It Is High, It Is Far, It Is Gone

In the Summer of 2003, I went to visit my aunt in Baltimore.  Her significant other, Jim, was the Orioles' official scorer and he arranged for me to get a credential and sit in the press box during the game.  As we were having dinner in the press box, he introduced me to John Sterling.  Jim mentioned that I was a communications major, so Sterling invited me to sit in the Yankees' radio booth...where I sat for the entire game.

Roger Clemens started and Aaron Boone (yes, THAT Aaron Boone) hit the go-ahead home run in the top of the ninth.  After he hit the homer, the producer, who I'd been sitting next to the entire time, checked out my credential and got angry.  Thinking I'd worn out my welcome, I went to quietly make my exit.  A couple minutes later, he came back into the booth with a member of the Yankees' PR staff. 

The reason he was annoyed wasn't because I was no longer welcome.  It was because he wanted me to go down to the field with a microphone so they could interview Boone (this was pre-Suzyn, too), and I didn't have field access.   So, he brought the PR staffer in to escort me down to the field.  Here I am, this 21-year-old college kid walking through the Yankees' clubhouse (Don Zimmer walked right past me), then out on the field at Camden Yards helping them get the postgame interview with the player of the game.  And it was all because of John Sterling.

Afterwards, I wrote him a letter to thank him.  He actually responded!  This all happened more than 20 years ago, and I still remember it like it was yesterday.  It's something I'll never forget.  It left that big of an impression on me.  That's the type of person John Sterling was.  A truly gracious gentleman to everyone, even if it was the only time in your life he'd ever meet you and vice versa.

I know I've told that story before, so I'm sorry if you've already heard it.  (I must've told it about 10 times at Jim's wake last year.)  But I think it's only appropriate to tell it again today.  Because John Sterling deserves it.  It's only fitting that the Yankees were playing the Orioles today, too.  The perfect synergy between John and Jim and a moment that wouldn't have happened without either one of them.

Not everyone was lucky enough to have a personal story about John Sterling like that.  If they did, I'm sure they'd remember it just as fondly as I do mine.  But that doesn't change the sense of loss that so many Yankees fans feel.  Like Mel Allen and Phil Rizzuto before him, he was the voice of the Yankees for a generation of fans.  His ironman streak was twice as long as Cal Ripken's (another Oriole!).  Without fail, for 162 games a year plus however many in the playoffs, John Sterling was there to guide you through the action.  

Yankee haters, of course, found him irritating.  And accused him of being a homer.  One time, he talked about that on the air and had the perfect response, "of course I'm a homer!"  He then explained why wouldn't he be?  Why wouldn't he want to see the team that employed him, he traveled with and whose games he broadcast win?  And what local broadcaster isn't a homer to certain extent?  If they aren't, you can tell.

But the same things that made him so irritating to non-Yankees fans made him so beloved in the Bronx.  And, love him or hate him, you had your John Sterling impression.  They say imitation is the highest form of flattery.  And who doesn't do their imitation of a John Sterling catchphrase?  At the end of every game, I still go "Ballgame over!  Yankees win!  Theeeeeeeeeeeee Yankees win!"  (Or the less fun "Yankees lose!  Theeeeeeeeeee Yankees lose!" variation.)  And I'm not the only one!

His game-ending celebration was only part of it.  There was also the signature home run call: "It is high.  It is far.  It is gone!," followed by an individual one for each player.  Everyone loved it...including the players!  Whenever somebody joined the Yankees, the first thing they wanted to know was what their home run call would be.  Those individual calls weren't schtick, even if it might've seemed like that.  They were merely expressions of joy with a little personal flair!

Sterling was known just as much for those individual home run calls as anything else.  The very first one, "Bern Baby Bern" for Bernie Williams.  Jason Giambi was the "Giambino."  We got "A-bombs from A-Rod."  Aaron Judge hit "Judgian blasts."  That mangled Italian phrase for Giancarlo Stanton.  "You're on the Mark, Teixeira" every time he sent a "Tex Message."  Everybody got one.  And everybody had a favorite.

You can only imagine what he would've come up with for some of the players who've become Yankees since he retired.  Jazz Chisholm didn't get traded to the Yankees until July 2024.  Both he and Sterling lamented the fact that there would be no "And All That Jazz" references from the musical Chicago.  And you know it would've been something good for Ben Rice!  (It's as if he knew which ones he'd say the most, so he made sure those were particularly catchy.)

To say that John Sterling was "beloved" among Yankee fans would be an incredible understatement.  The Yankees don't have a mascot, of course, but you could argue that it was unofficially John Sterling.  In the team store, they sold t-shirts with cartoon versions of John and longtime broadcast partner Suzyn Waldman that featured another of his trademark sayings: "That's baseball, Suzyn."  There was also a John & Suzyn talking bobblehead giveaway once!

WFAN eventually installed a "Sterling Cam" so that they could post social media clips of him in the booth.  It captured more than just his excited "Sterling shake" at the end of victories.  Late in his career, Justin Turner of the Red Sox hit a foul ball into the booth that hit him in the head.  They captured the moment, complete with John saying, "Ow!  That really hurt!," then continuing to call the action as if nothing had happened.  The next day, Turner sent him a signed ball with a band-aid on it.  Sterling had that kind of rapport even with opposing players!

While he was best known for his three-and-a-half decades with the Yankees, he actually did TV for the Atlanta Braves in the 80s.  It was during that time that he called one of the most famous games in baseball history, a 19-inning marathon between the Braves and Mets in 1985 that started on the 4th of July (which, incidentally, was both his and George Steinbrenner's birthday) and didn't end until the wee hours of the morning on July 5.  It's now known affectionately as the "Rick Camp Game."  Yet another highlight in a career full of them.

Through it all, John Sterling won 12 Sports Emmys and called eight World Series, including five Yankees championships.  Even though he retired early in the 2024 season, the Yankees coaxed him back for the stretch run and postseason.  Because of that, he got to call one last World Series.  The Yankees ended up losing to the Dodgers.  But, had they won, it wouldn't have felt right to hear anybody other than John Sterling call the final out.

As the tributes came pouring in, they all had a common theme.  There's never been anyone like John Sterling before, and there never will be again.  He was truly a special individual.  He left a permanent mark on the Yankees, their fans, and anyone he ever met.  Just like his signature phrases (of which there were many), John Sterling will never be forgotten.

Blue vs. Gray

The Yankees' iconic pinstriped uniform is one of the most famous and recognizable uniforms in all of sports.  That classic look has also been unchanged for the better part of a century.  And it's unlikely that it ever will.  Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle wore the same uniform as Derek Jeter and Aaron Judge, and whoever's on the Yankees 20 years from now will continue the tradition.

That tradition is why the Yankees are the only team to have resisted the urge to create a City Connect jersey.  Not that they ever had an urge in the first place.  They don't even have an alternate jersey.  If the Yankees are playing, you can count on them wearing pinstripes at home and gray on the road.  But that may be changing.

In Spring Training games, the Yankees occasionally wear their blue batting practice tops on the road.  It's become an option that's more and more popular among the players.  So popular, in fact, that Aaron Judge has made the request to Hal Steinbrenner that they can occasionally wear the blues at road games.  It would be quite a change for such a tradition-rich franchise, which has never worn an alternate top in the regular season.

They have, in the past, sometimes worn something other than their primary road uniform.  Normally for some sport of special event.  For example, when the Red Sox celebrated the 100th anniversary of Fenway Park in 2012, they played the Yankees and both teams wore 1912 throwbacks.  Same thing when then played the White Sox in the inaugural Field of Dreams Game and wore a special event uniform.  And, the participate in Players' Weekend like all other teams.

But a normal, non-special-occasion Tuesday night game in May?  They're either wearing pinstripes at home or gray on the road.  If the players get their wish, though, we may start seeing blue tops when they're on the road.  Of course, Hal needs to give his go-ahead for that to happen.  Which is by no means a guarantee.  But it's not impossible, either.

Don't forget, the Yankees used to have a very restrictive no facial hair policy.  George Steinbrenner instituted it in the mid-70s, and it remained in place until Hal loosened it last year.  And, as we've seen over the past two seasons since the policy's removal, plenty of Yankees players have taken advantage of the opportunity to grow a beard or let their hair a little longer.  Hal proved that he isn't resistant to change.  Which is why it actually is plausible that he might allow them to wear the blue tops for select road games.

One reason why I think this may happen is because we're only talking about road games here.  That's a key point.  Nobody wants to touch the iconic home pinstripes.  The Yankees would never even consider wearing blue jerseys at Yankee Stadium.  That would be blasphemous and a non-starter.  But occasionally wearing the blue batting practice top on the road?  Frankly, that doesn't seem like too big a deal.  Especially since it's the players doing the asking.

Michael Kay, however, is very opposed to the idea.  As soon as the news first went public, he went on his radio show and went off on the players simply for making the request.  He even said, "Win me a championship first."  Basically, he thinks the players should deliver a World Series title to the Bronx before even making such a request.  His position is a little extreme.  Because, really, what difference does it make?

Wearing navy instead of blue on the road every once in a while is something that the players have clearly been thinking about and is clearly important to them.  That's why Aaron Judge is the one who brought it up.  This isn't just some random player.  It's their franchise player and team captain.  It's the only guy in the clubhouse who has the clout to speak up and make such a request.  Which is another reason why I think it may be taken seriously.

