The Quarterback Victim Complex

With the way Aaron Rodgers was talking in his postgame press conference after the Steelers' Week 1 victory over the Jets, you would've thought the Jets somehow did him dirty.  Yet, all week leading up to the game, it was "just another game" or "just one of 17."  So, which is it Aaron?  Was it just another game?  Or were you looking for some sort of "revenge" against a team that wronged you only in your own mind?  Because it can't be both!

Of course, Rodgers would almost certainly be singing a different tune had he played poorly and/or had the Steelers lost.  Then he would've repeated his same pregame talking points and downplayed the importance of the game.  It's only after he played well in a Steelers win that he felt "vindicated" enough to roast his former team.  Because, after all, what's Aaron Rodgers if not a victim?

Meanwhile, the actual reality of the situation is that the New York Jets leveraged their entire franchise to cater to Aaron Rodgers.  They acquired players because they were his buddies.  They hired an unqualified offensive coordinator simply because he was Rodgers' preferred coach.  They made Robert Saleh the fall guy last season instead of benching Rodgers.  In short, the Jets spent two years trying to make Aaron Rodgers happy.

Let's not forget, either, that Aaron Rodgers basically forced his way onto the Jets two years ago.  He wasn't a free agent.  The Packers didn't have to trade him.  But they knew he didn't want to be there anymore, so they gave him what he wanted.  Rodgers chose to be a Jet.  And the Jets went out of their way to accommodate his every wish.  So, spare me with this idea that they somehow screwed you over.

No one could've foreseen him tearing his ACL on the fourth play of the first series of his first game with the team.  But the 2024 season wasn't exactly a good one for either the Jets or their quarterback.  He'd be the first to admit that the marriage didn't work out.  Which is OK.  It happens.  So why is he so bitter about the divorce?

Granted, the NFL didn't exactly help matters here by scheduling Steelers at Jets for Week 1.  But, when the schedule came out, Rodgers hadn't signed with Pittsburgh yet.  So, the idea of this being a "revenge game" was the furthest thing from their minds.  Hence the 1:00 start time.  It was only after Rodgers joined the Steelers that the game became relevant.  And he was gonna make sure of it.

That's the thing about Aaron Rodgers.  He can't not be in the spotlight.  His ego won't allow it.  It was the same thing in Green Bay.  He had to be the center of attention.  Rodgers brings drama with him.  As long as he's performing and his team is winning, they're willing to put up with it.  But even though they were winning, the Packers eventually got tired of it.  Which is why they were more than willing to get rid of him once he didn't want to be there anymore.

It was also pretty clear by the middle of last season that Rodgers didn't want to be a Jet anymore, either.  So, again, what's the problem then?  Is the entire thing because they didn't want you either?  Or because they were up front about it and flat out said so themselves before you got the chance to say you weren't coming back?  (I'm not even sure how that would've worked since you were a free agent, so they would've had to have been interested in you coming back to even offer you a contract.)

Did having Aaron Rodgers make the Jets more relevant in 2023 and 2024?  Absolutely.  They were in primetime every freakin' week at the beginning of last season because of him!  But that just magnified everything, including his struggles, even more.  And New York isn't exactly Green Bay.  Had he performed and the team won, he would've been embraced like he was by Packers fans.  But he didn't perform and they didn't win.  So, what type of reaction was he expecting then?

Aaron Rodgers is headed for the Hall of Fame.  There's no doubt about that.  But there's also no doubt about the fact that he brings the drama, most of which he creates himself.  In addition to being a drama queen, he's a headache.  It must be exhausting for everyone in the organization.  Is it any surprise, then, that after he wears out his welcome, teams decide they don't want to be a part of his circus anymore?

Rodgers, of course, isn't the only drama queen quarterback who's mastered making himself the victim.  It's been a decade and Colin Kaepernick is still whining.  He's 37 years old and hasn't played in 10 years, yet he still insists he's being treated unfairly.  Much like Rodgers, Kaepernick refuses to acknowledge his own role in creating the situation he found himself in.  But why would he?  The truth isn't anywhere near as good a narrative.

According to Kaepernick, the only reason he isn't playing quarterback in the NFL today is because all 32 teams conspired to keep him out of the league due to his stance on social issues.  Whether there was any truth to that at the beginning is no longer relevant.  The fact of the matter today is that he's a 37-year-old who's been out of football for a decade and, frankly, wasn't that good then.  Colin Kaepernick always conveniently ignores that fact.  He simply wasn't a very good quarterback.  Certainly not worth the hassle or the money he thinks he's worth.

Frankly, I think Kaepernick knows all this, too.  But that doesn't fit into the story where he's a martyr for his cause.  If a team had signed him and given him the chance to play, Kaepernick would've had to perform.  If he didn't, he couldn't play that victim role anymore.  That doesn't work for his narrative.  Kaepernick needs to not play so that he can keep blaming all 32 teams for not signing him and using persecution as his reason.

Colin Kaepernick and Aaron Rodgers have that in common.  They both created their situation, but they'll never admit their role in it.  It's much easier to blame somebody else and play the victim.  Even if it isn't true.  After all, that's the only way they can be the hero in their own story.

Hall of Fame Hats

With Max Scherzer pitching and CC Sabathia being honored at Yankee Stadium today, it got me thinking about the Hall of Fame.  Scherzer especially.  Specifically, which hat will be on Scherzer's plaque when he's inducted?  Or, will he take the Greg Maddux/Mike Mussina cop out route and go logo-less on his hat?

Scherzer's far from the only current or recently-retired future Hall of Famer who'll have a decision to make regarding his hat in Cooperstown.  Players changing teams multiple times in their careers has become so commonplace that the players like Derek Jeter who spend their entire career in one place are an anomaly nowadays.  Sure, you've got the Aaron Judges and Mike Trouts and Clayton Kershaws, but they're the outliers in modern baseball.

For most of those current/recent players who are headed to the Hall of Fame, there's a question of which team's hat they'll wear on their plaque.  It's easier for some than for others.  But, assuming they all have to make a choice when the time comes, here's the hat they should wear.  Whether they actually will or not is a different question.

Max Scherzer (Nationals): Might as well start with Scherzer since he was the inspiration for this whole thing.  He's been on a lot of teams, but the decision really comes down to Tigers or Nationals.  And, frankly, it's not really that tough at all.  Scherzer won a Cy Young in Detroit.  He was the best freakin' pitcher in baseball in Washington and won a World Series with the Nationals!

Justin Verlander (Tigers): Much like Scherzer, Verlander has been on plenty of teams in his career.  Unlike Scherzer, you could make a legitimate argument for either the Tigers or Astros.  Verlander spent his first 12 years in Detroit, won a Rookie of the Year, a Cy Young and an MVP as the Tigers made two World Series appearances.  Then, in one of the best deadline deals of all time, he went to Houston, helped the Astros win two World Series and continued to be his dominant self.  I'm saying Detroit because he was a Tiger longer, but Verlander is one case where the logoless hat would be warranted.

Bryce Harper (Phillies): I'm not saying Harper is definitely Hall of Fame-bound.  But he's certainly on that track.  And, should he continue on this trajectory, he'll have spent the majority of his career with the Phillies and reached all of his major milestones while playing for Philadelphia.  Assuming the Phillies also have some team success between now and when his contract expires in 2031, there really won't be a question.

Zack Greinke (Royals): The recently-retired Greinke is probably the most borderline Hall of Fame candidate of those I'll present here.  I do think Greinke makes a compelling case and will eventually be elected, though.  And which team he'd represent is just as big of a question.  Greinke played for a lot of teams, but was a Royal the longest and won his only career Cy Young in Kansas City.  The longest he spent anywhere else was 3 1/2 years in Arizona.

Mookie Betts (Dodgers): Betts is on a Hall of Fame track.  I don't think there's anyone who doubts that.  He was great on the Red Sox, winning an AL MVP and a World Series ring in Boston.  He's been just as great with the Dodgers, with whom he's won two more World Series rings (so far).  Mookie has also signed a long-term deal to stay in LA (and is actually only being paid until the end of his contract), so there's plenty more to come for him in a Dodgers uniform.

Freddie Freeman (Braves): Mookie's Dodgers teammate Freddie Freeman, however, will sport a different hat on his Hall of Fame plaque.  No matter what he does the rest of his career, Freeman should represent Atlanta in Cooperstown.  He wanted to spend his entire career with the Braves and likely would've had his agents not screwed up his free agency (right after Atlanta won the World Series).  This is another close one, but he'll always be a Brave.

Shohei Ohtani (Dodgers): Why not finish off the trifecta of Dodgers stars?  (Kershaw's only been a Dodger, so that one is obvious.)  If Ohtani were going into the Hall of Fame today, it would be as an Angel.  But by the time his career is over (and by the time the Dodgers stop paying him), most people will only see him in Dodger Blue.  His first year brought an MVP and a World Series title.  There's still eight more years to go on his contract.

Juan Soto (Mets): Soto's not a future Hall of Famer quite yet.  But he's well on his way.  Keep in mind, the guy's already in his ninth season and he's still only 26.  We all know about the ridiculous contract he signed with the Mets in the offseason.  Which means he'll end up playing the vast majority of his career in Queens.  So, should his career stay on its current path, there leaves little doubt which team he'll ultimately represent.

Manny Machado (Padres): Machado has been on the Padres since 2019.  It's crazy to think that he's been there for seven years, isn't it?  And he's gonna be there until 2033.  Machado's been top three in NL MVP voting twice with San Diego and is already the Padres' all-time home run leader.  When his career ends, it's Machado wearing a Padres brown & yellow uniform that will be the first vision that comes to mind.

Giancarlo Stanton (Yankees): Don't laugh.  He's gonna end up getting in.  Especially if he's healthy enough to hit 53 home runs over the next month and two seasons.  "Playoff Stanton" is already the stuff of legends.  And that legend will only grow if "Playoff Stanton" shows up for the team that finally ends the Yankees' championship drought.  That, I think, will be the difference-maker that makes him go into the Hall of Fame as a Yankee rather than a Marlin.

You'll notice a couple of names that I omitted from this list.  Because it's obvious that Albert Pujols will go in as a Cardinal and Miguel Cabrera will be a Tiger.  There's absolutely no debate about either one of them.  The others, though?  They'll all require a conversation and, ultimately, a decision.  Unless, of course, they take the easy way out and have them go in with a blank hat.

