Another Fortnight

Last year, Carlos Alcaraz became the first man outside the Big Four to win Wimbledon since Lleyton Hewitt in 2002.  That's before Alcaraz was even born!  Then for a while, it looked like he might be the only former champion in the 2024 field.  That, however, is no longer the case.  Novak Djokovic, who withdrew from the French Open before his quarterfinal match due to a knee injury, has recovered enough from surgery to enter.  Andy Murray, meanwhile, will give it another go for perhaps the final time at the All-England Club.

Now, whether Djokovic's decision to play was wise is an entirely different question.  And we probably won't find out until the tournament starts and he takes the court for the first time.  The whole point of withdrawing from the French Open and having the surgery when he did was to be ready for the Olympics, which are a month from now.  So, he either healed very quickly or came back earlier than he should've.  If it's the former, is an eighth Wimbledon title out of the question?  If it's the latter, is it smart to play on the knee a month earlier than planned?  I guess we'll find out.

Imagine if Djokovic had won the final last year, though.  Now imagine he and Murray both weren't playing.  There would be a grand total of zero former Wimbledon champions in the men's field!  I know that's a lot of if's, but it's crazy to think about.  It would mean this year's Wimbledon is truly the changing of the guard.

We've already started to see that changing of the guard in men's tennis this year.  Jannik Sinner beat Djokovic in the Australian Open semifinals and went on to win the title.  Now he's No. 1 in the world.  The French Open final, meanwhile, was Alcaraz vs. Alexander Zverev, who's still waiting for that first Slam title.  Wimbledon seems the least likely to be where he gets it.  He's made it to at least the semis in each of the other three, but hasn't even been to the second week at Wimbledon.

However, the same was true of Alcaraz last year and he not only won, he beat the four-time defending champion in a five-set final.  So, it wouldn't surprise me if Zverev does the exact same thing this year.  Especially if he actually plays quick matches in the early rounds, which is something he didn't do in Paris (and may have cost him in the final).

There will be plenty of other challengers for the men's title, though.  Sinner was a semifinalist last year.  So was Daniil Medvedev, who's been to the finals of both hardcourt Grand Slams three times each, including a win at the 2021 US Open.  And, don't forget, the only reason he didn't play at Wimbledon in 2022 was because of their controversial Russian ban.  That's also true of Andrey Rublev, who was a quarterfinalist last year.

So, really, for the first time in a long time, I think it's wide open.  I can see any of the top men winning.  And it would be foolish to count Djokovic out.  Despite everything I said earlier, I doubt he'd be playing if he didn't think the knee was 100 percent.  Especially since he said his goal was to be ready for the Olympics, not Wimbledon.  We'll probably find out how he looks early.  If it's Vintage Djokovic, there's no reason to think he won't be in the mix.

Djokovic isn't my pick, though.  Neither is Alcaraz.  Or Sinner.  Or Medvedev.  Nope!  I'm going with Zverev.  Once upon a time, they said Wimbledon was the Grand Slam Andre Agassi was least likely to win.  It's where he won his first Grand Slam title.  I can see the same thing happening here with Zverev.  He's the only top man without one.  That'll change here.

This year's Wimbledon men's final will be the start of a massive sports day, too.  The finals of both ongoing major soccer tournaments are also that day.  Immediately after the Wimbledon final is the final of Euro 2024 in Berlin, then the day is capped off with the Copa America final in Miami.  Will Djokovic, Mbappe and Messi, three of the biggest sports stars on the planet, all end up hoisting trophies that day?  Or will it be another man winning Wimbledon for the first time (or, in Alcaraz's case, the second)?

Meanwhile, on the women's side, there have been seven different Wimbledon champions in the last seven tournaments.  The three women who've made it to the final in the last two years are all in the top half of the draw (along with No. 1 Iga Swiatek), so only one can get back.  Which means the possibility of it becoming eight in eight is very real.

I've long had Aryna Sabalenka pegged as a future Wimbledon champion.  She's been to the semifinals each of the last two times she's played and has the perfect game for grass.  Sabalenka's been dealing with a mysterious shoulder injury, though.  How will it affect her?  Or is she back to 100 percent?  If she is, I can easily see her adding a Wimbledon trophy to her Australian Open crown from earlier this year.

One of the things working in Sabalenka's favor is that she's on the much easier bottom half of the draw, so she should be able to ease into the tournament.  It's really just her and Coco Gauff on the bottom half.  Gauff had her Grand Slam breakthrough at Wimbledon in 2019, when she beat Venus Williams in the first round and reached the round of 16 in her first-ever Grand Slam tournament.  Gauff is now a Grand Slam champion (having won the 2023 US Open) and made the semis at the first two Grand Slams this year.  It would be a surprise to see her not get at least that far at Wimbledon.

The top half of the women's draw, though, is absolutely loaded.  Whoever gets out of that gauntlet will certainly have earned it.  In addition to the last two champions (Marketa Vondrousova & Elena Rybakina), you've got Ons Jabeur, who's lost the last two Wimbledon finals, and No. 1 Iga Swiatek.  Swiatek's quarterfinal appearance last year was her best-ever Wimbledon result.  In order to get to the quarters this year, though, she'll have to deal with her nemesis, Jelena Ostapenko.

Ostapenko is 4-0 career against Swiatek and one of those wins came at last year's US Open (when Swiatek was the defending champion).  Ostapenko can handle herself on the grass, too.  She was a semifinalist here in 2022.  But she's also lost in the first round at Wimbledon three times, so Swiatek's best hope could be for Ostapenko to suffer an early-round upset.

With Swiatek out of the equation, it's really a toss-up between Vondrousova, Rybakina and Jabeur.  And, for some reason, I like Vondrousova to repeat.  I can't say why.  I just like her chances (even though she had won a grand total of one Wimbledon match in her career prior to last year).  I also like Jabeur, but she'll have the much more difficult road with Pegula in the round of 16 and Rybakina in the quarterfinals.

As for her final opponent, I'm actually going with Sabalenka.  Her withdrawal from her tune-up event seems to be more precautionary than anything else.  It also seems like it's a pain tolerance thing for her.  We'll see how much pain she can endure in that semifinal against Gauff.  Call me crazy, though, but I think Sabalenka doesn't even need to be at 100 percent in order to make a run here.

The Cruelest and Fairest Way

Athing Mu is the defending Olympic champion in the women's 800.  She was considered one of the medal favorites for Paris.  Except she's didn't make the team.  In one of the most dramatic and unexpected moments of the Olympic Trials, Mu fell 200 meters into the final and ended up finishing last.  As a result, she's not going to Paris (at least not in the 800).

Neither will Laulaga Tausaga-Collins, the 2023 World champion in the women's discus.  Ditto for Brooke Andersen, the 2022 women's hammer throw World champion, and Janaee Kassanavoid, who medaled at the World Championships in the hammer throw in both 2022 and 2023.  They all had the potential to win medals in Paris.  Instead, they'll be watching the Olympics from home.  So is the cutthroat nature of the U.S. Olympic Trials.

It's become almost a rite of passage that, every Olympic cycle, the U.S. selection system is criticized/questioned by fans and journalists from around the world.  And that, of course, comes with their suggestions for how to do it "better."  What they don't understand, however, is that while different selection methods may work for other countries, the American system that seems cruel at times is actually the fairest way to do it.  The top three at Trials make the team.  You can't get more straightforward than that.  There's nothing arbitrary about it.

Other countries have various other selection methods.  Many of them utilize some sort of selection committee that picks the team based on a variety of factors.  Which leads to plenty of controversy regarding who is and isn't selected (there was a lawsuit regarding the Australian marathon team that was only dropped because the athlete couldn't afford the legal fees).  In the U.S., there's no controversy over who does or doesn't make the team.  Those who made it earned their spots.  The others didn't.

While I'm making it sound very cut-and-dry, the top three at Trials don't necessarily go to the Olympics.  It's the top three who have the Olympic standard or world ranking.  So, even if you finished in the top three, if you don't have the standard or your world ranking isn't high enough, you're not going.  It's also entirely possible that the fourth- or fifth-place finisher will go instead of somebody in the top three because they have the standard or a high enough world ranking.  (The third-place finisher still has preference in team selection.)

In other countries, having the standard or world ranking is a big factor in Olympic team selection.  You're limited to three athletes per event, and most countries don't have more than three with the standard in a given event, which makes it very easy.  You have the standard, you're on the team.  That's not the case in the U.S.  Far from it.

There are so many Americans that have the Olympic standard in certain events that it would be impossible to pick three any other way.  The British take the top two at their Trials, plus a third selection made by a committee.  But how would you even do that in the U.S.?  If anything, you're opening it up to more controversy!  Because what would the criteria be for that third selection?  Especially when you (potentially) have multiple people with the standard to choose from?  A strict top three takes all of that out of the mix.

After the women's 800 final, Mu filed a protest, arguing that she was clipped by another runner (she wasn't).  The protest was (rightfully) denied.  I'm not sure what she and her team were trying to accomplish with the protest anyway.  What did they want?  The race to be re-run?  Mu to just be given a place on the team, at the expense of one of the three women who earned her spot (all three of them have the standard and are going to Paris)?  How is either of those solutions fair?

Likewise, I saw some suggestions that Mu be allowed to run a solo time trial.  I'm assuming the premise was that if she ran fast enough, she'd displace one of the three Olympians.  Again, how is that fair?  What did third-place finisher Juliette Whittaker do to warrant having her Olympic spot taken away?  It's not her fault Athing Mu fell!