And, to think that it should be conditional is just silly.  Why should they only be allowed to wear blue jerseys after winning the World Series?  Especially since it's entirely possible the opposite could be true, as well.  Granting this simple request would show the players that ownership is willing to listen to what they want.  Look at what happened last year with the facial hair policy.  And maybe being allowed to wear the blues could motivate the players and turn them into that championship team Michael Kay wants (and thinks they need to be before they can even make such a request).

But, at the same time, I see where he's coming from.  Yes, Michael Kay is a Yankees broadcaster (which makes him a team employee).  But he's also a lifelong Yankees fan.  And he was speaking as a fan.  A fan who thinks it's blasphemous to even suggest that the Yankees wear something other than pinstripes at home or gray on the road.  It's the only look Yankees fans have ever known.  While some other teams have a different uniform for each day of the week, with the Yankees that's never been the case.  You know what they're wearing for every game.  It's been the same for generations.  And it's hard for some fans to even envision it ever being any different.

For some Yankees fans, the idea of them wearing blue is akin to the team putting names on the back of their jerseys.  Now that would be a step too far, and everyone knows it!  It's an MLB rule that teams are required to have names on the back of their road uniforms.  The Yankees are the only team that doesn't have them.  They aren't required to.  They got grandfathered in.

This is not that.  As I mentioned, the Yankees already wear blue in some Spring Training road games.  Occasionally wearing those same jerseys in regular season road games wouldn't be this drastic, Earth-shattering change it's being made out to be.  The Yankees, in fact, are the outlier in that they've never worn an alternate top as a part of their regular rotation.  Nobody's suggesting they become the Rays and wear three different uniforms in a three-game series.  It's simply giving them another option.

Whether this actually happens or not is entirely up to Hal Steinbrenner.  There's an argument on both sides, and people feel passionately about both sides.  Ultimately, though, how much of a difference would it really make?  That's why I don't have a preference either way.  As long as you don't touch the pinstripes, it really doesn't matter if they wear blue or gray on the road.

You've Got Questions, But Don't Ask Them

The Dallas Wings had the No. 1 pick in last year's WNBA Draft.  They did the obvious thing and took Paige Bueckers, the clear No. 1 player available.  The Wings had the No. 1 pick again this year.  They took Azzi Fudd.  Bueckers and Fudd have been dating since they were teammates at UConn.  That's obviously a story and obviously raises plenty of questions.  Too bad they don't want to answer any.

Both Bueckers and Fudd refuse to comment about their personal relationship, insisting it's nobody's business.  They're absolutely right about that.  But, unfortunately, "No comment" isn't really a satisfactory answer to these legitimate questions.  Especially since they're now both professionals and dealing with the media is part of the deal.  And answering "No comment" will only make them want an answer that much more.

It's not like the team is helping the cause, either.  In fact, it could be argued that the Wings are making it worse.  At Fudd's introductory press conference, they essentially made any questions about their relationship and being teammates off limits.  Which, again, doesn't do anything to quell any controversy.  It only makes people more curious.  And, frankly, my questions are more for the Wings than for Bueckers and Fudd.

For starters, did the Wings take Fudd at No. 1 because she was the best player available or because of Bueckers?  If they took her because they thought she was the best player and it had nothing to do with Bueckers, just say that!  That would put an end to the questions right there.  By not answering, it just leads to more questions.  Questions like: If Bueckers wasn't on the team, would they have taken someone else?

Dallas was in an unenviable position here.  There's no denying that.  As soon as they ended up with the No. 1 pick again, the Wings knew what the situation would be.  Take Azzi Fudd and deal with the questions (or not deal with the questions) or take somebody else.  If they had taken someone else, people wouldn't have been asking the same questions.  In fact, they would've been asking the opposite questions.  "Why didn't you take her when you already have Paige on the team?"

They had other viable options, too.  Fudd wasn't the clear and obvious No. 1 that Bueckers and Catilin Clark were in the previous two years.  Dallas easily could've taken Olivia Miles or Lauren Betts and nobody would've questioned it.  Instead, they opted to take Azzi Fudd.  A selection that no one would've questioned if not for Paige Bueckers already being on the Wings.  The Bueckers connection is the only reason it's even a story.

Meanwhile, if they didn't have the No. 1 pick again, the Wings might've been able to avoid the conversation entirely.  In an ideal world, somebody else has the No. 1 pick and takes Fudd, meaning they have to take someone else.  Of course, the possibility for them to take Fudd still could've existed if they were picking, say third, and she was still available.  But there would've been far fewer questions asked if the Wings picked later in the draft and still took her.  Because, at that point, it would've been "she's the best player available."

While that second scenario is an obvious hypothetical, the first is exactly what happened.  And the Wings had to know those questions were coming, especially since they eventually did draft Fudd at No. 1.  The questions aren't unreasonable, either.  So, there's no reason to dodge them.  The nonanswering them is making this a bigger story than it actually is...and needs to be.

A'ja Wilson is dating Bam Adebayo.  They both get asked about the other all the time.  Neither seems to have an issue with it.  They know that it comes with the territory and answer professionally.  No one wants to know the gory details of their personal lives, which they're completely entitled to keep private.  But, as the best player in the WNBA in a relationship with an NBA player and vice versa, they can't avoid the questions.

Here's the thing, too.  No one cares about Paige Bueckers and Azzi Fudd's relationship.  They aren't the first WNBA players to be dating/married to a teammate and they won't be the last.  Diana Taurasi played alongside her wife Penny Taylor in Phoenix for years.  Ditto with Courtney Vandersloot and Allie Quigley in Chicago.  Alyssa Thomas and DeWanna Bonner got together when they both played for the Sun, and Bonner has now joined Thomas on the Mercury.  So, Bueckers and Fudd being teammates isn't exactly groundbreaking.

This isn't something unique to the WNBA, either.  It seemed like half the U.S. women's soccer team was in a relationship with a teammate at one point.  There are plenty of examples in the PWHL, as well.  And, during the Olympics, how many stories did we hear about competitors or teammates who ended up getting married?  None of these relationships are a big deal.  And the Paige Bueckers/Azzi Fudd relationship isn't a big deal, either.  If not for their attitudes towards simply being asked the question, no one would even think twice about it.

That's really my only real problem with Paige Bueckers, Azzi Fudd and the Dallas Wings.  They aren't just avoiding the topic.  They're acting offended by the fact that people have questions, then outraged by those people having the temerity to ask them!  It's a ridiculous way to be handling the situation.  And, because of that, they're making it a bigger deal than it is.  Their refusal to even address it is the only reason this even is a story.

Paige Bueckers and Azzi Fudd's personal lives are nobody else's business.  No one is claiming they are or should be.  Those aren't the questions that are being asked, either.  It's not an invasion of their privacy to wonder how their relationship will affect them on the court or if they're happy to be playing together instead of against each other.  Nor is it unprofessional to wonder if the Wings drafted Fudd because of Bueckers.  In fact, it would be unprofessional to not ask that question!

Maybe once the season starts, this will become less of an issue or a non-issue entirely.  Maybe Azzi Fudd will be the WNBA Rookie of the Year and prove that the reason she was taken No. 1 overall has nothing to do with who she's dating.  That's the only way to silence any remaining questions.  Because they're clearly not going to answer any.  Which is their prerogative.  But it's also what's keeping this in the news cycle when everybody would prefer to just move on.

Pricing Out the Common Fan

It's not really a secret that FIFA is greedy.  Pretty much everything they do is about money.  That was one of the primary reasons for expanding the World Cup.  And Gianni Infantino has promised that every game will be sold out and will be like "104 Super Bowls."  But FIFA's having trouble selling to some of the games.  Because they've made their greed transparent during the entire ticketing process.

To say the World Cup ticketing process has been a "hot mess" would be extremely generous.  It's been an utter disaster.  And the criticism directed at FIFA--for everything from the price of tickets to the long waits in the queue to the website constantly crashing--is more than warranted!  It easily could've been 104 sellouts.  If it's not, FIFA only has themselves to blame. 

When tickets first went on sale, FIFA promoted that tickets would be available for "as low as" $60.  Well, as it turns out, there were only a handful of $60 tickets for each game...in the top rows of the four corners of the stadium.  Needless to say, those were gobbled up quickly...and immediately put up for resale at many times the face value.  Tickets that were actually available to the masses cost far more than that.  Which people have noticed and called FIFA out about.

Supporters' groups, the most loyal fans in all of soccer, have been particularly angered about the ticket prices.  I saw an article saying how much it would cost a fan to attend all eight games if their team made the final, and the amount was staggering!  The cheapest tickets alone would be more than $1,000, before taking flights and hotels into account.  The ticket prices were so outrageous that it prompted UEFA to announce that tickets for Euro 2028 will be affordable.  It also prompted FIFA to make more $60 tickets available specifically for supporters, but it was too little, too late, and demand still far outpaced supply.

The entire process has been frustrating and incredibly user unfriendly from the start.  The problems started at the very beginning.  Instead of having a presale opportunity for fans in the host cities (or even the three host countries as a whole), they only had ticket lotteries for the entire world at the same time.  As you can imagine, that made it virtually impossible for most people who wanted to go to the games to get tickets directly.

Since most of the tickets were scooped up before they were even made available to the general public, the only real option for many fans is the resale market.  But it's not like the prices on there are any better.  If anything, the resale prices are worse because the seller can set whatever price they want.  So, of course they're gonna make a profit if they can!

