Different Times, Different Expectations

At the 1990 World Cup, the United States entered as tourists.  They're the first ones to admit it.  They were a bunch of college kids who were happy to be there.  And why wouldn't they be?  It was the first time the U.S. had qualified in 40 years.  That alone was an achievement worth celebrating.  And they got to play Italy in front of 80,000 fans in Rome.  Nobody expected them to be any good, and they weren't.

The 1990 World Cup was important for what was to come four years later, however.  Hosting the World Cup in 1994 was huge for soccer in the United States.  Not much was expected from the team then, either, but the experience of being there in 1990 (overmatched or not) cannot be overstated.  There was no pressure on them, but they still wanted to put forth a good showing for the home fans.  And they did, upsetting Colombia in group play and holding their own in a Round of 16 loss to eventual champion Brazil.

Of course, there was a concerted effort to make sure the USMNT put on a good showing in their home World Cup.  That investment was just the start.  Then came the World Cup itself, which was the most financially successful tournament in history.  That funding helped launch MLS and grassroots programs across the country, not to mention turning the women's team into a powerhouse.  The effects of the 1994 World Cup are still being felt.

Fast forward 32 years as the United States hosts the World Cup for a second time.  Look no further than the expectations on this team to see how far soccer has come in this country.  In 1994, it was hoping they'd get out of the group.  In 2026, some would consider it a disappointment if they didn't win the group.  The talk is more about how far they'll advance in the knockout stage.  There's even been some chatter about the United States winning the whole thing!

While expecting the U.S. to win the World Cup (even on home soil) is a bit of a stretch, the fact that it's even thrown out there as a possibility shows how far this team has come.  The U.S. has shown it can compete on the world stage.  Everyone knows they're good.  American players are starters on some of the top club teams in Europe.  Those players understand the opportunity in front of them and those expectations...and they embrace it!

Thinking it's even possible for the United States men to win the World Cup used to be a ludicrous idea.  It no longer is.  Will they win the 2026 World Cup?  Probably not.  But that's not the point.  The fact that people think they can is.  And it speaks volumes.  Just as the fact that there's potential for people to be disappointed speaks volumes.

In 1994, no American soccer players were household names.  Sure, players like Alexi Lalas and Tony Meola and Cobi Jones became household names later on, mostly because of the tournament, but, for the most part, they were anonymous.  In 2026, that's far from the case.  Christian Pulisic isn't just a household name for American fans, he's recognized as one of the best players in the world.  Most of the squad, Pulisic included, is European-based, and American players are regulars in the Champions League.

It was a slow and gradual process to get here, of course.  At the 1998 World Cup, the United States finished last.  Then they made the quarterfinals in 2002 before failing to get out of the group in 2006.  Then they beat Spain to make the final of the Confederations Cup in 2009 and won their group at the 2010 World Cup.  That all led to rock bottom in 2017, when the U.S. was eliminated in World Cup qualifying and didn't even go to Russia!

That might be the biggest indication of how the United States' place in the global soccer hierarchy has changed.  Certainly within CONCACAF at the very least.  When the U.S. qualified for its first World Cup in four decades in 1989, it was a big moment.  When they didn't qualify in 2017, it was equally big.  For a totally different reason.  Qualifying for the World Cup had become the bare minimum expectation.  (So is performing well in regional tournaments.  A terrible Copa America performance at home in 2024 is what got Gregg Berhalter fired.)  That wouldn't have happened without the investment that's been put into soccer (in many different ways) since the 1994 World Cup.

FIFA knew they were taking a risk by awarding the 1994 World Cup to the U.S.  There was no professional league and soccer was more of a curiosity than anything else.  Then a record number of fans filled the stadiums.  It led to a soccer boom.  It led to the 2026 World Cup being a completely different experience for everyone involved.

Soccer's not a curiosity anymore.  Every week, people are watching the Premier League on Saturday mornings and the Champions League during the week.  Everybody has "their" team in one of the European leagues.  Domestically, MLS, which was founded as one of the conditions to host in 1994, just celebrated its 30th anniversary and is thriving.  There are 30 teams, many of which have their own soccer-specific stadiums.

None of this would've been possible if not for the 1994 World Cup.  It's what turned the United States into a soccer country.  It'll never get to the point of popularity as it is in the rest of the world.  It'll never be on the same level as baseball, basketball, hockey and "the other" football.  But that's OK.  That doesn't mean the American soccer fan doesn't exist.  And those American soccer fans will help make the 2026 World Cup a spectacle.  A spectacle where they expect to see their team perform well.

While I'm too young to remember what the level of hype was heading into the 1994 World Cup, I can't imagine it being anywhere close to the degree of anticipation that surrounded this year's tournament.  The World Cup being back in the United States is a big deal.  With the excitement to match.  Sure, the ticket prices are exorbitant, but people wouldn't be complaining about the ticket prices if they didn't want to go.  And it isn't just because of the hype.

Hosting the World Cup is like hosting the Olympics.  It's only gonna happen once in your career if you're lucky.  For the USMNT in 1994, it was about the experience.  For the USMNT in 2026, it's about so much more than that.  The fact that there's a possibility of fans being disappointed in their performance says all you need to know about the difference 32 years can make.

Soccer's Spectacle Is Here

After months of anticipation and endless negative headlines about everything from the ridiculously overpriced and impossible to get tickets to heat concerns to the planned mid-half breaks to the halftime show to various teams' visa issues to the political climate that threatens to cast a pall over the entire event, it's finally time for the World Cup.  I, for one, am very curious to see if the actual soccer ends up taking over the conversation.  I sure hope it does.  Because the actual soccer promises to be incredible.

As FIFA has reminded us repeatedly, this is the largest World Cup history.  There are 48 teams and 104 games, and there are plenty of storylines surrounding so many of those teams.  Can Messi and Argentina defend?  What about France?  Will Spain do what it did in 2010 and back up a Euro title with a World Cup win?  How will the three host countries, particularly the United States, do?  Who will be that surprise team?  We'll find all that out within the next month, leading up to the Final at MetLife Stadium (sorry, New York New Jersey Stadium).

With the expanded field, we've also lost the nice and tidy (not to mention convenient) advancement procedure of the top two teams in each group reaching the knockout stage.  Now, eight third-place finishers move on to the round of 32.  Which obviously makes it easier to advance, but it also creates an incredibly cumbersome bracket where there are 495 possible combinations of third-place teams and nobody will have any idea who they're playing pretty much until the end of group play in every group.  You seriously can play just about anybody.  More on that later, though.  First, let's see who those 32 teams that advance will be.

Group A: Mexico, South Korea, *Czechia, South Africa
Fun fact: With Mexico facing South Africa in the opening game at Azteca, this is the first time the tournament opener has been a repeat matchup.  They also played the first game in 2010 when South Africa hosted.  Anyway, El Tri had a good draw even before Czechia beat Denmark in the European playoff.  I do think the Czechs can move on as one of the best third-place teams, but I have Mexico winning the group and South Korea advancing in second.

Group B: Switzerland, Canada, Qatar, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Italy would've been in this group had they not inexplicably lost to Bosnia-Herzegovina and missed out on a third straight World Cup.  Having both Italy and Switzerland in the group would've made it really difficult for Canada to advance (even with the Canadians playing at home).  As it is, I see them getting out of the group in second place, while Switzerland wins the group.  That could end up being significant, too.  Because only the group winner stays in Canada for the Round of 32.  The second-place team goes to LA.  Also, congratulations to Qatar on actually qualifying for the first time.

Group C: Brazil, Morocco, *Scotland, Haiti
Brazil and Morocco both come into the tournament with reasonable expectations of winning the group.  So, that opening game at MetLife Stadium could very well decide that.  They should be 1-2 in either order.  Scotland's back in the World Cup and will need to beat Haiti to have any shot at reaching the knockout phase.  Haiti not losing all three games would be a surprise.

Group D: United States, Turkiye, *Australia, Paraguay
This group looked much better for the United States when the draw was made in December than it does on the eve of the tournament in June.  That's because Turkiye is a strong European opponent who beat them pretty badly in a friendly not too long ago. The good thing is they don't play each other until the last game, which may end up deciding the group.  Likewise, the Australia-Paraguay game could decide which one of them makes the Round of 32.

Group E: Germany, Ivory Coast, *Ecuador, Curacao
No team wants to make a good showing at this World Cup more than Germany.  Since making four straight semifinals from 2002-14, capped by winning the title 12 years ago, they haven't gotten out of the group in the last two tournaments (but, hey, at least they're not Italy!).  That shouldn't happen with this group.  Especially with an overmatched World Cup debutant is Curacao (or, as Wayne Gretzky calls it, "Kuhrockoh") as their opening opponent.  If Germany doesn't dominate this group, it'll be a surprise.  The real question is who'll finish second.  Ivory Coast or Ecuador?

Group F: Netherlands, Japan, *Tunisia, Sweden
I really have no idea who'll win Group F.  On paper, the Netherlands is the favorite, and I do expect it to be them, but I also wouldn't be shocked if they got upset.  Japan is a consistent World Cup performer, and this is a great opportunity for them.  I could say the same thing about Tunisia, though.  And Sweden got out of the European playoffs, so you know they're no slouch.

Group G: Belgium, Egypt, *Iran, New Zealand
The futbol gods smiled down on Belgium by granting them by far the weakest group.  Getting out if it in first place should be absolutely no problem.  Under normal circumstances, I'd like Iran to join them in the Round of 32, but these are anything but normal circumstances for Iran.  Maybe they'll surprise all of us and go on a run, but it also wouldn't shock anyone if all of the off-the-field stuff is too much.  Even still, the winner of that Iran-Egypt game should advance.

Group H: Spain, Uruguay, *Saudi Arabia, Cape Verde
Cape Verde is another overmatched smaller nation making its World Cup debut against a heavyweight.  In their case, it's a Spain team that many think can win the whole thing (fun fact: this blog is called "Joe Brackets" because I was given that nickname after I correctly picked Spain as the winner in 2010).  I'm not ready to completely anoint them yet, though, because Uruguay had a great run at the Copa America, which was played in several World Cup stadiums, two years ago.  And Saudi Arabia beat eventual champion Argentina in the first game at the 2022 World Cup.

