What It's Really About

Last week, as I was reading the announcement about Russell Westbrook's retirement, something really struck me.  It was a quote from his agent.  Westbrook retired on the same day the Lakers were sold for $12.5 billion to former Disney CEO Bob Iger and the Donald Trump-adjacent Joshua Kushner (who I guess moved on to the NBA when the World Cup thing fell apart).  The irony of that sale price was not lost on Westbrook's agent, who said: "Incredible.  The Lakers sell for $12 billion, yet teams won't spend on older vets because of current CBA rules.  Thank you, Union!"

That right there says all you need to know about the upcoming labor dispute in MLB.  The owners insist Baseball "needs" a salary cap (which it does not).  And there are plenty of fans who agree with them.  Those fans, frankly, don't get it.  Because the owners' insistence on a salary cap has nothing to do with competitive balance (as much as they claim it is).  It's about controlling costs and bringing franchise values up.

The Lakers' sale price is the highest-ever for an NBA team.  It makes them the second-most valuable franchise in all of sports, behind only the Dallas Cowboys.  Seven of the 10 highest-value sports franchises are in the NFL.  The other three are the Lakers, Warriors and Knicks.  Among the top 50 are 30 of the 32 teams (with only the Saints and Bengals rated outside).  The NBA accounts for another 12, while six of the remaining eight are either European soccer clubs or F1 giants.

Only two Major League Baseball teams--the Yankees and Dodgers--are included on that top 50 list of most valuable franchises, with the Cubs and Red Sox just outside.  The Yankees are worth "only" $8.2 billion (which is tied with the Bears for 10th overall).  Most MLB teams are in the $2-5 billion range, which is more comparable to the NHL than the NBA or NFL.  That, in a nutshell, is why the owners are pushing so heavily for a salary cap.  Because that's what'll bring their franchise values up into the range where they think they should be.

It's not really that hard to make the correlation.  The other three leagues have a salary cap.  MLB doesn't.  Don't think the owners haven't noticed that.  By having a salary cap, the NFL, NBA and NHL know the amount they're spending on player costs.  By not having a cap, player costs in MLB are significantly higher.  Which cuts into the owners' profits.  Which lowers their franchise values.  Thus, the insistence that MLB "needs" a cap.

Meanwhile, the Russell Westbrook quote tells you all you need to know about the NBA's cap.  The Lakers are worth $12.5 billion, yet the salary cap prevents them from spending on veteran free agents.  You can only have so much sympathy for the players since it's in the CBA, which means they agreed to it.  But the point remains.  The NBA's CBA is clearly making the owners richer at the expense of the players.  Why would MLB players agree to something similar?

When I was at Wrigley, a guy behind me on the concourse, who's clearly on the owners' side in the lockout, said that he thought the players stood to make more money.  I turned around and asked him if he seriously believed that.  Because the reason why the players are so opposed to a salary cap should be just as obvious as they owners' desire for one.  The players won't make more money under a salary cap.  They'll make significantly less.

Let's say the players hypothetically did agree to a salary cap in the CBA negotiations (whenever they actually start).  For the sake of making the math easier, let's say they set that salary cap at $200 million a season.  (This year's average payroll is just under $178 million, so it'd probably be closer to that.)  That would mean the owners are spending a maximum of $6 billion on player salaries.  You know how much teams are spending on player salaries this season?  Just under $6 billion!  And the number I used is likely higher than a salary cap would ultimately be. 

Which means the players, right off the bat, would be getting less.  And that doesn't include any other provisions the owners would put in to benefit themselves and not the players.  Not to mention the fact that MLB has guaranteed contracts, so teams would end up having to pay the guys they cut to get under the cap regardless.  Is there room for players to give on things like deferred compensation?  Sure.  But would a salary cap benefit them in any way?  Absolutely not.

Baseball's economic situation is far more complex than I'm making it out to be.  And I'm not pretending I know all of the details (on either side).  But the basics are really quite simple.  The players like the current system not only because they benefit from it, but also because they know what they'll be giving up should they ever agree to a salary cap.  Likewise, the owners want to change the system because it'll benefit them to do so.  Especially if they were to get their salary cap.  (You didn't get one 30 years ago and you ain't getting one now!)

You can look no further than the NBA, NHL and NFL for examples of what the MLBPA is desperate to avoid.  What part of the CBA actually benefits the players in the three capped leagues?  In the NFL, you've got dozens of veterans getting released every year so that their team can get under the salary cap.  In the NBA, you have veteran free agents going unsigned because there are cheaper options elsewhere.  And it was like pulling teeth for the NHL owners to agree to let their players participate in the Olympics (since there was nothing in it for them).

In each of the other three leagues, the players gave a lot to get a little.  Major League Baseball owners have seen that and want the same.  Major League Baseball players have seen that and want to make sure they don't end up in the same boat as their counterparts in the other sports.  As a result, we're at an impasse.  One side will eventually have to blink.  Until that happens, though, no progress will be made.

But still, that quote by Russell Westbrook's agent says a lot.  Because it sums up each side's position very succinctly.  He spent 18 years playing in the NBA, so he knows as well as anybody how much the CBA is weighted heavily in the owners' favor.  As is the NFL's CBA.  That's why NFL and NBA franchises have become so valuable.  Baseball owners see that and want it.  They want their franchise values to rival that of the NBA (they know they're not catching the NFL).

While it's not an exact parallel, MLB and the NBA are close enough to draw similar conclusions.  In both sports, it's a matter of millionaire players against billionaire owners.  In an ideal world, the CBA makes both sides richer.  But, let's be honest, neither side cares if the other gets richer as long as theirs does.  Which is the real heart of the matter in MLB's upcoming labor fight.

Causing Roster Chaos

As we begin the 2026-27 NCAA season, lawsuits surrounding the new 5-for-5 model have created roster uncertainty across the country.  After several athletes in the Class of 2026 sued for eligibility this year, a Colorado judge granted a preliminary injunction that gave a blanket waiver to all 2026 graduates an extra year of eligibility.  The NCAA appealed, which is yet to be heard.  Meanwhile, the Fall season has already started.  Clarity is very much needed, but doesn't appear to be coming anytime soon.

Depending on when the NCAA's appeal is heard and a final decision is made, there may be a massive influx of players who are suddenly available to schools.  You'd have to figure some of them will be added to rosters, taking a roster spot away from somebody else.  And, for any team that doesn't play a Spring sport, it'd be disruptive regardless of the timing.  These teams are either already playing, already practicing or about to begin the season.  Now you're talking about adding new players to the team?  Talk about late in the game!

Dan Hurley, for one, is not a fan of the current situation.  In fact, he finds it untenable.  Hurley has made it clear that he won't be adding any players to his roster during the season, no matter what the result of the NCAA's appeal is.  He went beyond that, though.  Hurley made it a point to say how frustrated he is and criticized the effect it'll have on recruiting.

"Now you can screw up high school recruiting," he said.  "You could screw up portal recruiting, not have a very good team, and now start plucking from a group of players in August and put together a team.  It makes it tough.  We did the best we could do in high school recruiting.  Now you've got this selection of portal players.  You put together the best team you can.  You start practicing for the summer, and now let's unleash 80 players into the sport in the first week of August.  I mean, we can't go on like this."

Hurley was also quick to note how incoming freshmen will be impacted, which is something not enough people are considering: "There are kids that are 17, 18 years old that potentially may lose out on opportunities.  So, it's not victimless.  At some point, you've got to care about the sport, especially if the sport has given you a lot.  If you're a coach and the sport has given you a lot, it's like doing things to hurt the sport so that you can win a little bit more."

His view is certainly a cynical one.  But there's no denying that Hurley has a point.  The transfer portal has already created chaos and upended the entire recruiting process.  Now you suddenly have the potential of all these players becoming available to join the roster after school has already started.  Enough is enough.

And this is coming from someone who agrees with the Colorado judge.  I think that those student-athletes who graduated in the Spring should be able to continue their careers this year should they so choose.  But I also agree with Hurley.  The summary judgment giving a blanket extra year of eligibility to every Class of 2026 graduate did take it a step too far.  Because, as he noted, teams already had their rosters set.

It is worth noting that there were a few exceptions to the judge's ruling.  In order to take advantage of the injunction, players would have needed to already be in the transfer portal when it opened in April.  Otherwise, they'd need to return to their existing team (provided the coach still wanted them and there was a roster spot...and that they're enrolled in grad school).  That affects several players who were rumored to be transferring should the injunction remain in place.  It's also unclear whether players who entered the NBA Draft but weren't selected, like Texas Tech's Darrion Williams, will be allowed to return.

While Hurley was obviously only talking about basketball and how it effects UConn, his comments apply to all sports and all schools.  Coaches made their rosters for this season and already did their recruiting, both among incoming freshmen and among transfers.  School is about to start, and the season has literally already started in Fall sports.  It's too late for Fall teams to make any changes at this point.  So why should the other sports be able to?

Incoming freshmen, meanwhile, have been the group that was most impacted by the change in the transfer portal a few years ago.  Suddenly, coaches went from recruiting freshmen to filling their roster with transfers.  Why bring in 18- or 19-year-olds when you can get a 23-year-old who already has three years of college experience instead?  Now, they stand to also lose roster spots to fifth-year seniors who may not have even been planning on coming back.  And, don't forget, this is the group that was the most screwed over by the COVID year everyone was given.  Just like they'll be the group most severely impacted by the 5-for-5 legislation.