NFL Picks, Week 1

We've made it to the start of another NFL season.  And the league is celebrating by having a primetime game on four of the next five nights.  Although, they've already said no Week 1 Friday night game in Brazil next season.  Not because they don't want to.  Because they can't since Labor Day is later next year.  When will the Australia game end up getting scheduled then?  Something to ponder for the 2026 season.

Anyway, the season kicking off means the first installment of my weekly picks.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the rules, I don't care about the spread.  I just pick straight winners.  Your record isn't determined by whether you cover the spread or not.  The picks will also not normally include the Thursday night game.  I'll still pick it, but won't post my picks for the rest of the week until the weekend.  Week 1 and Thanksgiving are the only exceptions.  So, with all that out of the way, here we go...

Cowboys at Eagles: Philadelphia-For the traditional NFL Kickoff matchup involving the Super Bowl champion, they opted for the Cowboys as the opponent.  Dallas is a huge draw, so it makes a lot of sense.  Especially since it's been a while since the Eagles and Cowboys have played each other in Week 1.  I'm curious to see how the Cowboys look, but, frankly, this isn't the best matchup for them to start the season.  The Eagles may be the defending champs, but they have a brutal start.  They need a win here.

Chiefs vs Chargers: Kansas City-Last year, the Eagles began the season with the long trip to Sao Paulo, won, and carried it all the way to a Super Bowl title.  I'm not saying the team they beat in February will follow the same script.  No one would be surprised if they did, though.  And, if they do, the Brazilian fans would've gone 2-for-2 in seeing the eventual champion's first win of the season in Week 1.

Buccaneers at Falcons: Atlanta-It sounds crazy, but this game could go a long way in determining who wins the NFC South.  The Falcons swept the Bucs last season, but gave away the division by dropping their last two games, and Tampa Bay took full advantage.  While some might argue that Tampa is the better team, Atlanta has a lot to prove after last year's collapse.  The fact that they're playing at home against a team they beat twice last season certainly works in their favor.

Bengals at Browns: Cincinnati-Remember last season, how FOX made Cowboys-Browns the Week 1 national game for Brady's debut broadcast and neither team came anywhere near the playoffs?  This season, they didn't make that mistake.  The Battle of Ohio is in the 1:00 window.  Joe Burrow is back and a lot of people believe the Bengals are a potential playoff team.  This is their first chance to show if that faith in them is warranted or not.  Although, even if they do win (as they should), there will still be questions.  Their opponent is Cleveland, after all.

Dolphins at Colts: Miami-Call me crazy, but I like the Dolphins in this one.  I can't really explain why.  I just feel like this is the type of game that the Colts lose and it ends up costing them a playoff berth.  It'll probably be close the entire way, then either Miami makes a late field goal to win it or Indianapolis misses a field goal down by two.

Raiders at Patriots: Las Vegas-Both teams have new head coaches, Pete Carroll in Las Vegas and Mike Vrabel in New England.  They're both looking to get off to a good start under their new head coach.  The Patriots have much further to go, while the Raiders' problem is that they're in the same division as three really good teams that made the playoffs last season.  If they want to keep pace with the Chiefs, Chargers and Broncos, they need to take the opener.

Cardinals at Saints: Arizona-Arizona has a chance to be a sleeper team this season.  The Cardinals went 8-9 last year and will be that annoying team nobody wants to play.  New Orleans gets first crack at them.  Unfortunately for the Saints, they don't match up well with Arizona.  Well, frankly, they don't match up well with anybody, but the Cardinals are an especially bad matchup.  Arizona picks up the season-opening road win.

Steelers at Jets: Pittsburgh-When they made the schedule, they had no idea Aaron Rodgers would sign with Pittsburgh.  It just worked out that way.  His Steelers debut will be on the road against the team for whom he played the last two seasons.  You can't make this stuff up!  Maybe Rodgers will give Jets fans a chance to see what they didn't while he was wearing their uniform.  Look for Pittsburgh to start the season with a win.

Giants at Commanders: Washington-This is perhaps the most fascinating of all the Week 1 matchups.  The Giants lost a lot of one-score games last season because of poor quarterback play.  Now they've got Russell Wilson as he looks to revive his career.  The Commanders won a lot of one-score games, especially down the stretch, and carried that momentum all the way to the NFC Championship Game.  Now there are expectations on them.  Can they live up to them?  And how will the new-look Giants fare against an opponent they feel they can beat?

Panthers at Jaguars: Jacksonville-My guess is these two are playing each other in Week 1 to celebrate the 30th anniversary of their coming into the league together.  Of course, they've had different levels of success since both reaching their respective Conference Championship Game in Year 2.  The Panthers have been to two Super Bowls.  The Jaguars are one of four teams to have never played in one.  Don't expect that to change this season.  Although, they're better than Carolina and playing at home, so they should at least start 1-0.

Titans at Broncos: Denver-Denver couldn't have asked for a better matchup to open the season.  The Titans aren't supposed to be very good, and they know it.  They also know they have a really tough stretch after opening with two AFC South opponents.  AFC West teams need to beat AFC South teams.  Should Denver falter here, it could end up costing them in the long run.

49ers at Seahawks: Seattle-Everything that could go wrong did for San Francisco last season.  Seattle, meanwhile, finished 10-7 and only missed the playoffs on a tiebreaker.  That didn't stop them from making some big time changes, bringing in Sam Darnold and Cooper Kupp.  You've also got a 49ers team that has all of those guys who missed time due to injury last season back.  Will they play like the 49ers of two years ago?  Or will the Seahawks hold them off and get the early division win?

Lions at Packers: Green Bay-These are possibly the two best teams in the NFC.  I know the Eagles and Rams would have something to say about that, but this NFC North matchup was a great selection as the national game.  We'll know more about both teams after they meet again on Thanksgiving, but whoever wins will get that early advantage.  In the NFC North, that could end up being huge.  Expect that advantage to go to Green Bay.

Texans at Rams: Rams-Matthew Stafford is expected to start for the Rams, who started 5-6 last season only to finish 5-1 and win the NFC West title.  They also won a playoff game and were the only team that was competitive against the Eagles in the playoffs.  So, they've got a lot of confidence heading into 2025.  As they should.  The Rams won't get off to a slow start this year.

Ravens at Bills: Buffalo-The NFL really likes giving the Ravens a tough road game against the team that beat the in the playoffs the previous season in primetime in Week 1.  Last season, it was a trip to Kansas City, and they ended up losing by two.  This season, they return to the scene of their two-point Divisional Playoff loss in Buffalo.  Yes, it's Week 1.  But it's not a stretch to say this game is big for both teams, who could easily meet in the playoffs again.  And, if they do, the Bills will have the tiebreaker because of their Week 1 head-to-head victory.

Vikings at Bears: Minnesota-Wrapping up an opening week that features eight divisional matchups, the Vikings begin the J.J. McCarthy Era in Chicago on Monday night.  The entire NFC North is playing each other, so Minnesota will go into this one knowing either the Lions or Packers already lost.  With how tight this division is projected to be among all three of those teams (who all made the playoffs last season), that's a huge advantage.  So is playing the Bears.

2025 NFC Preview

Can the Eagles repeat?  Can the Lions finish the deal after last season's playoff loss?  Can the Rams, who are built to win now, do just that?  Are the Packers for real?  Are the Vikings?  And how do the Commanders follow up last season's shocking run to the NFC Championship Game?  Those are just the questions about last year's playoff teams.

There are plenty of questions surrounding the rest of the NFC, too.  How will Dallas rebound after missing the playoffs last season and inexplicably trading Micah Parsons?  Will the 49ers continue their trend of either missing the playoffs or making the NFC Championship Game?  How much better will the Giants be after a 3-14 record that was the result of bad luck as much as being a bad team?  And who will win the NFC South?

While the AFC has three top teams and everybody else, the NFC is much more wide open.  There are easily half a dozen teams that can realistically think Super Bowl.  I'm not even sure winning the division is imperative either.  It'll be helpful, obviously, but look at what happened last year.  The Lions were the 1-seed and went one and out, while Washington won two road games to get to the NFC Championship Game.  Now the Commanders have the burden of expectations, though.

NFC East: No team has repeated in the NFC East since the Eagles' run of division dominance 20 years ago.  Philadelphia's in a position to break that string, although the other three teams in the division will certainly have something to say about that.  I do think the Eagles are the division favorites, but that's mainly because Washington and Dallas both have something to prove.  The Commanders have to back up what they did last season, while the Cowboys want to show everyone that last season was the anomaly.

Although, the Micah Parsons trade did nothing but add more questions.  It certainly didn't do anything to improve the Cowboys.  In fact, I think it knocked them from being a solid playoff contender to a team staring at a 7-10 or 8-9 season.  And, while still the worst team in the division, the Giants will be much improved.  They not only have an actual quarterback now, they have two!  They don't need the Seattle Russell Wilson.  They just need him not to be the Denver Russell Wilson.  Even that would be an improvement, though.  Are they a playoff team?  No.  Will they be 3-14 again?  Also no.

NFC North: Minnesota had perhaps the worst luck in the league last season.  The Vikings went 14-3 and were a wild card team who lost in the first round of the playoffs!  It was enough for the Lions to propose a rule change that playoff seeding be based strictly on record.  Of course, that was a once-in-a-generation type of situation.  And Minnesota also vastly overachieved last year.  I'm very curious to see how the J.J. McCarthy Experience will go, too.

Meanwhile, the expectations on the Lions aren't quite as high entering this season, which could be a good thing.  They're still really good and legit Super Bowl contenders, but they may not even win the division.  That's because I think the Green Bay Packers are the best team in the NFC North.  Especially now that they've added Parsons, one of the best pass rushers in the league.  And the Bears will be a good last-place team.  They'll be 6-11, mainly because of their division record.

NFC South: Tampa Bay's been on a run of division titles over the last few seasons.  But that has as much to do with how bad the other three teams are rather than anything about them.  Much like the AFC South, the NFC South has two bad teams in Carolina and New Orleans.  Which leaves us with just Atlanta to challenge the Bucs at the top.