Group I: France, Senegal, *Norway, Iraq
Every World Cup has its "Group of Death."  The stronger teams are a little more spread out in a 48-team, 12-group field, but this World Cup still has one, and it's Group I.  France is obviously one of the top teams in the world.  Senegal is the top team in Africa.  Norway went undefeated in European qualifying (in Italy's group) and boasts one of the world's best players in Erling Haaland.  All three should advance in any order.  It really could depend on how they all do against Iraq.

Group J: Argentina, Austria, Algeria, Jordan
Jordan and the A's in Group J.  Messi is back for another World Cup, as Argentina looks to become the first repeat champions in more than six decades (Brazil in 1962 was the last to do it).  Winning the group shouldn't be an issue.  The rest of it, though?  That's where it's questionable.  Austria is probably the strongest of the other three teams, so I'll give them the second-place nod.

Group K: Portugal, Colombia, DR Congo, Uzbekistan
Don't discount how important winning the 2024 Copa America was for Colombia.  They're a huge threat in this tournament.  So much so that Ronaldo and Portugal winning this group isn't a foregone conclusion by any means.  They end group play against each other in Miami, where the difference between winning and losing could be huge (the winner gets a third-place team, the loser gets L2, which should be either England or Croatia).  DR Congo is in its first World Cup since 1974 (as Zaire), and Uzbekistan is here for the first time ever after coming so close in qualifying at the last several editions.

Group L: England, Croatia, Panama, Ghana
England and Croatia are in the same group for the UEFA Nations League.  They're also in the same group at the World Cup.  So, they'll be seeing a lot of each other over the next few months.  Like Portugal and Colombia, they know the importance of winning the group and avoiding one of the other two.  Unlike Portugal and Colombia, they face each other in the first game.  I'm also curious to see how well Panama does.  They obviously play in the U.S. a lot and had a very good tournament at the 2024 Copa America.

One of the problems with the expanded tournament and the third-place teams advancing is that it's impossible to know the bracket ahead of time.  Based on my group predictions, combination 285 would be used to set the field for the knockout phase (the third-place teams who advance have asterisks).  I won't go through the entire bracket, but I've got Canada losing in the Round of 16 and the United States and Mexico both reaching the quarterfinals.  My semifinals are a pair of border wars: France vs. Spain at Jerry World and Brazil vs. Argentina in Atlanta.  And, in the end, I've got Spain hoisting the trophy after defeating Messi & Co. in the final.

Texas Tech 1, Common Sense 0

No gambling of any kind has always been the golden rule at all levels of sport.  For very obvious reasons.  Protecting the integrity of the game is paramount.  There needs to be no doubt that the final score was the result of fair, honest competition and nothing more.  That's why gambling is taken so seriously and there's no tolerance for it.  Unless you're a judge in Texas.

In an absolutely shocking decision, a Texas judge granted Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby an injunction that overturned the NCAA's ruling and declared him eligible to play for the Red Raiders in 2026.  This despite the fact that Sorsby violated that golden rule.  Notice I'm not using the word "allegedly" here.  There's nothing alleged about it!  Sorsby has admitted to placing thousands of bets worth at least $90,000 on pro and college sports over a four-year period...including more than 40 involving Indiana football WHEN HE WAS ON THE TEAM! 

This is as clear-cut as it gets!  The NCAA was obligated to declare Sorsby permanently ineligible.  Just as MLB Commissioner Bart Giamatti had no choice but to give Pete Rose a lifetime ban.  And, going back more than a century, Judge Landis had that same obligation with the eight players involved in the Black Sox Scandal.  Even the appearance of impropriety is enough to bring the result into question.  Whether there actually is or not doesn't even matter.  Just wondering if there is does plenty of damage on its own.

Everybody except one Texas judge seems to understand that fairly obvious fact.  In his ruling granting the TRO, the judge (whose name I'm choosing not to use because, frankly, he doesn't deserve it) said that Sorsby could suffer "irreparable harmed" if he weren't allowed to compete while the legal process played out (which, coincidentally, likely won't happen until after the football season when his eligibility is exhausted).  The irreparable harm that will be done not just to college football, but college sports as a whole, is evidently irrelevant.  So is the irreparable harm that will be done to Texas Tech's opponents, who'll be taking the field questioning the legitimacy of the very game in which they're playing.  And what happens when Sorsby's ban is reinstated (or, more likely, the case is dropped since he already got what he wanted and it won't matter come February)?

Needless to say, this decision hasn't been well-received anywhere other than Lubbock, Texas.  Georgia's AD has ordered his coaches not to schedule non-conference games against Texas Tech until further notice.  The Big 12 AD's and coaches have a conference call scheduled for Tuesday, where this will undoubtedly be the main topic of discussion.  Some Big 12 schools have even suggested a reluctance to play Texas Tech and wondered what the consequences with the conference might be should they take that extreme stance (which they may do anyway to get their point across).

Consequences are something that don't apply to Brendan Sorsby.  That's the message that was sent loud and clear with the judge's ruling.  He violated the golden rule.  The one that preserves the sanctity and integrity of clean sport.  Which is apparently totally fine!  (Just think about how asinine that sounds.)  And, I'm sorry, he will face some consequences.  His punishment is a two-game suspension!  That'll teach him!

Sorsby's defense was that he's a gambling addict who received treatment during a 35-day stay at an in-patient rehab facility.  As such, his lawyers argued that, because he was diagnosed with an addiction, not letting him play would impact his mental health by having a negative effect on his recovery.  The judge bought this ridiculous argument.  Because being around the sport that helped feed his addiction can't possibly lead to a relapse!

He also made an argument that they were impacting his potential for future earnings because not allowing him to play would directly affect his NFL Draft prospects.  Sorsby played for Cincinnati last year before transferring to Texas Tech.  He didn't take part in the Combine or enter the Draft because he was planning on playing for the Red Raiders this season...and making him ineligible would impact his preparations for the 2027 Combine and Draft. 

The problem with this argument, however (and one Sorsby clearly failed to consider), is that the NFL's stance is just as clear as the NCAA's.  And the NFL has a collective agreement with the NFLPA, so Sorsby can't rely on the courts to get what he wants.  He has no NFL prospects.  Because the NFL's CBA expressly prohibits gambling in any form.  Even if it wasn't, Sorsby's radioactive.  No NFL team is going anywhere near him.  But that's beside the point.

Over the past few years, there have been numerous high-profile lawsuits that resulted in rulings against the NCAA.  This is just the latest.  It's also by far the most damaging.  It doesn't just put the integrity of the competition at stake.  Which is bad enough.  It undermines the NCAA's authority to enforce its own rules.  Worse, if the TRO holds, the NCAA will be the first sporting organization anywhere at any level to be forced to allow someone who's actively undermined the integrity of the game to play.

For months (years?), there have been calls for Congress to step in and pass some sort of federal legislation to cover college sports.  Because leaving up to the state courts creates a patchwork of 50 different interpretations.  As we saw in the early days of the NIL, that's an unworkable situation.  Which NCAA President Charlie Baker made very clear in his response to the Sorsby ruling.  There needs to be one interpretation that applies to everybody.  Not one that's decided by a friendly judge in one state that 49 other states completely disagree with, yet are forced to abide by.

While not even remotely close to the same, I can't help but compare this to the Lia Thomas situation.  In that case, Lia Thomas was allowed to compete for the women's swimming team at Penn after transitioning from male to female.  After being just an average male swimmer, Thomas became a dominant NCAA champion in the women's events.  That ruling was controversial, obviously.  As were all other eligibility cases regarding transgender athletes.

I don't bring that up to get into the politics of those cases.  I bring it up because of the impact the rulings had on the rest of the competitors.  They're narrow focused, which I get.  That's the point of bringing a lawsuit.  To get a favorable ruling for yourself.  But these cases have a far-reaching impact beyond just that one individual.  Biological women were losing to Lia Thomas.  Who was advocating for them?

That's the point I'm trying to make here.  This isn't about NCAA rules.  It's not even entirely about Brendan Sorsby.  It's about protecting the integrity of the competition.  That's why rules prohibiting gambling exist in the first place.  Rules that are common sense to just about everybody except Brendan Sorsby, his lawyers, a handful of people at Texas Tech (who obviously have a vested interest in his being able to play) and one Texas judge.

If this ruling is allowed to stand and Sorsby is eligible to play for Texas Tech this season, what kind of message does that send?  What's to stop coaches from actively encouraging their players to bet on their own games?  And how are fans supposed to believe that these games are being played on the level?  That's the heart of the issue.  If people lose confidence in what they're watching, it puts the entire operation at risk.

College sports in general, and college football in particular, are at a crossroads.  This is the latest, and most dangerous, example of that.  Because the integrity of the competition is at stake.  Which is why there was so much shock and outrage to the ruling.  Because most people understand that.  Unfortunately, the Texas judge who issued this ridiculous ruling is one of the few who isn't one of them.

Bring Back the NHL Awards

Remember when they used to have the NHL Awards?  That televised black-tie event after the Stanley Cup Final where they presented all of the league's trophies in one two-hour show?  What happened to that?  Why did they get rid of it?  Because the way they're doing it now is terrible!

Instead of announcing the NHL Awards all at once, they've been trickling them out one at a time.  Sometimes two at a time.  And there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind it, let alone a schedule.  Just a bunch of disjointed press releases accompanied by those videos where somebody "surprises" the winner by telling them they won.  Since, you know, everybody just randomly has an entire camera crew in their backyard at every family party.  That isn't suspicious at all!

There is one thing they've started doing that's good.  They're announcing the three finalists for each of the awards.  But what's the point of doing that if you're not inviting them to an awards show where one will receive it?  When all they're doing is putting out a press release, they could just as easily announce only the winner and release the results of the full voting at that time (which they already do anyway).

And, again, what's with the schedule?!  We found out Matthew Schaefer won the Calder like a month ago!  Meanwhile, they still haven't announced the winner of the Hart Trophy.  Which, as MVP, should be last.  But a month after Rookie of the Year?!  Talk about anticlimactic!