None of that changes my support for the general idea of the 5-for-5 rule, which most agree is a good thing.  However the lawsuits play out, it'll only apply to the Class of 2026.  So, any freshmen who enroll in the Fall of 2027 will be the first to benefit from the 5-for-5 rule in two ways.  They'll go into college knowing they have five years AND know they won't suddenly have to compete with a group of fifth-year players for roster spots.  And, it'll certainly be nice to know that college athletes are between the ages of 18-24 without the 27-year-olds in their seventh year of eligibility at their fourth school who've turned the entire thing into a sham.

Of course, the 5-for-5 rule isn't the only piece of college sports legislation that was in the news this Summer.  The Protect College Sports Act has already passed the House and is on the Senate's docket for when they return from recess in September.  Federal legislation to regulate college sports is desperately needed, so here's hoping the Protect College Sports Act passes.  And that would certainly go a long way towards clearing up some of the mess that the current system has created.  But the Protect College Sports Act, assuming it passes, won't take effect until 2027-28 at the earliest.  Which does nothing to help the current situation.

A swift resolution is really what was needed here.  Once the 5-for-5 rule passed, the NCAA should've anticipated lawsuits.  Likewise, the Colorado judge should've anticipated an appeal after making the ruling.  That appeal needed to be heard and decided right away, though.  Because all the wait's doing is creating more uncertainty and potentially causing more chaos once a final decision is made.  Which is unfair to everybody.

Those Spring graduates may or may not get that fifth year of eligibility after all.  New recruits may lose roster spots to those fifth-year players.  Coaches have to build rosters not knowing who's available as a transfer, and may see competitors make a late addition or two that makes them significantly better.  So, as Dan Hurley said, it can't continue like this.  Because it's a mess right now.  

Screwing South America

As FIFA President Gianni Infantino fights to save his job, one confederation was conspicuous for its silence.  UEFA is firmly against Infantino and has the support of CONCACAF and the AFC.  Africa, for the most part, is sticking with Infantino.  But no one really knew where CONMEBOL, the South American federation, stood until a few days ago.  CONMEBOL has his back, which could ultimately be Infantino's saving grace.

With only 10 members, CONMEBOL's support doesn't have as much bearing as UEFA's opposition (with its 55 members) in terms of sheer numbers.  But, despite not having the numbers, CONMEBOL still has plenty of influence, seeing as its members include Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay.  So, CONMEBOL having Infantino's back is not insignificant.  Although, I must admit, it is a bit confusing.  Because CONMEBOL is the confederation getting screwed the most by FIFA right now.

The first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930.  It was hoped/expected that the centennial World Cup in 2030 would also be held in South America.  Instead, Spain, Portugal and Morocco were chosen as the primary hosts.  However, FIFA threw CONMEBOL a bone by letting Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay host one game each before the remainder of the tournament moves to the other side of the Atlantic.

That move was calculated, though.  Under FIFA rules, after a confederation hosts the World Cup, it must wait two cycles before it can bid again.  So, Asia was ineligible for 2026 and 2030, and CONCACAF will be ineligible for 2030 and 2034.  This provision makes both UEFA and Africa ineligible to host either the 2034 or 2038 World Cup.  But, by having those three games in South America, that also counts as CONMEBOL hosting, thus making the confederation ineligible for 2034 and 2038, as well.

Since four of the six confederations were ineligible to host, that left competition for the 2034 World Cup down to just Asia and Oceania.  Which is exactly what FIFA wanted.  Because it let Saudi Arabia bid essentially unopposed for the event.  So, while the timing of the announcement that Saudi Arabia will host in 2034 took some people by surprise, the fact that FIFA finagled it so that their preferred host would get it was not.  (It also made every confederation except CONCACAF and OFC ineligible for 2038, so a return to the U.S. only 12 years later is a distinct possibility.)

Four of the first 12 World Cups were in South America.  Three South American nations have lifted the trophy a total of 10 times.  Yet the continent has hosted a grand total of one World Cup since 1978 (Brazil 2014).  After those three games in 2030, they won't do so again until 2042 at the earliest.  Which, again, is all because FIFA decided that those centennial games counted as the continent hosting the World Cup.  (Paraguay is literally building a national stadium in Asuncion for one game!)  Which is ridiculous.

During that same span, the United States and Mexico have both hosted twice.  The 2030 tournament will be the sixth in Europe and second in Spain during that timeframe.  This will also be the second in Africa.  There's been more World Cups in Asia (2) than South America (1) since then.  Granted, CONMEBOL is a small confederation in terms of membership.  But still, how could considering three games in three different countries, which were given to throw them a bone more than anything else, "hosting" be taken as anything other than an insult?

Back to 2030 for a minute, though.  FIFA's plan is to have Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay each play their home game a week before the rest of the tournament starts, then they and their opponents will travel to Spain, Portugal and Morocco for the remainder of the tournament (with a two-week break between their first and second games).  The travel is only part of it.  It'll also be Winter in South America.  So, they'll be playing one game in the South American Winter before playing the rest of the tournament in the European Summer.

A big topic of discussion, of course, in the month since the 2026 World Cup ended is potentially expanding the 2030 tournament to 64 teams.  Should the expansion come to pass, CONMEBOL wouldn't be as affected by the increase in teams as other confederations.  CONMEBOL had six of its 10 members qualify for this year's World Cup, and Bolivia was in the intercontinental playoff.  Even if just one spot was added, CONMEBOL would see 70 percent of its teams make the World Cup, by far the highest percentage of any confederation.

Should the expansion move forward, that would naturally mean more games.  You'd have to figure that some of those games would be given to the three South American countries.  Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay could play all three of their group games at home (and, presumably, so could the other teams in their groups so they're not going back-and-forth).  So, there could conceivably be as many as 18 of 128 games hosted by the CONMEBOL teams rather than just three of 104.

Maybe that's part of the reason why CONMEBOL has given Infantino its support.  If Infantino is reelected, the chances of a 64-team World Cup with more than three games in South America would seem to be higher.  There are also rumors of a potential move that would see Mexico leaving CONCACAF and joining CONMEBOL.  While I'm not sure how much truth there is to these rumors, the idea was apparently proposed by Infantino.  Snagging Mexico away from CONCACAF would certainly be a coup for CONMEBOL.  If true and Infantino can make it happen, that may be another reason why he has CONMEBOL's backing.

Will either of those things happen if Infantino isn't reelected?  I have no idea!  Is it possible that neither happens even if he is?  Of course!  But CONMEBOL, in theory at least, stands to potentially benefit from them.  So, that might be why, too. 

Regardless, CONMEBOL coming out in support of Infantino still looks strange.  Because, on the surface, it would seem the opposite.  You'd think they'd also be against him.  Other than the financial windfall that every nation has seen during Infantino's presidency, how have the 10 CONMEBOL countries benefitted?  Or do they simply see him as better than any potential alternative?

FIFA has a one country, one vote model, so Infantino is still very much beleaguered.  The public support from CONMEBOL members is significant, though.  Will it be enough to save his presidency?  Maybe, maybe not.  But the chances are better now than they were if CONMEBOL was standing firmly against him.  Whether it'll make a difference is an entirely different question.  But, if they help him keep his job, you'd better hope CONMEBOL reaps some sort of benefit.  Which would be more than they're getting now.

ANOTHER Little League Scandal

What's with all the cheating scandals in Little League??!!  I mean, seriously.  It's supposed to be the purest athletic competition of them all.  Kids playing a game, who spent all summer doing it with their friends.  And if they're good enough, they get to end the summer by playing that game on ESPN.  Unless the adults ruin it for them.

The latest involves the team from Tulsa.  They won the Oklahoma State Tournament and were playing in the Southwest Regional Tournament when they were disqualified for using an ineligible player.  As a result, the regional championship game was cancelled and West Texas advanced to Williamsport.  The Oklahoma parents sued and were granted a temporary restraining order that would allow them to play before Little League successfully got the TRO vacated (by the same judge).  Tulsa's disqualification stood and West Texas officially moved on to the Little League World Series.

Oklahoma's disqualification came about after three different leagues filed a protest against Tulsa National Little League.  The ineligible player hadn't appeared in the Regional Tournament, but was on the roster and did play in the state tournament, which is considered part of the Little League World Series (since it serves as the first qualifier).  The player wasn't named (and shouldn't have been since this is a 12-year-old kid who did nothing wrong), but had incorrect information on his paperwork that was ultimately discovered, leading to the disqualification.

As the details of the case emerged, things only got worse.  The player didn't meet the residency requirement since he lives outside of Tulsa National's "ordinary geographic boundary."  Little League rules state that you must reside or attend school within the league's boundaries in order to play in that league.  However, his brother is a member of Tulsa National's Challenger Division, which qualified both of them to represent the league.  Except his brother didn't play in enough games for the player in question to qualify and the brother's birth year was wrong on the registration form!  The father registered the 10-year-old brother as a 7-year-old so that he could play in the under-8 division.  Once that discrepancy was realized, both boys were deemed ineligible to play in Tulsa National.

In the court filing, a Little League official said that the father confirmed the younger brother's age directly to them.  The father also admitted that the younger brother "never actively participated in any Tulsa National program or division of play," another requirement.  The Little League district administrator in Oklahoma, meanwhile, acknowledged that the father "mistakenly entered the wrong birth year" when registering the sibling (something she wasn't made aware of until after the state tournament).  It's incredibly naive to think that was a "mistake" rather than a deliberate action.  Especially after what happened with this exact same league in softball.

It was literally just a few weeks ago when Tulsa National's softball team was disqualified from the Southwest Regional for almost the same reason.  The softball team faced a total of three protests regarding six different players.  Ultimately, it was determined that the team knowingly submitted false documentation "confirming" the residency of two of those players.  Since they didn't have the proper eligibility documents for every player, the team was removed from the tournament.