And don't think people haven't noticed that FIFA has its own resale site so fans can do it directly thru them...and where they can tack on additional fees to both the buyer and seller.  I went on the FIFA resale site the other day just to see which games were available and what the prices looked like.  The prices ranged from ridiculous to utterly insane.  Tickets to the final were listed for $2.3 million!  What normal person can afford that?

They at least know people will pay that exorbitant price to attend a World Cup Final in person.  FIFA's slow ticket sales for other games are entirely because they're priced too high.  One of the games where tickets aren't selling as fast as they would want is the USA's opener against Paraguay at SoFi Stadium.  That's also the third-highest-priced ticket to any game in the tournament, behind only the Final and one semifinal.  So, it's not that people don't want to go.  It's that they can't afford to.  FIFA thought they could get away with charging anything and people would pay it.  They're now finding out that isn't the case.

After trying and failing in every lottery, I got in the queue right away at 11:00 am on April 1, which is when the "Last-Minute Sales Phase" (which was open to anyone on a first-come, first-served basis) began.  It took me more than four hours to finally get in, and, by then, there were only two games at MetLife Stadium that had tickets available.  I fortunately was able to get one to Norway-Senegal...for $465!  That was the cheapest ticket available!  (Although, I justified it to myself because [A] it's the World Cup and [B] that's still only a little more than half of what I paid to go to the World Series.)

My original plan was to go to the World Cup with my brother-in-law and nephew.  And there were actually three tickets left in the same section for that game when I finally got into the site.  But, once again, cost because an issue.  We simply couldn't justify paying $1500 for three tickets.  Especially when that's considered "cheap" and wouldn't have included a flight or hotel.  That's just to get into the stadium!

Then there's the transportation cost, which has drawn plenty of its own criticism in multiple World Cup host cities.  In places like Philadelphia and Houston, it'll cost the regular price to take mass transit to the World Cup games.  In Seattle, the stadium is literally in the middle of downtown, so they're not doing anything special.  But that's not the case everywhere.  In Boston and New York, especially, rates will be significantly higher to take the train or bus to the World Cup--even though parking will be so limited (and costly) that mass transit is the only way for a significant number of spectators to get there.

For the games in Foxboro, it'll cost $80 for a round-trip ticket from Boston.  That's the same cost as a bus ticket for the roughly 15-minute ride from the Port Authority to MetLife Stadium.  Which is nothing compared to a train ticket from Penn Station.  A round-trip ticket from Penn Station to MetLife Stadium is normally $12.50.  For the World Cup, it's $150!  That's 11 times the normal cost!  Which fans will have no choice but to pay since it will be one of their only options for actually getting there. 

NJ Transit insists it isn't price gauging.  After a big back-and-forth with FIFA, they insist that the price hikes are necessary for World Cup ticket holders because of the extra expense that they'll incur by having to run extra trains, and they don't want to pass that cost on to their regular travelers.  But, let's call a spade a spade.  They're doing it because they know they can get away with it and nobody can do anything about it.  It's definitely price gouging. 

I'm sure some of their justification rings true, but that's also the case for the other cities hosting the World Cup who've elected to either make their price hikes either more reasonable or not raise their prices at all.  NJ Transit saw an opportunity to make some money off the World Cup and took advantage of it.  Yes, they will use some of it to cover those additional operating costs.  But don't act like the only way to do that is by charging people 11 times the normal price for a 15-minute train ride.  Because no reasonable person believes that.

Between the ticket and transportation prices, then, is it any surprise that some people have decided it's not worth it and are choosing to watch the games on TV instead?  Hotels in the host cities expected to see a World Cup boon.  They haven't seen it.  Because a hotel would be another cost at a World Cup that is already far too expensive for most fans.  (I'm paying over $600 just to go to one game, and I don't have to travel to/from the city or stay in a hotel.  So, that's actually cheap.)

Things didn't have to be this way, but this is the direction it ended up happening.  Soccer is the most accessible game in the world.  All you need to play it is a ball and enough room to run around.  The World Cup should be a celebration of the game for everybody.  Too bad those celebrations will be limited to the World Cup Fan Festivals and viewing parties in the 16 host cities.  Because the games themselves are so expensive that the common fan has basically been priced out from attending in person.  Which is a shame.  Because they easily could've had their 104 sellouts by making the world's most accessible sport actually accessible.  But they're not.  Instead, the stadiums will be full only with the people who can afford it.

A Good Problem to Have

A month into the 2026 MLB season, the Yankees have one of the best rotations in baseball.  If not the best.  And, the crazy thing about it, is how they're missing three of their top starting pitchers.  So, the rotation stands to get even better.  Which creates an interesting predicament.  Who do you drop when Gerrit Cole and Carlos Rodon return?

Rodon is expected to be back sometime in May, while Cole should make his season debut in early June.  It's an encouraging sign in his recovery from Tommy John surgery that the Yankees put Cole on the 15-day IL instead of the 60-day to start the season, but they also have absolutely no reason to rush him back.  They have the luxury of not needing to rush either one.  Especially when the replacements have been doing so well.  But, make no mistake, when they do return, they're reclaiming their places in the rotation.

I saw an asinine article the other day that actually argued Cole shouldn't automatically go back in the rotation and suggested he had to earn his place instead.  Their argument seemed to be based on the idea that current starters like Ryan Weathers and Luis Gil don't deserve to be dropped.  I appreciate that stance, but there's no way Gerrit Cole doesn't immediately go back in the rotation.  He's paid $36 million a year for a reason.  And that ain't to be a middle reliever!

Cole's a starting pitcher.  Period.  End of sentence.  His entire rehab has been built around getting his pitch count up so that he has no restrictions when he returns.  When he returns, he won't be on a pitch count or an innings limitation.  Cole and Max Fried will give the Yankees that 1-2 punch at the top of the rotation they've been waiting for ever since they signed Fried.  With Rodon in the No. 3 spot right behind them.  Rodon is also being paid to be a starting pitcher.  So, like Cole, he'll immediately go back in the rotation.

It's obviously a bit too early to start speculating about how they'll work Cole and Rodon back into the rotation and who they'll replace when they do return.  And these things sometimes have a way of sorting themselves out.  I almost don't want to say it and manifest it into existence, but if there's an injury, that opens up a spot right there.  Just look at what happened to the Yankees last year.  Injuries to Cole and Luis Gil created an opportunity for Will Warren.  Then Clarke Schmidt got hurt and along came Cam Schlittler.

Speaking of Cam Schlittler, it's almost impossible to imagine him not being included in that rotation when it's at full strength.  And Fried obviously makes four.  So, that leaves Warren, Weathers and Gil for the last spot in the rotation.  All three have made their case, so I don't envy the decision the team will have to make.  But they will have to make it.  And those three starters know it.

Sending Gil to the Minors would seem to make the most sense.  They didn't need a fifth starter at the beginning of the year, so he actually began the season at Triple A.  Which means they've already used an option year.  So, it's not like they'd be wasting one by sending him down.  And that would leave him stretched out as a starter, ready to get the call whenever and if they need him to return in a pinch.  He's also never been used out of the bullpen, so do you want to put him in that situation for the first time?

That leaves Ryan Weathers and Will Warren, which is tough.  They traded for Weathers with the intent of having him in the starting rotation.  And, after a shaky first few starts, he's been really good since.  So, there's a legitimate argument for Weathers to stay in the rotation.  However, he began his career as a reliever and the bullpen has been the shakiest part of the Yankees' roster this season, so there's just as much of an argument for Weathers to move to the bullpen.

So, that's the way I'd go.  Gil to the Minors, Weathers to the bullpen and Warren staying in the rotation.  Warren hasn't just outperformed Weathers, he's only ever been a starter.  He made one appearance out of the bullpen in 2024, but was a full-time member of the rotation as a rookie last season, starting 33 games.  So, he's less equipped to go to the bullpen than Weathers.  Which is why leaving Warren in the rotation instead of Weathers makes the most sense to me.

Keep in mind, too, that the return of Gerrit Cole and Carlos Rodon will also help the Yankees' most glaring weakness--their bullpen.  That's another thing that has to enter the thought process.  It's not just about upgrading the rotation by adding Cole and Rodon.  Nor is it about "demoting" whoever they replace in the rotation.  It's about which of those pitchers can help the bullpen just as much.  And Ryan Weathers seems like the guy who can get shifted to the bullpen without missing a beat.  He might be the only one of those three who I can picture thriving in that role.  So, by moving to the bullpen, he'd actually become more valuable to the team than by staying in the rotation...even though they traded for him to be a starter.

This isn't a situation the Yankees are accustomed to seeing themselves in.  They're usually looking for starting pitching and desperate to add more.  Having an abundance of it is certainly something new.  Especially when the decision comes down to more than just performance.  Because they've all been doing the job!  The starting rotation has been outstanding!  All five of them.  But, as good as they've been, two of them have to go, whether it's to the bullpen or the Minors.

And, as we've seen with plenty of other teams in recent years, having an overabundance of starting pitching isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It felt like the Dodgers had about nine starting pitchers on their roster for like four years in a row.  The Braves have so many starting pitchers that half of their projected rotation ends up in the Minors at some point in the season simply because they have option years available.  And starting pitching depth is one of the most valuable things any Major League team can have.

With that in mind, the return of Gerrit Cole and Carlos Rodon to the Yankees' rotation obviously isn't a bad thing.  And it should be a very scary thought for the rest of the American League.  Because, as good as their rotation has been this season, it figures to get even better when those two return.  Don't forget, Gerrit Cole won the Cy Young in 2023 and Carlos Rodon was an All*Star last season.  So, yes, they're an upgrade.  Which isn't a knock on Will Warren, Ryan Weathers and Luis Gil.  It just says how good Cole and Rodon are.