The NFL Honors will never be confused with quality television.  It's even pretty bad as an awards show.  But, the one thing the NFL Honors has going for it is that every award is announced during the two-hour show.  And they, of course, cap it with the NFL's highest honor...the Walter Payton Man of the Year.  So, in that regard, the NFL Honors is great.  They do all of the awards at the same time.

Baseball is the only sport where the postseason awards aren't presented until after the playoffs.  But there's no denying that they've also got the schedule figured out.  They do the Gold Gloves and Comeback Players of the Year ahead of time, but their major awards are all announced in the same week.  There's a one-hour show on MLB Network every day from Monday-Thursday, where they do Rookie of the Year, Manager of the Year, Cy Young and MVP in order.  Even when the winners are obvious, it builds up anticipation nonetheless.

That, to me, is the biggest problem with the NHL's current system of giving out its postseason awards.  There's absolutely no build up and no anticipation.  It's just "here's who won."  I'm sure there's some sort of formal schedule, but has anyone in the public ever seen it?  And why are the awards so spread out?  If they were doing it one per day for a week, that would be one thing.  But I don't even know what this is!

This is more like the NBA's haphazard system of announcing its postseason award winners.  The NBA has always done their awards the same way.  But even that has some sort of structure.  Oftentimes, they'll present the award to a player on the court before a home playoff game.  And that at least makes sense.  Unlike what the NHL does.

I can only assume they want to have some sort of personal touch with the award winner finding out from a friend or family member.  The idea was probably inspired by what the Pro Football Hall of Fame does with their knock on the door videos.  But some of those Pro Football Hall of Fame knock on the door videos are clearly staged (as much as they want us to believe they aren't).  And, by doing basically the same thing, the NHL is taking the suspense away from some of their award winners.  I'm sure some are genuinely surprised, but for the rest it's a dead giveaway.  Especially since they've been doing the same thing for a while now.

Are there those who prefer it this way, who like the awards having that little personalized touch?  I'm sure.  For the award winners, is it more meaningful to get the trophy from somebody they're close to in front of family members instead of on a stage in a tuxedo from some random celebrity or NHL luminary where they have to give an acceptance speech after?  Perhaps.  But I'm sure there are others who like it the other way, where they can celebrate with their NHL brotherhood.

Bringing it back to the NFL Honors, that's where they've gotten it right.  The players are honored and celebrated with each other.  It gives a sense of camaraderie.  That used to be the case in the NHL, too, when they did the NHL Awards show.  Getting your award in front of your family is one thing.  Getting it in front of your family and the guys you spend the entire season playing with and against?  That's something else entirely.

An argument could be made that giving out all of the awards together perhaps makes some seem less important than others.  By contrast, announcing each award separately puts them all in the spotlight individually.  The Norris Trophy gets its due one day, and the Selke Trophy gets its the next.  Although, if somebody wins multiple awards, he's not getting all of them at the same time, which is another point against not having a centralized NHL Awards.

Did they ever even give the reason why they stopped doing the NHL Awards?  Was it the league's choice?  The NHLPA's?  Both?  Was it a matter of not being able to find a venue or coming to an agreement with their American and/or Canadian TV partners for the broadcast?  Is it simply a matter of the timing being too tight between the end of the Stanley Cup Final and the NHL Draft to squeeze it in between them?

Whatever the reason, I hope this situation is only temporary.  Because I'd love to see the NHL Awards return someday.  At the very least, they need to figure out something better than what they're doing now.  Because, while I get the idea of having each award announced separately, it was so much better when they were presented at the same at a formal awards show.

2026 Stanley Cup Final Preview

There's been a lot of talk about the Stanley Cup playoff format this year.  It's pretty much just been reinforcing how much people hate it.  Players hate it.  Fans hate it.  But Gary Bettman likes it, so we're stuck with it.  One of the reasons Bettman likes it is because the NHL "has the greatest first-round in sports."  Too bad the playoffs last four rounds.

While the conference finals both being duds can't be blamed completely on the format, it certainly didn't help.  The Canadiens played 14 games in the first two rounds.  The Hurricanes have played 13 games total in the first three rounds (they won't even reach 100 for the season until Game 5 of the Final).  Carolina had two weeks off between the clincher against Philadelphia and Game 1 against Montreal...which is the only game they've lost in the playoffs.  And the only reason the Hurricanes lost was because they were sitting around too long and were rusty/flat.  By the end of the series, Montreal was exhausted and it showed.  Hence Carolina dominating Games 4 & 5 so thoroughly.

It is the format that gave us a 39-win Golden Knights team winning the West.  Is Vegas the best team?  Not even close.  But they got hot at the right time and took advantage of their matchups.  Colorado being without its two best players for long stretches in the series sure didn't help, either.  Credit to the Golden Knights, though.  The opportunity presented itself.  They seized it.  And now they're in the Final for the third time in their nine-year history.

Carolina, meanwhile, finally won a Conference Final game.  Four of them, in fact.  The Hurricanes have been one of the best teams in hockey for the past several years.  This season, they finally put it all together in the playoffs, and they've looked practically unbeatable!  In fact, the Hurricanes have played the fewest postseason games--13--of any Stanley Cup Finalist since they expanded the playoffs to four best-of-seven series in 1987.

Of course, we can't count Vegas out by any means.  They may have won their division by stockpiling loser points, but they're also a different team under John Tortorella.  The Golden Knights clearly thought they could position themselves for a run in the playoffs, hence the late-season coaching change.  And whatever Torts has done has certainly clicked.  They're on that roll, as they showed in their sweep of the President's Trophy winners.

Can they keep it going against a Hurricanes team that has been simply dominant thru the first three rounds?  That's the big question.  In the Western Conference Final, the Avalanche were banged and bruised.  That series would've been completely different if Colorado was healthy.  Carolina won't have that problem.  Vegas will have to deal with a healthy and well-rested Hurricanes team.  Which means this will likely be a very different series than the Western Conference Final.

For the last three years, we've seen the Florida Panthers make the Final playing a grind-it-out, wear-you-down defensive style.  Which is exactly how both of these teams play!  It's been part of the secret to their success.  So, it'll be very interesting to see each of them essentially play against themselves.  Especially since they were both able to impose their will in the Conference Finals.

Now let's talk about Mitch Marner and Freddy Andersen.  Those two have more in common beyond just being former Maple Leafs.  They're also the leading candidates for the Conn Smythe Trophy.  Unless somebody goes absolutely nuts in the Final, it's likely that one of them will win it.  Especially if Carolina lifts the Cup.  Andersen has been that good.  (There's at least a chance that somebody else from Vegas could snag the Conn Smythe, even if it's a slim one.)

The irony of them both being former Leafs who are having ridiculously good playoffs isn't lost on anybody, either.  There are two schools of thought, neither of which is pleasant for Toronto fans.  The first is "you get them out of Toronto and look what happens!"  The other is "why couldn't he do that for the Leafs?"  Well, one of them is getting his name on the Cup.  And he'll likely be a big reason why.

Andersen has been simply sensational.  There have been six shutouts in the playoffs.  He has three of them, one in each series.  Outside of Game 1 against Montreal (Carolina's only loss of the postseason), he hasn't allowed more than two goals in any game.  The Golden Knights are more dynamic offensively than Ottawa, Philadelphia or Montreal, so it might be a lot to expect him to keep it going in the Stanley Cup Final.  But we've seen a goalie lead his team to the Cup by standing on his head for two months before, and Andersen is playing at that sort of level.

He'll have to deal with much more than just Marner, of course.  Jack Eichel has 16 playoff assists to lead all players.  Brett Howden and Pavel Dorofeyev have both scored 10 goals.  And, Shea Theodore is a +8 while playing more than 25 minutes per game.  Let's not forget, too, that Carter Hart has been nearly as good as his counterpart.

Still, though, the Hurricanes are simply too good.  Given their recent history, getting past the Eastern Conference Final was the big challenge.  Now that they've gotten over that hump, and in such a dominant fashion, I don't see anything slowing this team down.  Especially since, with the exception of the last two games against Montreal, all of their wins this postseason have been close.  They have six one-goal wins (five of which were in overtime) and two two-goal wins.  So, even though they've been dominant, the games were still tight.  Which means they weren't coasting.  Don't let those scores deceive you, though.  They were controlling play.

Whoever can control play the most should have the edge in this series.  They're both great at playing with the lead, although the Golden Knights have also shown an ability to come back.  They haven't faced an opponent that plays Carolina's style of clamp-down defense, though.  Neither have the Hurricanes for that matter.  Scoring first should make a huge difference in every game.  Because that'll be the team who gets that opportunity to control the game and make the other team chase it.

Starting in Raleigh could make a huge difference, too.  More importantly, Game 7 being in Raleigh could be a huge difference.  I know the Golden Knights swept the President's Trophy-winning Avalanche.  But there's just something about this year's Hurricanes that makes it seem like they're a team of destiny.  Which is why I simply can't pick against them.  Carolina in six.

Working Russia Back In

Now that the IOC has lifted its ban on Russia, sporting federations are starting to do the same.  Slowly but surely, Russian athletes and teams are being incorporated back into the international fold.  The latest to welcome Russia back is the IIHF, which made the announcement this week at the World Championships.  It won't be right away, though.  Mainly because it's too late to work the Russian team into 2026-27 events.  But at the 2028 IIHF World Championships, we should probably expect to see the Russians there.

Throughout its suspension, Russia has continued receiving IIHF ranking points.  Why they didn't just freeze their points, I don't know (seeing as that would've made the most sense), but the point is they've gotten the points corresponding to what their ranking would be at every World Championships and Olympics since the suspension began.  While that's an absurd way of doing it, the number of points Russia has "accumulated" over the past five years are enough for them to be ranked No. 2 in the world.  When they officially reenter the rankings, I'd assume they'll be no lower than fourth.

Even though Russia's eligibility is being restored, the IIHF needs to figure out how to reincorporate them into the World Championships.  That's why it won't happen until 2028.  Because bringing them back isn't as simple as it sounds.  It impacts so many other nations that have already qualified for the 2027 tournament.  By delaying Russian readmittance until the 2028 World Championships, they're giving themselves a chance to sort out those logistics and make the necessary adjustments.