Both the baseball and softball teams from the same Little League being disqualified from the Regional tournament for using ineligible players?  That's not a mistake or a coincidence.  That's clearly deliberate.  And the fact that they took advantage of the Challenger Division as a part of their fraud?  That's even more egregious!  Disqualification from both tournaments doesn't seem like enough.  There should be some sort of sanctions coming Tulsa National's way, as well.

This is just the latest.  But it also brings to light the alarming number of eligibility scandals in Little League.  Most of them involve a league getting caught using a player (or players) who's either too old or doesn't actually live there and claiming there was some sort of "mistake" with the paperwork resulting in the "error."  In all of the cases, it's the adults ruining it for the kids who didn't do anything wrong!

A team from Jackie Robinson West Little League in inner-city Chicago made headlines in 2014 when they made it all the way to the LLWS Championship Game, losing to South Korea.  The team was invited to the White House by President Obama after winning the U.S. championship.  However, it was eventually discovered that multiple players on the team didn't actually live within the league's boundaries.  Further research revealed that Jackie Robinson West had redrawn the district map, incorporating three other leagues into their district area, then backdated and submitted this falsified map to Little League as "official."

Suddenly, such a heartwarming story was uncovered as nothing more than an elaborate sham.  Little League suspended the team's manager and district administrator and all of Jackie Robinson West's wins that year were declared forfeits.  As a result, the team from Las Vegas that they had beaten in the U.S. Championship Game was retroactively named U.S. champions and the team from Indiana that Chicago had beaten in the Great Lakes Regional final was retroactively given the Regional title.  In this case, however, it's important to note that subsequent investigations determined that the players and coaches had no knowledge of the cheating.  It was all the district administrators and other adults associated with the program.

Then, of course, there was Danny Almonte in 2001.  This was the first 16-team LLWS and Almonte threw a perfect game (the first in the LLWS since 1979) while striking out 16 of the 18 batters in the Bronx's opening win over a team from Florida.  The Bronx lost a rematch to Florida in the U.S. Championship Game and ended up finishing third.  Until it was discovered that Almonte was actually 14 that summer, two years older than the Little League age limit.  They also discovered that he wasn't enrolled in school, which would've made him ineligible anyway.  Naturally, the team from the Bronx was disqualified.

There have long been eligibility questions regarding some of the international entries, especially teams that come from countries where the record-keeping isn't as thorough as it is in the U.S.  Some of those violations are simply a result of that poor record-keeping.  However, there are definitely examples where it's deliberate.  Like that of the team from Zamboanga City, the Philippines in 1992.

Only eight teams made the final tournament then and the Philippines was in the Far East Region with Japan and Chinese Taipei.  Those two countries absolutely dominated the region (Chinese Taipei was a longtime LLWS powerhouse), so Zamboanga City became national heroes simply by making it to Williamsport.  Then they capped a dominant run by destroying Long Beach, CA, 15-4, in the Championship Game.  But, alas, it was another success story that was too good to be true.  The Zamboanga City team used players that were ineligible both ways.  They had some players who were too old AND some who didn't live within the district boundaries.

After that, Little League began enforcing its age and residency requirements more strictly.  The top four teams at the 1993 Far East Tournament didn't meet the new requirements, so the fifth-place team was given the berth in Williamsport.  The Latin America champion from the Dominican Republic was also disqualified that year for the same reason.  (Remarkably, Zamboanga City was disqualified from the 1993 Filipino national tournament for using over-age players again!)  It ultimately led to Chinese Taipei withdrawing from Little League entirely in 1997, and they wouldn't rejoin until 2003.

So, what's happening this year in Tulsa is sadly nothing new in Little League.  It goes back more than 30 years to the Zamboanga City scandal.  Unfortunately, it probably won't be the last, either.  And what's the sad common denominator in all of these situations?  It isn't the kids who are at fault.  It's the grownups.  Aka, the people who are supposed to know better.

One of the best things about the Little League World Series is the thing that makes it so pure.  It's kids out there having fun and playing a game they love.  So why is it always the adults that are trying to ruin it?  For everyone!

Affordability AND Availability Problem

When I got selected for a timeslot during the first drop for LA28 Olympic tickets, I was so excited.  I had my entire Olympics planned out, with all my first- and second-choice events for each day.  Then, when I logged in during my timeslot, there were hardly any tickets available.  Just a handful of sports with the only remaining tickets either at the top end of or out of my price range.  So, I ended up not getting anything.

For the second ticket drop, I thought I had it even better.  I got picked for the Visa Presale, which meant I'd have a better selection of sports and, hopefully, less expensive tickets.  Unfortunately, the timing of the Visa Presale wasn't great.  The window opened while I was on my way to Chicago, so I wasn't able to login until I got to my hotel a few hours later.  By then, most of the marquee sports or cheaper seats were already gone.

It wasn't a completely fruitless endeavor.  The new stadium for NYCFC is one of the preliminary round soccer locations, and I was able to snag tickets for a men's doubleheader the day before the Opening Ceremony.  As for events actually in LA, though, it was once again a shutout.  The only sports with any availability at all were lesser-known sports like handball and archery, which I wouldn't mind seeing.  But, I also didn't want to pull the trigger in case a session of track & field or beach volleyball opened up at the same time.  So, I decided to wait.  I guess I'll find out if that was a good idea.

ESPN's Holly Rowe was able to get track & field tickets during the presale, and she went public with the frustration of her ticket-buying experience.  Mainly that the advertised price isn't the actual price.  They add a 24 percent service fee, as well as taxes.  So, the more expensive the ticket, the higher the service fee.  That was Rowe's biggest point of contention.  She paid $3,000 just for the tickets.  Then, the service fee and taxes brought the price over $4,000.  She has the money.  That wasn't the point.  The hidden fees were.

Social media being social media, trolls were, of course, quick to post their replies to Rowe's post.  And, of course, there were those who were like "rich people problems" or "so don't go."  Responses like that aren't just ignorant.  They completely miss the point.  Because Holly Rowe brought up something that was already a frustration of LA28 ticket buyers and will continue to be for the next two years until the Games themselves actually take place.

Throughout the first two phases of LA28 ticket sales, those were the two most common points of contention.  Even people who had timeslots earlier than me during Drop 1 noticed that there were slim pickings, both in number of affordable tickets and selection of sports.  The second is the sticker shock of the prices (and that's before the service fee and tax), which are by far the most expensive Olympic tickets in history and more than double what they were for Paris in some events.  People expected the once-in-a-lifetime experience of going to the Olympics to be costly.  What most people didn't anticipate, however, was exactly how costly.

We obviously just experienced this with the World Cup.  It wasn't exactly easy to get tickets in the first place.  Then the prices made them even more exclusive.  (And that's before you throw in the cost of transportation to the games.)  Yet, despite this, the demand was high and people were more than willing to pay those exorbitant prices.  The World Cup shattered the attendance record.  Which seems obvious since there were 40 more games in this World Cup than any previous edition, but every game was either a sellout or pretty close, so the ticket cost couldn't have been too big of a deterrent.

I'd expect the exact same thing will happen with the LA Olympics.  They sold four million tickets during Phase 1 in April and got 12 million ticket applications for Phase 2.  And we're still two years away from the Games!  By the time LA28 actually rolls around, it's a safe bet that the stadiums and arenas will be packed, even with the frustrations fans are experiencing during these early stages of ticket sales.  And, as the 12 million applications from all around the world indicate, there's clearly demand.  So, people will end up paying whatever amount just to be there.  Just as they did for the World Cup.

There's an important thing to note here, too.  The LA28 organizing committee is an entirely private entity that will go out of business in 2029.  They're not getting any funding from the government or USOPC.  As a for-profit corporation, they need to finish in the black.  And ticket sales will be their greatest source of revenue.  So, from a business perspective, it makes sense to set the ticket prices high enough to guarantee they'll turn a profit.  And it's definitely a difficult balancing act to figure out what exactly the right price range is so that there are affordable options, but they also make money from ticket sales.

And, to LA28's credit, roughly half of all Olympic tickets will be $200 or less.  They specifically made it a point to say that there would be tickets available for just $28 to every sport and different sessions.  So, they're making good on their promise to have affordable tickets.  Most of the tickets outside that $200 range are for the more popular sports, finals and/or the best seats.  So, it makes sense that they'll cost more.  The vast difference in price and the fact that those are the only tickets available for so many people once their turn finally comes is the frustrating part.

Prior to Phase 1 sales, there was a presale for LA residents.  Those locals gobbled up most, if not all, of the lowest-cost tickets.  And who can blame them!  However, because the most affordable and most sought-after tickets were already taken, there was already a lack of inventory when the public onsale actually began.  And that scarce inventory only grew smaller until certain events were completely sold out of all the tickets that were made available before some people even had their timeslot open up.

To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with the fact that they did a local presale for LA28.  They should've done one.  Frankly, that's what they should've done for the World Cup, too.  Not necessarily for those in the host cities, but there should've at the very least, been one for the three host countries instead of the entire world all at once each time.  But I digress.  Point is, if they were gonna have a local presale before the first phase, they should've reset the inventory instead of only leaving whatever was left for everybody else.

That's been the most frustrating part of the LA28 ticket-buying experience so far.  The prices are only the half of it.  It's the general lack of availability across the board that's just as annoying.  They keep promising that new inventory will be added in each future drop, but nobody knows how much new inventory there actually is and whether those tickets will actually be affordable.  So, you can either be like me and hold out hope that you'll be selected again for a future drop AND the sports you want will be available/affordable OR you could load up your maximum 12 tickets to sports and events you may not necessarily want to see just so that you can say you went to the Olympics.

The LA28 Olympics are still two years away.  The fact that some people already have their tickets and can begin planning their trip is incredible.  But, there's also no denying that the ticket-buying process has been difficult and frustrating for many.  Fortunately, there's plenty of time for that experience to improve and those who want to be in LA for the 2028 Olympics will get that opportunity.  An opportunity to do something they'll never forget!