I feel like a broken record, regularly expressing confidence in the Falcons only to see them fizzle out late in the season with a playoff berth in their grasp.  Yet, here I am, picking them to win the NFC South yet again.  Call me crazy, but I think no quarterback controversy and being committed to Michael Penix Jr. will make a big difference.  If not and Atlanta falls apart down the stretch again, expect 3rd- or 4th-seeded Tampa Bay to lose at home in the wild card round again.

NFC West: Consistency has been the Rams' trademark really since Sean McVay took over as head coach.  Last season, they weren't great, yet they still won the division and a playoff game.  This year, they make a big change at wide receiver.  Cooper Kupp is out and Davante Adams is in.  Frankly, that's not really a significant difference at all.  They'll keep doing what they're doing and Matthew Stafford will have a lot of passing yards.

Seattle, now with Sam Darnold at quarterback, is a team worth watching.  The Seahawks will either be really good and make the playoffs or finish 6-11.  I'm not sure which.  And how can the 49ers not bounce back after having players miss more games due to injury than anyone else last season?  Especially since the benefit of finishing last is getting to play all the bad teams the following year.  Let's not forget that Arizona went 8-9 last season, either.  The Cardinals could easily emerge as a sleeper playoff team.

In the AFC, it wouldn't be a surprise if all four of last year's division champions repeat.  In the NFC, it wouldn't be a surprise if all four are different.  I do see the Eagles and Rams defending, but the North and South will change hands.  Green Bay's the best team in the North, so the Packers win that division.  In the South, meanwhile, I've got Atlanta. 

As for the wild card teams, the Lions get one.  Unless something completely catastrophic happens, there's no way Detroit doesn't make the playoffs.  I'm also gonna go out on a limb (although, probably not too far of one) and say San Francisco ends up back in the postseason.  The third wild card, meanwhile, goes to the Vikings, who just edge out Washington, Seattle and Dallas for the final spot.

A lot of projections have either the Eagles or Lions winning the NFC title.  I don't think enough people are looking at the Rams as seriously as they should.  Or the Packers, for that matter.  That could easily be your NFC Championship Game matchup, though, with the Rams winning and facing the Bills in the Super Bowl.  And, call me crazy, but this finally may be the year for the Bills.

2025 AFC Preview

The more things change in the NFL, the more they stay the same.  Everyone loves to praise the NFL for its parity, which is true to an extent.  Yet the same teams continually find themselves at the top year after year.  That's what I expect to happen in the AFC, where the four teams that won their division last season can easily do it again.  They're simply the best teams in their respective divisions.

That doesn't mean it's a guarantee, of course.  The AFC West now has four coaches who've taken teams to the Super Bowl and could easily be the best division in football.  Nobody in the AFC South is good, so that division is extremely wide open.  Then you have the unknowns like how Aaron Rodgers will do in Pittsburgh and how Cincinnati will bounce back after consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.  The Bengals are the only AFC team to win a postseason game against Kansas City in the past six years, so they might be the only team standing between the Chiefs and a fourth consecutive Super Bowl.

Of course, there are plenty of other teams who'd like to take that shot.  The Bills have been itching for that shot and came oh so close last season.  Then there are the Ravens, the third team in that little round robin at the top of the AFC.  It really would be shocking if anyone outside that triumvirate is representing the conference in San Francisco in February.

AFC East: For years, the AFC East was the exclusive domain of the Bradicheck Patriots.  That has since shifted to Josh Allen's Bills.  And there's no reason to think they won't add another division title this season.  Miami is the only team that has a chance at being even remotely competitive, but the Dolphins are likely looking at fighting for a wild card at best.  They simply aren't as good as the Bills.

Neither are the Jets and Patriots.  New England should actually be improved this season.  I don't think the Patriots would've fired Jared Mayo if Mike Vrabel hadn't become available.  Vrabel is the guy Robert Kraft really wanted, and I think he'll get them back to contention soon.  Just not this year.  And the obsession with putting the Jets in primetime is mercifully over now that Aaron Rodgers is in Pittsburgh.

AFC North: Speaking of Pittsburgh, they do the same thing every year no matter what veteran who fizzled out elsewhere is playing quarterback.  Mike Tomlin finishes just above .500 each season and is either in the mix for or snags a wild card.  Don't expect things to be any different this year.  The only change was swapping Russell Wilson for Rodgers.

Are the Steelers better than the Ravens, though?  No.  I'm not even sure they're better than the Bengals (even though Cincinnati might be the most overrated team in the league).  If everything goes right, Cincinnati can win the division.  Even if it doesn't, they'll be that team nobody good wants to play late in the season.  Especially if they're out of it.  Cleveland is also in the AFC North.  Yeah, that's about all I've got for the Browns!

AFC South: In the AFC South, it's really just a matter of who'll be the least bad.  And that really comes down to just the Texans and Colts.  On paper, Houston is the better team.  And the only one that has any chance of beating the top teams.  Their spot at the top of the division is by no means guaranteed, though.  The margin between them and the Colts really isn't that big, so Indianapolis winning the division wouldn't be that big of a surprise.

Jacksonville or Tennessee winning the division, meanwhile, would be a surprise.  The Jaguars will at least be worth watching now that they've added Travis Hunter and plan on letting him play both ways.  The Titans used the No. 1 pick on Cam Ward, who isn't anything close to a franchise quarterback.  They're fortunate that the Browns are still in the league.  Because it's gonna be another long year in Tennessee.

AFC West: All four AFC West teams are capable of making the playoffs.  Three of them made it last year, and Pete Carroll could be the same type of difference maker in Las Vegas that Sean Payton was in Denver.  With that being said, it took Payton two years to get the Broncos going.  The Raiders are a little further ahead than where Denver was when Payton took over, but the AFC West is also a lot stronger.  So, while they'll be significantly better than the afterthought they've become in recent years, it still might be a stretch to say the Raiders don't finish last again.  (Although, last place could mean 8-9 or even 9-8.)

I'm also curious to see if the Chargers and Broncos can keep it going after last season's playoff appearance.  More significantly, can either of them challenge the Chiefs?  Or is it a situation where, by mid-November, they know they're battling for a wild card?  And, let's be honest, that's probably the best they can hope for.  Last season, everybody said the Chiefs would have a "down" year and they finished 15-2, which included a Week 18 loss in Denver when they didn't care at all.  So, yeah, just like the Bradicheck Patriots, the Chiefs are on top until somebody knocks them down.

So, like I said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.  The Bills, Ravens and Chiefs should all win their divisions again.  The only question is the South, but you'd still have to consider Houston to be the favorites.  That's the only division where somebody different winning it wouldn't be a surprise.  Which leaves the battle for the wild cards.

And those wild cards should all come out of either the North or West.  The Chargers should get one.  Even if they drop off a little, they're still one of the seven best teams in the AFC.  Simply because of what we've come to expect from them every year, I'll say the Steelers make it back, as well.  But Denver's wild card will go to Cincinnati instead.  The Bengals will be the only new AFC playoff team.

Ultimately, though, it'll come down to those same three teams at the top.  Kansas City, Buffalo and Baltimore.  The Chiefs have been to three straight Super Bowls.  The record is four straight.  What team holds that record?  The Buffalo Bills.  What team will prevent Kansas City from equaling it?  The Buffalo Bills.

The End of Grand Slam Track?

When Michael Johnson announced the creation of Grand Slam Track, he touted it as a "game-changer" and "the next big thing" in the sport.  Johnson had good intentions.  With the promise of big prize money, a number of big-name stars signed on.  They all went into it thinking Grand Slam Track would work.  As they unfortunately found out, it didn't.  And Grand Slam Track's inaugural 2025 season will likely also be its last.

There were originally four meets on the Grand Slam Track schedule.  The first, in Jamaica, was sparsely attended.  The crowds at the second, in Miami, weren't much bigger.  The third meet in Philadelphia was reduced from three days to two.  The fourth meet in LA, meanwhile, never happened.  Because of financial issues, most notably the failure to pay the athletes their prize money, that meet was cancelled.  Unless they can figure something out, the 2026 season won't happen.  (Translation: the 2026 season won't happen.  Grand Slam Track is as good as dead.)

While the failure to pay prize money and appearance fees is by far the biggest issue, the financial struggles go back even further.  As of last month, Grand Slam Track still owed the City of Miramar (outside Miami) for the facility rental.  That meet was at the beginning of May!  Johnson has vowed that all prize money and appearance fees will be paid out, but it has been reported that the circuit owes more than $13 million.  I'm not sure where or how they'll find the funding to cover that.  (Although, when it comes to prize money and appearance fees, they'd better find it somewhere!)

To his credit, Johnson took responsibility for Grand Slam Track's financial struggles.  He acknowledged that they might've gotten a little overzealous and spent too much off the bat.  Then, one of the major creditors dropped out after the Jamaica meet, which only made matters worse.   Throw in the lack of ticket sales and the lackluster TV ratings and it shouldn't be a surprise that they had financial problems.  As every start-up does.

Grand Slam Track was always going to be a tough sell.  Track & field is a niche sport, so you're already working with a limited audience.  Then they took out the "& field" part.  Distance races were included, but even within Grand Slam Track, they were treated as afterthoughts.  It was essentially a circuit of sprint meets.  Which, as it turns out, isn't as appealing in reality as it is on paper.

I'm a fan of the sport and, theoretically, a part of their target audience.  But my interest in Grand Slam Track was limited at best.  And the one meet I did watch on TV, quite frankly, I found pretty boring.  Part of that was because the quality of the broadcast simply wasn't very good.  But I think the bigger reason was the amount of dead time.  I don't know what the atmosphere was like for those attending the meet live, but the races only lasted anywhere from 10 seconds to a few minutes.  And, with no field events going on, there was literally nothing for a few minutes until the next race.  How is that supposed to fill a three-hour broadcast?

Contrast that to the Diamond League, the top-level global track & field circuit.  Diamond League meets are two hours long, and those two hours are packed with action.  The first race is already on the track when the broadcast comes on the air.  The next one is ready to go as soon as they come back from commercial, etc., etc.  And, while that schedule doesn't include every event at every meet, it runs the whole range from short sprints to longer distance.  With field events going on the entire time and taking the stadium's full attention between races.

Diamond League meets are never boring.  I'm a fan of the sport, and I found Grand Slam Track boring.  If even people who enjoy the sport find the product boring, that's a problem.  And how is it supposed to appeal to the casual fan then?  If people who like track & field are turning it off, what chance do you have of getting people who aren't hard-core fans to stick around?  The intention was to grow the sport, but the format didn't achieve the desired effect.