The idea that Athing Mu, a potential medalist, didn't make the team is unfathomable to them.  That's the nature of the U.S. Olympic Trials, though.  It's the hardest team in the world to make for a reason.  There are some events where the final at Olympic Trials is more competitive than the Olympic final will be.  If you don't show up on the day and finish top three, you're not on the team.  It sucks, but that's how it is.  It's the same for everybody.

This isn't the first time that this has happened, either.  In 2016, Keni Harrison didn't make the team in the women's 100 hurdles.  Two weeks later, she set the world record.  In 1992, there was that whole Dan & Dave marketing campaign built around decathletes Dan O'Brien and Dave Johnson.  O'Brien famously no-heighted in the pole vault at Trials, meaning only Dave went to Barcelona (where he won bronze).  Dan eventually did win Olympic gold...four years later in Atlanta.

That's another beautiful element of the U.S. system.  Yes, it's cruel and brutal and cutthroat and sometimes unfair.  But it can also be incredibly motivating.  We've seen plenty of athletes this week who didn't make the team in 2021 and used that disappointment to fuel them this Olympic cycle.  Finishing fourth (or whatever place) is what drove them to make sure it wouldn't happen again this time, and it paid off with a trip to Paris.

At the U.S. Olympic Trials, nothing is guaranteed.  It doesn't matter who you are.  You need to show up and get the job done.  If you don't, you're not on the team.  That's true for every single athlete in Eugene, from the global superstars like Noah Lyles and Sha'Carri Richardson to the 16-year-old high school students.  It's a level playing field.  They all have an equal chance of making it, but only three can.  That's the entire point!

So, does it suck that Athing Mu won't be in the Olympic women's 800?  Yes.  Did the U.S. potentially lose a medal as a result?  Yes.  But that isn't proof that the Olympic Trials system is broken.  Just the opposite, in fact.  It's proof that it works.

Nonsensical NHL Scheduling

The Florida Panthers won the Stanley Cup on Monday.  As their general manager pointed out in his on-ice interview during the celebration, their front office had no chance to enjoy the victory.  They aren't even able to go to the parade!  Because they immediately had to shift their attention and be in Las Vegas for the draft...with the NHL Awards sandwiched in between.

They, of course, couldn't expect that the Stanley Cup Final would go seven games (especially after the Panthers took a 3-0 lead).  And they certainly couldn't anticipate Game 7 being played in South Florida.  But, the fact that they were playing hockey in South Florida in the last week of June (a week after the NBA finished!) was dumb in its own right.  Especially since the NHL Awards and NHL Draft were already scheduled for late June dates.

During Game 7, Sean McDonough said that this was the longest NHL season in history, which is incorrect.  The 2019-20 season lasted nearly a full year because of the COVID break!  It wasn't even the NHL's latest finish.  The 2021 season extended into July.  Although, I think he probably meant it was the longest based on total number of days without an interruption, in which case, he's probably right.

But still, the fact that the NHL season was so long to begin with is what caused this problem.  The regular season didn't end until mid-April, which obviously meant the playoffs didn't start until then.  Which extended both conference finals into June.  And, if the conference finals don't end until June, that guarantees the Stanley Cup Final (which already has a schedule that's more drawn out) is finishing in mid-June at the absolute earliest.

That's one of the big things the critics were quick to pounce on.  It obviously worked out because of the distance between Miami and Edmonton, but the two days between games whenever there's travel was already built in.  Yes, one game with two days off on either side is a little silly, but that scheduling isn't entirely the NHL's fault, so I'm not going to fault the league on that one.  The blame actually goes to the NBA.

As soon as the NBA announced that it was changing the Finals schedule to give the teams two days off when traveling (one for travel, one as a practice day in the other city), the NHL didn't really have a choice but to follow suit.  There were too many chances for there to be a conflict if they didn't.  Not only do teams share arenas, the Stanley Cup and NBA Finals are on the same network every other year.  So, the NHL needs to know that their arenas will be available and the game will be shown on TV.  Those schedules are made well in advance and can't really be changed on the fly.

Still, though, the NHL should get some blame for the week between the end of the conference finals (which both ended in six, so it's not like they were short series) and Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final.  The Stanley Cup Final used to start on a Monday and be on a Monday-Wednesday, Saturday-Monday, Thursday, Sunday, Wednesday schedule.  By starting on Saturday, they ended up playing on two Saturday nights (and a Friday).  And, not to mention, going almost a full week longer!

Whether it was ABC's request/demand, I don't know.  But the point remains.  The problem with the seven-game Stanley Cup Final wasn't so much the length of the series (in terms of number of days), but the fact that it started so late to begin with.  Because that's what created the short turnaround before the NHL Awards, the draft and the unofficial start of the 2024-25 season.

While the Panthers and Oilers were duking it out for the Cup, the other 30 teams were already in full-blown off-season mode.  They weren't just making difficult salary cap-related decisions, they were making actual transactions.  Darcy Kuemper was traded from the Capitals to the Kings.  Barclay Goodrow was waived by the Rangers and signed with the Sharks.  I was shocked to find out this was allowed!  Why is it?!  The Panthers and Oilers were, in effect, being penalized for making it to the Stanley Cup Final.  Because every other team got a leg up on the start of the 2024-25 season and now they're playing catch-up.

It's ridiculous that teams are allowed to trade and sign players for next season before this season is even over.  There's a trade deadline, isn't there?  Isn't that until the end of the season?  Because the season's not over yet!  If teams want to make their salary cap decisions and release players, fine.  That's understandable and fair.  That should be it, though.  No making trades or signing free agents until after the Final ends.  You can even make it like the NFL and let them do everything except make it official beforehand if you want.  But the idea of other teams being able to make transactions while the two best teams in the league are still fighting for the Stanley Cup is just absurd!

Then they immediately have to transition into draft mode!  How long were they already in draft mode (while their team was making a deep run in the playoffs)?  Not only do they literally have no break at all, they don't even get a day off to celebrate their team's Stanley Cup run!  Meanwhile, if the Stanley Cup Final had started a few days earlier, there wouldn't have been a possibility of the Draft running up on Game 7 like this.

Scheduling the NHL Awards and NHL Draft when they did isn't really the issue here.  Pairing those two events at the same time in the same city makes complete sense.  And I have no issue with the timing, either.  By putting them in late June, there's theoretically enough time between the last game, putting a bow on the season with the NHL Awards, and shifting the focus to next season with the draft...even if the Final goes to Game 7.

Granted, none of this would've been an issue had the Panthers won the Cup in a four-game sweep, but that's kind of my point.  The Stanley Cup Final going seven games (like it did this year) also needs to be considered.  The NBA has managed to figure it out.  There was roughly a week between when Game 7 of the NBA Finals was scheduled and the first day of the NBA Draft (and no transactions in between).  It shouldn't be that hard for the NHL to do the same thing.

Building a buffer into the schedule makes more sense for so many reasons.  They wouldn't be cramming everything into the last week of June then.  They'd actually have some time to build up the NHL Awards and Draft after the Stanley Cup Final.  And, more importantly, they won't immediately be going from one to another, followed by nothing.  Give this season time to end before starting next season.

More Swimming In a Football Stadium

With the size of the crowds at the Olympic Swimming Trials in Indianapolis, we knew it was only a matter of time before there would be another swim meet in a football stadium.  What we didn't know is that it was already in the works!  On the final weekend of Trials, they dropped the bomb, though.  LA28 made changes to its venue plan, and the swimming competition will now be held at...SoFi Stadium.

The original plan called for a temporary pool to be installed inside Dedeaux Field, USC's baseball stadium.  That venue will no longer be available, however, since USC will be doing some construction at the facility that won't be completed in time.  (They're putting that Big Ten money to use right away, aren't they?)  Of course, you could question why they're doing construction now, knowing it'll make the facility unavailable, but I doubt LA28 minded much since it allowed them to move swimming into a venue with a significantly larger seating capacity...that should be full pretty much every night!

In its football configuration, SoFi Stadium seats 70,000.  For Olympic swimming, it'll seat 38,000.  That's 18,000 per session more than they would've been able to fit at Dedeaux Field.  Over the course of nine days, that's 162,000 additional fans who'll be able to attend Olympic swimming (and that's only counting night sessions).  Plus, the athletes will benefit from a setup similar to the one used at Olympic Trials where the warmup pool will be curtained off on the other side of the venue, literally feet away from the competition pool.

This venue change resulted in an even bigger change having to be made, though.  Traditionally, swimming is held during the first week of the Games and track & field during the second week.  In LA, that'll be flipped.  Track & field will go first, then swimming in the second week.

Now, this tradition only emerged because track & field is usually held in the same stadium as the Opening Ceremony, so that gave them a few days to transition and let the track & field athletes be able to practice at the venue.  In LA, it'll be the exact opposite.  They're doing a very unique Opening Ceremony at both the LA Coliseum and SoFi, with the main portion of the ceremony being held at SoFi.  So, they'll need time to convert the venue for swimming.  (The Closing Ceremony will be the opposite, with the main portion taking place at the LA Coliseum.)

Even though track & field and swimming are switching weeks, not every track & field event will move away from the traditional schedule.  The men's and women's marathons will still be held on the final weekend as usual, and the marathon medal presentations will still be during the Closing Ceremony.  That's the one thing I was worried about with the schedule change, so I'm glad they clarified it.

Both World Athletics and World Aquatics approve of and support the new schedule, which, admittedly, will be a little weird.  They both run for nine days and overlap during the middle weekend anyway, though, so in the grand scheme of things, it's not that big of deal.  It could actually be a pretty cool one-time change.  (I'm assuming they'll revert back to the normal schedule in Brisbane 2032 when track & field and the Opening Ceremony go back to being in the same stadium.)

