Jazz's colors for the Coyotes, too, it wouldn't be the first time.  He doesn't want to be "like Pittsburgh," but Pittsburgh has that coherent brand tying its three teams together.  So, it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea if he did.

Flying High

Women's basketball has never been hotter.  Thanks to Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese, the NCAA Tournament has drawn record ratings in the last two years.  Now that they're in the WNBA, they're bringing their popularity with them, and the league is set for increased exposure.  And the WNBA seems ready for it!

Last year was the first time in WNBA history that teams were allowed to fly charter.  It was only for the second game of back-to-backs and during the playoffs, but it was still a major step after the league required its teams to fly commercial previously.  With flying commercial came all the pitfalls regular people endure while traveling.  It's certainly not the way professional athletes should be traveling.  And the WNBA players sure made their displeasure about it known.

Well, waiting in long security lines and spending hours at the airport during flight delays are a thing of the past.  The WNBA announced that starting this season, teams will be chartering to every road game (obviously going from New York to Connecticut or vice versa will be an exception).  It's a $50 million commitment over the next two seasons, an investment that's welcome and long overdue.

This is a huge step for the WNBA.  While Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese don't deserve all the credit, their presence in the league certainly doesn't hurt.  This was something a long time coming, though, and it seems likely it would've happened anyway.  It's something the WNBPA had been pushing for, and they're finally getting treated the way they should.  As professional athletes.

The players' concerns about flying commercial were legitimate, too.  It wasn't just having to go through the security lines and enduring the long travel days that come with flight delays.  It was the security concerns that come with traveling through the airport (Brittney Griner was repeatedly harassed last year), having to uncomfortably cram into regular airplane seats and having to get their own luggage and bring it to the bus themselves.  Certainly not ideal travel conditions, yet they were expected to perform at their best in a basketball game afterwards.

When the WNBA first started, flying commercial made sense and was practical.  It's expensive to charter a plane, and the fledgling league wasn't in a strong enough position financially to make that sort of investment.  As the WNBA grew, however, having the teams fly commercial made less and less sense.  In fact, it became more practical to charter.  And chartering is about to make the players' lives a lot easier.

Now they'll enjoy the same perks as NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB players.  They don't have to get to the airport hours early just to go through security anymore.  Instead, the bus will pull directly onto the tarmac and they'll walk right on the plane, then, once they land, it's right to the bus (or to their cars).  The time saved alone will be a massive improvement.  Not to mention the comfort that comes with flying on a charter plane.

You'd have to think having all of the teams charter will work wonders for the WNBA schedule, too.  They no longer need to schedule teams' road trips around flight availability.  More importantly, they won't need to deal with missed connections and/or long layovers.  A trip to play the Sun won't involve driving to Logan or JFK just to get a direct flight.  Now, they can fly from wherever directly into a regional airport near Hartford.

Details still have to be worked out.  All WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert said was that they would launch the charter program "as soon as we can get the planes in place."  What that means is unclear, but I'd imagine that, at the start, there won't necessarily be a dedicated plane for each team.  Rather, I'm expecting a fleet of 6-8 planes that all of the teams share, at least at first.  Could that lead to individual team planes eventually?  I think that's a worthwhile goal.

Regardless of how it works this season, it's a huge step for the WNBA.  And one that's incredibly welcomed by the players.  Nneka Ogwumike, the President of the WNBPA, called it "transformational" and credited the league for working with the players to get it done.  She released a lengthy statement praising the move that concludes with: "It's a great day for our league as a whole that we are able to get here and we're going to continue to grow and continue to build and continue to push for even better."

Other players acknowledged how much it'll improve recovery, but stressed safety as the most important reason why charter flights aren't just preferred, but necessary.  The WNBA's popularity was growing before Clark and Reese joined the league.  Players like Griner and Breanna Stewart draw crowds as they walk through airports, which was a security concern for everyone.  Not just the WNBA players, but the other travelers, too.  Then you throw in Clark, who was mobbed at the airport last week when the Fever traveled to Dallas for a preseason game.