Another problem Grand Slam Track ran into was resistance from the athletes.  They did a great job of getting big names like Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone, Gabby Thomas and Kenny Bednarek to sign on as the series headliners, and the whole idea was that a handful of "racers" would compete at every meet against a rotating group of "challengers."  And they'd all race twice on the weekend, once in their primary event and once in a second event (the hurdlers raced an open 100 or 400 meters, for example).  Except that twice a weekend requirement, including once in their off event, turned off a lot of potential Grand Slam Track participants.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to focus so much on the shorter races.  I get it.  The sprints are exciting.  And there were some great individual performances during the Grand Slam Track season (Melissa Jefferson-Wooden may have made herself the favorite for the World Championships in the women's 100 after dominating Grand Slam Track).  But they also alienated so many athletes and a good portion of the audience by not including certain events.  They indirectly said "we don't care about you" by determining those events not important enough to be a part of the circuit.

That even extended to a group who was included--the Long Distance group.  At the first two meets, the Long Distance group ran both a 3000 and a 5000.  However, Grand Slam Track later decided that four 10-plus minute races per meet were too much and took too long, so, when Philadelphia was cut from three days to two, the Long Distance events were also trimmed from two to one per gender.  And, since they were only competing in one race, they'd have their prize money cut in half.  That's not what any of these longer-distance runners signed up for.  (Grant Fisher's best event is the 10,000, how does running one 3K benefit him at all?  Especially when he's only getting half the prize money of everyone else?)

The biggest problem, of course, was that Grand Slam Track simply didn't generate enough revenue.  They went in with big expectations.  Expectations that, as it turns out, were too high.  As the attendance and lackluster TV ratings proved, there simply wasn't enough interest.  Whether it's because of the format or not, it really doesn't matter.  Had they drawn the crowds and TV audiences they thought they would, Grand Slam Track wouldn't have had financial trouble and been able to pay the athletes their prize money and appearance fees on time.  They'd also likely be planning for the 2026 season.

Was it worth a shot?  Absolutely.  But I think the failure of Grand Slam Track proves something else that's very important.  Track & field is a niche sport for a reason.  There's nothing wrong with being a niche sport.  There's also nothing wrong with wanting to expand beyond that niche.  However, you need to get the buy in from those who are part of that niche to have any chance of success.  And Grand Slam Track simply didn't have that.  Which, ultimately, led to its demise.

You also don't know if it'll work if you don't try.  Michael Johnson had an idea that enough people found worthwhile to try.  Would the format have succeeded had they handled the finances better?  Perhaps.  But, even if it had lasted beyond those three initial meets, you had a feeling Grand Slam Track would've eventually suffered this fate regardless.  As Michael Johnson & Co. found out, the sports market is simply too saturated.  They deserve credit for a gallant effort, but this really did feel inevitable (even if it's not official yet).

The 2026 Schedule

The 2026 MLB schedule is out, and it features the earliest domestic opener in history--Yankees at Giants on March 25.  It'll be the first standalone opener in nearly a decade.  The thing that's interesting about it, though, is how we have no idea what network it'll be on.  Will the Wednesday night game end up on NBC as a part of their yet-to-be signed deal to take over Sunday Night Baseball?  Or will it be on existing TV partner TBS (which has a weekly Tuesday game) or FOX (which does Saturday nights and some Thursdays)?

That isn't the only significant standalone game on the 2026 schedule.  The Field of Dreams Game returns for the first time since 2022, with the Phillies taking on the Twins (not the Mets, as was erroneously reported).  The date hasn't been announced, but the first two were on FOX on a Thursday night, so that would lead you to believe it'll be August 13.  Which, if it is the date, likely indicates that something else isn't happening.

Ever since the first Little League Classic, they've announced the next year's teams during the broadcast.  This year, they didn't do that.  They still haven't announced the participating teams.  Of course, the Little League World Series and Little League Classic have always both been on ESPN.  With Sunday Night Baseball likely leaving ESPN, that left you wondering how/if that relationship will continue.  I don't see any reason for it not to, and the Little League Classic is one of the best ideas MLB has had in years, so it would really be a big loss if they don't have one.  Maybe they're just waiting for their new TV partner to sign on before announcing the matchup.

If they do end up playing a Little League Classic in 2026 (which I sure hope they do), they have plenty of intriguing options among the other 14 series that weekend.  The choices are always somewhat limited because the teams need to be playing somewhere close enough to Williamsport for it to be a reasonable trip.  Keeping that in mind, there's one series that stands out and would be perfect--Red Sox at Pirates.  Boston is always a draw and Pittsburgh has Paul Skenes.  Frankly, it seems like such an obvious selection (assuming there's a game).

So far, the return of the Field of Dreams Game is the only special event on the 2026 MLB schedule.  More could be added, of course.  But things like the Speedway Classic and the game at Rickwood Field were announced well in advance.  A London series was initially planned, but the Premier League schedule didn't work out for it to happen.  Tottenham Hotspur ends the season at home, so they wouldn't have enough time to convert the stadium.

No other international games (not including Toronto, obviously) are currently on the schedule, although there are talks for the Padres and Diamondbacks to play two games in Mexico City in April.  With the World Baseball Classic being played during Spring Training, it makes sense that they aren't playing any games in Japan.  That would've required teams starting the regular season early, which they can't do with players participating in the WBC.  As it is, the final of the World Baseball Classic is only about a week and a half before the Yankees-Giants opener.

With America celebrating its 250th birthday next year, the All*Star Game is set for Philadelphia.  The Phillies can't be home on the 4th of July, however, because a World Cup round of 16 team is being played in Philadelphia that day.  The Nationals will play their traditional 4th of July 11 AM home game, though.  Against the Pirates.  The Pirates, meanwhile, will be home (along with the Yankees and Dodgers) on all three days celebrating MLB legends (Roberto Clemente Day-Sept. 15, Jackie Robinson Day-April 15, Lou Gehrig Day-June 2).

Next year is also the 25th anniversary of 9/11.  MLB will mark that somber occasion by having the Yankees play the Mets at Yankee Stadium.  The other Yankees-Mets matchup will be during "Rivalry Week," something that started this season and appears to be an annual thing moving forward.  From May 15-17, 11 sets of interleague partners will meet.  The other matchups that weekend are in-state rivals (Pirates-Phillies, Rangers-Astros) or the teams that are left and somewhat close to each other (Blue Jays-Tigers, Diamondbacks-Rockies).

Although their move to Las Vegas won't be official until 2028 at the earliest, the A's will get a sneak peek at their new home with a pair of series in June.  They'll play a homestand there against the Brewers and Rockies from June 8-14.  I'm not surprised by this at all.  For one, it exposes fans in Las Vegas to the team.  For another, there have been plenty of complaints about playing in a Minor League ballpark in Sacramento.  Of course, they'll be playing at another Triple A stadium in Las Vegas, but it makes sense to establish their presence in the market before the official move.

As for the other team that's spending 2025 in a Minor League ballpark, the Rays will start next season with three straight road series.  Their return to Tropicana Field is scheduled for April 6 against the Cubs.  That seems to have obviously been intentionally to give them a little more time to work on the repairs at Tropicana Field.  Hopefully it's enough.  Because I'm not sure what their backup plan is, and Steinbrenner Field was intended only to be a one-year situation.

Another interesting quirk that they had to deal with while making the 2026 MLB schedule was the World Cup.  Four teams--the Rangers, Royals, Phillies and Mariners--have stadiums that share parking lots with football stadiums that are hosting World Cup games.  They obviously couldn't make all of them play on the road for the entirety of the World Cup, so they had to come up with something.  What they came up with were scheduling oddities we wouldn't see if not for those conflicts.

On June 19, the United States has a World Cup game in Seattle.  That's right in the middle of a Mariners homestand.  So, the Mariners and Red Sox will play a rare scheduled doubleheader (in a stadium that has a retractable roof) on June 20.  There are nine World Cup games at Jerry World, more than any other venue.  Two of those dates--June 17 and July 3--fall in the middle of a Rangers home series.  So, they'll have a random off day before the final game against the Twins and after the first game against the Tigers.

Kansas City also has two World Cup games that are during Royals home series.  Interestingly, one of those series is against the Cardinals, and it's their only home series sandwiched between road trips.  The I-70 series will get a Saturday off day on June 20 before wrapping up on Sunday, June 21.  Then they'll play a Saturday-Sunday-Monday series against the Phillies to accommodate the World Cup on July 3.  The Phillies also have one home game being moved because of a World Cup game.  They'll play the Mets on Thursday-Saturday-Sunday, with the World Cup game on Friday, June 19.

To go along with the early Opening Day, the regular season also ends early next season.  September 27.  Of course, the season usually ends on the last Sunday in September, so that's just a result of the calendar.  But it also means the World Series won't dip into November.  Assuming they keep the same playoff schedule as this season, Game 7 would be on Halloween Night.  And that could be the last baseball game for a while.  Since a lockout looms after the season.

An All-New US Open

This year's US Open is full of change.  The mixed doubles tournament is already complete.  This year, they tried a new format with 16 teams (made up primarily of singles players) in a quick, two-day format.  Mary Joe Fernandez and the McEnroe brothers loved it.  They were praising the USTA for being innovative and predicted that we'll see it at the Australian Open in January (which we probably will since the Australian Open likes to copy the US Open).

I still consider it a slap in the face to mixed doubles.  Sure, they had the spotlight and a sold out Arthur Ashe Stadium for the final.  But it was also treated like somewhat of an afterthought--played before the tournament actually starts!  And recruiting the singles players to play with a $1 million prize (that they don't need) at the expense of doubles specialists (who very much do) was such an insult!  That's why I found it so satisfying that Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori--two actual doubles players--won the title.

The other big change, of course, is the schedule.  The US Open has become the third Grand Slam to go to a Sunday start.  It doesn't really change much.  All it does is spread the first round over three days instead of two.  But, it also gives the USTA an opportunity to sell five extra sessions' worth of tickets (day and night on the two main stadiums, grounds passes on the outer courts).  So, it really shouldn't be surprising.  Expect the US Open overall attendance record to be broken.