Swimming's not the only sport that's on the move in LA's updated venue plan.  When LA was awarded the Games in 2017, the Lakers and Clippers shared Staples Center (yes, I know that's not its name anymore, but I refuse to call it by the new one!).  Since then, things have changed, and the Clippers will open their own arena, the Intuit Dome, next season.  It would've been stupid not to use a brand-new, state-of-the-art arena, so it made complete sense that the Intuit Dome was added as a venue.

Basketball, which was originally slated for Staples Center, will be played at the Intuit Dome instead.  Which freed up the Staples Center for gymnastics (all three disciplines).  That moves one of the most popular Olympic sports, especially for American audiences, from the Forum to the heart of Downtown Los Angeles.  (I didn't see the Forum mentioned in the new venue plan, so I don't know if they're planning on using it at all anymore, but it's right near the Intuit Dome, so it would make sense as the secondary basketball venue.)

One of the cooler venue changes in the new plan involves diving.  Water polo and artistic swimming will be at the same pool in Long Beach, but the diving competition is being moved to the aquatics center by the LA Coliseum.  It was built for the 1932 Games, but wasn't used in 1984.  Ninety-six years later, it will be the site of Olympic competition again.

They didn't announce venues for the sports that have been added to the Olympic program for 2028 only by the LA organizers.  I'm assuming that'll come once all of the changes are approved.  It stands to reason that baseball will be at Dodger Stadium, though.  Especially since they did announce where the softball tournament will take place.

At the Tokyo Olympics, baseball and softball were played in the same facility--a baseball stadium with shorter fences installed and the shorter fences marked off for softball.  While that's common in Japan, it looked ridiculous!  It came off as a bit of a slap in the face to softball that they couldn't even have a sport-specific facility.  LA28 could've done the same thing, but specifically mentioned they didn't want to use Angel Stadium for softball for that very reason.  Instead, it'll be played in an actual softball stadium.  (So, if Angel Stadium isn't being used for baseball, that must mean Dodger Stadium is.)

When they announced that softball was being added for 2028, I figured they'd play at UCLA.  UCLA's softball stadium is too small for the expected crowds, however.  And, amazingly, there isn't a softball stadium anywhere in Southern California that has a large enough seating capacity.  Not in LA.  Not in Anaheim.  Not in Long Beach.  Not in San Diego.  I'm not entirely sure how that's possible, but it's the situation they're in.  Which resulted in the search for a new venue.  The one they found is in Oklahoma City.

Plenty of people weren't happy about the decision, and they made it known.  Most of the criticism was rooted in the idea that softball isn't even a permanent part of the Olympics, and now it's getting shipped 1,300 miles away.  The critics felt softball was again being short-changed and the players won't even get the full Olympic experience.

While I don't completely disagree with those points, it's actually fairly common at the Summer Olympics to have some events well outside the host city.  (In 1984, there were soccer games in Boston.)  And LA to Oklahoma City is nowhere near the distance between Paris and Tahiti, which is where next month's Olympic surfing competition will take place. 

And the softball stadium in Oklahoma City, which hosts the Women's College World Series every year, is by far the best facility for the sport in the U.S.  So, if there isn't a viable venue in Southern California (I'm still not entirely sure how that's even possible), that might've been their best option.  For that reason, I have no problem with it (although, I'd also prefer it being in the LA area). 

Softball won't be making the move to Oklahoma City alone, either.  There's a world-class slalom canoe venue in Oklahoma City (who knew?!), so they'll use that instead of building one somewhere in California that'll never be used again.  If those were the two options, having the slalom canoers travel to Oklahoma City definitely makes more sense (at the Atlanta Games, the whitewater center was in Tennessee).

Moving the swimming competition to SoFi Stadium is obviously the headliner of the venue changes.  And, just like in 1984, LA might be starting a trend in 2028.  Because if they can build a temporary swimming facility inside a football stadium and fill it with 38,000 fans, why wouldn't future Olympic hosts follow suit?  So, while it'll be an Olympic first, it almost certainly won't be an Olympic last.

Track Trials Time

This has the potential to be one of the strongest U.S. Olympic track & field teams in history.  Whether it rivals that legendary 1968 squad only time will tell, but the group headed to Paris will definitely be right up there.  Not only will it be made up of Grade A stars who are among the biggest names in the sport, they'll go to the Olympics with something to prove.  Especially the men, who only won two gold medals in Tokyo (and none individually on the track).

Noah Lyles and Grant Holloway both attributed their performance in Tokyo to the lack of fans.  They weren't making excuses.  They simply point blank said it affected them, and I actually appreciate their candor about how they weren't at their best during the COVID Olympics and why.  They're both showmen (Lyles especially) who feed off the crowd.  It's hard to do that when the stadium's empty!  They've both won everything since, and you know they want to put on a show for the sellout crowds at the Stade de France.

Last year at Worlds, Lyles ran the 100 with thoughts on potentially doubling in Paris.  He won gold!  Now, his goal is four gold medals in Paris.  In addition to the 100 and 200, he could get picked for both relays (Lyles ran the 4x400 at World Relays and posted a solid time, so selecting him for that event would be justified based on performance).  Of course, the only way he can win four gold medals in Paris is by making the team first, which he has the chance to do starting this weekend.

Olympic Trials return to their quasi-permanent home of Hayward Field at the University of Oregon, which has hosted every Trials since 2008, as well as this year's NCAA Championships, the 2022 World Championships, and pretty much every major meet held in the United States.  With the 2028 Olympics taking place in LA, you'd have to figure the next Olympic Trials will be held at the LA Coliseum as a test event.  But, come 2032, chances are Trials will be back at Hayward.

Going back to Hayward Field repeatedly has its positives and its negatives, and the arguments for and against continuing to return to the same place instead of moving major meets around the country both have their merits.  But, one thing is for sure.  Eugene knows how to put on a track meet!  And when that meet is the U.S. Olympic Trials, where just making the team will be harder than the Olympics themselves in some events, it needs to be first-rate.  Which Eugene is.

Lyles and Holloway will be the headliners, but they're far from the only stars who'll be fighting for Olympic berths.  Rai Benjamin won silver in Tokyo behind Karsten Warholm in one of the greatest 400-meter hurdle races in history.  Ryan Crouser, who grew up in Oregon, is the greatest shot putter in history.  He'll look for his third straight Olympic title in Paris, but he always throws well in Eugene, so don't be surprised if he does something spectacular.

On the women's side, the American depth is incredible.  The U.S. women have legit medal aspirations in all four event groups (sprints, distance, jumps, throws), as well as the heptathlon.  And it's on the women's side where some potential Olympic medalists could end up getting left home.  The U.S. team will be that hard to make in certain events!

Women in the 400 were probably relieved to learn Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone only plans on running the 400 hurdles at Trials.  Because she could medal in Paris in the 400 (and will likely be on the U.S. 4x400 relay regardless).  A double at the Olympics was theoretically possible, but she decided against it and will instead focus on defending her gold medal in the 400 hurdles (I can't wait for that showdown with Femke Bol!).

Another big name on the women's side heading into Trials is Sha'Carri Richardson.  It may seem hard to believe, but Richardson has never been an Olympian.  She won the 100 at Trials three years ago, but that whole fiasco involving her failed drug test for marijuana ensued immediately after.  A lot has happened since then, though, including Richardson winning gold in the 100 at Worlds last year.  She's not a lock to make the team in both the 100 and 200, but very well could.

Anna Hall has never made an Olympic team, either, but that will certainly change by the end of Trials.  The University of Florida graduate is the next big thing in the heptathlon.  She won bronze at the 2022 Worlds and silver at Worlds last year.  In Paris, does Hall become the first American heptathlon gold medalist since the legendary Jackie Joyner-Kersee 32 years ago?

And I can't go without mentioning my pole vault queens--Katie Moon and Sandi Morris.  Katie has won the outdoor global championship three years in a row (Tokyo Olympics, 2022 & 2023 Worlds).  Sandi has won a lot of silver, including at the Rio Olympics, but nothing since the 2022 Worlds.  They should both make the team no problem, but who joins them? 

Meanwhile, in the women's throws, multiple Americans are capable of winning Olympic gold, but only three can make the team in each.  Four different American women medaled at the last two Worlds in the hammer throw.  Chase (Ealey) Jackson didn't make the team for Tokyo, then won back-to-back World titles in the shot put.  Valarie Allman won Olympic gold in Tokyo, but was second behind another American (Laulauga Tausaga) at the World Championships last year. 

As usual, I'm also expecting to see some surprises and some breakthroughs.  The NCAA Championships were just two weeks ago, and there were plenty of stellar performances there.  Parker Valby capped her outstanding collegiate career with two individual NCAA titles (in the 5000 & 10,000), as well as a team title for Florida.  Can she make the Olympic team in either or both events?  What other collegians will ride the momentum of their efforts at NCAAs into Olympic berths?

That's just a sampling of some of the athletes and events to look out for in Eugene.  As you can see, that wasn't hyperbole.  This team has a chance to be loaded!  Whoever goes to Paris will have earned it.  They'll have made the hardest team in the world to make, and they'll head to an Olympics where the U.S. has a chance to do something really special.

At the Copa, Copa America

Last week, the Summer of Soccer started when Euro 2024 got underway in Germany.  Now it kicks into high gear with the start of Copa America, which is being played in the United States as a prelude to the 2026 World Cup.  There'll actually be a major tournament in the U.S. three years in a row, with the 2025 Club World Cup also coming up (as well as the 2025 CONCACAF Gold Cup).