There's still a little time before we see what they ultimately decide.  But there's plenty of reasons to be excited about the return of Gerrit Cole and Carlos Rodon.  Yes, the Yankees' rotation is currently doing very well.  That doesn't mean they don't need two of their top three starters.  And just imagine how much better that rotation will be when it's Cole, Fried, Rodon, Schlittler and whoever's in the fifth spot.  Whether it's Warren, Weathers or Gil.

Nationally Exclusive and Extremely Confusing

Mike Breen is the Knicks' play-by-play announcer on MSG.  He's also the lead play-by-play broadcaster on ESPN/ABC's NBA coverage.  So, Mike Breen will be calling plenty of playoff games this season.  But he's also disappointed that he won't be calling any of those games for MSG, which is something he was sure to make clear during the Knicks' final regular season game.  Because this season, for the first time, every NBA playoff game is exclusive to the national TV partners.

Every NBA playoff game being nationally televised is nothing new.  That's been the case for a while.  The only difference this season is that the national broadcasts have exclusivity.  Previously, that was only the case for games on ABC.  For games on cable, each team's local broadcaster would be allowed to produce and air their own broadcast, as well.  That all changed this season, the first under the NBA's new 11-year media rights deal with ESPN/ABC, NBC and Amazon Prime.

It's not a coincidence that they made the change this season.  NBC and Prime paid a lot of money for NBA rights, so it makes sense that they wanted exclusivity as a part of the deal.  But still, I can get the frustration for those local broadcasters, who cover the team all season, then have to give way to the national coverage once the playoffs begin.  Especially since those would probably be among their highest-rated games (which makes a big difference financially).  And not to mention the announcers and crew, who really spend the entire season with the team, but have to sit around and watch somebody else do the most important games of the year.

There are the announcers like Mike Breen, who work on a team's local broadcast crew in addition to their national work and will still get to do playoff games anyway.  But it's not quite the same.  Being on a national telecast obviously has tremendous prestige, but announcers always talk about the connection with the fans in those local markets.  And those analysts who only work for a team and don't have any national TV gigs are limited to just pregame and postgame coverage during the playoffs.

Local announcers in baseball lament the same thing every October.  But, in baseball, local broadcasters have never done their team's playoff games.  (Although, Joe Davis does the Dodgers and Brian Anderson does Brewers games, so fans of those teams may still hear a familiar voice during the postseason.)  Exclusivity for each round of the postseason has always been a part of the national TV contract.  Ditto with the NFL, which, of course, is the only sport where every game is broadcast nationally.

In the NBA and NHL it was always different, though.  In the NHL, it wasn't until about 10 years ago that all first-round games were nationally televised.  Prior to that, fans had to rely on their local broadcaster's coverage to see their team in the first round of the playoffs.  Even now that every Stanley Cup Playoff game is broadcast nationally, the opening round (with the exception of games on ABC) is also broadcast by each team's local crew and both broadcasts are available (which was a fairly recent change from the national broadcast being blacked out in the local markets).

They had a similar setup in the NBA until this season.  For first-round games on either ESPN or TNT, teams were also allowed to have their own local broadcast.  Games on ABC were the only ones that were exclusive.  Then, once the second round started, every game was only broadcast nationally.  It provided fans with a sense of continuity, both from the regular season and throughout the first round.

That, frankly, is the biggest problem with the way the NBA Playoffs have been broadcast so far.  Everybody has exclusivity.  Which is great for them.  But terrible for fans.  Because they have no idea which network the game is on!  Each network has its own night, so depending on when a team is playing, they could be on any of the NBA's four broadcast partners.

ABC has games on the weekend, with NBC getting two games as a part of its Sunday Night Basketball package.  NBC also had doubleheaders on Monday and Tuesday, but one game each night was only available on Peacock (or NBCSN if you're one of the eight people who already gets the relaunched network).  On Wednesdays, it's ESPN.  Then it's Prime on Thursday and Friday.  Oh, and Prime had the entire Play-In Tournament last week.  But next week, that schedule changes and ESPN has more games.

Are you confused yet?  I sure am!  And I don't even watch the NBA, so I don't particularly care which game is on which network on a given night.  But I can only imagine how frustrating it is for a fan looking to watch their team and finding out that they might be on any (or all) of the NBA's national broadcast partners during the series...and having that be their only way to watch the game!  It's almost as fragmented as the WNBA's recently-announced national TV schedule!

Fans of every sport have that same complaint during the regular season.  The leagues are selling off packages to so many different broadcast and streaming partners that it's impossible to keep up.  And not to mention the amount they need to pay for cable/subscription fees just to watch every game!  Missing a game during the regular season isn't that big a deal for most fans.  Missing a playoff game is a different thing entirely, though.  And spreading playoff broadcasts among so many different partners, all of whom have exclusivity, isn't exactly user-friendly.

I get offering playoff exclusivity to each broadcast partner.  But it only makes sense if the national broadcaster is consistent.  Otherwise, it's a disservice to fans.  In baseball, every series is broadcast by the same network with the same announcers.  In hockey, that's the case from the second round forward.  In the first round, games are on either ESPN or TNT depending on the night.  Which is part of the reason why the NHL allows local broadcasts for the first round (and the first round only) of the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Until this season, the NBA and NHL did the exact same thing.  Local broadcasters covering their team in the first round alongside the national broadcast before handing it over to the national coverage for the second round.  That system worked and was much more convenient for fans.  However, now that the NBA has gone to national-only, it looks like they're never going back.  And it wouldn't be surprising if the NHL follows the next time their TV rights come up (that's already the case with the Canadian coverage of the Stanley Cup Playoffs).

What's the right way?  It's hard to say.  But there's no doubt it's easier to watch the MLB or NFL playoffs (the Saturday night wild card game on Prime notwithstanding) than the first round of the NBA Playoffs.  That is, unless you've got your channel guide handy.  Then maybe you'll know whether the game is on ABC.  Or NBC.  Or ESPN.  Or Peacock.  Or Prime.  Because that's not confusing at all!

The New World Order In College Basketball

Michigan made history 35 years ago when it reached the National Championship Game starting five freshmen.  The "Fab Five" made it to the Championship Game again the following year.  This season, of course, saw Michigan win its first title since 1989, and, by doing so, the Wolverines made history again.  They became the first team to win a National Championship starting five transfers.  They won't be the last.

In this new era of college basketball, transfers are a way of life.  Gone are the days when a team would have a roster that sticks together for four years, gradually getting better each season, or the coach who's able to build a team and get them to buy into his process, with the results eventually coming when those players become seniors.  Players would still transfer, but not nearly as many.  And, unless there were extenuating circumstances, they had to sit out a year if they did.

Ever since the NCAA was pressured into a rule change granting anyone who wants to transfer immediate eligibility somewhere else a few years ago, however, it's become the exact opposite.  Rare is the player who stays with a program for more than one season.  Most teams are turning over a completely new roster every year.  And the words "transfer portal" are something any college basketball fan wishes they never had to hear again.  The number of players who enter the portal each year is absurd and only get more ludicrous.  But, that's currently what the rules are, so there's very little that can be done about it.

Does something need to be done?  Of course!  But until it is, this is the hand we've been dealt.  Players treating the transfer portal like free agency and making a mockery of the "student" part of student-athlete.  We've got guys transferring every year and playing for four different schools in four years.  How's the progress on that degree going, BTW?

This problem isn't exclusive to basketball, of course.  It's one of the primary reasons why Nick Saban retired.  And Jay Wright sure doesn't seem to regret his decision to make the move from coaching to TV.  Coaches face an impossible task in the transfer portal era.  They're constantly recruiting.  Not just high school students, but the players on their current roster, as well.  They don't even get the chance to actually coach.  But they'd better win right away.  Otherwise, they know most of the roster's leaving and the cycle starts all over again.  Rinse and repeat.

Players are transferring for all sorts of reasons, too.  In the past, it was primarily because of a coaching change, playing time or wanting to be closer to home.  (Grad transfers don't count since their reason is obvious.)  Those are still considerations, but the biggest reason in the modern era is money.  Nowadays, some players transfer simply because they got offered a better NIL deal somewhere else.  Why recruit the best talent when you can just pay for it?

Is this system sustainable?  Absolutely not!  But that's not the point.  The point is it's the system that's currently in place.  And Michigan has mastered the system by taking a program that went 8-24 in 2023-24 and turning into a 37-win National Champion in two years.  By using the transfer portal to its advantage.

Final Four Most Outstanding Player Elliot Cadeau came to Michigan after two years at North Carolina.  Nimari Burnett spent three years at Michigan after transferring from Alabama...after he started his college career at Texas Tech.  Aday Mara was a bench player at UCLA for two years before becoming Michigan's starting center.  Morez Johnson Jr. also went from one Big Ten school to another, going from Illinois to Michigan (turns out, he would've been in the Final Four this season either way).  Finally, Yaxel Lendeborg was a graduate transfer from UAB.  They all ended up at Michigan--together--and the result was a National Championship.

It's worth noting, too, that Michigan, like pretty much every other school, also had players transfer out.  Tarris Reed played two years in Ann Arbor, but entered the portal when Juwan Howard was fired.  He ended up at UConn, where he had an outstanding NCAA Tournament that ended in a National Championship Game loss against his former team.  So, it all worked out for everyone.