Who's Next?

Now that the Pro Football Hall of Fame induction has passed, it's time to start looking at the ballot for 2027 and beyond.  Because the next few Pro Football Hall of Fame ballots will be loaded, and they'll generate just as much conversation about who doesn't get in as who does.  I'm also expecting to see some changes to the voting system after the controversy surrounding Bill Belichick's somehow not getting the required number of votes this year despite being considered an obvious first-ballot lock. 

Regardless of what happens with the Coach/Contributor/Senior category, though, I don't see the Modern Era selection process being much different.  They'll still have the five finalists.  My guess is that if anything changes, it may simply be going back to the old method of a "yes/no" vote once they get down to five (right now, they cut it down to eight and voters select five of the eight, with whoever gets 80 percent making it).  Or, they very well might keep it the same as the process for the last two years (changes that came about because Hall of Famers like Deion Sanders were complaining that it was "too easy" to get in), despite the fact that only seven Modern Era players have been elected over the past two cycles.

The changes made for the 2025 election cycle, quite frankly, are a big part of the problem.  A backlog already existed.  And it was only made worse by the fact that the Modern Era classes are no longer guaranteed to be five players every year.  Throw in the fact that there are some first-ballot locks coming up the pipeline, and you've got some deserving players who are gonna have to wait a while (if they haven't already) before they finally get the knock and gold jacket.

Those two factors make it virtually impossible to predict who'll be in upcoming Pro Football Hall of Fame classes.  Even if they definitely did five every year, it would be difficult to project future classes.  Throw in the fact that you'll have a lot of guys who played the same position (Ben Roethlisberger/Eli Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers, Rob Gronkowski/Jason Witten/Travis Kelce, Frank Gore/Adrian Peterson, about 10 wide receivers, etc.) and it becomes an even harder challenge.  But is that gonna stop me?  Of course not!

One important thing to keep in mind for the sake of this exercise is that I'm "putting in" the maximum five every year.  That just makes it easier than trying to determine whether they'll do three, four or five in a given year.  It's also just more practical since there will be more than five deserving candidates each time.  And the longer you keep pushing them back, the bigger the logjam becomes.  With that in mind, let's get this thing going...

2027: Terrell Suggs, Jason Witten, Frank Gore, Ben Roethlisberger, Marshal Yanda-Next year could be a good one for a pair of Baltimore Ravens who made the final cut this year but weren't selected.  Suggs I think is a virtual lock for next year's class.  Of the first-time eligible candidates, Roethlisberger may be the only one to get in.  Not that Rob Gronkowski and Adrian Peterson don't have strong cases.  There just happens to be another tight end and another running back who had to wait a year and deserve to get in first.

2028: Tom Brady, J.J. Watt, Rob Gronkowski, Torry Holt, Andrew Whitworth-Two spots in the Class of 2028 are already taken.  That will be true regardless of who makes it in 2027.  There's no chance Tom Brady and J.J. Watt don't both make it in on the first ballot.  It could actually be a very Patriot Summer in Canton if they do indeed make Gronk wait a year, especially if it takes until 2028 for Belichick and/or Kraft to get in, too.

2029: Adrian Peterson, Richard Sherman, Willie Anderson, Reggie Wayne, Eli Manning-Some of the backlog can finally start being cleared out once the obvious big names are in.  So, 2029 could be when they do some of that housekeeping.  This is assuming Aaron Donald does, in fact, come out of retirement and return to the Rams this season, which seems like a virtual certainty at this point.  Should Donald stay retired, his Hall of Fame clock doesn't reset and he becomes eligible in 2029, when he takes a spot from one of these guys.

2030: Steve Smith Sr., Jahri Evans, Rodney Harrison, Robert Mathis, Jason Kelce-Jason Kelce becomes eligible in 2029, so I have him waiting a year.  It wouldn't completely surprise me if he gets in on the first ballot, though.  And Kelce will start another wave of first- and second-year-eligible candidates getting in.  Who'll follow him on that first-ballot track, of course, will depend on when players like his brother and Von Miller decide to hang it up.  But, since Jason Kelce's already retired and has shown absolutely no interest in unretiring, he's a safe bet to make it in 2029 or 2030.

2031: Jason Peters, Earl Thomas, Fred Taylor, Antonio Brown, Philip Rivers-This one comes with a big asterisk since it would require Philip Rivers not randomly coming out of retirement for a second time.  Assuming this one sticks, he once again becomes Hall of Fame eligible in 2031.  So, barring another Rivers return, he'll headline this class.  Had he not played those three games for the Colts last season, his induction would've come much earlier.  He wouldn't have gotten in this year, but it does seem possible he would've gotten in before Brady.

While I'm only going thru 2031, there are two names who loom large in 2032.  That's when anyone who retires after this season will become eligible.  Aaron Rodgers has already announced this is his final season.  It seems likely that this season will be Travis Kelce's last, as well.  Those two should both be first-ballot locks in 2032.  I wouldn't count out Calais Campbell being a first-ballot choice in that class, either.  Although, I won't believe that Calais Campbell is retired until I actually see it (and even then, I might wonder when he's coming back).

Should Aaron Donald come back this season, win another home Super Bowl, then immediately retire again, he'd also be eligible for that 2032 class.  So, regardless, there will be some heavy hitters that year just among first-timers.  And that doesn't include players like Eric Weddle, Ndamukong Suh, Bobby Wagner, and others who'll become Hall of Fame eligible between now and then and may or may not be in yet by 2032.

Other Hall of Fame-caliber players who are nearing retirement include Von Miller, Khalil Mack, Matthew Stafford, T.J. Watt and Joey Bosa.  Then the likes of Joe Flacco and DeAndre Hopkins enter the mix.  I'm not saying they'll all get in.  But they'll all be in the conversation once they become eligible.  And that's saying nothing of the candidates who are already eligible and will continue to be until they exhaust their 15 years and get pushed to the Senior Committee ballot.

There are plenty of deserving names who'll be on those Senior Committee ballots, as well.  And the Senior Committee has produced a grand total of two Hall of Famers in the two years since the voting process changed (Sterling Sharpe in 2025, Roger Craig in 2026).  Combine that fact with the names who are eligible on the Modern Era ballot, as well as the coaches and contributors, and you'll have some loaded Pro Football Hall of Fame classes in the coming years.  No matter how large those classes are.

Self-Preservation or Self-Destruction?

Over the past few years, the Preakness has felt like it was getting the short straw among the three Triple Crown races.  And, let's be honest, it sort of has.  The Kentucky Derby will always be the race.  And you can only clinch the Triple Crown at the Belmont.  Although, winning the Triple Crown is impossible if you skip the Preakness, which has been happening more and more in recent years.  Which the Preakness organizers have certainly noticed.

The Kentucky Derby is always held on the first Saturday in May.  The traditional date for the Preakness is two weeks later, with the Belmont Stakes to follow three weeks after that.  However, with the way thoroughbred horses are being trained in this era, three races in five weeks is no longer as feasible.  As a result, many horses run the Kentucky Derby, then skip the Preakness before returning for the Belmont.  That includes some Derby winners, including 2026 champion Golden Tempo, ending any chances for a Triple Crown and rendering the Preakness almost an afterthought.

Organizers of all three races have been aware of this problem for quite a while.  And there was an easy and obvious solution to it.  Moving both the Preakness and Belmont Stakes back a week.  That would create a three-week gap between the Kentucky Derby and Preakness while also preserving the three-week gap between the Preakness and Belmont.  It would push the Belmont back to the third Saturday in June (Father's Day Weekend) and extend the Triple Crown to six weeks overall instead of five.

Complicating that plan is the fact that the Belmont Stakes likes its date.  And, since the Belmont is the longest of the three races, it makes sense that trainers would want the extra time to prepare for it.  Which, admittedly, does put the Preakness in a bind.  And it certainly leaves the race with a weaker field than the Kentucky Derby.  So, that inferiority complex is justified.  Especially after the recent announcement by Churchill Downs and the New York Racing Association (which puts on the Belmont Stakes).

Earlier this week, Churchill Downs and the NYRA announced plans for a six-race, season-long Thoroughbred Championship Series, beginning in 2027.  The series will start with the Kentucky Derby and end with a championship race back at Churchill Downs in September.  It will also include a third race at Churchill Downs, two events at Saratoga and the Belmont Stakes.  Notably absent from the $5 million series is the Preakness.

At this point, it's important to make a significant note.  Back in April, Churchill Downs Inc. (the organization that runs the Kentucky Derby, as well as all other races at Churchill Downs) reached an $85 million deal to purchase the intellectual property rights to the Preakness and Black-Eyed Susan Stakes.  However, the State of Maryland had the opportunity to block the sale, and they exercised that right.  So, instead of being acquired by Churchill Downs, the Preakness will continue to be owned and operated by the state.

It's easy to see why the State of Maryland made that decision.  Not only is there a rich horse racing history in the state, the Preakness is a source of civic pride.  At the same time, it might've been a little short sighted.  Because it solidified the lone wolf status of the Preakness.  More significantly, by keeping the Preakness separate, it prevented the Triple Crown from becoming one unified series.  By looking out for themselves, they weren't looking out for the best interest of the series.  Which could end up being counterproductive.

Churchill Downs, Inc. and the NYRA didn't just come up with the Thoroughbred Championship Series overnight.  It's clearly been in the works for a while.  Had Churchill Downs, Inc. taken over control of the Preakness as planned, it's easy to see the Preakness being included in the series.  It's hard to envision where it wouldn't have been.  More importantly, that would've unified the three races.  Which would've gone a long way towards making those schedule changes, as well as anything else that would strengthen the Triple Crown as a whole.  Instead, Maryland and the Preakness are on their own.