On the men's side, there's a clear favorite in World No. 1 and defending champion Jannik Sinner.  He's the best hardcourt player in the world and has won four of the last seven Grand Slam tournaments.  Sinner is a five-hour epic French Open final loss away from going for a calendar-year Grand Slam.  Although, let's not pretend luck hasn't been on his side.  He was down two sets to Grigor Dimitrov at Wimbledon when Dimitrov got injured and had to retire.  We can only guess what would've happened had Dimitrov been able to finish, but Sinner obviously doesn't win the title if he loses that match.

Anyway, sometimes luck is on your side.  And I'm not taking anything away from him.  Because Sinner sailed in his final three matches.  Although, he's only played once since Wimbledon and had to retire in the final of Cincinnati, then withdrew from the mixed doubles tournament.  So, is Sinner completely healthy?  An injury may be the only thing that can neutralize him and give somebody else a chance.

Maybe it'll be one of the Americans.  John McEnroe made a bold prediction that this US Open could be where we see the 22-year drought end for the American men.  Taylor Fritz became the first since Andy Roddick to even make a Grand Slam final last year, and that momentum has carried into 2025, with at least two Americans reaching the quarterfinals at the previous three Grand Slam tournaments.  Ben Shelton (Australian) and Fritz (Wimbledon) have both been Grand Slam semifinalists this year.  Between those two, Frances Tiafoe and Tommy Paul, there's plenty of reason to be optimistic for a long run.  A title run, though?  That's a lot to expect.

Tiafoe, Fritz and Shelton are all in a loaded bottom half of the draw, along with Novak Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz.  Former champion Daniil Medvedev and former finalist Casper Ruud reside on the bottom half of the draw, as well.  This is the section where the first round is split between Sunday and Monday, which works out well with all the big names.  And whoever comes out of this section will have earned it.

Joining Sinner on the top half of the bracket, meanwhile, is Alexander Zverev, who had that shocking first-round loss at Wimbledon.  He was a finalist in Australia this year, but he got thumped by Sinner.  That could be Zverev's problem here.  Unless there's an upset, he'll have to beat Sinner just to make the final.  That first career Grand Slam title we've been waiting for may have to wait.

If Sinner doesn't win, Alcaraz has to be the guy.  He's looking for redemption after that shocking second-round loss last year, but, don't forget, he won the title as a 19-year-old in 2022.  Djokovic, meanwhile, hasn't won a Slam since he tied the record with his 24th in 2023.  He's ceded the title of best hardcourt player in the world to Sinner.  Even he'd admit that.  And, you'd have to think his best chance to get No. 25 is at Wimbledon, not here.  But do you want to count Novak Djokovic out of any tournament?  There's a reason why he only plays the Grand Slams at this point in his career.

Meanwhile, it's been a very interesting Grand Slam season on the women's side.  Three different American women have made Grand Slam finals this year, with Madison Keys (Australian) and Coco Gauff (French) winning titles.  The final streak is actually at four with four different women, stretching back to Jessica Pegula a year ago.  Can that run possibly continue?  If it does, Emma Navarro could be a candidate as that fifth different finalist.

There are two other reasons why this year has been interesting for the women.  Iga Swiatek is a clay court star.  She was given no chance to win Wimbledon.  Not only did she win Wimbledon, she dominated!  She only lost two total games in the semifinal AND final, including a 6-0, 6-0 victory for the championship.  That was Swiatek's first title of the year and shot her back up to No. 2 in the world.  She already made the final here in mixed doubles and is definitely one of the top contenders.

Another of the top contenders is defending champion and World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka.  (Sidebar: How had I not seen or even known about the pictures of Sabalenka looking absolutely stunning in that red dress at last year's championship photo session until like two days ago?!)  Anyway, Sabalenka made the final at both the Australian and French Opens, losing to Keys and Gauff, then she lost to Amanda Anisimova (who had the match of her life!) in the Wimbledon semifinals.  So, she enters the US Open looking for her first Grand Slam title this year.  Like I said, this season has been funky!

Sabalenka's been fine as long as you keep the Americans away from her.  Unfortunately, there are so many Americans who figure to go deep in the draw that it'll be tough for her to avoid them all.  She could potentially face Pegula or Navarro in the semis, then Gauff or Keys in the final.  Although, Swiatek may be able to help her out there.  With the way Swiatek has been playing all summer, that's not a crazy thought.

While I'm tentatively labeling Swiatek as the "favorite" on the bottom half of the women's draw, it's very tentative.  Because the bottom half of the women's bracket is as loaded as the bottom half of the men's.  Four former US Open champions, Swiatek, Gauff, Naomi Osaka and Venus Williams, who it's so great to see back at the US Open, even if it for a farewell.  Plus, two other Grand Slam champions (Keys and Sofia Kenin) and two other Grand Slam finalists.  If the seeds hold, we could get a rematch of the Wimbledon final in the quarters.  We could also get a fourth-round matchup between Gauff and Osaka, with the winner set to potentially face Keys in the quarters (then Swiatek in the semis).  

That's where I think Sabalenka has an advantage.  Her draw is much easier.  It's not a cakewalk by any means.  But, I'd much rather be in the top half of the women's draw than the bottom half.  And that, I think, will pay dividends for Sabalenka later in the tournament.  While the heavy hitters on the bottom half are beating the crap out of each other, she can take advantage of her draw and save some bullets for the later rounds, where, if she's lucky, she won't lose to an American.

With the way this year has gone, it would be almost fitting to see the American women make it 4-for-4 in Grand Slam finals.  It is the US Open after all!  However, I'm not sure that's in the cards.  Like Sinner, Sabalenka is the best hardcourt player in the world.  She'll prove it by defending her title and avoid going all of 2025 without winning a Grand Slam.

SEC Going to Nine

After years of talk and speculation about when/if it would happen, the SEC announced today that it's going to a nine-game conference schedule for football.  The coaches had actually been the ones pushing for it, so you know they're not gonna be too upset, even if it means fewer 70-3 wins over Mercer.  And it'll make everyone else happy, too.  ESPN gets eight more SEC conference games, the Big Ten can stop whining about the SEC playing one fewer conference game than them, and the in-state rivalry games against ACC teams (which had been the sticking point) won't be affected.

Strength of schedule is a key component considered by the College Football Playoff selection committee.  The SEC had already put in a provision that you must play one non-conference game against the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 or Notre Dame.  Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Louisville are all in the ACC, so that provision was already being met by their in-state rivals anyway.  What it does mean for the SEC schools, really, is replacing a guarantee game (at home) with another conference game.  Which obviously means (likely) eight additional losses, which is one thing they won't like.

While it's been a topic of discussion for a while, the timing of this isn't a coincidence.  ESPN is launching its direct-to-consumer streaming service very soon.  One of ESPN's biggest properties is SEC football.  They just got eight more SEC conference games for that service.  Yes, they traded 16 non-conference games for them, but people would much rather see Alabama-Texas than LSU-Lamar, so is that even really a loss?

This makes a lot of sense for the SEC schools for a lot of reasons.  The first and most obvious is that it means they'll play everybody else in the league at home at least once every four years.  Under the division structure, they'd play the same teams every year and sometimes go more than a decade with a team from the other division not visiting their stadium.  More than 10 years without playing a conference opponent at home!  That's just absurd!

From a competitive standpoint, there was some inherent unfairness in that.  Teams like Mississippi State would have to play Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M AND Mississippi every year while maybe not playing Vanderbilt.  On the flip side, Georgia's opponents in the SEC East included Vanderbilt, South Carolina and Kentucky.  I know it's the SEC and everyone is good, but even the best leagues have teams at the bottom.  Likewise, Alabama's a Top 10 team every year, so they weren't exactly the easiest opponent for SEC West teams.

Frankly, they probably should've done this last year when Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC.  I know they were talking about it then.  Because setting up a nine-game schedule with 16 teams is actually pretty easy.  They'll play three permanent opponents (which may not necessarily be permanent), while the other 12 will be six on, six off.  I thought it would be a two-year cycle, but it looks like the six they play and the six they don't play will flip every year.  So, they're playing everybody at least once every two years, which is actually much better.

Three permanent opponents preserves the big rivalries, too.  They couldn't just do one permanent opponent.  Because some schools have more than one rival they want to play annually.  And, seriously, how could you decide between Oklahoma and Texas A&M for the permanent rival of Texas?  LSU would also like to play both of those schools annually, as well as probably Alabama.  Florida-Georgia and Florida-Tennessee, etc.  So, figuring out two permanent opponents for each team is actually pretty easy.

Not every team necessarily has a third natural rival, though.  That's why having that third "permanent" opponent possibly change isn't a bad idea.  You aren't touching Auburn-Alabama or Georgia-Florida.  That's obvious.  But, it's very easy to envision them basing that third "permanent" matchup on games they want to make sure happen every year.  That could mean Alabama-Georgia, then, if Georgia and Texas are the two best teams, you swap that out for Georgia-Texas.  I like that they're giving themselves some flexibility on that.

The expanded College Football Playoff and the emphasis on strength of schedule are key points here, too.  The SEC was hesitant to add a conference game when it was four-team playoff because a second loss (even to a Top 5 opponent) would kill your playoff chances.  And the SEC is guaranteed to have a collective eight additional losses starting next season.  That's offset, though, because the committee values a road loss to a good team more than beating up on an FCS team at home now.

I do feel somewhat bad for those FCS or lower-level FBS teams who'll likely end up getting dropped from SEC schedules as a result.  For a long time, I was a big critic of guarantee games.  But they're a vital source of revenue for the team receiving that guarantee.  Traveling to Arkansas to lose by 40 (or more) is worth it for the exposure.  And because of the impact it has on their budget.  The money brought in from guarantee games is one of the biggest sources of funding for those Athletic Departments (not just the football programs).

What's interesting, though, is how every SEC team except for Mississippi State only had three non-conference games scheduled for next season, allowing them to make this change effective in 2026.  Whether the nine-game conference slate was already in the works and was only just made public today, I don't know.  But the fact that they all had an open weekend where another conference game could be inserted seems to be more than a convenient coincidence.  And I'm sure the SEC will work the dates so that they can all still play their ACC rival in the final game like they always do.