Not coincidentally, the WNBA's increased popularity because of Clark has already resulted in several Fever road games being moved to bigger venues due to such high demand for tickets.  Is this momentum fleeting?  It certainly could be.  But it seems more likely that it isn't.  The WNBA is growing and continuing to push boundaries.  Charter flights are just a part of that.

After this season, the WNBA's CBA is up for renewal.  The charter flights were a huge issue that the players fought for...and won!  Now they can move on to other things that are important to them moving forward.  They don't want it just for themselves, either.  They want to make the WNBA better for the next generation of players and make it so that they can take for granted the things that are being fought for now.  Things like charter travel.

Securing a commitment from the WNBA to provide full-time charter flight service is a huge win.  Both for the players and the league.  The league wouldn't be investing $50 million just because it's the right thing to do.  They're also doing it because it's worthwhile.  It shows confidence that this increase in popularity has lasting power.  And they want the players to reap the benefits.

Keep World Relays As a Qualifier

Ten years ago, World Athletics introduced a new addition to the international track & field calendar--the World Relays.  The first few editions included distance events, as well as the traditional 4x100 and 4x400 meter relays.  They've continually tinkered with the events, adding some and dropping others, with varying degrees of success.  It was at the 2017 World Relays, for example, where the mixed 4x400 made its debut, and that event hasn't just been a regular feature of all international track & field meets, it's become one of the most popular.  The distance races, meanwhile, were eventually dropped entirely, with the mixed shuttle hurdles and the mixed 2x2x400 (it's as confusing as it sounds) joining the program instead. 

At this year's edition of the World Relays, which just concluded in the Bahamas, they finally found the right format.  They made the World Relays an Olympic qualifier and only contested the five Olympic events.  It wasn't just a great idea, it's what they should do moving forward.  Have the World Relays three times every Olympic cycle and use it as the qualifying event for both the Olympics and World Championships, while not holding the meet in the off year.

Only 16 teams qualify for the Olympic and World Championship relays.  In the past, those 16 qualifiers would be the 16 nations that had the 16 fastest times in the world (or were the 16 highest-ranked in the world rankings).  Which makes sense since it really is one of the fairest ways to do it.  Except it put certain countries that contest relays more regularly at a significant advantage and pretty much guaranteed that it would always be the same usual suspects in all five relays.

While it's obviously a good thing to see teams like the United States and Jamaica and Great Britain going against each other at the Olympics and World Championships, there's no denying that they also have more opportunities to post fast times at the various college meets held weekly all over the U.S. throughout the season.  Other nations, while they may have the advantage of being able to use the same four runners all the time, may not be able to get that foursome together more than a handful of times, assuming they're able to enter a meet that has a relay for the national team to race in.  That's one of the reasons why the World Relays are so great.

The World Relays doesn't just give those nations a chance to race together, it gives them a chance to do so in a competitive international setting.  It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that a lot of season best and national record times have been set at the World Relays.  However, the degree to which other (larger) countries cared about the World Relays has certainly varied.  The United States didn't even send a team to the 2021 edition!  That's another reason why making it a qualifying event was such a smart idea.

Even if countries didn't send their full "A" national teams that'll be on the track in Paris, there were still plenty of stars in the Bahamas...because nations wanted to make sure they qualified!  It also meant that there would be full participation (or close enough to it).  With 14 of the 16 Olympic spots being awarded directly at the World Relays, they couldn't just sit there relying on the fast time they put up early in the qualifying period being good enough to guarantee them an Olympic place.  If they want to run the Olympic relay, they need to go to World Relays and earn their spot.  Which resulted in some great competition in the Bahamas.

There were four heats in every event in the first round.  The top two made the final and also punched their ticket to Paris.  Everybody else got a second chance in the second Olympic Qualifying Round, where the top two in each of the three heats also earned an Olympic spot.  That only leaves two places remaining, which will go to the highest teams in the world rankings at the end of June.  So, there's a bit of a failsafe there for teams that didn't get the job done in the Bahamas...but not something they can rely on.