This is the second time that Copa America is being played in the U.S.  Eight years ago, the centennial edition of the tournament included six CONCACAF teams along with all 10 from CONMEBOL, and it was one of the best Copa Americas ever.  This year's tournament should be just as good.  I've long thought that Copa America should be a combined tournament between the two federations (CONMEBOL & CONCACAF), and the inclusion of the six CONCACAF teams only helps prove my point.  It makes for a better tournament.  It's better competition for the CONCACAF teams, who are certainly capable of holding their own against their South American counterparts, and different competition for the CONMEBOL teams, who, let's face it, play each other a lot and could use some variety.  It's a win-win for everyone.

It's also an incredibly important tournament for the United States, Mexico and Canada.  As the World Cup co-hosts, they don't have to go through qualifying.  So, these are the biggest games they'll be playing until the World Cup.  And the level of competition is far superior to what they'll see playing only in friendlies and against the other CONCACAF nations in the Gold Cup.  (There may be CONCACAF Nations League, too, but that would be the same problem.)

I also noticed that the schedule was made very deliberately.  Argentina is the World Cup champions.  Lionel Messi, who plays for Argentina, is one of the biggest names on the planet.  Messi plays his club futbol with Inter Miami.  Guess where Argentina's last game and the tournament final are.  (Argentina also has a game in New York, which also isn't by accident.)

Group A: Argentina, Chile, Peru, Canada
Messi and Co. begin the tournament in Atlanta against Canada.  The Canadians could use a good showing.  They topped CONCACAF qualifying for the 2022 World Cup, then ended up going 0-3 in Qatar (albeit in a group that included two semifinalists).  So, opening against the World Cup champions certainly isn't ideal.  A competitive showing could be a good omen, though.  

Ultimately, I think that second quarterfinal spot behind Argentina will come down to the Chile-Peru winner.  Chile actually beat Argentina in the final at MetLife Stadium eight years ago for their second consecutive Copa America title, but has dropped off considerably since then.  In 2022 World Cup qualifying, they were seventh and Peru went to the intercontinental playoff against Australia.  Still, though, I'm not counting Chile out.  Those bottom three teams are pretty evenly matched, so it really could be any of them.

Group B: Mexico, Ecuador, Jamaica, Venezuela
When they did the draw, they completely screwed it up and tried to put Jamaica in Group C (which already had two CONCACAF teams) before finally figuring out where they should be.  Ending up in Group B was extremely beneficial for the Jamaicans, too, because I think they have an outside shot at advancing.  They obviously won't be favored to come out of the group, but being in the same group in Venezuela is huge.  Because that game is very winnable.

Mexico and Ecuador are a clear top two, though.  That game will be vital since the group winner has a very good chance at reaching the semifinals, while the runner-up has to face Argentina.  Mexico's games are in Houston, LA and Phoenix, so you know El Tri will have plenty of fans in attendance.  I think that could make the difference.  They'd be favored in this group anyway, but they'll definitely feed off of having a "home" crowd.

Group C: United States, Uruguay, Panama, Bolivia
Which U.S. team will show up?  The one that got its butts kicked by Colombia or the one that went toe-to-toe with Brazil in a 1-1 draw?  Either way, they're facing one of those two again in the quarterfinals, so a repeat of 2016's semifinal run will be difficult regardless.  Although, advancing out of the group shouldn't be an issue.  Bolivia is the weakest team in the tournament and, while Panama often gives the U.S. trouble (especially in Panama), don't expect it to happen here.

So, that final group game between the United States and Uruguay at Arrowhead Stadium on July 1 is the one to pay attention to.  Both teams should have already clinched quarterfinal spots (opposite Brazil and Colombia) by that point, so they'll be playing for first place in the group.  Regardless of who wins, though, the quarterfinal will be a tough matchup.

Group B: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Paraguay
There's been a lot of buzz about Colombia heading into the tournament.  They were already one of the favorites before that 5-1 demolition of the United States, a victory that only emphasized that status.  Brazil also enters as one of the favorites.  Their performance against the United States didn't change that, but certainly did show the Brazilians could be vulnerable.  They'll need to be on their A game, both against Colombia and in the quarterfinals against the United States or Uruguay.

If Costa Rica had ended up in a different group, I might've liked their chances to advance to the quarters a little bit more.  If they were in Group A, for example, I could see them hanging with either Chile or Peru.  They aren't finishing ahead of both Brazil and Colombia, though. Neither is Paraguay.  Those two C vs. D quarterfinals on July 6 could easily be semifinals had the draw worked out better for the four teams involved.

Quarterfinals: Argentina vs. Ecuador, Mexico vs. Chile, United States vs. Colombia, Brazil vs. Uruguay
In 2016, there was a little bit of a side competition between the United States and Mexico to see which would be the higher-placing CONCACAF team.  That ended up being the U.S, which finished fourth while Mexico lost in the quarterfinals...to Chile.  This time, I think both of those things flip.  Mexico beats Chile and ends up as the top CONCACAF team by making the semifinals while the U.S. loses in the quarters.

Messi finally won his first senior major trophy when Argentina beat Brazil in the final of the 2021 Copa America at Maracana.  Argentina then, obviously, went on to win the World Cup a year later.  Now, the Copa America final is in the city where Messi plays his club home games.  The setting is almost a little too perfect.  Argentina defends its title and makes it three major trophies in a row by beating Brazil in the final again.

No More League-Wide Retired Numbers

Later this week, MLB will play one of its big "event" games of the season when the Cardinals face the Giants at Rickwood Field in Birmingham, Alabama.  The game is a celebration of the Negro Leagues and being played at the home field of the Birmingham Black Barons.  Willie Mays started his career with the Black Barons, which is the main reason why the Giants were one of the teams selected.

Willie Mays isn't just a legend.  He's one of the greatest players in history.  I mean, the man is 90 years old and just got 10 hits a few weeks ago!  He's also one of the most beloved ambassadors baseball has ever seen.  So beloved, in fact, that there's been a push to honor his legacy by retiring his No. 24 league-wide.  Which would be a mistake.

I'm not saying Willie Mays doesn't deserve to be honored by MLB in some way.  I just think the league-wide retired number isn't warranted.  That's an honor that should be reserved for someone whose impact transcends the sport.  It's something that shouldn't be done too often so as not to water it down.  It's something that shouldn't spark a debate over "why do it for him and not him?"  And, sorry, but as great as he is, Willie Mays is not at that level.  There's only one player in baseball history who was.

Jackie Robinson's No. 42 has been retired across baseball since 1997.  Then-Commissioner Bud Selig made the announcement as part of the 50th anniversary celebration of Robinson's debut, and the move was met with widespread acclaim.  His debut wasn't just baseball history, it was a watershed moment in the civil rights movement.  It transcended the sport.  Retiring his number across the Majors, everyone agreed, was an appropriate way to honor that legacy.  (I'll never be a fan of everyone wearing No. 42 on April 15, however.)

Mariano Rivera was the last active player to wear No. 42 regularly, and, when he retired in 2013, the Yankees retired the number for him.  The Cardinals, who retired it for Bruce Sutter in 2006, are the only other team that has retired No. 42 twice.  So, in 28 of 30 Major League ballparks, it's clear who the No. 42 on the wall is for.

That would not be the case with Willie Mays' No. 24.  The Giants and Mets have both retired No. 24 for Mays, but they're just two of eight teams who've already retired it.  No. 24 has also been retired by the Astros (Jimmy Wynn), A's (Rickey Henderson), Cardinals (Whitey Herzog), Dodgers (Walter Alston), Mariners (Ken Griffey, Jr.) and Reds (Tony Perez).  Nearly a third of the Majors has already taken the number out of circulation!  A number that common, frankly, can't be associated with just one player for all-time the way No. 42 can with Robinson.  (For a lot of teams, it can't even be associated with just one player whose worn it for the franchise!)

There's really only one other number in sports that's like that.  Wayne Gretzky's No. 99.  When he retired in (appropriately) 1999, the NHL followed MLB's lead and retired Gretzky's No. 99 league-wide.  That, too, was met with nothing but acclaim.  Gretzky transcended hockey in much the same way Robinson transcended baseball (albeit without the social impact).  Having him be the only No. 99 in NHL history was an acknowledgement of his place in that history as perhaps the greatest player to ever live.  (The fact that no other team had retired No. 99 for one of its own players certainly helped, too.)

Gretzky and Robinson are really in a class by themselves in terms of both sporting and cultural impact.  They are both incredibly deserving of such a unique honor.  And, frankly, they should be the only ones.  Certainly within their own sports, but I'd argue that they should be the only ones across the four major men's sports period.  Their legacies are that distinct.

In 2022, the NBA got in on the act and retired Bill Russell's No. 6 league-wide.  Russell isn't just one of the best players and most prolific champions in NBA history, he was a player-coach for the last three seasons of his career, and has been inducted into the Hall of Fame for both roles.  Russell was also a pioneer in the civil rights movement.  I can understand why the NBA decided it wanted to honor such an exceptional man!

But is Bill Russell's legacy at the Robinson/Gretzky level that would move him into that upper echelon?  I'm not sure.  Can his career really be separated from those of Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain to the point where you'd say he's a cut above them?  Frankly, the answer is "No."  Which is why I think it was a mistake for the NBA to take Russell's No. 6 out of circulation for all teams.

The NFL has so far resisted the urge to join in.  I don't see them wanting to anytime soon, either.  For starters, until they loosened the numbering rules a few years ago (which I absolutely hate!), NFL numbers were primarily position-based, so taking one out of circulation would've limited the available options for all players at that position.  But, more significantly, who would the NFL choose?  And if they were to pick someone for the honor, the questions over why that player was chosen would overshadow the selection itself.  So, they're smart to just stay out of it.