Because Maryland and the Preakness are on their own, they took it upon themselves to find a solution to their Kentucky Derby scheduling problem.  The solution they came up with was to move not just the date of the Preakness.  They changed the day!  Instead of the third Saturday in May, two weeks after the Kentucky Derby, they moved it to the fourth Sunday, three weeks and a day later.  By giving trainers an extra week to rest their horses, they'll theoretically be more likely to enter them in the Preakness.

However, there's one glaring problem with this new schedule.  The date of the Belmont isn't changing, so it doesn't do anything to help the three races in five weeks issue.  It makes the gap between the Kentucky Derby and Preakness longer, but it also makes the gap between the Preakness and Belmont Stakes shorter.  So, the horses will actually have less time to go from the shortest Triple Crown race (the Preakness) to the longest (the Belmont).  Throw in the fact that the Preakness isn't part of the Thoroughbred Championship Series, and it's just as likely, if not more so, that trainers will still have their horses skip the Preakness. 

Then there's the sheer awkwardness of the new date the Maryland Jockey Club has selected.  There's nothing else on the third Saturday in May.  That's always been Preakness Day.  The fourth Sunday in May, however, can be Memorial Day Weekend depending on the year.  And there's already a ton of stuff going on the Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend without the Preakness.  Will people still want to watch and/or attend the race on a busy holiday weekend?

From a TV perspective, it may not make too much of a difference.  The Indy 500 and Preakness are on different networks, and, barring rain, the Indy 500 will be over long before the Preakness starts.  However, the attendance question would still remain.  The Maryland Jockey Club sees the Sunday Preakness as a positive since it means the Black-Eyed Susan will move to Saturday and they can make a weekend of it.  Which is fine when it's not Memorial Day Weekend.  But you have to wonder if it'll help or hurt attendance when they fall on Memorial Day Weekend.

In a way, the Maryland Jockey Club's decision to reschedule the Preakness makes total sense.  They care about the Triple Crown, but that's not their primary concern.  Their primary concern is their own race.  And they think this was in their best interest.  Was it really, though?  Because I can easily see this move backfiring and making the Preakness even more irrelevant than they think it is right now.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe this is exactly the thing that will preserve the long-term survival of the Preakness and the long-term viability of the Triple Crown.  Right now, though, it feels like the opposite will happen.  The Preakness would've been better served had its organizers worked with the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes instead of against them.  Instead, the Preakness appears to be headed on even more of an island.  And the move, while well-intentioned, will end up doing much more damage than good.

MLB After the Deadline

In the end, it was the Dodgers who ended up getting Tarik Skubal.  "Of course they did" was the inevitable response of the cynics who think Major League Baseball is somehow rigged for the Dodgers to acquire every big-name player and win every World Series from now until the end of time.  They also claim it's further evidence that MLB "needs" a salary cap (which it doesn't) and that a lockout is definitely happening in December (which would've been the case regardless).  Both of which are ridiculous.

Here's the thing about the Skubal trade.  IT WAS A TRADE!  Not a free agent signing.  The Dodgers' finances had nothing to do with it!  All it cost them was prospects.  Every team had the same opportunity to get him, and some had a better package of prospects to offer the Tigers than Los Angeles did.  Nobody else was willing to pull the trigger.  That's not the Dodgers' fault.

As for the argument that this is further proof the Dodgers are "ruining" baseball, spare me!  As I said, not only did every team have the same opportunity to get Skubal, this has nothing to do with their financial might.  It's simply a well-run organization being smart.  There's nothing wrong with that!  In fact, it proves just how well-run the Dodgers are.  Everybody makes a big deal about their high-priced, big-name free agent signings, but it was their organizational depth and talent at the Minor League level that allowed them to make this deal.  Not their checkbook.

With all that being said, it's obvious that landing Skubal made the Dodgers better.  They were already the World Series favorites.  They made themselves even bigger favorites by getting the best pitcher available and making their potential postseason rotation even more formidable.  That's what teams who are serious about winning do.  So why begrudge them for it?  It screams "You hate us 'cause you ain't us."

The Dodgers are an obvious winner of the trade deadline.  Not only did they add an ace, Skubal didn't join the Brewers.  That's just as important.  Because just imagine the prospect of having to potentially face Skubal & Misiorowski three times in a five-game series or four times in a seven-game series.  Milwaukee had a chance to do it and even more reason to get Skubal than the Dodgers did.  So, the Brewers are a definite trade deadline loser.  Both because they saw Skubal go to Los Angeles and because, with the exception of getting Dustin May (who's no Tarik Skubal), they really did nothing at all.

I'd even venture to say that the Brewers might not even be the favorites in the NL Central anymore.  Because the Chicago Cubs were busy, and they addressed their biggest need by bringing in three starting pitchers.  Kevin Gausman was great in Toronto and was the veteran starter they were looking for.  They also added two lower-level starters in Clay Holmes and Braxton Garrett, as well as a bullpen arm (while also jettisoning Jameson Taillon).  They may be too far behind Milwaukee to steal the division, but they're set up nicely for the playoffs.

So are the Cubs' potential Wild Card Series opponent--the Phillies.  They needed a bat and they got one in Luis Arraez.  However, they didn't do anything else, so I'm not sure that's enough.  Arraez is also another left-handed bat for a team that already has so many.  It also complicates their defense since their entire infield with the exception of Trea Turner will have to move around to make room for Arraez, and Bryce Harper will go back to the outfield, where he hasn't played since 2022.  I'll give the Phillies a "Push" for their trade deadline.

Another team that gets a "Push" is Boston.  The Red Sox actually made one of the earliest moves when they got Curtis Mead from Washington to play second...only for him to break his wrist in hist first game with Boston.  Then they pivoted and picked up one of the biggest names on the board in Orioles catcher Adley Rutschman.  It was interesting to see Baltimore trade the former No. 1 overall pick within the division, but it's the type of big splash the Red Sox used to make.  Is it enough to catch the Rays and Yankees and/or beat them in the playoffs, though?

Believe it or not, I actually think the Orioles had a pretty good deadline.  Sure, it was a rapid fall from a 101-win team to selling off at deadline, but they ended up with a pretty good haul for Rutschman, whose injury history made him expendable.  As did the fact that he and Samuel Basallo are both catchers.  Yes, the Orioles were one of the busiest teams at the deadline, mostly giving away players.  But they got a lot in return.

Elsewhere in the AL East, the Yankees addressed their bullpen with addition by subtraction, sending Camilo Doval to Pittsburgh and Jake Bird to Washington.  Somebody's also moving to the bullpen when Carlos Rodon and Clarke Schmidt return, so they'll get some bullpen help from within.  In return for Bird, they got Luis Garcia, who helps in the power department, but is a bit of an awkward fit in that he's another lefty bat and another first baseman.  They were also able to add the needed right-handed outfield bat in Heliot Ramos.  However, they didn't add a catcher and seem to be waiting for Judge, Stanton and/or Bellinger to come back.  The Garcia trade tells me that they aren't confident all three will, though.

Tampa Bay, the third team in that AL East triumvirate, doubled down on pitching.  What else is new?!  The Rays pivoted to Freddy Peralta after they lost out on Skubal.  That's a great 1-2-3 with All*Stars Drew Rasmussen and Nick Martinez, and they're expecting to get Shane McClanahan back at some point, too.  They've obviously got the pitching.  The question is whether they'll have enough offense, especially since Arraez would've been a perfect fit for them, but ended up in Philadelphia instead.

San Diego is an interesting team.  The Padres have no chance of catching the Dodgers.  Their offense (which should be good) is struggling.  The have one of the best closers in the game, Mason Miller, who they were shopping around, along with fellow relief ace Adrian Morejon.  Instead, they kept both relievers, didn't get any bats, and added two starters (Robbie Ray and Casey Mize).  Apparently, they plan on winning every game 3-2.

I'm also curious to see what happens on the South Side of Chicago (yes, having just come back from there has made me more invested in the two Chicago teams).  The White Sox are ahead of schedule, so who can blame them for going for it in a winnable AL Central.  I actually like the Luis Castillo trade.  He hasn't been good this year, but a veteran starter is never a bad thing to add.  Likewise, their catchers have given them nothing all season, so they took a flier on Joey Bart (who was traded for the second time this year).

Then there's the AL West, which is just as big a crapshoot as the Central.  Houston wanted a left-handed-hitting outfielder and got one in Daulton Varsho (who I think is overrated, but is good defensively in center).  The Mariners traded Castillo and were shopping Randy Arozarena, only to add another outfielder in Taylor Ward and bullpen help in Seranthony Dominguez.  The AL West race could end up being very interesting (and, remember, the AL West winner just needs to finish with more wins than the White Sox or Guardians to get the 2-seed).

Will every trade deadline deal work out?  Of course not!  That's part of the fun.  Teams make these trades thinking they've found the missing piece, only to find out that it isn't.  Or maybe the best move will end up being the one you didn't make.  Sometimes the "improvements" aren't worth the price, especially when it may literally be just a two-month rental.

Still, some teams did get better with their trade deadline moves.  And those absolutely could end up making a difference come October.  Yes, the rich got richer with the Dodgers getting Skubal.  The overwhelming favorites are now even more overwhelming.  But nothing's guaranteed in the postseason.  Not even the "inevitable" Dodgers championship.  Even if it might feel like that right now after they were the biggest winners of the 2026 trade deadline.