They did put in one caveat regarding Olympic qualification, though.  You must run your first-round race in order to run in the second Olympic Qualifying Round.  It's fine if you don't finish or get disqualified (which the U.S. men's 4x400 was sure happy about), but if you withdraw prior to the first round, you have no shot at going to the Olympics.  Which guaranteed full fields and some really competitive racing in the first round, which wasn't always something we've seen at the World Relays in the past.

It also led to some interesting strategic decisions.  Because the mixed 4x400 and the men's/women's 4x400s were only about 90 minutes apart, very few athletes ran in both.  So, countries had to decide which event to race their top athletes in.  The Netherlands, for example, thought its women's 4x400 was strong enough without its top two runners, Femke Bol and Lieke Klaver, so they had them race in the mixed 4x400 instead.  The strategy worked.  The Dutch qualified in both events.  Poland also prioritized the mixed 4x400, entering its top two women in the first round of that event, then, after they qualified withdrew from the final and had them run in the women's 4x400 final.

In Paris, that obviously won't be a problem.  The mixed 4x400 final is one of the first on the Olympic track & field schedule, while the men's & women's 4x400s traditionally close out the in-stadium program.  But they wouldn't be able to run both at the Olympics if they didn't qualify first.  Only nine nations made both the women's and mixed 4x400, while only six countries will be in both the men's and mixed 4x400.

What we saw in the Bahamas as a result of this new qualifying format was incredible.  Nations were celebrating finishing second in a consolation heat.  Why?  Because it meant they're going to the Olympics.  We also saw some unexpected failures (Jamaica in the men's 4x400, Germany in the women's 4x400) and some pleasant surprises that will guarantee some new blood in Paris (Liberia in the men's 4x100, Norway in the women's 4x400).  You can't argue that any of those teams don't belong, either.  Because they all earned their spot directly through head-to-head competition.

For those nations that made the final, meanwhile, there was still plenty of incentive even though their Olympic berth was already secured.  There was prize money at stake for the medalists, as well as Olympic seeding and lane priority.  Whether they actually cared about Olympic seeding and lane selection is questionable, but they certainly cared about the prize money.

Making the World Relays a qualifying event brought new life into the competition.  More importantly, it resulted in both more countries coming and more of them taking the meet seriously.  It gave them a reason to want to be at the World Relays, which hadn't really been the case previously.  And that's why they should stick with the format moving forward.

Countries obviously attended the 2024 World Relays because there was Olympic qualification at stake.  While that won't necessarily be the case in World Championship years, you're still more likely to get more nations there if qualifying is attached (as opposed to just times).  Plus, you'll have the potential for those surprises and smaller nations will get a chance to earn their spot directly without having to worry about times.  More importantly, it would keep the World Relays relevant and make them an important fixture on the annual world track & field calendar.  After a great two days in the Bahamas, that's not just a worthwhile goal, it's an achievable one.

The Utah Fill-In-The-Blanks

Now that the Arizona Coyotes have officially moved to Salt Lake City, the next step will be to find out what their new name is.  All we know is that the team will be branded "Utah" and that the plan is to have a nickname in place by the start of the 2024-25 season.  This won't be a "Washington Football Team" situation.  Owners Ryan and Ashley Smith want the team to have an identity and the players to be able to say they don't just play for "Utah."

Ryan Smith has some ideas for how he wants the team to look.  He also owns the Jazz and wants to connect the hockey team with them in some way.  But he also doesn't want to be "like Pittsburgh," where they share the same colors.  It seems more likely that the colors and possibly the logo will be similar, which will create a great opportunity for co-branding the teams that'll share the Delta Center.

Ultimately, though, it'll be up to the fans.  The Smiths are planning on having a "Name the Team" contest for the social media age by creating a bracket where fans will be able to vote online for their preferred name.  They registered nine different trademarks, which lends further credence to the idea of an eight-team bracket.  One of the names they trademarked was "Utah Hockey Club" (and "Utah HC"), but I think that was more to prevent somebody else from snapping it up than because it's a serious option.