You have to think the disagreement with the Big Ten over the composition of the College Football Playoff moving forward came into play here, too.  The Big Ten's big issue was how not everybody was playing the same number of conference games.  That's no longer the case, at least in regards to the SEC.  The ACC is sticking with eight conference games for now, but don't be surprised if they add a ninth soon, too.  And, don't forget, the ACC has the scheduling agreement with Notre Dame, which is an ACC school in every other sport.  However, the ACC is much less of a factor in the Big Ten's stance than the SEC was.

Now that they've eliminated a major sticking point, this likely means the College Football Playoff will, indeed, expand beyond 12 teams.  And it'll probably be closer to the SEC/Big 12/ACC's preferred format with five automatic bids and the rest at-large.  The Big Ten's whole thing about wanting a guaranteed number of bids per conference was obviously self-serving, but their stance was based on having that additional conference game the SEC didn't have.  Can't make that argument anymore!

So, while not overly surprising, this is still a positive development across the board.  The SEC had been thinking about it for a long time.  Now they finally pulled the trigger.  The nine-game SEC schedule that was seen as inevitable will soon become a reality.  Which is a win for all involved (even if eight teams will end up with an extra loss).

Hard Pass On Geographic Divisions

Sometimes, I think Rob Manfred breaks news just to give fans a heads up that change is coming to MLB.  Other times, I think it's just to troll people.  His comments during the Little League Classic on Sunday night fall into the latter category.  It achieved its purpose.  It got people all fired up, mostly against the idea, and there's been two days of mock divisions drawn up.  But, to me, it was all just to get the reaction.  Because there's no way the owners would go for an East/West alignment instead of the American and National Leagues.

Now, will there be expansion sometime within the next 10 years?  Most likely.  Baseball hasn't expanded since 1998 and it's no secret that they'd like to add two teams.  And that expansion, whenever it happens, will obviously have to result in realignment, probably into eight divisions of four.  Don't expect much beyond that, though.  Because the drastic realignment Manfred suggested, despite some "experts" suggesting it's further along than many might think, will be a very hard sell.

This isn't the NBA or NHL we're talking about.  Those two leagues have always been divided almost entirely along geographic lines.  It's more like the NFL, which has been the AFC and NFC since the merger in 1970.  That merger, of course, was the combining of two completely separate entities--the AFL and NFL.  Just like how the American League and National League are, for the most part, two completely separate entities.

And settling on the divisional alignment after the AFL/NFL merger wasn't exactly an easy task.  The Steelers, Browns and Colts all agreed to move the AFC, but that was about the extent of it.  Things got so complicated with how they'd configure the NFC that it ultimately came down to Pete Rozelle's secretary picking one of the options out of a hat.  That's how we ended up with the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC East, which makes absolutely no sense geographically, but you also can't picture that division without the Cowboys.  (That was also the only one that kept the four current NFC North teams together, and it's impossible to picture those four ever being separated.)

The National League was founded in 1876.  That's 150 years of history.  The American League was founded in 1901 and has 125 years of history of its own.  Going to an "Eastern Conference" and "Western Conference" wouldn't just erase a lot of that history (and for what reason?), it would eliminate rivalries that are built on that history (again, why?) and, frankly, confuse people more than anything else.

It's because of that history that the All*Star Game and World Series actually mean something.  The AL and NL didn't even play by the same rules until 2022!  The lines have been a little blurred because of the universal DH and the new schedule format in which you face every other team in the Majors every year, but that distinction is still important.  Winning the "Eastern Conference" pennant doesn't have the same cachet as winning the National League pennant.  Likewise, the AL and NL always wanted to beat each other in the All*Star Game.  It's why baseball's All*Star Game, ridiculous "swing-off" tiebreakers aside, is actually still relevant while the other three got so stupid they could do away with them entirely and I doubt anyone would even notice.

To eliminate the leagues and base divisions entirely on geographic is easier than it sounds, and you can bet there would be plenty of pushback from all sides.  Do you really think the Cubs and Cardinals, who've been grouped together for 125 years, would really go for being separated?  Same thing with the Orioles, who've been in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox since the AL East was formed in 1969.  You try telling them that they won't be in the same division anymore!

Matchups like Yankees-Mets, Dodgers-Angels and Cubs-White Sox would lose something, too.  Part of what makes those series between intracity or intrastate rivals so special is because they're in two different leagues and don't face each other that often.  Those matchups would lose something if they weren't just in the same league, but the same division.  Beyond that, it would be impossible for them to meet in the World Series.  Which is just stupid on so many levels.

I'm not even sure how they think these divisions would work, either.  Manfred mentioned something about travel and having two West Coast teams play postseason games in that late time slot, but there are only eight teams in the Mountain or Pacific time zone.  Houston and Texas are in the AL West, but they're in the Central time zone.  So, even if you put one of the expansion teams out west, there would still be seven teams in the Central time zone in the Western Conference, and you'd still have an Eastern/Central time zone team playing the Western Conference pennant winner in the World Series.  (This is the same sport where the Atlanta Braves were in the NL West for 25 years suddenly caring about travel.)

When the NHL realigned in 2013, they put all 16 Eastern time zone teams in the same conference and everybody else in the Western Conference.  Baseball couldn't even do that, though, unless both expansion teams were in the East (which seems unlikely), since there are only 14 teams in the Eastern time zone.  So, you'd be putting most, if not all, of the teams in the Central time zone in the Western Conference, which would entirely defeat the purpose!

Meanwhile, who's asking for this?  Who's been watching baseball thinking, "You know what MLB needs?  Geographic divisions!"  Especially when the existing divisions ARE geographic!  The entire point of having the Astros switch leagues a decade ago was because they were the furthest west and they needed somebody to move to balance the leagues at 15 teams apiece!  And, like I said, getting teams to agree to realignment within their existing leagues will be enough of a challenge when the time comes.

That travel thing is nothing more than a ridiculous (and convenient) excuse, too.  Unless they want to change the schedule back to where you're only playing the teams in your league, everybody will still have to make multiple cross-country trips per season.  The West coast teams will have more travel regardless simply because there aren't as many of them and they're further apart.  Giving them more games in the Pacific time zone and fewer in the Eastern time zone won't change that.  Seattle's still a lot further away than everyone.

His point about the postseason really made no sense!  Manfred used Boston-Anaheim as an example of an East Coast vs. West Coast series that would potentially have a 10:00 start time where Red Sox fans have to stay up (I feel compelled to mention here that when the Red Sox played the Angels in the 2009 ALDS, Game 3 at Fenway started at noon Eastern, 9 AM Pacific, but I digress).  Yes, but you'd at least have the Red Sox fans staying up, likely giving the game higher ratings as a result. 

Also, they hardly ever even schedule 10:00 Eastern playoff games!  The Dodgers have played another NL West team in the Division Series five years in a row (when 7:00 Pacific start times would conceivably not be a problem).  You want to know how many of those games have started at 10:00 Eastern?  One!  In 2022 against the Padres.  Most of the Dodgers' NLDS games have started at either 5:00 or 6:00 Pacific.  And all LCS games are scheduled for either 4:00 or 8:00 Eastern, so it's only the Wild Card or Division Series we'd even be talking about here!

They've moved away from 10:00 postseason starts regardless of who's playing in them, partially because of the lower ratings.  Which is something they've been able to do because FOX and TBS split the postseason.  What Manfred saying that says to me is that he wants to add 10:00 games.  Not take them away.  Which would only be convenient for people on the West Coast.  Having games start (and, thus, end) later wouldn't get more people to watch them.  It would do the exact opposite, in fact.  (The lowest-rated NLCS in history was Diamondbacks-Rockies in 2007, when no game started earlier than 9:00 Eastern.)

Expansion is inevitable.  Everyone acknowledges that.  That expansion will result in realignment.  Everyone understands that, too.  But that realignment shouldn't be as drastic as the Commissioner is suggesting and some seem to think is a done deal.  Because logistically, it doesn't really make sense.  Beyond that, though, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  And MLB's system of an American and National League, each with an East, Central and West division isn't broken.  So, why "fix" it?  Especially when that's only gonna make things worse!

Six Weeks to Go

We've reached mid-August.  Which means back-to-school and preseason football.  It also means we've reached the three-quarter mark of the MLB season.  Every team has roughly 40 games left, and the teams currently in playoff position do look like the 12 best teams in baseball.  While the playoff races are by no means over, I think we're looking at battles for division titles and positioning more than teams currently on the outside challenging for wild cards.

And, once we get to the postseason, anything can happen.  I really don't think there will be a clear favorite heading into October.  Because, while some of the playoff teams are in better shape than others, they're all flawed.  They're all just as capable of making a run as they are of crashing out in their opening series.

Blue Jays: Toronto is the biggest example of what I'm talking about.  The Blue Jays aren't nearly as good as they think they are.  They're practically unbeatable at home, which will be their clearest advantage in the playoffs.  They're also impossible to strike out, so, since they put the ball in play, you have to play rock solid defense against them.  Being sound fundamentally, tough to beat at home, and having solid pitching makes the Blue Jays a very tough out.  Tough, but not impossible.

Red Sox: Boston is also really good at home, but sub-.500 on the road.  So, it's incredibly important for them to catch the Blue Jays and/or hold off the Yankees and Mariners if they want to play at Fenway.  I'm also not sure about Boston's pitching behind Garret Crochet.  They'll get in, but they won't be a favorite.

Yankees: As annoying as Brian Cashman and Aaron Boone's constant votes of confidence about a team that's been awful for two months are, the Yankees have never really been in danger of dropping out of the playoffs.  And, if they can play like they did in April and May, look out!  If not, they've got early exit written all over them.  If they hit like they can, get good starting pitching and the bullpen actually does its job, though, look out!  That's what makes this team so frustrating to watch.  Everyone knows what they're capable of, but they're so inconsistent.

Tigers: Detroit has been the best team in the American League all season and has the best rotation in the AL.  The Tigers have dropped off after their torrid start, but they've built such a lead and the rest of the AL Central is so weak that they have nothing to worry about.  And that pitching can take them far.  Detroit will be a very dangerous team in October.

Astros: Despite losing so many players for extended periods due to injuries, it's been business as usual in Houston.  Losing Josh Hader for the year was a big blow, though.  Especially since that likely takes Bryan Abreu out of that setup role where he's been so valuable.  It's really questionable whether they'll hold off the Mariners.  Still, this is the Astros we're talking about.  They're in the ALCS every freakin' year for a reason.  Although, seeing them have to navigate the playoffs while not holding one of the top two seeds could be interesting.