Simply put, a league-wide number retirement is the highest honor a player can receive.  I'd even argue that it's even bigger than Hall of Fame induction.  It's a distinction that should be reserved only for those whose impact goes beyond just their sport.  Nobody compares to Robinson.  Gretzky is close.  I'm not sure anyone else fits the mold.  Not even Bill Russell.  And, as great a player and ambassador as he his, neither is Willie Mays.

Major League Baseball knows Willie Mays is an important figure in the game's history and has already given him a pretty significant honor.  Until 2017, it was just the World Series MVP.  Now, it's the Willie Mays World Series MVP Award.  The trophy is a depiction of Mays making "The Catch" against Cleveland in 1954 (the only time his team won the World Series).  So, he's already been given an enduring tribute for his incomparable legacy.

A league-wide retired number is as significant as it sounds.  It's something that should only be done on the rarest occasions.  And in baseball, it's already been done once.  Jackie Robinson will always and forever be No. 42.  That honor should be reserved for him and only him.

Swimming In a Football Stadium

The Men's Final Four is always in a football stadium, and NHL games in football or baseball stadiums have also become a regular thing.  This year, though, for the first time, we'll see something new in the middle of a football stadium.  An Olympic-sized swimming pool.  After the past two editions were held in Omaha, this time, the U.S. Olympic Swimming Trials are taking place at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis.  They're expecting crowds of around 30,000 for all nine nights of competition.

One of the things I like most about the Swimming Trials (something I wish track & field would emulate) is how they follow the Olympic schedule exactly, minus the relays.  So, the athletes who are planning to double (or triple or do four events) in Paris will be able to swim the exact same program in the exact same order at Trials, with only relays being added at the Olympics.  That, I think, is one of the biggest reasons for the Americans' success at recent Olympics.  Because they set themselves up for it at Trials.

Then there's the oft-repeated reason, which is opt-repeated for a reason.  The U.S. Olympic Team is the hardest team in the world to make.  All the pressure's on at Trials.  Once you make the team, the Olympics themselves are the easy part.  And, make no mistake, some events will be so competitive at Trials that potential Olympic medalists will be left home.

It's gotten slightly harder to make the team since the IOC and World Aquatics added the men's 800 freestyle and women's 1500 freestyle to the Olympics.  While they added those two events for Tokyo, they didn't increase the number of quota places per nation, so the team is still limited to 26 men and 26 women.  There are 14 individual events per gender, plus the extra swimmers needed for the 4x100 and 4x200 freestyle relays, so the top two in each event aren't necessarily guaranteed a spot.  They likely will once swimmers qualify in their second or third event, but to start the week, it's only the Trials winners guaranteed to go to Paris.

Second-place finishers really shouldn't have to worry about that, though.  Because there are plenty of Americans who'll make the Olympic team in multiple events--and likely take home multiple medals from Paris.  The U.S. won 30 medals in Tokyo, 38 at last year's World Championships and 20 at this year's World Championships (why they had two World Championships seven months apart, with the second of those in February of the Olympic year is beyond me).  All of those totals were the highest.  Expect a similar haul in Paris.

But first, they have to make the team.  While there will probably be a few surprises along the way, those stars who we're expecting to shine next month in France should shine just as brightly in Indy.  Stars like...

Katie Ledecky: A 10-time Olympic medalist (seven gold), Ledecky has a chance to become the most decorated female U.S. Olympian in history.  She's entered in four events at Trials and is a lock to make the team in three of them (400 freestyle, 800 freestyle, 1500 freestyle).  Ledecky's also favored in the 200 freestyle, and I can see her swimming the 100 freestyle just so she can qualify for the relay.

Kate Douglass: Sprinter Kate Douglass should be just as busy in Paris as Ledecky.  She won six medals at the 2023 World Championships and five at the 2024 Worlds.  Douglass is the No. 1 seed at Trials in the 50 free, 100 free, 200 breast and 200 IM.  Throw in possible appearances in three relays and she could end up swimming seven different events in Paris.

Torri Huske: In 2021, Torri Huske made the Olympic team at 18 and won a silver in the medley relay.  The following year, she won six medals, including four golds at the World Championships.  She followed that up with four medals at the 2023 Worlds.  Huske could equal or better that in Paris if she makes the team in each of the four different events she's entered (50 free, 100 free, 100 fly, 200 IM).

Regan Smith & Claire Curzan: I'm putting them together because they swim the same events, and I can see them going 1-2 in either order both in Indianapolis and Paris.  I can even see them flipping places between Trials and the Olympics.  Smith won silver in both backstrokes at last year's Worlds, while Curzan was the Swimmer of the Meet at this year's Worlds, where she swept the backstrokes as part of a four-gold medal haul (and six-medal overall haul).

On the men's side, Caeleb Dressel was the undisputed star of the Tokyo Games.  He won five gold medals and set a world or Olympic record in four of those events.  That came after winning eight medals at the 2019 Worlds.  But at the 2022 Worlds, he withdrew in the middle of the meet and went on an extended mental break.  Dressel has been back competing all year and could easily make the team in three different events...or none.

Carson Foster: Foster, who just graduated from the University of Texas, has never made an Olympic team.  That should change this year.  He has the top time among Americans in both IMs this year and has won eight World Championships medals in the last three years (including three earlier this year in Doha).

Chase Kalisz: Kalisz, meanwhile, is the defending Olympic champion in the 400 IM, so I can't envision him letting Foster take his crown that easily.  He also won silver in the 400 IM eight years ago in Rio.  Kalisz also has the second-fastest time in the 200 butterfly, but I'm not sure I see him making the team in three events.  Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if he doesn't make it in both IMs (or if he didn't make it in either).

Ryan Murphy: Another Olympic veteran back for another go-round is Ryan Murphy.  After winning double gold in the backstrokes in Rio, he took silver and bronze in Tokyo (behind a Russian who may or may not be allowed to swim in Paris), along with a gold in the medley relay at both Games.  If he makes the team in both, another double backstroke gold isn't out of the question.  

Bobby Finke: Finke is another interesting case.  He won gold in both of the distance events in Tokyo, but isn't the fastest American in either this year.  His top times from 2022 and 2023 blow the rest of the field out of the water, though, so it's probably not too much of a stretch to think that Finke has been pacing himself for Trials and another run at double distance gold in Paris.

Those are just some of the names who'll be in the spotlight this week in Indianapolis.  I'm sure there will be others who emerge, too.  Just like there were a century ago, when Indianapolis hosted the Olympic Trials before the Olympic Games in Paris.  In 1924, you had to get the job done in Indianapolis in order to go to Paris.  It's the same deal in 2024...only this time, they'll be doing it in front of 30,000 fans in a football stadium each night.

Summer of Soccer Starts

Next week, the soccer bonanza that is the simultaneous Euro and Copa America will be in full swing.  The Euro has eight more teams and two more groups, though, so they get underway first.  A mere two weeks after the Champions League Final, Europe's best players are now representing their national teams in the biggest tournament outside the World Cup.

Unlike the last Euro, which was spread around the continent to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the tournament, this one is back to the traditional format of one host country.  It's being played in Germany, which you would figure has to be an advantage for the hosts, especially after their disappointing World Cup performance.  The Euro is always an interesting test because you have teams coming off the World Cup looking to either back up a strong showing or improve on a disappointing finish.  Then there are the teams that didn't even make the World Cup, yet somehow dominate the Euro (cough *Italy* cough).

That's really what I'm most interested to see.  France is the best team in Europe, but there are eight UEFA teams in the Top 10 of the FIFA World Rankings, so can they really be considered the "favorites?"  On paper, probably, but they're in the same group as the Netherlands, who I can also see making a deep run.  That's the thing about the Euro.  There are so many good teams that it's a battle just to get out of the group.

And let's not forget the fact that four third-place finishers advance to the knockout stage.  Portugal looked horrendous in the group stage eight years ago, advanced to the knockout stage anyway as one of the best third-place finishers, and ended up winning the tournament after getting a more favorable draw.  Will something like that end up happening again?

They also did the draw based on how the teams did in qualifying instead of their world ranking.  I like that they put the emphasis on their qualifying finish and made placing at the top of your group worthwhile.  It did lead to some of the stronger teams ranked lower on the qualifying list, though.  Which, in turn, meant there's more than one challenging group.

Group A: Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, Hungary
Germany should take full advantage of its automatic home team placement in Group A.  Because they ended up with the weakest group on paper.  The Germans are ranked 16th in the world and 10th in UEFA, which is actually the highest ranking among the four teams in this group.  If anyone's going to challenge them for the top spot, it'll probably be Switzerland, while I think Scotland edges Hungary for the third spot.

Group B: Spain, Croatia, Italy, Albania
Every tournament has its "Group of Death," and this is certainly it for Euro 2024.  Whereas No. 16 Germany is the highest-ranked team in Group A, Group B has three Top 10 teams.  Which is terrible news for Albania, which stands little to no chance against these three powerhouses.  It's really a coin flip as to the order of finish between Spain, Croatia and Italy, but they'll all advance to the knockout stage regardless, so it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

Group C: England, Denmark, Serbia, Slovenia
I think England is poised for a breakthrough.  They lost to Italy on penalty kicks in the final (at Wembley Stadium) three years ago, which, believe it or not, was their first major final since the 1966 World Cup.  They've actually never made one outside of England (and guess where Euro 2028 is).  I really like England in this tournament.  I also like Denmark to come out of the group, while whoever wins the Serbia-Slovenia game has a good chance at being one of the top four third-place teams.