They Pushed Back, and It Worked

FIFA is an incredibly corrupt organization.  This shouldn't be news to anybody.  Its President, Gianni Infantino, is an incredibly corrupt man.  This shouldn't be news to anybody, either.  But, in case there was any doubt as to the degree of his corruption, Infantino made sure everyone knew how bad it was with his stunt earlier this week.  A stunt that didn't exactly get the type of reaction he was expecting.

Literally less than two weeks after the end of the World Cup, Infantino announced the creation of a $20 billion subsidiary known as FIFA Forward Enterprise, which would "unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has."  Essentially, FFE would've taken control of all aspects of FIFA tournaments, including the World Cup.  In Infantino's plan, FIFA would've sold a 20 percent stake in FFE to private investors (which would have minority, non-controlling interests), with a company that was launched by the brother of Donald Trump's son-in-law lined up to be one of those partners.  That tells you all you need to know about Infantino's motivation.

Infantino's cozy relationship with Trump has been a big source of controversy over the past, so the inclusion of a Trump-associated firm in this plan was a glaring red flag.  Trump runs in very rich, very influential circles.  Everybody just saw how much money the World Cup made and they wanted to cash in while the iron was still hot.  They hoped to exploit that popularity and make money for FIFA's 211 national federations, but also for themselves.  Because, make no mistake, these investors weren't getting into it if they didn't see the opportunity to line their own pockets.

To be clear, that isn't the reason why federations were against the plan (at least not entirely), but it certainly wasn't a good look.  And it was enough to raise questions about why Infantino thought this was so necessary that it had to be implemented immediately with no consultation from anybody.  Nor did they like how Infantino was essentially trying to bully everyone into submission by giving them a deadline to sign on, with the "or else" implied.

Members were told that a decision "must" be made by Sept. 19.  They were being given essentially six weeks to vote on such a seismic proposal that they were hearing about for the first time that day.  And Infantino said they just needed a majority vote for it to pass, even though FIFA's bylaws state that a 75 percent vote is required in order to change one.  But, since the 75 percent support was never gonna happen, that standard was conveniently lowered to a simple majority (which it still might not have gotten).

He also used the numbers in his attempt to get national federations on his side.  The financial infusion would bring in an additional $10 billion, which would mean about $40 million per association.  Without it, that amount would "only" be $2.7 billion.  So, FIFA obviously "needed" the extra cash to help out its members.  Why wouldn't they want those extra funds?

The backlash was immediate.  National federations weren't shy in their criticism of Infantino or his plan.  And the continental associations weren't particularly enthused about it, either.  Even the British Prime Minister chimed in with his disdain.  The lack of transparency was the biggest issue.  But, just as significantly, they were against the entire idea on principle.  There was plenty of legitimate concern about how much influence these companies with private equity shares would have and exactly what they would do with it.  Because, once they got in, nobody would expect them to stay uninvolved.  Would they act in FIFA's best interest, though?  Or their own?

What might some of those interests be?  For starters, expanding the World Cup to 64 teams (which it looks like Infantino is pushing ahead with anyway).  And why stop there?  It's not a reach to think there would be a push to hold the World Cup every two years instead of every four (pushing it up directly against the Euro and the Olympics).  Then, having the Club World Cup in the other two years.  Broadcasting was one element that would've gone under FFC's control, so would they get a say in who's awarded the TV rights?  Worse yet, would they make a push to move the World Cup off linear TV entirely and create a direct-to-consumer, pay-per-view platform that would require a subscription fee for anyone who wanted to watch any game?

UEFA had perhaps the best response of all, declaring that "None of us are the owners of football.  It's not FIFA's to sell."  And it was UEFA that led the crusade against Infantino's plan.  They threatened that UEFA could potentially boycott FIFA events if the plan wasn't reconsidered.  In an emergency meeting of UEFA's 55 member associations, pretty much everybody was on the same page.  After that meeting, UEFA made the announcement that they were following through on their boycott threat, starting with the Women's Under-20 World Cup in Poland, which starts on Sept. 5.

Just think about how impactful a UEFA World Cup boycott would be.  It's the largest confederation with the most teams and the greatest number of participants in the tournament.  But that's just the half of it.  Six of the eight World Cup quarterfinalists and three of the four semifinalists were UEFA members.  And Spain obviously won the World Cup.  Just as it did at the 2023 Women's World Cup.  No UEFA teams would make for a significantly depleted tournament.  Especially with an expanded field (that would need to be filled with somebody).

Practically speaking, a UEFA boycott would render the World Cup essentially meaningless.  It would also create some pretty significant logistical issues.  Spain and Portugal are the primary hosts of the 2030 World Cup.  If they're not playing, there's no chance they're still hosting.  Yes, Morocco is also a co-host, and there are individual games in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (another controversial Infantino decision that was made for reasons that weren't exactly transparent).  But, without Spain or Portugal, you'd be asking the other four co-hosts to take on a much bigger burden than the one they signed up for.

Shortly after UEFA's announcement, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation followed suit.  They didn't go so far as to join the boycott, but they made it clear that they're in agreement with UEFA's stance.  As it turns out, so are some members of Infantino's own administration.  One resigned in protest and another released a statement condemning Infantino for his lack of openness regarding the project, which he made clear he thought should not proceed.

In the wake of all the negative feedback, Infantino did an about face and announced that the project will no longer move forward.  But, of course, in true Infantino form, he took no accountability for his role in the entire thing!  The statement from FIFA said: "Having listened carefully to all the views that the project created divisions of a nature that, regardless of the level of support, are no longer in the interest of the objective set out in the first place."  Translation: "Nobody but Gianni thinks this is a good idea, and he realized he can't bully his way into getting what he wants on this one, so he's gonna try to save face by acting like he suddenly cares about their opinion." 

Except the unforced error may end up bringing some consequences for Infantino.  Despite questions about his leadership and his blatant corruption, he stood to run unopposed for a final four-year term as FIFA President later this year.  Now that's not so guaranteed.  It's still likely that he'll be reelected.  But he may face some competition, even if it's just a token candidacy to force an actual vote, because of this unnecessary misstep.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should.  It wasn't too long ago that several of the top European clubs (led by Real Madrid and Barcelona) tried to create the UEFA Super League, a breakaway competition with permanent members designed to challenge the Champions League.  Negative backlash led to the English teams withdrawing, followed by the German teams, and the idea of the Super League fell apart in about the same amount of time as it took for FIFA.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from all this is how much power FIFA's members actually have.  Infantino tried to jam the FFE down their throats and expected everybody to just fall in line.  Except they didn't.  They fought back instead.  And it worked!  They forced him to stand down.  As much as it was a big loss for Infantino and his rich partners, it was a massive win for FIFA, its member nations and the game of soccer as a whole.

Territories On the International Stage

We're in the midst of the 2026 Commonwealth Games, which are taking place in Glasgow.  One of the unique things about the Commonwealth Games is how it's the only multi-sport competition where the four nations that make up Great Britain compete separately.  England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own national teams in several sports (soccer and rugby being the most prominent), but always combine as Team GB for the Olympics.  It isn't just the four Home Nations, either.  All of the British territories field separate teams at the Commonwealth Games.

For many of these athletes, the Commonwealth Games are their only opportunity to represent their native territory instead of Great Britain as a whole.  Not all of them, though.  The British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda all have their own Olympic committees and field their own Olympic team, as does the Cook Islands, which is an associated state of New Zealand.  Whether the others want to represent Great Britain or not, they don't have a choice.  Because the IOC no longer recognizes Olympic committees that aren't from independent states.

The IOC made that rule change in 1996, with territories that already competed separately grandfathered in.  That's why Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands continue to have their own Olympic teams, as do the aforementioned British territories, as well as Aruba and Hong Kong (a former British territory).  There are actually 13 more IOC members than UN members, including Palestine, Kosovo and Taiwan (aka Chinese Taipei), internationally recognized countries that aren't UN members for mainly political reasons.

FIFA actually has more recognized members than the IOC does, but IOC membership has become very restrictive because of its sovereignty requirement.  The most recent new nations to join the Olympic family (not counting the Refugee Olympic Team or the various names for Russia at recent Games) were Kosovo and South Sudan in 2016.  As it stands, they'll be the last for a while.  But should they be?  Or should the IOC go back to the old rule and set a pathway for more territories with their own Olympic committees to compete separately?

This became a topic of discussion at IOC headquarters fairly recently.  The Faroe Islands (which has a UEFA-recognized soccer team) and Greenland are both semi-autonomous territories of Denmark.  It was actually the Danish Parliament that submitted the request to the IOC for those two to be given Olympic recognition.  The request was denied, however, since neither the Faroe Islands or Greenland qualifies as a "country" under the 1996 definition.  Their athletes are still free to participate in the LA Games, but they'd have to represent Denmark.

One of the reasons the discussion came about is because the men's handball team from the Faroe Islands will make its debut at the 2027 World Championships.  That tournament serves as an Olympic qualifier.  The Faroese women made their World Championships debut in 2025, and qualifying for 2027 is still ongoing.  So, there's a chance they could be in both World Championships next year.  However, they won't be taking part in either 2028 Olympic tournament no matter what.

There's also a question about Olympic participation for the Haudenosaunee lacrosse team.  The Haudenosaunee represents the Iroquois Confederacy in international lacrosse and is actually ranked third in the world on the men's side.  However, the Iroquois Confederacy, like all other Native American groups, lacks its own NOC.  With lacrosse back in the Olympics at the LA Games, though, there's obvious interest in seeing the Haudenosaunee there.  They have the support of both the U.S. and Canada, but, as of now, no word from the IOC.  A decision needs to come soon, though, since qualifying starts soon.