Mariners: This is my pick to win the AL pennant.  Which is something the Mariners have never done.  Can the only team that's never been to the World Series finally get there?  They have the pitching, and now they have the lineup to go with it.  Seattle is that team nobody will want to face in the playoffs.  I think they need to win the AL West, though.  Otherwise, the travel will be a killer.

Phillies: Last season, I was very high on the Phillies heading into the postseason and they ended up losing the Division Series to the Mets.  Their big issue last year was the bullpen.  This year, they went out and got the Twins' Jhoan Duran to be their closer.  If they hadn't done that, the same fate would be awaiting them.  However, with the upgraded bullpen, an excellent rotation and a solid lineup, Philadelphia will be among the favorites.

Mets: All the Mets need to do is get in.  Like New York's other team, they were otherworldly in April and May before falling off a cliff in the summer.  Everyone knows the Mets are plenty capable of turning it around, especially with that lineup.  The question is whether they'll get the pitching.  If they do, their seed doesn't matter.  As they proved last year.

Brewers: I have no idea how Milwaukee is this good.  Nor do I have any idea how long this ridiculous run will last.  I'm also worried the Brewers have another first round exit in their future.  This is a team that's about to make its seventh postseason appearance in eight seasons, yet hasn't won a playoff series since sweeping the Rockies in the 2018 NLDS.  And whoever they face in the Division Series this season will be good and plenty capable of beating them.

Cubs: For a while, Cubs fans thought that this year would be just like 2016.  Then reality set in, the Brewers stopped losing entirely, and the Cubs dropped to a wild card position.  As a wild card, they're likely looking at playing either the Phillies, Mets or Padres.  I don't see them beating any of those three teams.  Which is why, while I see them making the playoffs, I can't see the Cubs making a deep run once they get there.

Dodgers: San Diego making them fight for the NL West title could be the best thing for the Dodgers.  The defending champs won't coast into the postseason.  Because they can't.  Talent-wise, they're obviously the best team.  What will their pitching look like, though?  That seems to always be the question.  And, don't forget, last year notwithstanding, this team does have a history of getting knocked out of the playoffs early.  That short series can be dangerous.

Padres: Don't be surprised to see a Seattle-San Diego World Series.  Because I think the Padres might be the best team in the National League right now.  (Yes, I'm aware the Brewers have had two winning streaks of at least 11 games since the All*Star Break.)  I like everything San Diego did at the deadline.  And all those moves were made with the postseason in mind.  Still, there isn't much that separates the six National League playoff teams.  So, the Padres winning the pennant and losing in the Wild Card Series seem equally plausible.

Marching Towards A Lockout

A few weeks ago, Rob Manfred was in the Phillies clubhouse meeting with the players when he was cursed out and told to leave by Bryce Harper.  What was it that got Harper so heated?  A salary cap.  The owners want one.  For the players, it's a non-starter.  As soon as Manfred brought it up, Harper immediately shut the conversation down.  Which tells you all you need to know about how the players feel about even discussing a salary cap.

Manfred's visit to the Phillies was just one stop on his tour of all 30 teams.  The goal was to gauge the players' concerns/priorities heading towards negotiations for the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.  The current CBA, which was signed in 2022 after a three-month lockout, runs through the end of next season.  And everyone is already bracing themselves for another lockout after the 2026 season.  Noting I'm not saying the possibility of a lockout.  Because it would be absolutely shocking if there isn't one!  And it's expected that this one will last longer than the last.

Tony Clark, the Executive Director of the MLBPA, indicated that the owners have already made it clear they intend to lock out the players when the CBA expires in December 2026.  At the All*Star Game, Pete Alonso admitted that, while no one is talking about it, the players have resigned themselves to the high likelihood it'll happen.  They're preparing themselves for it to be a long one, too.  Because the players will fight tooth & nail against a salary cap.  Manfred, meanwhile, is being coy and has never used the term "salary cap" in public.  The players all know the owners want one, though.  And it'll be at the heart of the CBA negotiations.

Major League Baseball, of course, has never had a salary cap.  Among the four major sports, i's the only one without one.  Instead, they have the luxury tax system, where teams can spend whatever they want, but if they pass certain thresholds, they're charged different amounts depending on how much they go over.  While some teams use the luxury tax as a sort of soft cap, others like the Dodgers and Mets have no issue paying the luxury tax.  Player salaries have skyrocketed as a result.

It's fairly obvious why the players like the current system.  Juan Soto has 51 million reasons a year to like it.  As long as they're willing to pay the luxury tax penalties, there's nothing stopping owners from signing multiple players to massive contracts.  Large market teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets and Phillies have taken full advantage of that.  They have World Series aspirations every year and spend like it. 

Other teams have taken a different approach.  They spend the bare minimum on salaries while still collecting their portion of the revenue sharing pie.  That's beyond frustrating for the players.  Although, during the last CBA negotiations, they were also opposed to the seemingly obvious solution of a salary floor.  Why?  Because they think once a salary floor is in place, a salary cap won't be too far away.

The owners are frustrated on both ends.  There are plenty of teams that aren't happy about those who choose not to spend, but have no issue taking in their share of revenue sharing money.  There are also those teams that don't like the large market clubs' ability to freely spend, which they think give those teams an unfair advantage.  And those competitive balance concerns are the owners' biggest issue heading into CBA negotiations.

Making that payroll disparity an even bigger concern moving forward are the continued worries about regional sports networks.  We've already seen a few teams have their local TV rights taken over by MLB, and the thinking is that there'll likely be more in the future as the RSN model continues to be threatened.  The large market teams with solid RSNs don't have that problem.  And it further gives them an advantage since they bring in TV revenue that teams in smaller markets can't match.  The owners of those mid-level teams (the ones who can't be big spenders, but aren't actively not spending money) would like to see those scales balanced, at least somewhat.

So, they're at an impasse.  And it's not something that'll easily be solved in the next year and a half before the current CBA expires.  The owners will push for a salary cap that I'm not even sure they all want.  They also want assurances that teams can't just pocket their revenue sharing dollars while not making any effort to be competitive on the field.  And, if the owners can't even agree, how are they gonna present something to the players, who'll have their own list of things that they want addressed?

That's why there's absolutely no confidence that anything can get done without a lockout.  The sides are so far apart on the most basic issues and neither seems very willing to budge.  There's also some unresolved tension from the last CBA negotiations and the resulting lockout.  As a result, both sides expect the negotiations to be contentious.  Especially since they aren't even close to agreeing on basically any point.

Ultimately, though, this comes down to the owners.  Only ownership can initiate a lockout, and all it takes is eight unhappy owners to make it happen.  That's pretty much a certainty.  Because you'll have teams like the Dodgers that have no issues with the current system and, like the players, don't want a salary cap.  You'll also have teams like the Marlins who don't spend any money and don't want a salary floor.  Even if those two groups band together, there are still plenty of teams in the middle that aren't fans of the current system.  And they'll be the ones with all the power regarding whether there's a lockout or not.

What makes the looming threat of a lockout even more frustrating is how, overall, Baseball is in a very healthy position financially.  In 2024, the sport brought in $12.1 million.  So, you would think there's motivation on the owners' part to maintain that place of strength.  It's actually just the opposite, though.  Because the system is broken and the teams in the middle know it.  And they feel a lockout is the only way to fix the problem. 

Getting 30 different owners with competing priorities all on the same page is easier said than done.  And, frankly, that's the biggest issue at play here.  The players actually agree with the general sentiment that there's a competitive balance problem.  They don't like the Dodgers deferring 90 percent of everybody's contract or the Mets spending more money on Juan Soto than the Marlins are spending on their entire roster, either.  The only thing they're adamantly against is a salary cap.

If the owners push for a salary cap, they'll have quite a fight on their hands.  The Commissioner, for all his faults, does seem to somewhat understand that.  The problem is he needs to get the owners to see it and make them come to some sort of compromise among themselves.  Until that happens, the chances of there not being a lockout are slim to none.  That's why, even though the CBA doesn't expire for another 16 months, the writing is on the wall.  Brace yourselves.  A lockout is coming.

The Corporate Olympics

In 1984, Los Angeles completely changed the Olympic Movement.  By financing the Games with private and corporate funding, as well as using existing venues and infrastructure, LA showed that you can host the Olympics and actually make a profit.  That model became a template that future Olympic host cities followed.  In 1984, Los Angeles will completely change the Olympic Movement again.  And once again, it'll be by the use of corporate dollars.

The 2028 Olympics will be the first with venue naming rights.  The Honda Center in Anaheim, home of the Ducks during hockey season, will be hosting Olympic volleyball...when it will be called the "Honda Center."  The temporary squash venue in the Universal Studios parking lot, meanwhile, will be called the "Comcast Squash Center at Universal Studios."  Comcast, of course, is NBC's parent company.  (It's also worth noting that LA28 and NBCUniversal are working together to coordinate Olympic sponsorships.)

This is obviously a historic change, and it's being done with the IOC's full support.  Honda and Comcast are just the first two naming rights sponsors to be announced, but you'd have to figure there will be plenty more.  Other qualifying LA28 partners will be able to keep their name on existing venues, while up to 19 temporary venues will also have naming rights on offer, with participants in the IOC's existing The Olympic Partner program getting first dibs.

A few key clarifications were also made.  The first is that existing venues will either keep their regular name or, should a naming-rights deal with that company not be reached, be given a generic one like in Olympics past.  So, there's no chance three of LA's most iconic venues--Dodger Stadium, the LA Coliseum and the Rose Bowl--will suddenly have corporate names during the Olympics.  Nor will SoFi Stadium be referred to as (for example) Coca-Cola Stadium.  It'll either be SoFi or "2028 Stadium" (the temporary Olympic name it was given on the competition schedule that was released last month).

This isn't a requirement, either.  I don't know why a venue naming-rights sponsor would pass on the opportunity, but, if the price is too high or they can't come to an agreement with the organizers, they have the assurance that some other corporation won't be able to come in and slap their name on the venue during the Olympics.  If they don't want to do it, it'll just be the generic name that would've been used anyway under the previous rules where corporate venue names can't be used.