Group D: France, Netherlands, Poland, Austria
It's not quite as brutal as Group B, but it's close.  France and the Netherlands are two of the tournament favorites, and they both went to penalty kicks with Argentina at the World Cup.  Their match against each other will almost certainly decide first place in the group.  The Poland-Austria match, meanwhile, will determine which of those teams makes it to the knockout round.

Group E: Belgium, Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine
The window is definitely closing for Belgium and its "Golden Generation."  We saw it at the World Cup, when they didn't even get out of the group (although, in fairness, they were in a group with Croatia and Morocco, who both made the semifinals).  That shouldn't be a problem here against one of the weaker groups.  The real question is who'll join them out of Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine.  I really think it could be any of the three.

Group F: Portugal, Turkey, Czech Republic, Georgia
Georgia is the only team making its debut at the Euro, and they're the lowest-ranked team in the field.  They'll definitely fit into the classic "just glad to be here" mold.  If Portugal doesn't win the group, it would be a shock.  They're the best of the four teams by a wide margin.  As for the other two teams, I don't even know what they want to be called anymore.  Turkey has apparently changed its name to Turkiye and the Czech Republic is evidently now known as Czechia.  They both need to just pick one!  It's confusing!

With the knockout round bracket depending on which groups' third-place teams advance, it's much harder to project where teams will end up.  And, as we've seen in the past, some teams may prefer finishing third in their group so that they can have an easier path or opponent in the knockout phase.  That's a calculated gamble, though.  Because third-place teams don't know where they're going and have to play a group winner.  Although, since the weaker groups don't finish group play until later, I don't see anybody playing for third knowing they'll qualify anyway.  Which is actually good and should make for a more competitive final round of group play.

Based strictly on the strength of the groups, I have the third-place teams from Groups A-D moving on to the knockout round.  Groups E & F simply aren't as good as the others.  So, with that in mind, here are my Round of 16 matchups: Spain vs Scotland, Germany vs Denmark, Portugal vs Serbia, Netherlands vs Slovakia, Belgium vs Italy, France vs Turkey, England vs Poland, Switzerland vs Croatia.

My semifinal matchups are Spain vs Netherlands and France vs England.  Then, in the final, I've got the Netherlands meeting England, with England winning the Euro for the first time in history.  I can't give you a specific reason why England is my pick.  I just have a feeling.  So that's who I'm going with.

Caitlin Clark & the Olympics

Caitlin Clark Fever has carried over into her professional career (pun not intended, but it worked out well).  The WNBA's TV ratings and attendance are both way up, and a number of Indiana games have been moved into NBA arenas just to accommodate the demand for tickets.  So, naturally, with the Olympics coming up, it was natural to wonder whether she'd be selected for the U.S. team headed to Paris.

Whether she made the team or not, it was going to be controversial either way.  She was by no means a lock to make the team, and the arguments for and against her inclusion were equally valid.  And had she been chosen, she likely would've been one of the last players on the bench and not seen much playing time.

Ultimately, Clark was not chosen for the 12-member Olympic team.  Her lack of international experience was cited as one of the main reasons.  Every player on the roster has previously played for the United States internationally in either the World Cup or Olympics, including multiple Olympic gold medalists.  Clark's only previous international experience came at the U-16 and U-19 level (she was the MVP of the 2021 U-19 World Cup).  No player without prior Senior National Team experience has ever made an Olympic roster in the WNBA era.  She also the team's training camp, which, in fairness, wasn't her fault since Iowa was in the Women's Final Four at the time.  Those seem to have been the deciding factors.

To her credit, Clark took the rejection in stride.  Which, frankly, isn't that surprising.  She said it was "something to work for" and vowed to get better so that she can make the team for the LA Games in 2028.  Making the team in four years (and 2032, and 2036) should not be a problem!  Her status as one of the 12 best American players won't be debatable then.  Right now, though?  You can't say that she definitely is.

That didn't stop other people from being outraged "on her behalf."  To these critics, it was completely unfathomable that Caitlin Clark isn't on the Olympic roster.  They, of course, didn't actually know what they were talking about and were basing their opinion simply on the phenomenon that she has become.  Not whether she actually belonged on the roster.  In their eyes, she "deserved" a spot simply because she's Caitlin Clark.

Former Presidential candidate Nikki Haley even chimed in, wondering "whether Team USA wants to win."  What an asinine take!  They've won seven straight gold medals and haven't lost a game in the Olympics since 1992.  And you think they don't want to win?!  I think the fact that they didn't give in to the massive public outcry for her to be on the roster no matter what is proof that winning is their No. 1 objective.  They think their chances of winning gold are better without Caitlin Clark than they would be with her.

Others questioned the selection of those who were named to the team instead of her.  Diana Taurasi and Brittney Griner were specifically singled out.  Taurasi is a USA Basketball legend.  She's a five-time Olympic gold medalist who'll be playing in her sixth (and likely final) Olympics in Paris.  Taurasi is 42 years old and nearing the end of her career, but her experience and leadership were a deciding factor in her becoming the first basketball player in Olympic history to appear in six Games.

Questioning why Griner made the team over Clark, meanwhile, makes absolutely no sense!  They don't even play the same position!  Griner is a post player.  Clark is a guard.  They weren't competing for the same roster spot.  You can make the argument that Clark should be on the team over one of the guards.  You can't argue that she should be on instead of Griner, a forward.

Perhaps my favorite argument for why it's "short-sighted" or a "mistake," though, are those who brought up TV ratings.  This argument was based entirely on the belief that NBC's ratings for Olympic women's basketball will suffer simply because Clark isn't on the team.  While I won't deny that more people would've cared/paid attention/watched if she were on the roster, to think that USA Basketball should've made their decision based on what would be best for NBC is absurd!  What NBC may have wanted was the furthest thing from their minds!

Here's my question to all those critics--who are you taking off to put Caitlin Clark on?  There are seven guards on the team--Taurasi, Kelsey Plum, Jewell Loyd, Jackie Young, Sabrina Ionescu, Chelsea Gray and Kahleah Copper.  I've already talked about Taurasi.  Plum, Loyd and Young were locks.  Gray has been injured, but if she's good to go for Paris (which, evidently, she will be), she's probably a starter.  And, again, if you pick Clark, she isn't getting much playing time.  She's one of the last players on the bench.

There's this, too.  Caitlin Clark the pro simply isn't as good as Caitlin Clark the college player.  That's not a criticism.  It's simply an observation based on the first month of her WNBA career.  She's having the struggles typical of a rookie.  Rookies typically aren't picked for the Olympic team.  Breanna Stewart was the last in 2016.  So, the fact that we were even talking about Clark being in the mix for a spot on the Olympic team speaks volumes in and of itself.

Personally, I would've put her on the team.  Clark will be a regular member of the U.S. Women's National Team for the next 15 years, likely starting with the 2026 FIBA World Cup in Germany.  Knowing that, it would've been important for her to get that first international experience under her belt--even if she only plays limited minutes.  But I can also understand why she was left off if USA Basketball thinks other players are better equipped for that bench role.

Make no mistake, USA Basketball has put itself in a gold medal-or-bust position.  That was already the case anyway, but it's especially true now.  Because they're already being second guessed for snubbing Caitlin Clark.  If they don't win gold (as expected), that criticism will only amplify tenfold!  Even if they do, that still won't satisfy those people who thought Caitlin Clark automatically should've been on the team just because of who she is and the sensation she's become.

USA Basketball doesn't care about any of that.  And they shouldn't.  Their job was to construct the best 12-player roster possible with the goal of winning gold in Paris.  That roster does not include Caitlin Clark.  Which she seems to be OK with, even if the outspoken critics aren't.

Requiem for the Pac-12

In a way, it's strangely fitting that Oregon State was the last Pac-12 team standing.  It was Oregon State, one of two schools hoping to keep the conference alive in some way, there for the final moments.  The last gasp of the Pac-12 as we knew it.  But, alas, with the Beavers' 3-2 loss to Kentucky in the baseball Super Regionals on Sunday night, the Pac-8/10/12 is officially no more, a casualty of conference realignment.

Technically, the Pac-12 schools are still together for another few weeks.  The departures to the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC won't be official until August.  But, for all intents and purposes, the Pac-12 is no more.  The Conference of Champions will always be a part of history, but it will never be the same again.  And what a glorious history it was!

The "Conference of Champions" moniker wasn't just a boast.  It was true!  Pac-12 schools have won a combined 561 NCAA titles, 260 more than the next-closest conference.  The conference has led the NCAA in National Championships 19 years in a row.  During the 2023-24 season, six different Pac-12 members combined to win eight National Championships.  Stanford women's golf will go down as the Pac-12's last National Champion, at least in its current incarnation.

Stanford, UCLA and USC rank first, second and third among all Division I schools in overall National Championships.  They're the only three schools with more than 100.  Not all of those were claimed in the Pac-8/10/12, of course, but a vast majority of them were.  And we're only talking about team titles here.  Pac-8/10/12 student-athletes have numerous individual NCAA Championships, as well.  So, like I said, "Conference of Champions" isn't boasting.  It's accurate!

Next season, that number will drop to six.  Oregon State baseball is responsible for half of those.  The Beavers' other National title was in men's cross country in 1961.  Washington State, meanwhile, has just two National Championships (1937 boxing, which isn't even an NCAA sport anymore, and 1977 men's indoor track & field).  All 207 of the conference's women's championships are departing.

It didn't have to be this way.  The Pac-12 was done in as much by its own mismanagement as anything else.  If former Commissioner George Klivakoff had been proactive as soon as UCLA and USC announced they were leaving for the Big Ten, this might not have happened.  In fact, I'd venture to say it probably wouldn't have.  Instead, Klivakoff chose to wait until the conference's TV deal was done.  Except the TV deal that he negotiated sucked and most of the league bolted for the millions in extra football revenue that they'll receive in their new conferences.