Russia's men's team will obviously immediately go back to the top level of the World Championships.  That's a necessary condition that I can't see Russia or the IIHF not accepting.  Not only is the team clearly one of the 16 best in the world, they were in the top level before their suspension.  Had they been relegated because of performance, that would be one thing.  But making them rise back up through the lower levels, where they'd dominate nations that have nowhere near the same talent level, wouldn't make any sense or be fair for anybody.

So, there's no question that they'll end up back in the main World Championships in 2028.  The question is how.  Expanding the field is one possible solution, but they're already at 16 teams and I doubt the IIHF would want to go beyond that.  It's also worth noting that whatever applies to Russia also needs to apply to Belarus.  While not one of the top teams like Russia is, Belarus was also playing at the main World Championships when they were suspended.  So, the same logic has to apply.  If Russia's going right back where they were, Belarus needs to as well.  Which actually would make things a little easier.

At the World Championships, the 16 teams are split into two groups of eight, with the bottom team in each group relegated and replaced by the top two countries in the second-level tournament.  One possible scenario could've been not having anybody promoted in 2027 and simply having Russia and Belarus replace the two relegated teams.  However, that's really not possible for 2027-28 because France, which is currently in that second tier, is hosting in 2028.  Which means the French have to be promoted for the 2028 tournament.  

Theoretically, they could do France and Russia as the promoted teams to replace those that are relegated, but what happens if France doesn't win the Division I-A tournament?  How could you justify taking only them and not the team that earned its way back to the top level by winning the tournament?  And what about Belarus?  Where do they go?  So, while that may sound like it could work in theory, in actuality, it wouldn't.  That option is out, then.

Another option, one that I think could work and may very well end up being what they do, would be to have the bottom two teams in each group relegated.  Those four teams would be replaced in 2028 by France and another team promoted from Division I-A, as well as Russia and Belarus.  That would (A) keep the top level at 16 teams, (B) keep the same promotion from Division I-A and (C) get Russia and Belarus back in with the least disruption to the main tournament.  It would create a trickle-down situation

No matter how they do it, when Russia and Belarus are back in IIHF tournaments, that's two additional teams to incorporate.  That's an obvious fact, but it complicates the math.  There are 16 teams at the top level, but each of the lower-level tournaments only feature six teams.  They'll have to readjust that in 2028, even if it's just for the one year.  Whether it's eight teams instead of six in Division I-A or seven in both Division I-A and Division I-B, it affects the promotion & relegation regardless.

The easiest thing might be to have seven teams in both levels of Division I for at least 2028, if not every year moving forward (that would account for the top 30 teams in the world).  Using the method I suggested, the four relegated teams would go into Division I-A with the three countries that finished third-fifth in 2027.  The last-place team from 2027 would still be relegated to Division I-B, but no one would be promoted to Division I-A.  Then, they could adjust everything accordingly so that each of the lower levels is back to six teams for 2029.  (There would still be the two extra teams, though, so they'd either need to keep one division with seven teams per group or just have eight teams at the lowest level--Division IV, which could then be split into two groups of four.)

In World Juniors, the problem is similar but far less pronounced.  There are only 10 teams at the top level of World Juniors.  However, only one team is relegated.  The two teams that don't make the quarterfinals face each other in a relegation game, with the winner staying at the top level.  To reinsert Russia, they could simply not play a relegation game and have both last-place teams relegated, with Russia joining the team that's promoted as their replacements in 2028. 

They'd still have to figure out the lower levels, but Belarus wasn't in the top level of World Juniors, so they won't need to worry about putting both them and Russia at the top when they reenter.  Although, they had earned promotion in 2022 (the last edition when they played), so an argument could be made for putting them in the top level.  I think it's more likely they'd go back in Division I, though.  Or, they could make the top level of World Juniors a 12-team tournament in 2028 only, having Russia and Belarus both in the main tournament and keep the standard promotion/relegation (with the adjustments then following in 2028-29).

On the women's side, Russia would slot in at No. 7 based on points.  Belarus doesn't have a women's national team, so they're a nonfactor.  Like World Juniors, the top level of the Women's World Championships is a 10-team tournament with a relegation playoff.  So, they could do the same thing and have two teams relegated with Russia and whoever's promoted replacing them in 2028.  Although, there are 47 women's teams in the world rankings (including Russia), so there would have to be an odd number at one of the lower levels.

All of this is why, despite being reinstated, Russia's reentry into international hockey won't be immediate.  Is it all easy enough to figure out?  Absolutely!  Will it all be figured out in the next few months without affecting the 2027 tournaments?  No.  But, they'll have plenty of time for 2028, when we'll finally see the Russian hockey team back in international play.

MLB Expansion Candidates

MLB expansion has been a popular topic of late.  The consensus is that MLB expanding to 32 teams is inevitable within the next few years.  Once the new CBA is signed, the A's move to Las Vegas is complete and the Rays' stadium situation is squared away, expansion should be the next thing on the docket.  So, it won't be until probably 2030 at the earliest.  But it's going to happen.  Rob Manfred has made it a priority before he retires.

The real question is where the two new teams will end up (it needs to be two teams for obvious reasons).  Plenty of cities have expressed interest, but clear frontrunners have emerged.  Manfred would prefer to have one team in the East and one in the West, and the reported favorites--Nashville and Salt Lake City--fit that bill.  But others are certainly in the mix.  And I'm not sure East and West is necessarily the best idea.

Let's start with Nashville.  There's a reason why Nashville has been considered a favorite from the get-go.  It's the 25th-largest market in the U.S. with a rapidly-growing population that already supports two Major League teams (the Titans and Predators).  They just built a new stadium for the Titans, so you'd figure an MLB expansion team would also get a brand new downtown stadium.  Nashville already an ownership group in place, too.  Most importantly, it would place a second team in the Deep South, which has long had only the Braves representing that entire region of the country.

Like the Braves in the Deep South, the Rockies are the only team to represent a large portion of the country.  Salt Lake City would place another team in the Mountain time zone who would have a natural rivalry with Colorado.  And they've welcomed the Mammoth with open arms after years of the Jazz being the only game in town.  Plus, the Triple-A Salt Lake Bees just opened a new stadium that was constructed to Major League specifications.

Salt Lake City isn't alone among Western cities.  Portland has long been mentioned as a possible expansion candidate, and any Portland team would obviously be a natural rival for the Mariners.  Sacramento, meanwhile, is saying "Don't forget about us."  They'll host the A's for one more season before Oaklamento officially relocates to Las Vegas, but California's capital wants a team of its own after that.

Other cities that have been mentioned include Montreal and Charlotte.  Montreal obviously has historical significance.  The Expos were the first team based in Canada before moving to Washington in 2005.  People have been clamoring for their return pretty much ever since.  Although, the Blue Jays like having Canada all to themselves.  So, they may be resistant to an Expos revival. 

And the case for Charlotte is very similar to the case for Nashville, which is a near lock.  Which is why I don't think Charlotte will eventually end up with a team.  I simply don't see MLB putting both new teams in the same general area.  Especially if Manfred wants to do East and West.  I hope that isn't set in stone, though.  Because putting one of the expansion teams in the West wouldn't work logistically.

When the expansion happens, they'll obviously have to realign the divisions.  It would make the most sense to have each league go from three divisions of five to four divisions of four.  Which actually works out perfectly.  Because there are currently eight teams in the Western portion of the country.  They could take Houston and Texas out, flip Arizona to the American League and have the two West divisions all set.

Putting one of the expansion franchises in the West, though, would make it nine teams for those eight spots.  In that scenario, Portland or Sacramento could take that AL West spot and let the Diamondbacks stay in the National League.  But it would also mean that the Rockies, as the furthest east of the Western teams, would be the odd man out.  They'd end up in a very awkwardly configured division just to even up the math.  And, most significantly, they wouldn't be in the same division as Utah.  Which would defeat the entire purpose!

Nashville obviously doesn't cause the same problem.  They could be in the NL South with the Braves, Marlins and Nationals or the AL South with the Texas teams and the Rays (or the Texas teams and the Royals).  Regardless of which league they're placed in, Nashville works in pretty naturally.  So does Charlotte, in fact.  But it wouldn't work with both of them.

Manfred has teased that when the expansion and realignment happens, the divisions might be organized geographically.  Of course, the divisions already are organized geographically, but some people took that to mean something much more drastic like eliminating the traditional AL and NL entirely.  Or even having multiple teams switch leagues.  Now, I don't think they'll do anything that severe.  While there are those who support it, the amount of pushback will be far greater and likely end up in Manfred abandoning that push for something far less extreme.

Even if MLB were to abandon the traditional leagues in a dramatic realignment when the two expansion teams come in, putting one team in the West still wouldn't make much sense logistically.  Then, you bring the Astros and Rangers back into the equation, but that's 11 teams, so it still doesn't work.  If you did, say, Utah and Sacramento, then you'd have 12, so it would.  But that's extremely unlikely.  Not when Nashville is such an obvious and clear favorite to secure an expansion franchise.

We're still a few years from MLB even approving the idea and beginning the expansion process.  And, once it starts, who knows how many cities will put in bids?  So, while Nashville and Salt Lake City may be viewed as favorites right now, there's no guarantee that they'll ultimately land the new teams.  And I'm sure many factors will come into play beyond just the idea of one team in the East and one team in the West.

Personally, I'd like to see Montreal join Nashville in the MLB expansion.  And not just because I'm one of those fans who waxes poetically about the Expos and think the city deserves another chance.  It's also because I think that makes more sense than adding a ninth team in the West.  Whether that's something MLB will consider is anybody's guess.  It absolutely should be, though.

Not On Board With 2042

Over the weekend, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced her support for a 2042 Winter Olympic bid.  The Games would follow the Milan-Cortina model where all of the outdoor sports would be held at existing facilities in Lake Placid, while the Greater New York City area would host indoor sports.  You'd think I'd be all about this idea.  I'm not.  For a number of reasons.

For starters, New York City and Lake Placid are nowhere near each other!  Granted, neither are Milan and Cortina.  And the 2030 Winter Olympics don't even have a host city.  They're just labeled "French Alps" and will be spread throughout the region.  But Lake Placid is closer to both Ottawa and Montreal than it is to New York City.  And it's not exactly an easy trip through the Adirondacks to a tiny town of 2,000 people that was borderline too small in 1980, when the Winter Olympics were much smaller.