Even if the Smiths hadn't already publicly committed to an actual nickname, this isn't MLS, where every team has some form of "FC" or "United" as part of their name.  "Utah Hockey Club," if it's ever used would be just as a placeholder name simply because it's so generic.  Don't forget, the ex-Coyotes don't just need a name.  They need a logo and uniforms, too.  These things take time to design, so, even though the Smiths have said they'll have a name in time for next season, I can see "Utah Hockey Club" being used next season if there's any sort of delay.

"Utah Grizzlies" is not among the options, which may have been a surprise to some.  There are likely two reasons for that.  The first is the most obvious one.  The minor league team known as the Utah Grizzlies still exists, so they own that trademark.  Even if they didn't, though, it probably would've been an issue to obtain a trademark to the "Grizzlies" name since there likely would've been an objection by the Memphis Grizzlies.  So, it makes sense that they'd want to avoid both of those potential problems and give the former Coyotes a completely unique identity.

Of the seven available choices (again, I'm not counting "Utah HC" and "Utah Hockey Club" as realistic options), some are better than others.  While none of them are great, there are a few that are definitely less bad.  And there are a couple that would give the Smiths their desired co-branding options with the Jazz.  If these are the eight, here's how I'd rank them heading into that fan vote:

7. Ice: Hockey's played on ice.  Everybody knows this.  You don't need to reinforce it by giving your team a name that sounds like the cheap local beer that people only buy because they're curious how it tastes.  Come to think of it, "Utah Ice" doesn't even sound like a good beer (it was almost certainly be non-alcoholic, too).

6. Fury: Sounds like the name of either a minor league team or one that plays a sport like arena football, soccer or rugby.  An NHL team, though?  Absolutely not!

5. Venom: We're starting to get better, but this one still seems a little amateurish.  It also sounds like the name of one of the gladiators on American Gladiators.  Although, if "Venom" were chosen, they could probably come up with a pretty cool logo with a snake sticking its tongue out wrapped around a hockey stick (or a U or V).

4. Yetis: Without a doubt, "Yetis" would have the coolest mascot!  The Avalanche already have a bigfoot logo as one of their secondary marks, though, so what would be the point of calling your team the "Yetis" if you couldn't use such obvious imagery?  It's also way too close to "Utah Utes," which is obviously already a well-established brand.

3. Outlaws: I wouldn't be opposed to the name "Utah Outlaws."  It doesn't seem to make too much sense for Utah, but, then again, "Jazz" doesn't either, so that's clearly not a big issue.  It's also unique, which is a big plus.  The only team I can ever recall being called the "Outlaws" was the Las Vegas entry in the original XFL.

2. Blizzard: This one would work well on several levels.  The Jazz's old logo featured the snow-capped Wasatch Mountains, and they could easily be incorporated into a logo for the "Blizzard."  It also has the same double Z as Jazz, so that would help with the co-branding.  However, it's close enough to Avalanche that I can see Colorado objecting.

1. Mammoth: In my opinion, this is the best of the seven.  There's a lacrosse team named the Colorado Mammoth, but I don't think there's much chance of people confusing the two (much like when the Golden Knights ran into the trademark issue because of that parachute troop).  And, aside from that, it's the most unique choice.  "Utah Mammoth" just sounds cool, and there are some great logo and mascot possibilities incorporating a woolly mammoth.  If I end up participating in this contest, "Mammoth" will be my choice.

Regardless of which name ends up being chosen, connecting Utah's new NHL team to the Jazz is a smart move.  I don't think doing the "Pittsburgh thing" is such a terrible idea, but it would also be tough to just automatically use the Jazz's colors before picking the franchise's new name.  The Jazz and the ex-Coyotes will be partners, and the Jazz are the recognizable brand that's been in Salt Lake City for 45 years.  Hopefully the Utah Whatevers of the NHL will become just as recognizable.