Based on the IOC's ruling regarding the Faroe Islands and Greenland, the chances of the Haudenosaunee playing in the 2028 Olympic lacrosse tournaments don't seem very good.  Although, there's also a precedent for making an exception allowing them to play.  Lacrosse was first played at the World Games in 2022, and the Haudenosaunee qualified based on their bronze-medal finish at the 2018 World Championships.  However, they were later ruled ineligible because the Iroquois don't have a National Olympic Committee.  That disqualification was eventually overturned and they took part in both the men's and women's events.

That case is specific to lacrosse, which is what makes it a little more complicated.  The Haudenosaunee really has no other reason to form an NOC, and lacrosse isn't even guaranteed to stay on the Olympic program beyond LA (although, Australia has a strong national team, so there's a chance we'll see it again in 2032).  So, I can see where the IOC wouldn't make the exception and allow the Haudenosaunee to participate in the lacrosse tournaments.  Especially since it would be sending a mixed message to all of those territories that do have their own NOCs and are desperate for IOC recognition of their own.

Should the IOC soften its stance on territories competing in the Olympics on their own, they wouldn't need to go crazy.  Some of these territories may not even necessarily want to or have the capacity to field their own separate Olympic team.  And they absolutely need to have their own NOC first.  That should be the first requirement.  But some of these places do already have that.  So, why not give them the opportunity to represent their territory at the Olympics?

One territory I'm thinking of specifically is Curacao.  Curacao, of course, is having quite a year with the soccer team playing in the World Cup for the first time and Andruw Jones being inducted into the Hall of Fame.  Curacao was once a part of the Netherlands Antilles, which had its own Olympic team until its dissolution in 2010.  Since then, athletes from Curacao have only had the option of representing the Netherlands.  (The Dutch team at the World Baseball Classic was made up mainly of players from Curacao.)

Then there's Macau, which, like Hong Kong, is a special administrative region of China.  Macau is unique in that its athletes compete under their own flag at the Paralympics, but not the Olympics.  Macau has had its own Olympic Committee since 1987, and China supports Macau having its own team, just as Hong Kong does.  However, since Macau isn't an independent state, their case is complicated.  It becomes even more complicated by the fact that Macau law prevents their athletes from competing for China.  So, they have no chance at all of going to the Olympics right now!

While I doubt it would ever happen, the idea of a separate Scottish Olympic team has been tossed about in the past.  And the topic has again been broached with them currently hosting the Commonwealth Games.  Since the British Olympic Association represents all four of the Home Nations and the country is recognized as "Great Britain," Scotland would need to separate itself for that process to even begin.  And you can bet there would be plenty of resistance from England and Wales about that.  So, that one seems unlikely (even though the Great Britain curling team is exclusively represented by Scottish players).

It's understandable that the IOC grandfathered in those territories that were already competing separately at the Olympics when they created the "sovereign nation" requirement in 1996.  And, even though it sounds like it, I'm not advocating they remove that requirement.  All I'm suggesting is that they make it a little more flexible.  Especially in situations like the Faroe Islands, which already has its own Olympic Committee and had the support of Denmark.  In cases like that (or Macau's), I'd like to see some room for an exception to be made.

Like Father, Like Son

As a part of the Baseball Hall of Fame's induction weekend, Joe Buck received the Ford C. Frick Award for excellence in broadcasting.  It's an award his father, the legendary Jack Buck, was presented in 1987.  Jack Buck is also a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's broadcasting wing.  As is Joe Buck.  They're the only father & son pair that have both been selected to both Hall of Fames.  (And Joe, of course, is far from done. He'll call the Super Bowl this season.)

It was a deserved honor for Joe Buck.  I know he wasn't everybody's cup of tea, but you don't call 24 World Series (22 of them consecutively) by accident.  In football, he's widely acknowledged as one of the best in the business, generally ranking either first or second behind only Mike Tirico in "best play-by-play man" polls.  It's a shame that he never got his proper due for baseball until he moved to ESPN and starting doing football exclusively.  Because he was one of the best in the business at calling baseball, too.

My biggest issue with Joe Buck has nothing to do with him as a broadcaster.  It has to do with the reaction people had to him, especially early in his career.  There were way too many accusations of nepotism, which is as unfair as it is insulting.  It also couldn't be further from the truth.  Because being Jack Buck's son might've gotten him in the door.  But that's all it did.  Everything else was because of his talent.

There's no denying that being Jack Buck's son gave him an inherent advantage.  He's the first one to admit that.  But that "advantage" can be interpreted in multiple ways.  Because Joe also got to learn the trade by watching his father, invaluable experience that he's carried over into his own career.  He learned how to do the job from Jack, just like any other son who follows in his father's footsteps learns their profession.  Jack and Joe Buck's family business just happens to be a little different and a little more public than everybody else's.

What annoys me the most about it, though, is how Joe Buck is seemingly the only son of a famous broadcaster singled out for nepotism.  Where are the same complaints about Kenny Albert?  Or Noah Eagle?  No one questions either of their talent or credentials, and no one should've questioned Joe Buck's either.  Because just like Joe Buck, Kenny Albert and Noah Eagle have forged their own careers that have nothing to do with their fathers.

Kenny Albert is perhaps the most versatile play-by-play man there is.  He's the lead national voice for the NHL On TNT, as well as the Rangers' local announcer on MSG.  He's also filled in for Knicks games on MSG.  And, let's not forget, NBC's lead Olympic hockey commentator (while also having covered various other sports at the Olympics).  He also has a weekly assignment for the NFL On FOX and has also covered baseball for FOX.  None of that has anything to do with his being Marv Albert's son.

Noah Eagle, meanwhile, is a rising star in the profession.  He's the No. 2 NBA play-by-play man for NBC, as well as their lead announcer for the WNBA and the Big Ten Saturday night game.  He'll also be heading to Australia to call the Rams-49ers season opener for Netflix and has called the French Open for TNT.  Noah Eagle isn't even 30 yet.  This is just the start of what figures to be a long career for Ian Eagle's son.

Much like Joe Buck, Kenny Albert and Noah Eagle got in the door because of their family connections.  But all three not only put in the work, they had the talent to forge their own path.  Which is why to even suggest that they are where they are is only because of nepotism isn't just incorrect, it's flat ignorant.  Yet no one seems to have any issue with Kenny Albert or Noah Eagle.  Just Joe Buck.  Why?

If Joe Buck didn't have the talent, he wouldn't have lasted, let alone have the long, illustrious career that he did.  He's not Jac Collinsworth.  That's a clear case of the talent level not matching up to the high-profile assignments he was being given, which made the calls of nepotism seem more justified.  NBC eventually realized that, too, and scaled back Jac Collinsworth's presence at major events.  He still works for the network.  We just don't see (or hear) him nearly as much.

That's the difference.  And why the complaints of nepotism, specifically regarding Joe Buck, are so infuriating.  He wasn't hired as FOX's lead announcer at 27 because he was Jack Buck's son.  And he certainly didn't keep the lead play-by-play job on the sport's primary national broadcast for 24 years because he was Jack Buck's son.  If he wasn't the right man for the job, do you really think FOX wouldn't have replaced him?  Instead, they made him their primary football play-by-play man, as well, ad he was calling both World Series AND Super Bowls for the network.

I think part of the negative sentiment towards Joe Buck has more to do with fans of particular teams just not liking him more than anything else.  And because he did all the postseason games, you didn't have a choice of listening to him.  It will always be funny, too, how fans of both teams would always accuse him of rooting against their team and for the other team.  I guess that means he was doing something right then!

Calling a national broadcast is very different than being a local announcer.  One of the reasons Jack Buck was so beloved was because he spent so many years doing Cardinals games.  Joe couldn't show that same sort of enthusiasm on a national broadcast.  He even admitted that his call of the final out when the Cardinals won the 2011 World Series "sucked" (his words) because he didn't put enough enthusiasm into it.  It takes someone who takes his craft seriously to make such an admission (Doc Emrick said something similar about his call of Patrick Kane's Stanley Cup-clinching goal against the Flyers in 2010).

Over the weekend, MLB Network aired a special where Buck was interviewed by another broadcasting legend, Bob Costas.  They touched on many of these topics during the hour.  It's very revealing, and it gives you a much different appreciation of him and his career.  He knew that being Jack Buck's son helped give him a foot in the door.  He doesn't take that for granted.  But it also put a significant amount of pressure on him.  And he put in the work.  Work that paid off with a Hall of Fame-worthy career of his own.

For baseball fans, Joe Buck's voice provided the soundtrack of so many memorable moments over the past 25 years.  You can't think of the Red Sox, White Sox or Cubs finally winning their long-awaited championships without him.  Love him or hate him, there's no denying his place among the legendary baseball broadcasters.  A list that includes his beloved father.  Who Joe Buck now joins in Cooperstown.  And deservedly so.

Where Would He Play?

As we approach the MLB Trade Deadline, I've seen more than one suggestion that the Yankees should pursue Luis Arraez.  Their reasons are pretty much exclusive to the fact that Arraez is a contact hitter with a high average who doesn't strike out much and would thus be a "perfect" fit in the lineup.  What those people seem to ignore, however, is equally if not more important.  Arraez would also need to play somewhere on the field!  And that's why the Yankees not only don't "need" to get him, it's something they really shouldn't even consider.

Luis Arraez is an excellent hitter.  I'm not disputing that fact.  How much his presence would make a difference in the lineup is debatable, but that's not even the point.  Adding Arraez would "solve" a nonexistent "problem" while not addressing other ones.  Worse than that, it would create more problems than it would supposedly "fix."  So, sorry, but, no, whatever value he may add to the lineup would be negated by all of the other maneuvering that would need to be done just to make it work.  Especially since it would be completely unnecessary.

Arraez is not a good defender.  He never has been.  That's why, for a lot of his career, he's been used as a DH.  He's also played first base, but has been primarily a second baseman this season.  And his defense at second is markedly improved this season under Giants infield coach Ron Washington.  Arraez has stressed that should the Giants trade him, he'd prefer to remain a second baseman.