Co-brand it as "Lake Placid/New York" all you want.  A majority of the events would end up in Lake Placid since that's where the venues are.  Lake Placid has the bobsled track.  Lake Placid has the ski jump.  Lake Placid has the mountains for skiing.  Lake Placid has the biathlon/cross country course.  Lake Placid has the 1980 Olympic arena that was the site of the Miracle On Ice and could conceivably be used for curling.  And the 1980 Olympic Stadium would also likely figure in somehow.

The speed skating oval made famous by Eric Heiden is still in use, but it's outdoors.  Olympic speed skating competition has been held exclusively indoors since 1994.  (That's one of the reasons the speed skating venue for 2030 hasn't been announced yet...the 1992 venue in Albertville is also outdoors.)  Would they allow them to use the outdoor facility?  Because there aren't really any other options.

What does that leave for New York City?  Pretty much just figure skating, short track (which shares a venue with figure skating) and hockey.  Which would take both Madison Square Garden and presumably Barclays Center offline in the heart of NBA season.  And they'd still need another hockey venue, so they could theoretically use all three NHL arenas (only one of which is actually within the city limits) and leave Barclays for the Nets (while forcing the Knicks on the road and St. John's to play on campus for two weeks).

And, where would the Opening Ceremony be?  You'd have to figure they'd want to have it at MetLife Stadium (which is in New Jersey) or, possibly, Yankee Stadium, but a majority of the athletes would be situated 275 miles away in Lake Placid.  But Lake Placid doesn't have a suitable venue to hold an Olympic Opening Ceremony (and, not to mention, the fact that the town is just too small).  Logistically, I don't see how it would possibly work.

One of the other politicians involved in the Governor's announcement pointed to the fact that Paris and London have hosted the Olympics three times, while Los Angeles will host its third in 2028.  Tokyo and Beijing have hosted twice.  Yet, the Olympics have never been in New York City.  That's true.  But it's also not a reason to just give the Winter Olympics to New York.  With the exception of Beijing, which has hosted one of each, all of those cities have hosted multiple Summer Olympics.  If you want the Olympics in New York (which I very much do), a Summer Games would make way more sense.

He also argued that it was the East Coast's "turn" after LA 2028 and Utah 2034.  I'm not sure how the fact that New York is on the East Coast has anything to do with it.  All three are in the United States.  That's the only relevant point.  And a huge one that would work against any potential Lake Placid/NYC bid.

If Lake Placid/New York were to host in 2042, that would be three Olympics in the U.S. in 14 years.  If that sounds like a lot, that's because it is.  The six years between LA and Utah is close, but that's not uncommon.  It was also six years between the last two Olympics in the United States (Atlanta 1996, Salt Lake 2002), and it'll be six years between the 2024 Paris Games and the 2030 Winter Games in the French Alps.  Three in 14 years, though, that's a heavy burden to put on the USOPC.  More significantly, it'll also get everybody else wondering "Can we go somewhere else?"

That, I think, is the biggest point to be made against a Lake Placid/New York bid for 2042.  It's too soon.  Even with the dwindling amount of potential hosts and interested bidders, it's highly unlikely that they'd return to the U.S. for another Winter Games just eight years after Utah 2034.  Especially since it will have been 20 years since the last Winter Olympics in Asia by that point.  (Remember how everyone had Asia fatigue after the three in a row from 2018-22?  It would be the same thing.  U.S. fatigue.)

Who's to say if the USOPC would even be on board with it?  Yes, it's the local organizing committee that has the responsibility of actually putting on the games.  But the bid has to come from the National Olympic Committee.  So, it's ultimately up to the USOPC if an American bid is even put forward...and if that bid is from Lake Placid/New York or somewhere else.

Unless there were absolutely no other bidders, a bid for the 2042 Winter Games from any American city would probably be DOA.  Especially since the IOC is again reforming the bid process and likely moving away from the "preferred candidate" system favored by Thomas Bach.  We don't know what the bid process for 2042 will look like or who the other bidders will be, but many in Olympic circles have been looking towards Sapporo, Japan as a favorite when/if they ever decide to pursue the Winter Games again.  And 2042 will be 20 years since the Winter Olympics were last in Asia and 21 years since the Olympics were last in Japan.  That's certainly a reasonable amount of time for a return.

It's also incredibly early in the process.  Gov. Hochul expressing interest could be just that.  Interest.  It might ultimately amount to nothing.  They may realize that it would be too big of a logistical challenge or determine that support is just lukewarm.  Or they may deem that it's simply not worth the cost to put into a bid that doesn't have that high a chance of success.  We don't even know what the bid process for an Olympics 16 years from now will look like!

In a way, I love that Gov. Hochul wants to host the Olympics.  And if she was talking about a Summer Olympics just in New York City, I'd be all for it.  An NYC/Lake Placid joint bid, though?  I just don't think it would work.  Especially not in 2042, when the Winter Olympics will almost certainly take place somewhere else.

Roland Garros 2026

Leading up to the French Open, there was some talk among top players about a boycott.  Aryna Sabalenka and Novak Djokovic were two of the most vocal in their dissatisfaction with the prize money structure, specifically the players' percentage of tournament revenue compared to the other three Grand Slams.  A full-scale boycott was unlikely.  They mainly spoke out to get their point across.  But they did stage a mini boycott by limiting their availability at the pre-tournament media day.

It'll be interesting to see what develops from that moving forward.  But in 2026, the players are set to receive less at Roland Garros than they are at the other Grand Slams.  Which is still a hefty payday for the winners.  Who will those winners be, though?  That's the question.  Because, on the men's side especially, we enter this year's tournament without a clear favorite.

That's because Carlos Alcaraz is injured and missing this year's French Open.  Last year, he won that classic final against Jannik Sinner in what might've been the defining match of their rivalry so far.  Alcaraz then went and started this year by winning the Australian Open, the only Grand Slam title he was missing.  He's the two-time defending champion here and the best clay court player on tour, so Alcaraz would've been the heavy favorite to make it three in a row.  Instead, you'd probably have to say it's Sinner's tournament to lose.

Sinner has been on a roll since losing to Djokovic in the Australian Open semifinals.  He regained the No. 1 ranking in April and won every clay court tune-up he played, including his hometown Italian Open.  Alcaraz completed his career Grand Slam with his victory in Australia.  Sinner can complete his with a victory here.  And, like his rival in Melbourne, winning the French Open is Sinner's goal for 2026.  That goal is easily achievable, too.

But, if it isn't Sinner, who else could it be?  The No. 2 and 3 seeds both got their tournaments started with victories on Sunday.  Djokovic has been sitting at 24 Grand Slam titles since the 2023 US Open (Sinner and Alcaraz have won the last nine between them), but he beat Sinner in the Australian Open semifinals.  He just turned 39.  Now he's the veteran.  And no one that age has made a Grand Slam semifinal since Ken Roswell 50 years ago.  Would you put it past him at all to make a run, though?

Or maybe Alexander Zverev can finally get his first Grand Slam title.  Zverev is up to No. 2 in the world and has been a French Open finalist in the past.  More importantly, with Alcaraz out, he doesn't need to worry about beating both him and Sinner.  Which isn't to say his road is easy.  He still has to deal with Djokovic in the semis.  But that's certainly a winnable match.  And he might be one of the only players who can beat Sinner in the final.

If it's anybody other than one of those three, I'd be surprised.  Felix Auger-Aliassime is the No. 4 seed, but he has no chance.  He's never been past the fourth round at Roland Garros.  I do think Daniil Medvedev might have a shot.  Although, he hasn't had a very good clay court season.  They're both in Sinner's half of the bracket, which only makes me even more confident that Sinner will get back to the final.

Then there's the Americans.  Can they continue the momentum from 2025, when three (Frances Tiafoe, Tommy Paul, Ben Shelton) reached the round of 16 and two (Tiafoe & Paul) made the quarterfinals?  If the seeds hold, Tiafoe and Shelton would face each other in the round of 16, with Sinner waiting for the winner in the quarters.  It's definitely realistic to see that Sinner vs. American quarterfinal happening, even if that's as far as the American men get.

This is also set to be the final French Open for a retiring French legend.  Gael Monfils is calling it a career at the end of the season.  He was given a wild card for his farewell appearance and takes on countryman Hugo Gaston, another wild card, in the first round.  Whenever Monfils is eliminated, it'll mark the end of an era.

On the women's side, it would be easy to say Iga Swiatek is the one to beat.  She was the three-time defending champion when her reign was ended by Sabalenka in the semifinals last year.  Swiatek then went on to win Wimbledon out of nowhere, getting herself back on track.  However, Swiatek's Achilles heel is Jelena Ostapenko, who's 6-0 all-time against her.  And who would Swiatek meet in the third round?  Ostapenko.  For that reason alone, I can't go with her to win.

Instead, I've got to go with Sabalenka.  She reached her maiden French Open final in 2025, falling to Coco Gauff in three sets.  It was her first Grand Slam final not on hardcourt.  Sabalenka's been to five of the last six Grand Slam finals.  She's had a rough clay court season (she was eliminated in the third round at the Italian Open), so we'll see if that has any bearing.  But I still like Sabalenka to make another deep run.

The draw sets up for a rematch of last year's final between Gauff and Sabalenka in this year's semifinals.  And Gauff has a real shot of defending her title.  She comes in as the No. 3 seed and has had a very good clay court season.  But she needs to get past the other Americans to have a shot at Sabalenka.  Madison Keys, Jessica Pegula and Amanda Anisimova are all in the top half of the draw with Gauff and Sabalenka.  So, it'll be a challenge.

Another one to watch is Elina Svitolina (who's Gael Monfils' wife).  She started the season by reaching the semifinals in Australia and won the Italian Open tune-up event, where she defeated Elena Rybakina, Iga Swiatek and Coco Gauff.  So, Svitolina's a definite player.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see her in the final.

Rybakina, meanwhile, won the Australian Open and has risen to a career-high ranking of No. 2.  Her best-ever French Open result is the quarterfinals twice, so she isn't considered a favorite.  But it's not totally inconceivable that she can make a deep run, either.  After all, her Australian Open title came a little out of nowhere.  And we've seen some unlikely French Open women's champions before.  A Rybakina title wouldn't be completely out of nowhere like it was Australia, though.