Dusty May could've gone the traditional route.  He could've rebuilt the roster with a strong recruiting class that gradually got better as their careers progressed.  Or he could've done it the way John Calipari did so successfully at Kentucky for so long when one-and-dones were the big thing and just load up on stud freshmen, knowing he'd probably only have them for a year.  Although, in the NIL/transfer era, you still might only get a player for a year.  Knowing that, he went about building his roster with veteran players from the transfer portal.  With spectacular results.

The Wolverines aren't the only team that's heavily transfer-laden.  There are a number of other schools who did the same thing as Michigan and loaded up in the transfer portal.  So, it's not a completely novel concept.  But May will be the one to get the credit for it anyway.  Because, at Michigan, it worked, and it didn't in those other places.  So, he'll get the credit, and he'll deserve it.  And, at the same time, he gave the blueprint for success in the transfer era that other coaches will try to emulate.

Whether it's something that can be emulated will really be worth watching over the next few seasons.  Or was what happened at Michigan simply a perfect storm of the right players in the right situations stepping into the right roles?  You know there are coaches and GMs right now scouring the portal hoping that they can be the 2026-27 version of Michigan.  You also know that some of those coaches and GMs will fail miserably at the task.  They'll bring in a completely new roster made up of mostly (or entirely) transfers that has no chemistry, doesn't gel, is unhappy and ends up missing the Tournament.  You also know that some will be successful with it, even if it isn't to Michigan's degree.

Sadly, this is what college basketball has become.  Players spending one year at a school then entering the transfer portal and going somewhere else.  Coaches rebuilding their rosters from scratch every year using veterans who played somewhere else rather than recruiting incoming freshmen and developing them over four years.  It's a free-for-all.  And Michigan was the best at managing the system that's in place.  Now that other teams have seen that it can be done and how, you know they'll try and copy it.

Just as John Calipari and Kentucky set the model for the one-and-done era, Dusty May and Michigan have set the model for the transfer portal/NIL era.  I'm sure we'll eventually see a National Champion built the traditional way again, but that's not what college basketball is right now.  So, while Michigan was the first school to win a National Championship with a starting lineup consisting only of transfers, it almost certainly won't be the last.  Especially now that they've shown it can work.

LA28 Qualifying

We're still more than two years away from the LA28 Olympics.  In a lot of sports, the qualifying process doesn't even begin until the Summer of 2027.  In others, meanwhile, particularly team sports, qualifying is either already underway or starts fairly soon.  Two countries have already qualified for the baseball tournament, in fact.

In baseball, they used the World Baseball Classic to determine the two non-U.S. participants from the Americas.  They're using next year's Premier12, the second-most prestigious international tournament, to determine the qualifiers from Asia and Europe (or Australia if they finish higher than all of the European teams), then there will be a final qualifying tournament in early 2028...that doesn't include any nations from the Americas.  So, the WBC was it.

Venezuela and the Dominican Republic, of course, ended up earning those Olympic berths by reaching the semifinals.  And the rationale for using the World Baseball Classic as the one and only opportunity for nations in the Americas to qualify actually did make a lot of sense.  That was the only time they'd have a full complement of Major League players.  So, that was the best team any of those nations was going to put forward.  And, because of that, they figured it was the fairest way to determine the Olympic qualifiers.

Along with baseball, softball will be returning to the Olympics in 2028.  The softball qualification process will look completely different.  The United States gets an automatic bid, of course, and so does the winner of next year's Women's Softball World Cup.  Then there will be three regional tournaments (Pacific, Americas, Europe/Africa) later in 2027 and a final qualifying tournament in early 2028.  The most notable thing there is how, unless one of them gets the berth from the World Cup, Australia and Japan will be in the same qualifying tournament.  They'll still likely both qualify one way or another, but it's notable nonetheless.

Another sport returning to the Olympic program in LA (after a much longer absence) is cricket.  And cricket might have the most interesting qualifying process of any sport.  Despite the Games being in the U.S., the United States doesn't necessarily have an automatic bid in either the men's or women's tournament.  The format is yet to be finalized, but all indications are the six-team tournament will have a representative from each of the five regions (Europe, Asia, Oceania, Americas, Africa) plus either a final qualifier or the United States.  I'm assuming the TBA is because they need to decide if the United States will get an automatic bid or go through Americas qualifying.

Because they're going for the geographic distribution, there will be a lot of good teams left home.  That might be part of the reason for the uncertainty regarding an auto berth for the Americans.  If they get one, then only one team can qualify from each region.  But if they're relying on the United States qualifying out of the Americas, there's a chance the host nation won't be represented at all, which would obviously have a major impact on the tournament (and not in a good way).  So, it'll be interesting to see what they do.

Also, some of the top cricket teams in the world represent areas that don't have National Olympic Committees.  Cricket's one of many sports where England, Scotland and Wales compete separately.  England's the strongest of the three and would conceivably be the representative of Great Britain, but an agreement would almost certainly need to be made before qualifying starts.  Likewise, all of the English-speaking countries in the Caribbean combine to form a single West Indies team.  That obviously wouldn't work for the Olympics, but what's the solution?

There's another "country" without a National Olympic Committee that competes internationally in one of the added Olympic sports where an Olympic tournament would seem incomplete without them, but how they'll be included is complicated and potentially not practical.  The Haudenosaunee Confederacy, representing the Iroquois Nation, is ranked third in the world in lacrosse.  Lacrosse is the only sport in which the Iroquois compete, though, and the Native American tribe, while recognized by the United Nations, isn't recognized by the IOC, which is a prerequisite for Olympic inclusion.

Honestly, I'm not sure if there's enough time for a Haudenosaunee NOC to be formed and recognized in time for them to play lacrosse in LA.  They have the support of both the USOPC and Canadian Olympic Committee, but it may not be feasible in such a short amount of time.  Those players are eligible to represent either the United States or Canada (depending on which side of the border they're from), so they'll have the chance to play in LA regardless.  But they'd obviously like to represent their tribe if they can.

Whether the Haudenosaunee fields a team or not will obviously have a big impact on the entire lacrosse qualifying process.  Especially on the men's side.  You'd have to figure Canada will represent the Americas, Great Britain will represent Europe and either Australia or Japan will represent the Asia/Pacific region (with the other probably also making it).  That sixth team would figure to be either the Haudenosaunee if they're able to enter a team or somebody else if they aren't.

Flag football is the other new team sport on the LA28 program.  The United States obviously has automatic qualification in both the men's and women's tournaments.  The two highest-ranked teams at the 2026 World Championships (the other two medalists assuming the U.S. wins one, the two finalists if the U.S. doesn't) will join them.  Then it's the top three teams representing at least two continents in the 2028 Olympic Qualifier Series to round out the six-team fields.

As for the existing Olympic team sports, soccer will see the biggest change.  In the past, it was a 12-team women's tournament and a 16-team men's tournament at the Olympics.  In LA, that'll reverse.  As a result, the number of qualifiers will change, with each confederation determining its own format.  Brazil and Colombia have already clinched CONMEBOL's two women's spots.  The number of men's qualifiers has, naturally, been reduced, as well, with the biggest changes being that now UEFA will only get three spots (down from four) and, because the U.S. has an automatic berth, only one other team from CONCACAF will make it.

The basketball qualifying format was changed for Tokyo, and this will be the third Olympics using the same method.  The United States is in automatically as host.  The winner of the World Cup will also get a berth.  Then the men's field will be completed using the top finishers from each continent at the World Cup and the final four teams will come from the four Olympic Qualifying Tournaments in early 2028.  On the women's side, the U.S. and World Champion will compete in the OQTs with everybody else, but take one of the qualifying spots from their respective tournaments.  So, two of the tournaments will have three teams qualify and the other two, the ones involving the two teams that are already qualified, will only have two.

Each sport's qualifying method is obviously a little different.  And it may seem early to even be thinking about it.  But it's not.  Berths in the 2028 Olympics are at stake as early as this Summer (and some have already been clinched).  All of which is a sign that LA28 will be here before we know it.

Hockey's Playoff Problem

I've made my disdain for the current Stanley Cup Playoff format well known.  I'm not the only one.  In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone (other than Commissioner Gary Bettman) who likes the format.  A format that is incredibly flawed, with those flaws becoming even more glaringly obvious each year.  There's also such an easy fix...if only Bettman weren't so stubbornly insistent on keeping things the way they are, despite the criticism and the despite the fact that he's seemingly the only one who likes it this way.

Believe it or not, the current format is more than a decade old.  It came about as a result of the 2013-14 realignment when Atlanta moved to Winnipeg and they went from six divisions to four.  And even that was a compromise.  Bettman wanted to do a straight top four from each division, but the players balked at that, so they settled on the top three from each division with two wild cards in each conference.  That's what we've had ever since with the exception of the two seasons that were disrupted by COVID.

When devising this playoff format, Bettman wanted to hearken back to the 1980s, when the Stanley Cup Playoffs were entirely division-based.  You played only your division opponents in the first two rounds of the playoffs, which obviously led to pretty intense animosity and some pretty heated rivalries.  However, it also led to frequently repeated matchups and the same teams making deep playoff runs.  Either Edmonton or Calgary was in the Stanley Cup Final every year from 1983-90...and facing either the Islanders, Montreal, Boston or Philadelphia.

The 80s also gave us some pretty bad playoff teams, too.  There were only 21 teams in the NHL at the time, and 16 of them made the playoffs.  All you had to do was not finish last and you made the playoffs.  And it led to some pretty lopsided series between division winners (who were actual Stanley Cup contenders) and fourth-place teams that weren't even good.  Essentially, you had to be really bad to miss the playoffs back then!