Existing IOC rules about maintaining a clean field-of-play will still apply, as well.  Which means no sponsor names or logos on the playing surface.  I've always loved that about the Olympics.  The field of play has nothing on it but simple, Olympic branding.  That will continue.  Although, this does presumably mean they won't need to cover up the scoreboard (assuming it has the sponsor's name/logo on it) or, more importantly, cover up the venue's name on the outside.

It's been a long-standing and well-known rule that corporate names aren't allowed by the IOC or FIFA.  This is a practical and reasonable provision to protect IOC and FIFA sponsors.  It prevents free advertising for a non-IOC/FIFA sponsor or, worse, for the competitor of an IOC/FIFA sponsor.  Although, the result is an often ridiculous generic name for the venue ("Dallas World Cup Stadium," anyone?) that will only be used on TV and in anything printed.  People attending the event will still refer to the venue by its actual name or nickname, regardless of what its "official" name during the competition is.

That's a point LA28 President Casey Wasserman was quick to emphasize.  Gymnastics will be at the Lakers' and Kings' home arena (which I will always call "Staples Center," even though that's not its name anymore).  People aren't suddenly going to start calling it "Downtown Gymnastics Arena" during the Olympics just because that's the name the IOC is using.  Ditto about all the NFL stadiums being used at next year's World Cup.

I do wonder, though, how Toyota (an IOC sponsor) feels about its competitor, Honda, getting a naming rights opportunity during the Olympics.  Assuming the IOC will continue allowing venue naming rights moving forward, this is a question that will have to be answered.  Sometimes there's no conflict.  Delta is the Official Airline of Team USA, so it won't be an issue for the Delta Center to keep its name when the Winter Games return to Salt Lake City in 2034.  But what will happen when there is one?  Or will this be a situation like the NFL/NBA, where team sponsors are often different than the league sponsors.

Still, while this is a somewhat surprising development, it's also something that feels like it was a long time coming.  And inevitable.  Venue naming rights aren't a phenomenon exclusive to the United States or even North America.  I'd argue that more sporting venues around the world than not have corporate names.  It's rare to not have multiple venues at an Olympics referred to by a generic name for those two weeks (there's always at least one).

And, from the sounds of Wasserman's comments in the release, it appears this isn't a one-time thing, either.  LA's in a unique position in that these Olympics are being completely privately funded without any governmental support.  That's why these corporate partnerships are so important.  They're a necessary extra revenue source.  That extra revenue won't just benefit the LA Games.  It'll benefit the entire Olympic Movement.

They wisely won't let it get out of control, either.  Giving the corporations that already have naming rights to the facilities the first opportunity to keep them during the Olympics is a reasonable accommodation.  I'd argue that it makes things even more worthwhile for them, especially since they wouldn't otherwise see any benefit from such a major event being held in the venue.  If they pass (and I'm not sure why any of them would), it's not like it'll be open bidding.  That corporate free-for-all could lead to a financial windfall, but this gives existing Olympic sponsors more bang for their buck, which gives corporations more incentive to be an Olympic sponsor.

Broadcast rights are the biggest source of IOC revenue.  That doesn't figure to change.  Individual Olympic host cities don't reap much of a benefit from that, though.  When it comes to the cost of running the Games, they're mostly on their own.  Which is why corporate sponsorships are so necessary.  And venue naming rights are a far more lucrative opportunity for both the sponsor and the organizing committee alike.  There's money to be had in naming rights.  Which is why they've been sold at virtually every major league venue (and many college venues) in the U.S.

Don't be surprised if this is the start of a trend, either.  You know FIFA saw this announcement and thought about how much more money they could've made had they allowed Met Life, SoFi, AT&T, etc., to keep their names on their venues during the World Cup (for an additional price, of course).  So, while the LA28 Olympics will be the first with venue naming rights, they won't be the last.  And World Cup venue naming rights will almost certainly follow.

The Upcoming Hall of Fame Conundrums

Now that the Baseball and Pro Football Hall of Fame induction ceremonies are both in the rearview mirror, it's time to start looking ahead to January and February, when the Classes of 2026 will be announced.  I'm curious to see how the voting will go in each.  Because both sports are heading into a very interesting few years...for completely opposite reasons.  Baseball doesn't have a clear-cut first-ballot Hall of Famer on the horizon.  Football has so many that it's going to create a logjam it'll take years to clear.

Let's start with baseball.  Ichiro was as clear-cut a first-ballot Hall of Famer as there can be.  The next one to hit the ballot is Albert Pujols in 2028, followed by Miguel Cabrera in 2029.  The next three ballots not only don't feature a clear-cut first-ballot candidate, there's a question of if anybody will get in on any of them.  While that scenario is unlikely, it does mean that we'll probably have smaller classes with guys who've been waiting a while coming up over the next few Hall of Fame elections.  

The Pro Football Hall of Fame, meanwhile, most decidedly does NOT have the same problem!  First-year eligible candidates for the Class of 2026 include Drew Brees, Larry Fitzgerald, Frank Gore, Phillip Rivers and Jason Witten.  That could be a Hall of Fame class right there.  (And, while coaches are a different category voted on separately, Bill Belichick is also eligible for the first time in 2026.)  Then you have Ben Roethlisberger, Rob Gronkowski and Adrian Peterson (among others) in 2027.  And, in 2028, two of the spots are already taken by first-ballot locks--J.J. Watt and some guy who played quarterback for the Patriots and won a bunch of Super Bowls.

Not all of those guys will get in on the first ballot.  And those who don't will then roll over into the next year, making those ballots even more loaded than they already will be.  Which means some of these players who otherwise would've been first-ballot locks will end up waiting multiple years before they finally get that knock on their door and give that speech while wearing their gold jacket.  Not to mention the backlog that already exists, and it's conceivable that there could be years where all 15 finalists eventually end up making the Hall of Fame.

Complicating matters even more in football is how they have a maximum class size, so they're already limited in the number of players who can be inducted in a given year.  And, as we saw this year, they changed the voting system and having the maximum number of inductees is no longer guaranteed.  So, if they don't have a maximum class, that increases the backlog even more.  Which is both good and bad.  Because, while some players will have an extra long wait, it does guarantee that we'll have some outstanding Pro Football Hall of Fame classes in the coming years.

This isn't the first time this has happened in baseball.  From 2010-13, a total of four players were voted in by the writers, including a shutout in 2013.  Then three players were elected on the first ballot in each of the next two years (five of the six were starting pitchers).  After the shutout in 2013, the writers elected a total of 22 players in the next eight classes before another shutout in 2021, then only one player voted in by the writers in both 2022 and 2023.  They've elected three in each of the last two years.  It might be three total over the next three.

Once we hit 2028, though, it'll again be an onslaught of first-ballot locks.  Yadi Molina could easily get in on the first ballot with his buddy Pujols.  Zack Greinke is also eligible for the first time in 2029.  And, let's not forget who else is coming up the pipeline pretty soon.  While they haven't retired yet, Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer and Clayton Kershaw are all nearing the end of their careers.  If they all retire together, that'll be one outstanding Hall of Fame class!  (It's also possible they may be the last three starting pitchers elected to the Hall of Fame for quite a while.)

Going back to the years between the two times the writers didn't select anybody, those large classes could've easily been bigger.  Because Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire, etc., were all on those ballots, too.  The Steroid Era players created quite a backlog, especially because voters are limited to 10 selections.  That backlog only started clearing up after the Steroid Era players exhausted their eligibility.  Now, we're at the point where there's no longer a backlog.  The list of candidates simply isn't as strong.  Although, it also means that players who've been waiting a while stand a better chance of getting in.

In football, it's the exact opposite.  The list of finalists for the Hall of Fame will be so good that we'll see players waiting years who otherwise would've been first-ballot locks.  Take next year for example.  They're not putting in five first-ballot guys.  Fitzgerald will get in.  Brees probably will too.  The others may end up all having to wait.  How long is the question.  Because the candidates coming up behind them are equally strong.

Football's coming up on a backlog similar to the one baseball had when the Steroid Era guys were still on the ballot.  The next three years will be stacked.  In 2029, Aaron Donald joins the fray, but after that, it clears up a bit.  (If Aaron Rodgers retires after this season, he'll become eligible in 2031.)  Still, though, simply because of the quality of the field, some guys might not be getting in until then at the earliest.  And I'm talking about obvious sure-fire guys like Frank Gore and Ben Roethlisberger.  I haven't even mentioned the second-tier Hall of Fame-quality players like Andrew Whitworth, Luke Kuechly, Clay Matthews and Adam Vinatieri.  Plus all the guys who are already eligible and haven't gotten in yet. 

These stand to be loaded classes.  Football's maximum of five doesn't seem to be changing, so we're already guaranteed to see some otherwise first-ballot locks not get in on the first ballot.  Which is guaranteed to shock some of their supporters.  And, as much as I criticize the Pro Football Hall of Fame voters and the way the voting is conducted, I don't envy them and the task they have in front of them over the next few years.  Separating some of these candidates will be close to impossible.  And, I fear, will result in split votes.  Which will mean not enough reach the 80 percent required for election.  Which will mean we get classes that aren't the maximum.  Which will mean those quality candidates end up staying on the ballot for another year...when they'll be joined by a whole new group of quality candidates.  

Baseball's "softer" ballots coming up in the next few years, meanwhile, are good news for those borderline candidates who've been on the ballot for some time.  Things bode well for Carlos Beltran and Andruw Jones to get over the 75 percent threshold.  You'd also have to think someone like Chase Utley may see his vote total shoot up dramatically.  Would they stand to make such a leap with an Ichiro or an Albert Pujols or a Miguel Cabrera on the ballot?  Seems doubtful.

Since the online tracker has become a regular part of the Baseball Hall of Fame election, people have wondered why/how writers can vote for a guy one year and not the next or start voting for someone after years of not voting for him.  This is why/how.  Because it's not about whether a player is a Hall of Famer or not.  It's about how they compare to the other candidates up for election that year.  Sometimes the quality of the field is so good that you have Hall of Famers with absolutely no chance at induction.

We had that in baseball for quite a few years.  Now, baseball's entering a lull while football's Hall of Fame voters will have an impossible task on their hands.  The quality of the Pro Football Hall of Fame candidates will be so good that they can't get it wrong.  Which all but guarantees someone will think they did.  All because somebody they thought should be a first-ballot lock will end up having to wait an extra year.  Or two.  Or three.