Last year, French wild card Lois Boisson was the out of nowhere semifinalist.  Who will it be this year?  Will there be one?  Or will this be a year when all of the semifinalists are higher seeds?  Could that be our unexpected French open result in 2026?  Either way, I think the ending could be somewhat predictable.

While I'm not completely confident in my pick (I think there are four or five women who can win), give me Sabalenka for the women's title.  She's the best women's player in the world, after all.  And she came so close last year.  So did Sinner.  Without Alcaraz here this year, Sinner gets his first French Open title and completes his career Grand Slam.

Tragedy Strikes Racing's Greatest Weekend

This is supposed to be the greatest weekend in motorsports.  A celebration, with a marquee race in all three major series back-to-back-to-back.  Monaco, then Indy, then Charlotte.  Instead, Memorial Day Weekend will take on a different meaning after the unbelievably sad news that shocked not just the racing community, but the entire sports world.  Suddenly and unexpectedly, Kyle Busch is gone.

The announcement on Thursday that he would miss the Coca-Cola 600 didn't seem that out of the ordinary.  His having to take a week off because of a health issue surely shouldn't be a cause for alarm.  Drivers miss races because of injury or illness all the time, so why would this be any different?  Sure, sitting out of a crown jewel event like the Coca-Cola 600 is uncommon, but sometimes you can't control the timing of these things.

It was only a couple hours later that they made the second announcement informing people of his passing.  Which was jarring on so many levels.  First, how quickly it happened.  The "serious health issue" that he was hospitalized with took him within a few hours.  While no official cause of death was given initially, details began trickling out about how he had a sinus infection and how he started not to feel well on Wednesday and what was said on the 911 call.  But, still, this was an otherwise healthy, 41-year-old racecar driver who died merely hours after being admitted to the hospital with what his family later revealed was severe pneumonia that turned into sepsis.  How could it not shake people up?

Driving a racecar is obviously an incredibly dangerous job.  You take your life in your hands every time you get behind the wheel.  Every driver knows that and is willing to take that risk.  That's part of what's so shocking here, too.  It wasn't a racing crash.  Had it been, it would've been no less shocking and no less tragic, but it would at least be easier to understand.  But it wasn't.  It was a sudden illness that acted fast and without warning.

He was in the car doing what he loves literally last weekend!  In fact, he won the truck series race at Dover.  In the winner's circle, he made the seemingly innocuous comment that "you never know when it'll be your last."  The cruel irony of what those words mean now.  Because he was exactly right.  Only not in a way anybody could've seen coming.

And I get that Kyle Busch wasn't everybody's cup of tea.  To say he was polarizing would be an incredible understatement.  So many fans (including my friend Joyce) loved him.  He was their favorite driver.  Just as many couldn't stand him and hated his antics.  Yet, whether you loved him or hated him, you couldn't deny how gifted Kyle Busch was.  A truly special talent.  A legendary competitor.  He was motivated by one thing--winning, which he did a lot.  And that drive is what made him so great.

Another part of his greatness is that it truly didn't matter what type of car he was in.  He won in all of them, sometimes in the same weekend!  He was a two-time NASCAR Cup Series champion and took the checkered flag 63 times at the sport's highest level.  Busch also had 102 wins and one series championship in the Busch series, which came in 2009...when he was competing in both series on the same weekend pretty much every week (now's not the time for my diatribe about Buschwhacking, which NASCAR later made a rule change to prevent).  Throw in 63 truck wins, including last weekend at Dover, and that's 234 victories in NASCAR's top three series.

Kurt Busch was inducted into the NASCAR Hall of Fame this year.  There was never any question that his brother will one day join him.  He was going to be a slam-dunk first-ballot selection someday down the line.  That was supposed to be years from now.  After he'd broken every record there was to break.  After he'd capped perhaps the most dominant career across all three series in NASCAR history.  Instead, we're left wondering how much more he could've accomplished in what was already a historic career.  A career that could've been right there at the top among the Pettys and the Earnhardts and the Johnsons as one of the all-time greats.

In a cruel twist of fate, this is the second time Richard Childress has had a NASCAR legend who was a member of his racing team die during the season.  Childress, of course, was Dale Earnhardt's car owner when Earnhardt lost his life on that final-lap crash in the 2001 Daytona 500.  He took Earnhardt's No. 3 out of circulation immediately.  When Kevin Harvick took over the car, it was rebranded as the No. 29.  No. 3 continued to be held out until Childress eventually gave it to Austin Dillon.

So, Childress retiring Busch's No. 8 not only wasn't a surprise, it was an appropriate tribute.  Austin Hill was already set to drive the No. 8 at Charlotte this weekend.  That was when he was just keeping the seat warm.  Now it'll be the No. 33.  No. 8 will be held out of circulation until Kyle Busch's son, Brexton, is ready to follow in his father's footsteps.  Brexton Busch is currently 11 years old.

Once the news of Kyle Busch's death got out, the tributes came pouring in from across the sporting universe.  The Carolina Hurricanes had a video montage and moment of silence before Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Final.  Since Busch was from Las Vegas, I wouldn't be surprised if the Golden Knights do something similar before Game 3 in the West, which will not only be their first home game of the series, it'll be on Sunday night at the same time as the Coca-Cola 600.

NASCAR will obviously honor him this weekend, as well.  At the truck race on Friday night (which he was originally planning on racing in), two teams added the Kyle Busch Motorsports logo to their trucks, and the pit crews did his salute as the trucks passed by on pit lane.  I would imagine similar tributes are in store for the rest of the weekend in Charlotte, from other drivers, fans, and NASCAR itself alike.  And, I'm sure they'll also at the very least observe a moment of silence for him in Indianapolis, where Kyle Busch was a two-time winner of the Brickyard 400.

My original plan for this post was for it to be my annual Indy 500 preview, but it took an obvious (and understandable) pivot.  The racing community is so tight that this devastating loss will be felt all over.  The great celebration of auto racing that is Memorial Day Weekend has taken an incredibly sad turn.  This isn't just NASCAR's loss.  This isn't just racing's loss.  This is the entire sports world's loss.

You know what the best way to honor Kyle Busch is, though?  To go out there, give their all, and race their asses off.  Just like he did.  That's what they'll do in Indianapolis, and that's certainly what they'll do in Charlotte.  Kyle Busch wouldn't have wanted it any other way.  Because if he was out there, you know he'd be going full throttle to be the first across that finish line. 

Two Months of ABS

We're just about two months into the first season with ABS in Major League Baseball, and, for the most part, ABS has proven to be a hit with fans.  They show it on the center field video board for everyone in the stadium to see, and the ABS challenges often get some of the biggest reactions one way or the other.  It's also become a part of the scorebug on pretty much every broadcast (with little dots or dashes like timeouts in football or basketball).  And, while it's a major change, it's already become so ingrained that it's hard to remember a time when there wasn't ABS at Major League ballparks.

Two months is enough of a sample size for trends to have developed and ABS to be analyzed.  There are pros and cons, obviously.  Everybody's still getting used to ABS, so thing swill most certainly change as those numbers are broken down.  But we've still gotten enough experience with ABS to already understand some things.

First and foremost, the umpires are pretty damn good!  Every broadcast now has the umpire's stats, including his record on ABS challenges.  However, how many of those overturned challenges show that the home plate umpire "missed" a pitch by such a negligible margin that it's completely reasonable he called it the other way (and it wouldn't have been questioned if the player didn't have ABS available to him)?  Likewise, how many unsuccessful player challenges show the ball either just nicking or just missing the corner of that little box (meaning the challenge was completely reasonable)?

Are some umpires better than others?  Absolutely.  Do umpires sometimes have bad days?  Of course.  But that's exactly what ABS is for.  And if your challenge is successful, you keep it.  So, if you're confident he's wrong and you challenge, that's the entire point.  But you'd better be right.  Because if you're wrong, it can impact your team.

That's one of the things I've noticed the most about ABS early in the season.  Some teams are much more liberal with their challenges than others.  I was at a game in April where the Angels were out of challenges in the fourth inning.  If you run out of challenges in the fourth, you'd better hope your team doesn't need one in the ninth!  I've seen the second batter of the game challenge a pitch!  What benefit is there in challenging a pitch that early?  And imagine if you're wrong and now only have one challenge for the rest of the game?

Mets play-by-play announcer Gary Cohen voiced his frustration about what he calls "wasted" challenges last week, and I agree with everything he said.  During the game in question, the Mets were playing the Tigers and M.J. Melendez challenged a 1-1 pitch with the bases empty in the second inning and the Mets already losing 2-0.  Not only was it not a high-leverage situation, it was perhaps one of the lowest-leverage situations you can be in.  After Melendez inevitably lost the challenge, the Mets were left with only one.  Because they wasted their first one.

His argument was based on the argument that challenges should be strategic, not a reflex.  You may not agree with an 0-1 pitch in the third inning, but you also might need that challenge in your back pocket for later.  A close 3-2 pitch with the bases loaded?  Absolutely challenge!  That's when it makes sense to use one.  The first pitch of an at-bat leading off an inning?  Not so much.  If it's an egregious miss, that's one thing.  If it's close, maybe just let that one go.

Cohen theorized that, for hitters especially, challenging is an ego thing more than anything else.  They aren't thinking about the implications a lost challenge might have on the team.  They're thinking about their at bat and only their at bat.  Which is understandable to a point.  But, at the same time, it's a team game and the players also need to understand that.  So, they have to pick and choose the appropriate times to challenge.

There have been some pretty bad examples proving exactly what Cohen was talking about.  In one game, Jazz Chisholm Jr. challenged a pitch that was right down the middle!  He was so embarrassed by the wasted challenge that he fined himself!  You want to challenge for the sake of challenging in the bottom of the eighth when your team still has both left?  Knock yourself out!  There's a big difference between that and wasting both by the fifth.

Running out of challenges early can have another direct negative impact on teams.  When you run out, the home plate umpire can expand his strike zone and you have no recourse.  If you think he missed a close one, there's nothing you can do about it.  And there are obviously more high-leverage situations later in the game when that challenge would be far more useful.  Cohen thinks, and I agree with him, that managers need to make their players more aware of that so that they're smarter about using their ABS challenges.