At the time, doing a division-based playoff format made complete sense.  Most of the league made the playoffs anyway, and it made qualification very straightforward.  However, the NHL eventually outgrew it.  As the league expanded and realigned, they realized basing the playoffs entirely on division standings didn't make much sense.  So, they went to a conference-based format for the 1993-94 season.  And the conference-based format worked great.  More importantly, it created some different playoff matchups instead of the same teams continually playing each other every year.

In the modern-day NHL, noncompetitive playoff teams aren't an issue.  With 32 teams, it's the opposite problem.  Only half the league qualifies for the playoffs.  There are some really good teams that end up missing out, and we've seen wild card teams who are the last to get in go all the way to the Cup Final and even win the Cup.  It's a vastly different league than it was in the 80s.  It's a better league.  It's a league where the players (and teams) deserve a fair playoff format.  Which is not what the current one is.

How many times in the past decade have the top two teams in a conference, if not the entire league, been in the same division?  It happened seemingly every year with Washington and Pittsburgh for a while (and, make no mistake, part of the reason this entire stupid format exists in the first place is because Bettman wanted those frequent Ovechkin vs. Crosby matchups).  Yet, under this format, it's impossible for them to meet in the Conference Final.  You're guaranteed to have one of the top two teams in the conference eliminated by the other in the second round.  If you're in a good division, it's almost better to finish fourth and be a wild card, where you can cross over to the other division, than second.

And let's not forget the inherent unfairness of basing the seeding (and matchups) entirely on division finish rather than point total.  This season is the perfect example.  Minnesota had the seventh-highest point total in the entire NHL.  Yet, the Wild opened the playoffs on the road since they "only" finished third in the Central.  Ditto with Montreal.  The Canadiens finished tied for second in the Atlantic with Tampa Bay, but the Lightning held the tiebreaker, so they got home ice for their first-round series.  Meanwhile, the Penguins, who had eight fewer points than both Tampa Bay and Montreal and just the seventh-most in the East have home ice against Philadelphia for no other reason than because they finished second in the Metropolitan, the weakest division in the league.

Perhaps after all those years of getting screwed by the playoff system with those frequent matchups against Washington, it's somewhat appropriate for Pittsburgh to be the beneficiary of it this season. But the fact that something like this happens seemingly every year should be enough of a clue that the system isn't working.  Teams shouldn't be rewarded with an easier path (or penalized with a harder path) simply because of the division they play in.  Yet that's exactly what keeps happening.

That's to say nothing of the repeat matchups.  I already mentioned Pittsburgh and Washington.  It had also become a bit of a running joke about Edmonton and LA.  The Oilers and Kings played each other in the first round four years in a row, with Edmonton winning every time.  This season, they mixed it up a little, with the Oilers playing the other Southern California team instead while the Kings face Colorado.

There's another key element about the NHL in 2026 that's very different than the NHL in the 1980s.  In the 80s, when there were fewer teams in the league, you were playing everybody else much more frequently.  You played seven or eight games against your division opponents and three against the other teams.  So, the head-to-head had a much bigger bearing on the division standings.  Now you still play three against the other teams in your conference, but only four against your division rivals.  That's 28 total division games and 24 against the rest of the conference.  It's almost equal!  So, why is your division finish weighted so heavily then?

Adding to the frustration is how the NHL could so easily remedy this problem that it insists isn't a problem.  Just go back to the old way!  There's absolutely nothing wrong with the playoff format that they used for 20 years from 1993-94 to 2012-13.  Division winners seeded 1 & 2 with the next six teams seeded 3-8 based on points, regardless of which division they're in or what place they finished.  You'd also go back to reseeding after each round so that the 1-seed plays the lowest remaining seed instead of the fixed bracket.  (And, if the 3-seed has more points than the 2-seed, they get home ice in the second round.)

Going back to this format would still place value on winning the division, but not overvalue it like the current system does.  Just as importantly, it guarantees that the team with the second-most points can be seeded no lower than third.  Which means that there's no possible way they can play the top team until the Conference Final.  It would also guarantee the team with the third-most points home ice in the first round...regardless of division.  They'd no longer be penalized for finishing third in a strong division.

Frankly, none of this seems that hard.  And it makes far more sense than what the NHL is currently doing.  Next season, the regular season increases to 84 games.  Wouldn't that also be the perfect time to revise the playoff format to what it should be?  Which everyone except for Gary Bettman agrees is long overdue.

2026 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Gary Bettman thinks the Stanley Cup Playoff format is great.  He may be the only one.  Yet, every time he's asked about it, he doubles down.  I don't know if it's stubbornness or to troll everyone or a combination, but Bettman continues to support the format.  Even though seemingly nobody agrees with him.  And even though the current format has, once again, exposed its glaring flaws for all to see.

Because of the playoff format, either the second- or third-best team in the West will be eliminated by the other in the first round.  Then the winner of that series gets to face the No. 1 seed, guaranteeing that only one of the top three teams can possibly make the Conference Final.  In the East, the third- and fourth-best teams face each other for the chance to play the second-best team.  Meanwhile, the Penguins, who had the seventh-highest point total in the East will have home ice in the first round against Philadelphia, the eighth-best team in the East.  Ditto about 93-point Edmonton having home ice while 104-point Minnesota starts the playoffs on the road.  But, sure Gary!  The format's perfect!

If the playoffs were seeded a straight 1-8 with the division winners as the top two seeds like they should be, the first-round matchups would look completely different.  And be a lot more fair to the better teams while, at the same time, not rewarding lesser teams for simply playing in weaker divisions. 

Instead of what we have, it would be: (1) Carolina vs. (8) Philadelphia, (2) Buffalo vs. (7) Pittsburgh, (3) Tampa Bay vs. (6) Ottawa & (4) Montreal vs. (5) Boston in the East and (1) Colorado vs. (8) Los Angeles, (2) Vegas vs. (7) Anaheim, (3) Dallas vs. (6) Utah & (4) Minnesota vs. (5) Edmonton in the West.  Only one of the eight matchups would be the same.  Avalanche-Kings.  And just as Pittsburgh wouldn't be rewarded for finishing second in a weaker division, Dallas wouldn't be penalized for finishing second in a strong one.

But, we're stuck with Gary's format this year.  And it's already a weird one.  The annual Oilers-Kings first round series isn't happening.  Neither is the annual Panthers-Oilers Stanley Cup Final.  Although, the Price of Wales Trophy has retired to the State of Florida, so I guess that bodes well for the Lightning's chances.  They also have Corey Perry again, so that's a guaranteed ticket to losing the Final for Tampa Bay.

Sabres vs. Bruins: Buffalo is back in the playoffs!  And the Sabres didn't just barely get in as the second wild card.  They won the freakin' division!  They're a legitimate contender.  Do I see them winning 16 games?  No.  But they don't need to make a deep playoff run for this season to be seen as a tremendous success.  Unfortunately, because of the format, they get Boston in the first-round.  A tough matchup that could easily go either way.  Boston in seven.

Lightning vs. Canadiens: On paper, this is the most competitive of the eight first-round series.  They finished level on points at 106, with the Lightning getting home ice because they had more wins (in all three columns).  This is also the first playoff meeting between these teams since the 2021 Stanley Cup Final, which was only even possible that season because...COVID.  In 2021, the Lightning were a much better team and played like it.  This year, they're much more even, but the result should be the same.  Tampa Bay in six.

Hurricanes vs. Senators: Will this be the year when Carolina finally breaks through and wins a game or two (or four?) in the Conference Final?  The Hurricanes were clearly the best team in the Eastern Conference during the regular season, but that doesn't mean anything come playoff time.  Although, they're the biggest beneficiaries of the flawed playoff system this year.  They have a straightforward path to another Conference Final loss, starting with an Ottawa team they should have no problems against.  Carolina in four.

Penguins vs. Flyers: This is the first time since the Devils moved to New Jersey that all three New York City-area teams missed the playoffs.  Both Pennsylvania teams made it, though.  And they'll face each other in the postseason for the first time since 2018.  They're two of the weakest teams among the 16 remaining.  Yet one of them will make the second round.  I'll say Pittsburgh just to see if Crosby has one last playoff run in him.  Pittsburgh in six.

Avalanche vs. Kings: As we see seemingly every year, winning the President's Trophy doesn't guarantee you anything.  Since Chicago won both the President's Trophy and Stanley Cup in 2013, only the Rangers (twice) have even made the Conference Final in a year they won the President's Trophy.  So, the Avalanche know nothing is guaranteed...even if they're a much better team than the Kings.  Round one shouldn't be a problem.  But they could easily keep that streak going in the second round.  Colorado in five.

Stars vs. Wild: We've known this would be a first-round matchup for a while.  It was really a matter of which team would end up with home ice.  As I already mentioned, they were both screwed by the format.  But Minnesota was screwed more.  The Wild had the seventh-most points in the entire NHL, yet they won't have home ice advantage in the first round of the playoffs.  And Dallas having the extra home game could be what makes a difference in the series.  Dallas in seven.

Golden Knights vs. Mammoth: Another major issue with the NHL is the loser point.  The Knights won the division despite winning fewer than half their games this season.  Why?  Because they collected 17 loser points!  (They aren't even the worst culprits...the Kings essentially made the playoffs because they got the loser point in a quarter of their games despite having only one more win than the Rangers!  But I digress!)  To put it in perspective, their opponent, Utah, had four more wins and three fewer points than Vegas.  It's great to see the Mammoth make their debut playoff appearance after finally getting a name.  But it may be a short stay.  Because this is typically the time of year when Vegas plays its best hockey.  Vegas in five.