While it's impossible to say what would've happened if the Pac-12 actually had competent leadership, the whole thing seems like it was totally avoidable.  This didn't have to happen to the Pac-12.  Or maybe it did.  Maybe it was inevitable that the Power 5 would turn into the Power 4.  Maybe the allure of football money from the bigger/richer leagues would eventually become too much to pass up.

Oregon State and Washington State still own the Pac-12 brand and will continue using the conference's name for the next two seasons while effectively being associate members of the Mountain West (in football) and West Coast Conference (everything else).  They have two years to figure something out.  Two years to find a way to keep the "Pac-12" alive.  It's a name that still means something, so there's realistic hope that they can revive the league in some form, whether it's through a reverse merger with the Mountain West or some other way.  I hope they succeed.

We've seen a conference rise from the ashes before, so we know it can be done.  It was about a decade ago when the Big East was gutted for its football teams and everybody that was left got split in two.  The basketball-focused members kept the Big East name, kept Madison Square Garden and reloaded with Butler, Xavier and Creighton.  Two straight UConn National titles later, the Big East is stronger than ever!

Can the same thing happen in a rebuilt Pac-12?  Sure!  Unlikely as it might be, it's still theoretically possible.  Especially with a school like San Diego State (which the Pac-12 should've immediately added the second UCLA & USC announced they were leaving) potentially in the mix.  But still, even if Oregon State and Washington State are able to keep the Pac-12 alive, the conference will never be the same.

And that's the saddest part of the entire situation.  For the longest time, the Pac-12 was the one conference that seemed immune to realignment.  Its membership was consistent from the time the Arizona schools joined in 1978 until the addition of Colorado and Utah in 2011.  Thirteen years later, the Pac-12 is relegated a part of history.

What a glorious history it was, though!  The UCLA men's basketball dynasty is something the sport has never seen before or since and produced legendary names like Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton, playing for the one and only John Wooden.  Ditto with USC football and all its Heisman Trophy winners.  Oregon track & field.  Stanford swimming & diving.  Arizona State baseball.

On the women's side, no conference compares to the Pac-12.  It's not even close!  UCLA and Arizona were the first two powerhouses in softball.  USC and UCLA have won every National Championship in beach volleyball (and faced each other in five of the eight finals), and every women's water polo National Championship Game except one has featured two Pac-12 schools.

That will all change in 2024-25.  Ten of the 12 Pac-12 members are off to bigger and better, leaving just Oregon State and Washington State.  Which is why it's fitting that Oregon State was the last Pac-12 team standing in 2023-24.  Because the Beavers will still be carrying that Pac-12 banner next season.  So, while this is the end of the Pac-12 as we know it, this isn't the end of the Pac-12 entirely.  The Pac-12 will live on, even if it's only as a part of history.

Canada's Cup?

This year, we have a chance to see something that hasn't happened in 31 years.  No Canadian team has won the Stanley Cup since 1993.  That's obviously a record-long drought, and in most of those years there hasn't even been a Canadian team in the Final!  But this year, we've got the Oilers!

It really did seem like it was only a matter of time until Edmonton made its way back to the Final.  They simply have too much talent on that roster.  The Oilers are proof that drafting well can work wonders.  They were so bad for so long that they had the No. 1 pick three years in a row and four times in six years.  Two of those No. 1 picks are still on the roster.  Their names are Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Connor McDavid.  That's two-thirds of Edmonton's top line.  They also have Leon Draisaitl, who's also pretty good at hockey.

With three of the best players on the planet, you also can't help but get a feeling that this won't be the Oilers' last Stanley Cup Final appearance in the McDavid-Draisaitl Era.  Of course, they've got a ways to catch up to the Gretzky-Messier Oilers dynasty who won five Cups in seven years from 1984-90.  The two times they didn't win during that era were in 1986 and 1989, when the Final was Montreal vs. Calgary (both times), so Canada won the Cup seven years in a row...which makes the current 31-year drought that much crazier!

But can the Oilers end that drought?  Or will it extend to 32 years?  That's the real question.  They certainly have the offensive firepower.  But we saw what the Panthers did to the Rangers' offensive firepower.  That defensive style of play and aggressive forecheck completely wore them down, and they took Kreider, Zibanejad and Panarin completely out of the series.  The only reason it even went six was because of Igor Shesterkin.

Now, Chris Kreider, Mika Zibanejad and Artemi Panarin are no Connor McDavid, Leon Draisaitl and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins.  But Stuart Skinner is no Igor Shesterkin, either.  So, it's a tradeoff.  I think Edmonton's offensive stars will be better equipped to handle the Panthers' relentless pressure.  But will they get enough from their goaltender?

Last season, the Panthers were happy to be there.  They don't even make the playoffs if the Penguins don't blow a game against Chicago in the last week of the season, then they come back from 3-1 down to upset the President's Trophy-winning Bruins in the first round and continued that ride all the way to the Final.  The Golden Knights were better than them, though, and it showed.

The 2023-24 Panthers, meanwhile, expected to be here and would've been disappointed if they weren't.  They're built to win the Stanley Cup and are the rightful favorites in this series.  If they do lift the Cup, it'll be the first in program history.  And they'll certainly have earned it, going through a gauntlet of Tampa Bay, Boston, the Rangers and Edmonton to do so.

In each of its three Eastern Conference series, Florida did the exact same thing.  The Panthers wore you down with their in-your-face defensive style, then pounced in the third period after they had exhausted their opponent.  It isn't always pretty, but it's pretty damn effective!  And there's no reason to think it won't work for another four games.

Sergei Bobrovsky will be a key player, too, I think.  Because of the way Florida plays, he doesn't have to do much.  As a result, I don't think he gets enough credit for the Panthers' success.  But, he's allowed two goals or fewer in 10 of Florida's last 11 games and in 13 of 17 games during the playoffs.  So, even if you do somehow manage to beat their pressure, Bob the Goalie isn't letting much of anything by him.

That, I think, is the biggest difference, and why the Panthers are favored.  They wear you down and beat you up, and it's a grind just to score a goal.  And if they get the lead, good luck!  So, for the Oilers to have any chance, they'll need to score first, play with the lead, and hold it.  If you're tied or trailing going into the third period against them, you're not coming back.

Their experience from last season can't be discounted, either.  The Panthers are the first team since the 2008-09 Penguins to make it back to the Stanley Cup Final the year after losing.  Pittsburgh won the Cup that season.  It was a very similar situation, too.  The loss the previous year paved the way for a Cup win.  After watching that Panthers team for six games in the Eastern Conference Final, I've got no reason to think they aren't primed to repeat that script.

And, while I've been giving so much credit to Florida's defense, they aren't exactly slackers on the offensive side, either.  Especially on the power play.  Sam Reinhart and Matthew Tkachuk are lethal, and I think it's an NHL rule that Carter Verhaeghe scores the game-winner in every Panthers playoff game that goes to overtime.  They can roll four lines and get scoring from any of them.  That's been another big key to their success.

One last key factor that will likely work in the Panthers' favor is the travel.  This Stanley Cup Final features the greatest distance between the two teams in history.  It's about 40 miles further from Edmonton to Miami than the previous record-holder, Vancouver-Boston in 2011.  The Oilers already have a lot of miles underneath them after playing series against LA and Dallas.  The Panthers, meanwhile, have been sitting in Miami waiting.  And they have the home ice advantage.

So, as much as I'd love to see the Oilers end Canada's Stanley Cup drought, I can't say that I think they will.  Edmonton has the offensive stars, including two of the top five players in the game.  Florida's got everything else.  The Panthers win the Cup.

Late Nights In Paris

Night tennis has been a popular feature of the Australian and US Opens for years.  The Australian Open likes it so much that both finals are at night (although, I think the Melbourne summer heat is also a factor there), and three of the four US Open semifinals are night matches.  It was never even a thought at Roland Garros until a few years ago.  They didn't even have lights on the courts until 2020!  Since then, though, they've played night matches at the French Open, which has become quite the point of contention during this year's tournament.

With night matches comes the possibility of late-night finishes.  We've seen plenty of matches at the Australian and US Opens that end well after 2:00 in the morning (Andy Murray had a match that didn't finish until 4:00 at the Australian last year).  In Australia, they got so concerned about late finishes that they added an extra day to the tournament this year (which didn't actually do anything since they were still starting the night sessions at the same time).

Players have been critical of the late-night finishes and how much it screws them up for the rest of the tournament.  After the match, they still need to do their press conference and other post-match obligations, as well as whatever cooldown or treatment they need.  And, of course, they need to eat something!  At best, they're not getting to bed until 6 or 7 AM...then have a quick turnaround before their next match (fortunately, at Grand Slams, they get a day off in between).

That criticism has been especially pronounced at this year's French Open, where the late-night finishes have become a regular occurrence...and have definitely had an impact on the tournament!  Novak Djokovic had to withdraw because of a knee injury that he aggravated during his fourth-round match, a five-setter that lasted nearly four hours on Monday afternoon that started only about 36 hours after his third-round match finished in the wee hours of Sunday morning Paris time.

Djokovic and Alexander Zverev were alternating the night match during the first week.  They've both gone five in each of the last two rounds.  Men's clay court matches aren't exactly quick to begin with, so, you're looking at a four-hour match if it goes five.  That, obviously, pushes everything else back.  And, it should be noted, that Djokovic's match on Saturday night was scheduled for 8:15, but they didn't actually take the court until almost 11.  Then his fourth-round match was held until 4:00 (even though the two women's matches prior to it were both short), which pushed back the start of Zverev's scheduled 8:15 match.