Only the batter, catcher or pitcher can challenge a pitch.  Catchers are by far the most successful group.  Pitchers challenge the least, and they're also the least successful group.  There's a reason for that.  Because pitchers think everything is a strike!  So, as much as ego comes into play for the hitters, I'd argue that a lot of pitcher challenges are ego-based, as well.  Personally, I don't think pitchers should be allowed to challenge at all.  It should be limited to only catchers and hitters.  And there are some hitters who should probably think twice about challenging.

Another result of ABS that's too obvious not to notice is that games are longer.  Not just because of the number of challenges, either.  The ABS strike zone tends to be smaller than the human strike zone.  As a result, hitters are taking more pitches.  Which has led to an uptick in walks.  Again, this is a number that may level out over time.  Hopefully, it is something that'll change.  But right now, it's very noticeable that there are more walks because of the tighter ABS strike zone.

Pitchers will obviously have to make an adjustment, as well.  Those pitches just off the plate are balls now.  So, their location will have to be much more precise.  And, unless they're fastballs that you're able to throw right by them, pitches right down the middle usually lead to more hits and more runs.  With ABS, it's clearly advantage hitters.  At least right now.

One thing I think everyone can agree on about ABS, though, is that the challenge system was definitely the right way to go.  To go fully automated would tilt it even more in the hitters' favor.  And the human element still needs to be there.  ABS is a tool.  Not a crutch.  And it will only improve over time as everyone gets used to it.  After all, it hasn't even been two months yet.

This Isn't Europe

For at least the last few years, Division I men's soccer coaches have been pushing for a split-season format similar to professional European leagues.  At first, the idea was met with resistance from the NCAA, but they were undeterred by the fact that literally no one else wanted it and made that known.  Well, their persistence has finally paid off.  The NCAA announced last week that Division I men's soccer will indeed adopt a split-season model in 2027.

This season structure was introduced in January by the Men's Soccer Oversight Committee and now moves on to the NCAA Cabinet for review during its June meeting.  So, it's technically not official yet.  But, who are we kidding?  The NCAA wouldn't be issuing a press release if this wasn't already a done deal.  Approval at the cabinet meeting is just a formality.

Under the new season structure, the NCAA Men's College Cup will be moved to the Spring.  As a result, there will be no NCAA Men's Soccer Championship in 2027.  The last edition to be held in the Fall will be later this year, with the 2027-28 champion crowned in the Spring.  The season length (in terms of number of games) will remain the same.  Teams can play 25, with a maximum of 18 in the Fall (from August to the week before Thanksgiving) and 10 in the Spring (starting in mid-February).  Dates of the championship weren't announced, but it would presumably be mid-to-late April.

What will conferences do, though?  Will they also move their men's soccer championships to the Spring or leave them in the Fall?  Will their men's soccer conference schedules split games between the Fall and Spring?  Will different conferences do different things?

I'm also surprised the NCAA not only caved, but also moved the championship to the Spring...when they already have so many others.  Spring is the NCAA's busiest season with lacrosse, baseball, softball, outdoor track & field, beach volleyball, men's volleyball, women's rowing, golf and tennis all in season.  In the Fall, meanwhile, it's mainly just football and field hockey (which not everybody has), women's volleyball, cross country and soccer.  The College Cup is one of the NCAA's marquee Fall Championships, with the men and women often being played at the same venue a week apart.  Not anymore.

Men's soccer coaches are obviously ecstatic to finally get their way.  They're the only ones who are happy about this.  Because the burden this puts not just on support staff, but other programs, as well, is enormous.  And the NCAA adding another championship to the already overloaded Spring season doesn't make much sense, either.  But the coaches weren't going to stop pushing for the "European model" until they got it.  Which they now have.

There are so many reasons why everyone other than D1 men's soccer coaches think this is a terrible idea.  Let's start with the burden it places on facilities, athletic training and communications staffs.  Some larger schools have trainers and communications people dedicated to men's soccer, but many don't.  And those staffers most likely already have a Spring team that they cover.  Now, men's soccer will be in-season during both the Fall and the Spring, when they'll already have that other sport.

Then there's the facility situation, which, frankly, is the bigger concern.  How many schools have soccer and lacrosse share a facility?  Some schools that have multi-use fields might have softball and/or baseball on the field in the Spring, too.  Scheduling will be a nightmare!  And, imagine if that field is grass (especially in an area where winter weather can be a factor)!

That's exactly what happened in the Spring of 2021.  Because of COVID, the NCAA moved all 2020 Fall sports seasons to the Spring, making for a very busy season.  Men's soccer coaches probably looked at that as proof it can be done.  Of course it can!  That's not the point!  What they don't acknowledge is how difficult that was for everyone and how it was only done as a one-off exception out of necessity.  It was never the intention for the Spring season to be that busy regularly.

It also can't be a coincidence that the timing of this corresponds exactly to MLS making a similar move.  MLS announced a few months ago that it's going to the Fall-Spring schedule used elsewhere in the world.  They'll play a 14-game "sprint" season next Spring before officially flipping the season in 2027-28.  The NCAA will also flip Division I men's soccer to a Spring championship in 2027-28, keeping it on the same schedule as MLS.

And don't for a second think the fact that European professional leagues play a Fall-Spring schedule had nothing to do with this.  Where do you think these coaches got it from?!  They wanted NCAA soccer to be a year-round sport like it is in Europe, everyone else be damned.  Congratulations.  Mission accomplished.

In the NCAA's press release, they touted all of the ways this will "benefit the student-athlete."  A lot of those, frankly, ring hollow.  Coaches didn't like having two games in a week, which they had to do with the season only in the Fall.  Now they can spread it out, only play once a week, and kick some games over to the Spring.  Is there some benefit to that?  Sure.  But now you're requiring student-athletes to make two-semester commitment similar to basketball and hockey players.  That doesn't really do much for them academically.  And say goodbye to the opportunity to transfer between semesters!

My issues with this format extend beyond those I've already mentioned.  One of my other big ones is how this only applies to Division I men.  The D1 women's season will still start in mid-August with the Women's College Cup in December.  Same thing with Divisions II and III.  Those men's seasons will remain entirely in the Fall.  What makes the D1 men so special that they need to have a different schedule?  Or maybe the better question is how long until the others follow suit?

All of this stuff will eventually come up if it hasn't already.  Too bad nobody was actually concerned about any of it.  Maybe if they'd actually listened to anybody else, they would've understood why a D1 men's soccer split season is a pretty universally disliked idea.  Not that it would've stopped the coaches from pushing through anyway.  They got an idea in their heads, thought it was great, and weren't going to drop it until they got what they wanted.  Which they now have.

More NFL Schedule Analysis

Leading up to the NFL schedule release, people had things to say about the Arizona Cardinals having the third-hardest schedule in the league despite being terrible last year.  I found this incredibly humorous because every team's 2026 opponents were set immediately after last season ended, so it's not like this was a surprise.  I was also like, "What did you expect?"  The other three teams in their division made the playoffs last season!

The Cardinals won't be the only NFC West team with a schedule that's less than favorable next season.  Because the 49ers would certainly like a word.  San Francisco will log more travel miles than anybody else by a wide margin.  They begin the season in Melbourne and also have a game in Mexico City!  The Vikings had two international games in two different countries last season, but Ireland and England (in back-to-back weeks, so it was really just one trip) is much different than Australia and Mexico 11 weeks apart!

Then there's the Los Angeles Rams, who the NFL is really banking on being good this season.  Remember when the Jets got Aaron Rodgers, so the NFL became obsessed with giving them primetime games because of that?  Well, the 2026 Rams are getting similar treatment.  Their first three games and four of their first five are in primetime.  Then they have back-to-back primetime home games on a Wednesday and a Thursday, starting with that Thanksgiving Eve contest against the Packers.  

Teams can play a maximum of eight primetime games.  The Rams already have seven, including Christmas night in Seattle.  If either their Week 17 game against Tampa Bay or the rematch with the Seahawks in Week 18 is selected for one of the Saturday windows (which is a definite possibility), they'll play on six different days of the week this season.  They're basically the new Chiefs.

Right behind the Rams with six primetime games are the Dallas Cowboys, who always get a bunch since they're a consistent ratings generator.  And, as usual, it's not just in primetime.  America will see plenty of the Cowboys in the national doubleheader window on Sunday afternoons.  They've got four on their schedule, including the Rio de Janeiro game against Baltimore.  And, of course, the late game on Thanksgiving is traditionally the highest-rated regular season game on the NFL schedule.  This year, they play the Eagles.

Same thing with Kansas City.  The Chiefs have six primetime games and a bunch of others in national windows.  So, expect to see plenty of the Chiefs once again this season.  I know plenty of people hate-watch Kansas City.  They hate-watch Dallas, too.  Are the two of them overexposed?  Maybe.  And that certainly contributes to it (people are just sick of seeing them every week).  But they also draw, which is why the NFL likes having both teams in national broadcasts as much as possible.

It's also interesting that the Giants' first two games are both in primetime.  They have their annual Week 1 Sunday Night Football matchup against the Cowboys, then are the Rams' opponent on Monday night in Week 2.  In total, they've got four, with a Thursday night game against Washington and another Monday night game in Detroit.  The Giants are a draw, so they're gonna get primetime games regardless.  But they've also been consistently bad, so you'd figure one or two.  Not four.  I guess the NFL is banking on a turnaround under John Harbaugh. 

Speaking of John Harbaugh, his former team, the Ravens, has four primetime games, but not one against Pittsburgh.  At least, not yet.  They play the Steelers in Week 18, so that could get flexed in.  But it's still odd to see that rivalry not automatically featured in a primetime window.  Baltimore also has a non-primetime marquee game against Dallas at 4:30 in Week 3 from Rio.

Baltimore's game in Buffalo, which you would've figured might be a candidate for primetime, is instead a 1:00 CBS regional game in Week 8.  It's not even a national doubleheader game!  Meanwhile, as was pointed out during the schedule release show, the Bills-Chiefs game won't be called by Jim Nantz and Tony Romo this season.  That matchup, which somehow always ends up on CBS as a national doubleheader game, will instead be on Thanksgiving night.