The Yankees, of course, already have Jazz Chisholm at second base.  If they were to bring in Arraez to play second, that would require moving Chisholm to third and pushing Ryan McMahon to the bench.  McMahon's main (only?) value is his defense.  So, accommodating Arraez at second would weaken the defense at both positions!

Likewise, Paul Goldschmidt's biggest attribute is his defense.  So, it's not like putting Arraez at first would improve the defense there, either.  And, sure, Arraez could DH for the time being, but that option is only available temporarily (and would require sitting either Goldschmidt or Ben Rice).  Once Judge and Stanton come back, they'd need to find somewhere on the field for Arraez to play.  Which you can't do without moving other guys around!  And which still doesn't address the team's biggest need.

There are already four players who can play second base on the Yankees' roster--Chisholm, Jose Caballero, Amed Rosario and Max Schuemann.  Arraez would make it five guys who play the same position (six if you include McMahon, who spent some time at second while he was on the Rockies).  You know how many total outfielders the Yankees have on their roster, including the injured Judge?  Four!  And half of them are injured!  Adding another infielder wouldn't change that.

Another outfielder is a far bigger need than whatever Luis Arraez might bring.  Especially when two of the four are out!  We saw the lack of outfield options in full effect while Trent Grisham was on the IL and both Caballero and Schuemann started games in center field.  We may see that again if Bellinger's hamstring injury requires an IL stint.  Either way, getting somebody who doesn't play the outfield wouldn't exactly help that situation.

A common criticism of the Yankees (and an accurate one) is how they're too left-handed.  The lack of a right-handed bat is even more pronounced with Judge and Stanton both out of the lineup.  Arraez would be another left-handed hitter!  So, again, what need would he actually address?  You'd still be in the market for a right-handed bat, an outfielder and a backup catcher.  Arraez isn't any of those things!

It's also worth noting that Judge and Stanton are both expected back at some point this season.  "When?" is the million-dollar question.  But the point remains.  Could that change and do you still want some insurance in case it does?  Sure!  Assuming they both do make it back, though, that's effectively two Trade Deadline acquisitions that don't cost you a thing.

This hasn't been the strongest season for the American League as a whole, either.  That's an important thing to remember, as well.  They just need to get to October, and they're well-positioned to get there.  Assuming they get their injured players back, they'll be a better team come October than they are today (and the team they are today isn't as bad as some people want to believe). 

And, to get to October, they really only need to play .500 ball over the final 60 games and that should be enough.  You obviously want to perform better than that, and winning the division should be the goal.  But, the point is, the current roster is capable of doing what needs to be done.  I'm not saying they won't or shouldn't make any moves at the Trade Deadline.  An unnecessary one that isn't necessarily an improvement at second base shouldn't be one of them, however.

Two other points about Arraez.  He's a free agent after this season, so you'd be giving up roster pieces or prospects for a two-month rental.  To replace another guy who's also a free agent after this season.  The whole point of dealing a pending free agent who you don't think you'll be able to or want to re-sign is to get something for him.  Not to lose players with multiple years of team control and still potentially see the Trade Deadline acquisition leave!

More significantly, the Giants are one of the few known Deadline sellers.  There will be plenty of teams in the market for Luis Arraez.  He's already been liked to Texas, and I'm sure others have inquired about him.  San Francisco will likely be able to name its price.  There are other teams that are a better fit and have a bigger need that will probably be willing to meet that price.  Would the prospect/player haul be worth it to the Yankees for two months of Arraez?  Frankly, I don't think so.

While those who are fully on the Luis Arraez train may not agree, I simply don't see how adding him would make the Yankees that much better.  Any difference would be negligible, if there is one at all!  Especially when he wouldn't help in the areas where the team is actually looking to improve.  Bullpen, outfield and a right-handed-hitting backup catcher are the things the Yankees need and should prioritize at the Deadline.  Luis Arraez checks none of those boxes.  So, no, they don't "need" him.  And they don't even need to think twice about it.

Year One With 84

A few weeks ago, when discussing Houston's prospects of landing an NHL expansion team (a hot-button topic around the league for several months), Gary Bettman was asked about how the league would navigate having an odd number of teams.  He correctly pointed out the fact that the NHL had 31 teams for a few seasons between when Vegas (how was that 10 years ago, BTW?!) and Seattle joined the league.  However, what he said next is where he lost me.  He argued that, because 31 teams worked, the NHL could easily do 33 because the number of teams in the league "doesn't matter" when it comes to figuring out the schedule.

The reason this take confused me is because it absolutely did matter to NHL teams that they were playing an unbalanced schedule.  When the Kraken entered the league, the NHL kept an 82-game schedule.  However, since everybody played a home-and-home with Seattle, they had to take away two division games.  Which meant teams weren't playing the same number of games against divisional foes.  They played four games against five opponents, but only three against the other two.  Teams didn't like that imbalance.

That's the primary reason why the NHL went to an 84-game schedule this season.  Those two division games have been restored.  Now, they're back to playing four games against each of the other seven teams in their division.  Which is what teams wanted.  This will be the NHL's first 84-game season since 1993-94, and the first where it's completely balanced since I don't even know when (I'm not counting 2020-21 when they played only against their realigned divisions because of COVID).

Anyway, the entire point of moving to an 84-game schedule was to give those two division games back.  The ridiculous playoff system that only Bettman likes is all about having those division rivalries highlighted in the first two rounds.  Yet, for the last five years, teams were playing only one regular season home game against one of those division opponents (the same as every team in the other conference and fewer than against four teams in the other division in their own conference).  It didn't make any sense, and now it's been fixed.

So why is Bettman now talking about immediately unbalancing the schedule when the first season of an 84-game slate hasn't even started yet?!  And, make no mistake, it's gonna be unbalanced again at some point fairly soon.  Because all signs are pointing towards the NHL adding a second team in Texas.  Bettman all but confirmed it.  There was even an article on NHL.com.  You don't post something like that on the official league website if it's not already in the works.  It's really just a question of whether it'll be Houston or Austin.  Although, even that isn't really a question.  It'll be Houston.

Regardless of whether it's Houston or Austin, that'll immediately throw the NHL schedule out of whack once again.  Right after they just fixed it!  The Central Division would suddenly have nine teams in it, and the Eastern Conference teams would suddenly go from 32 games against the West to 34.  So, guess what happens to those two division games that were brought back when they expanded the schedule to 84?  We're right back to having an uneven number of division games!

And once they add Houston, you know the NHL won't stop there.  Whether it's Atlanta (which it shouldn't be, since they'll just move to Canada within 10 years anyway) or back to Phoenix or Quebec, it'll be an awkward number until they get to 36...which obviously won't be immediate.  But, Houston being the 33rd team does seem inevitable.  Especially after what Bettman said about already negotiating with a potential ownership group.  So, we'd better enjoy the nice, evenly-balanced 32-team, 84-game schedule while we can.

Because, even when/if they do get to 36 teams, the schedule won't be anywhere close to balanced.  The math simply doesn't work!  And that even accounts for going from four eight-team divisions to six six-team divisions.  So, in one way, what Bettman said is true.  They'll figure out a schedule for however many number of teams are in the league.  But it won't be balanced.  Which was the entire point of going to 84 games!

With the addition of the two regular season games, there are a few other changes to the NHL schedule this season.  They squeezed the extra two games into the existing calendar, but also moved up the start of the season.  Opening night is September 29, when the Hurricanes will raise their Stanley Cup banner against the Panthers (no word on how many of the owner's children, who were all vital to the team's success last season, will be there).  The season had always started the first week in October.  The last week of the season has also been bumped up, with the last games being played on April 10.  I actually love that change since it means the playoffs will start earlier, which means the Stanley Cup Final will be done by early June at the latest.

As a part of the agreement to increase the regular season slate to 84 games, they reduced the preseason from six games to four.  What's interesting about that, though, is how everybody's preseason schedule is entirely local.  That's always been the case.  But this year, it's even more so.  The Rangers, Islanders and Devils are only playing each other.  The Maple Leafs, Canadiens and Senators have an MLB Spring Training split-squad thing going on.  The Ducks only play the other California teams.  Seattle only plays Vancouver and Calgary, etc.

One thing that has always bothered me about the NHL schedule will continue, though.  Teams don't start or end on the same days!  The Rangers have three games in the season's first four days.  The Islanders don't play their second game until the fifth day of the season.  Likewise, on the back end, some teams will be done while others still have multiple games left.  That obviously creates a potential rest advantage/disadvantage heading into the playoffs.  And that really shouldn't happen.  Especially since it's an easy enough thing to avoid.

I get that the primary reason for this is TV.  The NHL wants to make sure it fulfills its contractual obligations with ESPN/ABC, TNT and the Canadian broadcast partners.  But, still, there has to be a way to accommodate TV while also having a uniform start/end date for all teams.  If you want to have Opening Night be a separate thing, that's fine.  But then have everybody else play the following day!  Not the first or second or third or fourth day of the season.

At the end of the season, though, is the real problem.  There are 32 teams.  They could easily have 16 games on Wednesday and just give TNT a Monday or Tuesday doubleheader to make up for not playing on Thursday.  That way, you can have Game 1 of all eight first-round playoff series on the weekend without having to worry about a rest disparity (or having to wait until Monday because one team played on Thursday, which throws off the schedule for the entire series!).

But, hey, those are minor things to nitpick about.  The point is we're getting more NHL hockey than ever before this season.  The 1,344 regular season games are the most in league history.  And the season starts a week earlier!  Both of those are good things.  So is the fact that the schedule is finally balanced.