Oilers vs. Ducks: Will the Oilers stay in the same hotel in LA that they already had booked for their annual Kings series, or will they stay in one closer to Anaheim?  Anyway, their pursuit of a third straight Stanley Cup Final appearance once again takes them thru Southern California, where the Ducks return to the playoffs for the first time in eight years.  Anaheim's players have plenty of playoff experience, though, seeing as half of them played on the Rangers' President's Trophy-winning team two years ago!  That still doesn't match Edmonton's playoff experience, though.  This will be the start of another deep postseason run for the Oilers.  Edmonton in six.

Even with all the new teams in the field, I wouldn't be surprised if we see some familiar faces as we get to the later rounds.  Carolina always loses the Eastern Conference Final.  The Prince of Wales Trophy always goes to a team from Florida.  Edmonton always beats Dallas in the Western Conference Final.  Will that be the case again this year?  Or will we see something different?  All we know is that it'll take the next two months to decide.

Not So Fast On the Streaming

Amazon's CEO is "confident" that the streamer will one day get a Super Bowl.  Netflix reportedly is "in the mix" for Sunday Night Football when the NFL renegotiates its media rights package.  Both might want to pump the brakes on those ambitions.  Because Congress and the FCC are both looking into the NFL and potentially putting the league's antitrust exemption at risk.  And it's all because of the abundace of games that are exclusively available behind streaming paywalls.

In the NFL's never-ending pursuit of more money, they keep finding new broadcast windows and creating packages of games to sell to the highest bidder.  The newest is a five-game package that went back to the league as a part of the deal when ESPN absorbed NFL Network.  The package was rumored to be going to both Amazon and Netflix along the way.  Now it looks like it'll end up on YouTube, where the stream will be free.  That's not a coincidence.

Last season, the NFL had games on 10 different broadcasters.  In addition to the four broadcast networks, there were games on ESPN and NFL Network, as well as Thursday Night Football on Amazon Prime and exclusive games on Netflix, Peacock and YouTube.  There was also supposed to be a Monday night game exclusively on ESPN+, but that ended up being shifted to regular ESPN.  Yes, all games are required to be made available on over-the-air television in the home markets of the two participating teams.  But, for a fan of a team who lives outside their local market, they need to navigate this endless maze of broadcast options and pay for a subscription to all of the different streaming services just to watch their team play.

Needless to say, the streaming wars are beyond frustrating for sports fans.  Because, while the thought process was that streaming would make it easier to watch games and make them more accessible, the opposite has actually been true.  It isn't easier.  In fact, it's harder than ever.  First, you need to find who's broadcasting the game.  Then, you need to see if you already have a subscription.  And, if you don't, you need to sign up for one.  Just to watch a football game.

Then there's the cost, which is the real driving factor here.  It's never been more expensive to watch sports.  In order to watch every game, you need to have a cable subscription (which you pay for), as well as a subscription to each individual streaming service (which, again, you have to pay for).  And, those streamers need to pay for those rights fees somehow.  So, they pass them on to their subscribers.  Which makes watching football more expensive by the year.

For each of the last three seasons, a wild card game has been aired exclusively on a streamer.  Peacock had the Chiefs-Dolphins game in January 2024, while the last two have been on Prime as a part of their Thursday Night Football package.  In January, Prime had the Packers-Bears game, which was considered the marquee matchup of Wild Card Weekend.  Yet it was the least accessible of the six games.  Unless you lived in Chicago, Green Bay or Milwaukee, the only way to watch it was on Amazon Prime.  That was the last straw for Senator Tammy Baldwin.

Sen. Baldwin has introduced a bill called the "For the Fans Act."  She's as frustrated as her constituents about the abundance of streaming services and the cost associated with them, so she's doing something about it.  The For the Fans Act would require all nationally-televised games to be made available for free, either on broadcast TV or a streaming service.  It would also remove local blackouts when games are only available on another streamer.  Most importantly, it would bring the cost down for people who just want to watch their team.

The FCC, meanwhile, is reexamining the NFL's antitrust exemption entirely because of the ever-increasing number of games available only behind streaming paywalls.  The NFL needs its antitrust exemption to operate as the multibillion-dollar business it has become (although, an argument could be made that the league's teams are business partners rather than competitors, so they need the antitrust exemption as much as the league itself does).  However, that exemption is now under threat, as the NFL asks its existing rightsholders to pay more for less game inventory.

Live sports are a valuable commodity for both traditional TV networks and streaming platforms.  Sports are the only "event TV" remaining where there's a guaranteed, built-in live audience.  That's why rights fees continue going up.  But, at the same time, networks having to pay more for rights fees means they have to come up with that money somewhere.  For the streamers, it means raising subscription prices and passing those on to the consumer.  But CBS, NBC and FOX don't have that option.  Which is why they, or more specifically, their affiliates, will be hurt the most.  And why there's pressure on the FCC to do something.

Network affiliates rely on those live sports broadcasts to fund the local news and their other programming.  The more CBS, FOX and NBC are required to pay in rights fees, the more they may have to charge in affiliate fees, which could be devastating to affiliates in certain markets that may not be able to afford it.  That, in turn, could lead to reductions in staff, local programming, etc., just to make up the difference.  Or, worse yet, they might have to drop their network affiliation altogether. 

They're the biggest beneficiaries of the NFL's antitrust exemption.  And they have the most to lose.  Which is why this is such an important issue.  Because some of those network affiliates need those NFL games on their station simply to stay in business.

A key part of the NFL's counterargument is that 87 percent of its games are still available for free on broadcast television.  And the league is required to make every game, regardless of the broadcaster, available free over-the-air in the home markets of the participating teams, so that number is 100 percent.  However, the 87 percent used to also be 100 percent.  And that number will keep going down as the league continues to make games streaming-exclusives.  Which require you to pay a subscription fee in order to watch.  Which is why the government has taken such an interest.

While the NFL garners the most headlines because it's the most popular sport and the only one where every game is nationally televised, this is far bigger than just the NFL.  The other pro leagues are sure paying attention.  And, while no one expects the NFL to lose it antitrust exemption entirely, whatever happens will directly impact each of them.  Especially since, like the NFL, they're all splintering off their media rights and involving multiple streamers, much to the frustration of fans.  So, whatever's decided regarding the NFL could very well apply to other sports, as well.

Putting more and more games on streaming platforms isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be, either.  Ask MLS.  Their exclusive deal with Apple turned out to be such a disaster that they've pretty much given up and made MLS games free for anyone who's already an Apple TV subscriber.  If MLS had it to do all over again, it's doubtful they'd still go all-in on streaming.

So, no matter what happens with the NFL's media rights renegotiations, don't expect Sunday Night Football to go anywhere.  It's too valuable a commodity for both the league and NBC.  In fact, the NFL needs NBC more than NBC needs the NFL.  If it were to move to Amazon or Netflix, it would no longer be the highest-rated program on TV.  Not even close.  And, while NBC would love to maintain its relationship with the NFL, with their year-round Sunday night sports strategy, they could easily expand their Sunday Night Baseball and Sunday Night Basketball packages to a full season, with a NASCAR race or other event to fill any gaps.

This is about the NFL's antitrust exemption, yes.  But it's about so much more.  It's about the proliferation of live sports on streaming and how fed up viewers are with it.  And now, the government is finally pushing back.  Which means the viewers, instead of the leagues and streaming services, may soon finally be the ones to benefit.

The Super Bowl Date

The date for Super Bowl LXII is still listed as "TBA."  It seems like they should know the date of a game that's less than two years away by now, doesn't it?  Well, as it turns out, that's intentional.  Because, according to NFL insiders, the date is contingent on whether the schedule is 17 or 18 games.  And the owners are making a real push to add the 18th game sooner rather than later.  Perhaps as early as 2027, the season that ends with...Super Bowl LXII!

It's not a question of if the NFL will go to 18 games.  It's a question of when.  Everyone knows this, including the players.  Although, even though it's seen as inevitable, the players still need to agree.  And there's no guarantee that they'll do that for the 2027 season.  In fact, the current CBA, which only allows for a maximum of 17 games, doesn't expire until 2031.  So, as much as the owners may push for it, they conceivably can't add the 18th game until then at the earliest.

When the 18th game is added, a second bye week for each team is expected to be a part of the deal.  Which means they'll need to add two extra weeks to the schedule.  Not just one.  And that's where the question of the Super Bowl date comes in.  Because where they insert those two extra weeks affects when the Super Bowl will be.  Either they start a week earlier and end a week later or they push the Super Bowl back two weeks.  To the last Sunday in February.

Since 2002, the NFL has started the season on the Thursday after Labor Day.  The season used to begin on Labor Day Weekend, but the NFL wanted to move away from the holiday weekend and pushed the start of the season back a week.  That moved the Super Bowl from the last week in January to the first week in February, where it remained until the 17th game was added and the Super Bowl was pushed back to the second week in February.

If the NFL wanted to keep Labor Day Weekend open when it goes to the 18-game schedule, that would mean playing the Super Bowl at the end of February.  Or, if they go back to playing on Labor Day Weekend, that would put the Super Bowl on President's Day Weekend.  Which would mean an off day after the Super Bowl for most people, a clear preference for many.