One of the Bills' schedule requests that the NFL granted was to open their new stadium in primetime.  I figured that meant they'd be at home on either Sunday or Monday night in Week 1.  Instead, it'll be a Week 2 Thursday night game against the Lions.  Certainly an interesting selection for their first game in the new stadium.  They're also playing in Denver on Christmas, which caps a span where they play four national games in five weeks late in the season.  So, the NFL is clearly banking on the Bills being good, too.

On the flip side of that, America was spared from seeing five teams in primetime, at least initially.  I remember when they first expanded Thursday Night Football to the full season, they guaranteed every team a Thursday night game, both so that all 32 teams could get the exposure and for the competitive reasons of everybody having to play on a short week only once.  That requirement has obviously long gone out the window.  Not only do you have the Rams playing on almost every day of the week and teams getting multiple Thursday night games, you've got the five who'll need to play their way into primetime.

A few years ago, the Houston Texans played at 1:00 on Sunday every week until they were flexed into one of the Week 18 Saturday slots.  That's essentially the schedule the New York Jets have this season.  The Jets' only non-1:00 games are on the road against the Cardinals and Chargers.  If those two didn't have to be in the late window, they probably would've gone 17-for-17.

Surprisingly, Miami doesn't have any primetime games, either.  Neither do the Raiders.  You could usually rely on both of those teams having at least a Thursday night division game.  But not this year!  The Raiders are especially surprising since they have Heisman Trophy winner/No. 1 pick Fernando Mendoza.  The other two that don't have a primetime game probably could've been predicted--Tennessee and Arizona.

Even Cleveland has one!  The Browns have a Thursday night game against the Steelers in Week 4.  That week ends with Falcons-Saints in New Orleans, which led to many a double-take when the schedule came out, but Roger Goodell offered a reasonable explanation for why that game's on a Monday night.  It's to mark the 20th anniversary of the Saints' return to the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina, which was also a Monday night game against the Falcons.  If that's the reason, that's fine.  Although, it is odd that it's the middle game of three straight in primetime for Atlanta.  (I guess they're figuring get the Falcons in early while they're still somewhat good before they choke in November.)

This season won't feature a Bears-Packers game in primetime for the first time in forever.  Their first game is a FOX national doubleheader game, which makes sense.  The other is the opener of the Christmas tripleheader.  On Netflix.  Which already has plenty of Wisconsin politicians up in arms (as we found out when they put the Bears-Packers playoff game on Prime last season, the Packers' "local area" doesn't extend to the entire state, so if you're outside of Green Bay or Milwaukee, you can't watch without a subscription to the streamer).  So, that decision has clearly gone over well.

We're starting the season with a Super Bowl rematch, which is what I was hoping for when looking at the Seahawks' home opponents (and knowing the Rams and 49ers were out of the equation).  That's about as good as the NFL could've given us for the opener.  Sure, it's on Wednesday, which will be weird.  And it could very well end with the Seahawks, too, if their Week 18 game against the Rams is picked for Sunday night.  But we won't find that out for a while.

Whatever Happened to Sunday Afternoon?

The NFL is the most popular league in America.  They're fully aware of that.  They're also fully aware of the fact that everybody wants a piece of the action.  Which is why they keep carving out standalone windows and offering those games to the highest bidder.  It creates a fragmented (and frustrating) viewing experience.  Which they know.  They just don't care.  As was made fully clear with the 2026 schedule.

Let's start with Thanksgiving weekend.  As a part of their new Netflix package, there's a game on Thanksgiving Eve.  Which means there will be at least one Wednesday game late in the season.  With the traditional Thanksgiving tripleheader and the now-annual Black Friday game, there will be five games on Thanksgiving Weekend before Sunday!  Then, once you include the Sunday night and Monday night games, that's seven standalone national windows that week.  That's nearly half the league! 

And it leaves only nine games for Sunday afternoon, which are essentially the Thanksgiving leftovers since they'll obviously want the higher-rated teams and matchups for those standalone windows.  Somehow, they managed to save a Seahawks-49ers game for FOX to air as their 4:25 national game, but this is the rest of the Sunday afternoon slate in Week 12: Saints-Bengals, Raiders-Browns, Ravens-Texans, Giants-Colts, Jets-Dolphins, Falcons-Vikings, Titans-Jaguars, Commanders-Cardinals.  Super appealing, isn't it?  But, hey, CBS at least gets Baltimore-Houston in the 1:00 window!

Now let's talk about Christmas, the NFL's new favorite holiday.  I actually don't have an issue with them playing on Christmas when it falls on a regular NFL game day (or a Friday, as is the case this season).  But now that they have a deal guaranteeing Netflix a Christmas game every season, it doesn't matter what day Christmas falls on.  Who cares if it's a Tuesday or Wednesday?!  And with three games on Christmas, a Thursday night game on Christmas Eve, Sunday night, Monday and two TBAs on Saturday (for the NFL Network doubleheader), that's eight standalone games and eight total on Sunday afternoon (with 49ers-Chiefs as a full national broadcast in the late window on CBS).

For years, the NFL avoided scheduling on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.  Christmas itself is obviously no longer untouchable.  Would it surprise anyone if Christmas Eve becomes the next holiday or holiday-adjacent day to get a regular annual game?  But, then again, maybe not, since Christmas Eve will already be covered by an existing broadcaster if it falls on a Sunday, Monday or Thursday.  That still leaves four other days, though.

What the NFL is making clear by creating all of these standalone windows is that it's devaluing the Sunday afternoon game (which is what made the NFL what it is to begin with).  Yet they expect CBS and FOX to pay more for fewer games during the next media rights negotiations.  Just for the "privilege" of continuing their decades-long relationships with the league.  How does that make any sense?!  Yes, they're each a part of the Super Bowl rotation.  Is that really enough to warrant paying the astronomical rights fee for the NFL to continue giving them nothing but scraps?

An analysis of this season's schedule revealed that 197 of the 272 games will be on Sunday afternoons.  That's only one fewer than last year and still sounds like a lot.  Until you realize there were 211 Sunday afternoon games (still the day and time people most associate with the NFL) in 2021, the first year of the 18-week, 17-game schedule.  It's also one fewer than in 2016, when the NFL played 256 total games in 17 weeks.

It also devalues Sunday Ticket and NFL RedZone, two of the other properties that are responsible for the NFL's popularity.  Why pay hundreds of dollars for Sunday Ticket when there are fewer options, and those are mainly limited to the least appealing games of the weekend?  The 4:25 doubleheader game is still a marquee window, but that ends up being a full national broadcast if it's a particularly appealing matchup, so there's no need to have Sunday Ticket or RedZone if it's going to be on FOX or CBS regardless anyway.  Especially since the cost of Sunday Ticket would be in addition to the hundreds you have to shell out for each different streaming service that now has NFL games!

In defense of their broadcast strategy, the NFL points to the fact that 87 percent of its games are available on over-the-air broadcasters, including 100 percent in home markets.  While that's technically true, it comes with a massive asterisk since that counts all of the Sunday afternoon games that are only available regionally or via Sunday Ticket (which you have to pay extra for).  In reality, the Sunday afternoon offerings are limited to three (occasionally four) per market, two of which are simultaneous.  So, the actual percentage is much lower.

They also boasted that the NFL will have an "increased presence" on broadcast TV this season.  That increased presence is, you guessed it, an additional standalone window each for CBS, FOX and NBC.  They'll all get a Saturday game in December, with FOX and CBS having a doubleheader in Week 15 and NBC getting a game in Week 16 (as well as a Peacock exclusive that night).  They each also have one of the NFL's record nine international games, with FOX getting the Patriots-Lions game from Munich in Week 10 as part of a tripleheader (Vikings-Packers is the primary game at 1, Cowboys-49ers is a national late game).

You can start tracing the reduction of Sunday afternoon games to the increase in the number of international games, particularly the games in Europe.  Those created a brand new 9:30 AM broadcast window before the standard Sunday afternoon slate.  But, as the international offerings expanded beyond Europe, they had to figure out a time to broadcast them.  This year, we've got Rio and Mexico City, which are easy since they're in the same time zones.  We've also got Australia, which will be broadcast on Netflix.

As a part of Netflix's newly-created NFL package, they get four games per season.  One of them is in Week 1, which will almost certainly be an international game on either Thursday or Friday night.  Except, this year they can't do Friday night in Week 1 because there are only four weekends in September (they got away with it the last two years because Labor Day was early), so the Australia game is on Thursday night/Friday morning.  Which pushed the traditional opener hosted by the Super Bowl champion to Wednesday.  Who wants to bet that won't just be a one-year thing?

That's another thing you'll notice about this year's schedule.  With Netflix getting a Thanksgiving Eve game, the NFL has now established a regular Wednesday game, and the Black Friday game has been around for a few years.  That leaves Tuesday as the only day of the week in which there isn't a scheduled NFL game.  However, we've seen Tuesday games in the past, so it wouldn't be shocking if the NFL tries Tuesday at some point, too (Tuesday would actually be easier to schedule than Wednesday since the teams would have five days off until Sunday...or six until Monday).

Frankly, that just seems inevitable.  Because the NFL is going after world domination.  And if they want to create a Tuesday night package of games, they will.  And someone will bid for it.  Probably another streamer that you'll need another subscription for, further adding to fan frustration.  Because the splintering off of Sunday afternoon games isn't just about that.  It's because it's never been more expensive...or difficult...to watch the NFL than it will be this season.

Does the NFL care, though?  Absolutely not!  Not when there's more money to be had.  And the only way to get Netflix's money is to carve out a package of games for them to broadcast exclusively.  So, they took them from the only place they could--Sunday afternoons.  In one way, it's a good thing in that it creates additional exclusive windows.  More opportunities for people to watch football.  But, those extra opportunities will only cost more, while making it more expensive to show less on Sunday afternoons.

Unfortunately, there's no way around it, either.  NFL games on almost every day of the week broadcast by eight different outlets is the new reality.  Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but it's also irrelevant.  Because people will still watch (and pay for the services necessary to watch).  And, as long as they do, the NFL has no reason to change their approach.  No matter how fan-unfriendly it is.