I think part of the problem here--a big part--is just a poor job of scheduling.  There was a lot of rain in Paris during the first week and only the two main stadiums have retractable roofs, so they ended up pretty far behind and needing to play catch up.  A totally understandable dilemma.  However, on Saturday, they scheduled the conclusion of Grigor Dimitrov's match as a fourth day session match on Court Phillipe Chatrier....and kept it there even after Zverev's five-setter took four hours!  Dimitrov and Zizou Bergs played two and a half sets, then they had to clear out the day session crowd and let in the night session crowd before Djokovic could get started (more than two hours late!).  Which could've been completely avoided had they not tried to squeeze the finish of Dimitrov-Bergs between the Zverev and Djokovic matches.

Another thing that's been particularly noticeable about the French Open night matches is how they've all been men's matches.  Don't think the women haven't noticed that.  The night session at Roland Garros is only one match (at both hardcourt majors, it's usually two), so, in that regard it makes sense to schedule a men's match which you know is guaranteed to be at least three sets and likely two hours or more, while a quick, two-set women's match can be done in an hour.  Amazon Prime has a deal with the French Tennis Federation to broadcast the night session, so I bet that likely has something to do with it.  But still, the optics definitely are not good.

The optics also aren't good at the beginning of the day.  The first match every day is scheduled for 11 AM.  Just like every night match has been a men's match, every 11 AM match has been a women's match.  So, it's only the women who have the early wake-up call to go play in a half-empty stadium.  (Because of Djokovic's walkover, the first match on Wednesday is a men's doubles match before the women's quarterfinals are on court second and third, with Zverev's match again at night.)

Scheduling three matches during the day session greatly increases the likelihood of the night session getting delayed, especially if one (or more) of them ends up being a long affair.  That's the risk you run with an untimed sport like tennis.  Likewise, you run the risk of fans feeling shortchanged by having three quick matches during the day session (that's when you add a doubles match at the end).  So, some of it can definitely be blamed on bad luck.  And the rain taking away the outer courts certainly didn't help.  You can't blame it all on that, though.

At the US Open, they only schedule two matches--generally one men's, one women's--on Arthur Ashe Stadium during the day session.  Even though play doesn't start until noon (it starts at 11:00 on the outer courts), that's usually enough time before the night session starts at 7:00.  And, even if the night session does end up getting delayed a little, they're still usually on court before 8, which means while the late-night finish is still possible, it's far more likely play will end for the day at a much more reasonable time.

We've reached the point in the tournament where all remaining singles matches are played in the main stadium regardless, so this is a moot point now, but only having one court with a roof is part of the problem, too.  (The roof on Court Suzanne Lenglen will be ready in time for the Olympics, when Roland Garros is the site for the boxing finals as well as tennis.)  They wanted to make sure matches got played so they could stay as close to on schedule as possible.  The only way to do that was to put them on Chatrier.  However, that made playing late at night that much more likely.

Nobody wants to do away with night sessions.  Not the players, not the fans and definitely not the broadcasters.  The night sessions aren't the problem.  It's the late-night finishes that are.  And the more players make an issue of it, the chances of it changing only increase.  Because they do have an impact.  They do affect the players, both mentally and physically, as the tournament progresses.  And, if they're not at their best, how are they supposed to compete for a Grand Slam title?

There's definitely some sort of compromise that can be reached here.  The simplest solution would seem to be imposing a Wimbledon-like curfew.  Matches can't start after a certain time.  Of course, that would still be problematic at Roland Garros since they only have one night match on the schedule, but that's where a curfew could come into play, too.  Once they reach a certain time, play is suspended for the night at the conclusion of the current set.

Yes, suspending play in the middle of the match would be annoying since it would mean the players have to come back the next day to finish the match instead of getting an off day, but it's also something they're used to.  In the non-Majors, they often have to play again later that day if a match is rained out or suspended.  And, suspending the match would mean they're still able to go to bed at a somewhat normal time instead of 5/6 AM. 

Sure, there are probably some players who'd prefer to play that night and finish at whatever time.  They're already there, so they might as well play and still have that entire off day to recover.  Then the tournament organizers can hopefully help them out by giving them a late afternoon/evening start in the next round.  But I'm sure there are just as many who wouldn't be opposed to the idea of either suspending or postponing until the next day.

Consider the fans, chair umpires, linespeople, ball people and everybody else, too.  They aren't putting in nearly as much effort as the players and don't have those post-match obligations, but they're still staying up until that late hour.  Or, for the fans, as late as they can until they have to go home.  That's another reason why it's worth considering making a change to the night sessions at Grand Slams.  Either way, I think they'll take a look at it after the French Open.  Whether a change is coming, well, that's a different question!

A Jam-Packed June

Four years after COVID upended all of our lives, things are finally back to normal!  This summer, the sports calendar finally resets after the chaos of postponements and rescheduling and cramming four years' worth of events into three.  And, as everything gets back on schedule, we can celebrate the outstanding summer we have ahead of us.  Starting with a jam-packed month of June!

Because of how late the 2020 Stanley Cup and NBA Playoffs were, the 2020-21 schedules were obviously impacted, as well.  Even with shortened seasons, the Finals extended deep into July.  Devin Booker literally went from Game 6 of the NBA Finals in Phoenix to Tokyo for the Olympics, arriving only about 24 hours before Team USA's first game.  In 2024, the Stanley Cup and NBA Finals will only overlap with each other...which is nothing new and happens every year.

The Stanley Cup and NBA Finals are still "late" in relation to years past, but they'll both conclude sometime in June.  They'll both get started later this week--the NBA in Boston, the NHL in Florida.  And that's just the beginning of the fun that's ahead this month!

Two other events that overlap are the Euro and Copa America.  They moved Copa America's four-year cycle so that it's now in the Olympic years, which is the same cycle the Euro has always been on, so they'll likely run simultaneously moving forward.  And, because of the time difference between Europe and the Americas, the result will be a full day of soccer almost every day for nearly a month.

FOX isn't just loving this, they're playing into it.  This is the first time FOX has the U.S. TV rights to both, and they've set up their schedule so that it goes right from the Euro in the morning/afternoon to Copa America in the evening/at night.  The Euro has 24 teams and Copa America has only 16, so the Euro starts a week earlier, but once Copa America gets underway, they run simultaneously until both finals on the same day.

Adding to the fun of this year's Copa America is the fact that it's being held in the United States.  It's a bit of a tune-up for the 2026 World Cup, and it'll be the biggest international tournament on American soil since the 2016 Copa America.  Messi plays for Miami in MLS now, so seeing him has become less of a novelty.  It could be the last time to see him play in an Argentina jersey, however.

In an Olympic year, though, the month of June is when things really to heat up.  And it'll be a preview of what we'll see in Paris.  In fact, it might be more competitive than what we'll see in Paris in some events.  Because at the end of the month, the U.S. Olympic Team Trials take center stage, as the hardest team in the world to make is chosen.

As usual, it'll start with the Swimming Trials, which will be held at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis.  Yes, they're putting an Olympic-sized pool in the middle of a football stadium!  It should make for a wild atmosphere with the likes of Katie Ledecky and Caeleb Dressel looking to clinch their spots in Paris.  And only the top two finishers per event will go.  It's harsh, but it's also part of the beauty of the U.S. system.

Just like at the Olympics themselves, once swimming ends, track & field begins.  Well, just like in the Olympics, they'll overlap for one weekend.  The Track & Field Trials are once again set for Hayward Field in Eugene (I'd imagine that in 2028, both the Swimming and Track & Field Trials will be held in LA both as a test event and because it makes sense to have Olympic Trials in the same venue as the Olympics when the Games are in the U.S.), and they promise to be as unexpected as usual, while also giving the stars their chance to shine.  And, with so many Americans at the top of their event in recent years, all fighting for just three spots, the competition should be at another level!

That's nothing compared to what we'll see at the Gymnastics Trials, though.  Simone Biles is the greatest gymnast in history.  She'll look to make her third Olympic team and write a new chapter after what happened in Tokyo--where Suni Lee ended up taking the gold.  Lee will also be at Trials, which won't just feature two Olympic all-around champions for the first time.  They'll feature the last two Olympic all-around champions.  That's two spots on the Olympic team.  Who will join them?

Throw in diving, and NBC will feature four marquee Olympic sports for 16 consecutive nights in primetime from June 15-30.  It really is a bit of a preview for what's ahead next month (and in early August).  The Americans have to make the team first, though.  That's the hard part.  And that'll be the focus towards the back end of June.

And, while this one is an annual event, the College World Series is also set for the end of the month.  I'm including the College World Series here because of the significance of what will happen in college sports only days after it concludes.  When the College World Series ends, the 2023-24 NCAA season will officially be over.  When the 2024-25 season begins, the college sports landscape will look entirely different.

This is just a sampling of what's ahead this month!  As I said, June and early July are loaded!  What makes it all even better, too, is that we don't have any COVID restrictions to deal with.  For the first time since 2016, the Olympic Trials will be held in front of a packed house that won't have to wear masks.  And those who are lucky enough to make the team can bring their friends and family to Paris with them.  There won't be any empty houses like they all were in Tokyo.  What's not exciting about that?  

It's taken a long time for us to finally get back on schedule and have a normal-ish summer where events are taking place when they're supposed to.  But now we do again!  Our patience has been rewarded with a jam-packed June that will see champions crowned, an Olympic team made, and so much more.  We haven't had it in eight years.  Let's enjoy it.  We deserve it.  Because it's something we'll never take for granted again.