While the NFL has had a two-decade aversion to playing on Labor Day Weekend, that stance may be changing.  And it doesn't really have much to do with fans' preference about when the Super Bowl is.  It has everything to do with the scheduling flexibility it would give them.  Particularly when it comes to Friday night international games.

A key provision of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which is what grants the NFL its antitrust exemption, is that the league can't play any games on a Friday or Saturday night from the second week in September to the second week in December.  In the last two years, Labor Day was early and there were five Fridays in September, so they were able to schedule a Week 1 Friday night game in Brazil without violating that provision.  And it's because of that provision that the Seahawks will be playing on Wednesday night and the Rams-49ers game from Australia will be on Thursday night/Friday morning.

With the NFL's commitment to playing international games, you'd have to think they'll continue trying to find a way to have a Friday night international game in Week 1.  Which, as we're seeing this season, is something that can be a challenge when they don't start the season until the second weekend in September.  However, playing on Labor Day Weekend would solve that problem.  They could schedule an international game on Friday night in Week 1 every season regardless of when Labor Day is.  More importantly, they wouldn't need to finagle the schedule to make it work (like they do this upcoming season).

Playing the Super Bowl on President's Day Weekend has obvious benefits, too.  It would essentially turn Super Bowl Sunday into the equivalent of Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve in that it precedes a national holiday.  I doubt they'd find anybody who's opposed to that idea.  In fact, Super Bowl LXI is on Valentine's Day--the latest possible date it can be currently.  And, since President's Day is the third Monday in February, the Super Bowl is also on President's Day Weekend this year.  A precursor to a permanent move?

And, let's not forget, February is a very busy month on the sports calendar.  We all know the NFL is going to do whatever it wants and everyone else will have to adjust accordingly.  But it'll be a lot easier to adjust if the Super Bowl is on President's Day Weekend.  The NBA All*Star Game will take the week between the Conference Championships and Super Bowl whenever it is.  The Daytona 500 is traditionally held on President's Day Weekend, though.  But, if the Super Bowl is on President's Day Weekend, Daytona would have to move.  Most likely a week later.

Then there's the Winter Olympics, which might be the one thing that could cause the NFL to pump the brakes on any plans to extend the season throughout the month of February.  NBC, of course, broadcasts the Winter Olympics.  They also broadcast the Super Bowl in Winter Olympic years.  They've broadcast both on the same day twice in a row.  But, you'd have to imagine NBC having some objections to potentially having both the Conference Championship Games and the Super Bowl during the Olympics!  Especially since they don't broadcast either Conference Championship, so they'd be airing the Olympics opposite the NFL!

There's also the very real possibility that the scheduling of the Winter Olympics and Super Bowl would create an impossible overlap for NBC.  The final day of the 2030 Winter Olympics is February 17.  That means the gold medal men's hockey game and Closing Ceremony.  How can they show the Closing Ceremony and Super Bowl pregame at the same time?  And it's not like they can push either of those to NBCSN (although, I'm sure they'd probably just put the Closing Ceremony on USA live, then show it on NBC after the Super Bowl).  When Salt Lake City hosts in 2034, the Closing Ceremony is on February 26, which is the final Sunday in February.  A President's Day Weekend Super Bowl that year would work, but a Super Bowl on the final weekend of February obviously wouldn't.

Does/will the NFL care what the dates of the Winter Olympics are?  No.  But NBC certainly does.  And Sunday Night Football (on NBC) is one of the NFL's most valuable properties.  That relationship is important to both sides.  So, yes, I think the timing of the Winter Olympics would be a consideration.  Because, unlike the Daytona 500 and NBA All*Star Game, the dates of the Winter Olympics won't be adjusted to accommodate the NFL and whenever they decide they want the Super Bowl to be.

Ultimately, I think the talk about having the Super Bowl on the last Sunday of February (although, I guess I should say the fourth Sunday since February 29 could conceivably be on a Sunday) is nothing more than speculation.  When the 18th game is eventually added, I suspect the NFL will move Week 1 to Labor Day Weekend and the Super Bowl to President's Day Weekend.  That's where they can benefit the most on both sides.  You can schedule a Friday night game in Week 1 and people have off from work/school the day after the Super Bowl.  A win/win for everybody.

It Ain't Changing

Throughout the early baseball season, there's been plenty of talk about expansion and how the season will be adjusted once those two new teams join the Majors.  There's also been plenty of talk about the schedule and the early-season weather in Northern cities.  There have also been numerous suggestions for how to "fix" the scheduling "problem," which are pretty much all the same.  Shortening the season.

Most of these "solutions" are rooted in the same general idea.  Since the weather isn't good in some places at the beginning of April (or, this season, the last week in March), if the season were to start later, the weather would be better.  And the only way to start later without also ending later would be to start later.  There's also a similar school of thought that the season is "too long," which would also be "solved" by shortening the season.

Here's the counterpoint to the idea that the season is "too long": the MLB regular season, from start to finish lasts 183 days.  It used to be 162 games in 179 days, but extra off days were built into the 2022 CBA, moving the start of the season from Monday to midweek, with Opening Day potentially ending up in March depending on when April 1 is (and, more importantly, working back from the last potential date for Game 7 of the World Series).  The postseason lasts a maximum of 36 days total, with each team getting a number of off days built into that.  That's a total of just over seven months to play the entire regular season and playoffs.

Contrast that to the NBA and NHL.  Both seasons run concurrently and are basically the same length.  This season, the NHL started on October 7 and ends on April 16 (with a three-week Olympic break).  The NBA started on October 21 and ends on April 12.  Then the playoffs in both run until mid-June.  That's a six-month season, followed by two full months of playoffs!  Sure, they don't play every day and there aren't as many games, but that doesn't change the fact that the NHL and NBA seasons are actually longer than the MLB season!  Yet nobody is clamoring that they "need" to shorten either of those!  The NHL, in fact, is increasing the number of games from 82 to 84 next season!

One of the common arguments made by those who say the MLB season is "too long" is based on the idea that they play "too many games."  Would these people still feel that way if the season started and ended at the same time, but teams had more off days?  Because that's literally the only real difference between the MLB season and the NHL/NBA seasons (which are just as long)!  In baseball, they play pretty much every day for six months.  In hockey and basketball, they don't.

And how is 162 games "too many?"  They've been playing a 162-game schedule in the American League since 1961 and in the NL since 1962.  If the owners or players felt that was too many games, they wouldn't have had that be the standard season length for more than 60 years!  So, really, the suggestion that it "should" be shorter is really that writer admitting they either don't like baseball or they simply don't have a long enough attention span to follow/watch a team every day for six months.

There are also the common complaints about interleague play among the "too long" crowd.  Those are the games these people would like to see eliminated in order to get their shorter schedules.  Interleague play has been around for 30 years.  It's not going anywhere!  Especially now that teams play each of the other 29 franchises every season (which is something that the owners specifically wanted leading into the 2023 schedule change).  You try to take any of those interleague games away, you're getting resistance.

Not to mention the fact that the schedule is perfectly balanced and formatted for a 162-game season.  So, taking games away isn't as easy as it sounds.  It would actually make it significantly harder since there really wouldn't be a way to make the math even.  (When/if they do add two expansion teams, they would easily be able to plop them into the existing schedule template with minor adjustments.)

Among the "shorten the season" crowd, 154 games seems to be the common number.  Major League Baseball, of course, played 154 games for most of the first half of the 20th Century before going to the 162-game schedule.  When the schedule was first expanded, it was because of expansion.  Each league went from eight teams to 10.  That's 1/3 the size of the current Major Leagues!  And they were only playing the teams in their own league back then!  So, how does it make sense to have more teams play fewer games?  Just because 154 games is a historical number in baseball history (which is where they got it from) doesn't mean they "need" to go back to it for any reason whatsoever.

Reducing the number of games from 162 to 154 or any other number isn't going to happen.  Plain and simple.  There are a number of reasons for that, but they all come back to the same thing.  Money.  Fewer games means less money for the owners, which, in turn, means less money for the players.  Which makes playing fewer games a complete non-starter.

It may not sound like a lot.  Four fewer home games is one less series.  No big deal.  Right?  Wrong!  Think about the lost revenue, not just in ticket sales, from just one fewer home series for certain teams.  From parking, concessions, merchandise sales, etc.  No, it wouldn't make a difference to the Marlins or the A's or the Pirates.  It would be a huge difference for the Yankees or the Dodgers or the Red Sox.

Logic dictates that if the owners aren't bringing in as much revenue, they'll spend less.  Which will lead to players having to settle for less-lucrative free agent deals.  If they even get deals at all.  What seems more likely is that veteran players would suffer the most since teams would end up going with younger, cheaper players instead.  Which is something the MLBPA obviously wouldn't be too happy about.

Not to mention the broadcasters.  MLB's TV contracts were made based on a 162-game schedule.  So, there would need to be some make-good provisions to keep the broadcast partners happy.  Those would probably come at the expense of teams' local broadcasters, which are still lucrative for some franchises.  Not to mention their main source of revenue they don't need to share.  Moving forward, a shorter season would mean that all of those broadcast contracts potentially become less lucrative.  Which is even more money out of the owners' pockets.

So, whoever has those visions of a 154-game season in their heads needs to get them out.  Because, for the financial reasons alone, it's not happening!  There's also literally no one actually involved in Baseball actually clamoring for it.  Not the Commissioner's Office.  Not the owners.  Not the players.  Just some bored writers who want to "fix" something that isn't broken.