Let's Get These Sports Stars Dancing

Yes it is too soon for Ryan Lochte to be on Dancing With the Stars.  They evidently had him locked in as a participant for this season before his shenanigans in Rio, but they easily could've told him "No Thanks" afterwards.  Yet they decided not to, arguing instead that he deserves a chance to rehabilitate his reputation.

Lochte won't be the only athlete on this season's Dancing With the Stars cast.  He'll be joined by Final Five gymnast Laurie Hernandez, Indy Car driver James Hinchcliffe and, since it's a rule that they must have at least one football player on the cast each season, Megatron.  They're just the latest in a long line of sports stars that have appeared on Dancing With the Stars since the beginning.  And, for the most part, they've done pretty well.  Eight have won and a handful have finished second (Shawn Johnson has done both).

Where am I going with all of this?  No, I don't watch Dancing With the Stars.  But there's no denying that they lean on the world of sports.  In fact, I'd love to see an entire season of sports personalities.  I'm not suggesting they do a season of returning sports personalities who've previously been contestants, either (although that would be fun).  No.  I want all sports people, all of whom are new to the show.  Now that's a season I'd watch.

For some reason they alternate between 12 and 13 celebrities, so, for the sake of keeping the number of men an women balanced, I'll do 12:

Kerri Walsh Jennings: Misty May-Treanor suffered perhaps the most famous injury in Dancing With the Stars history when she tore her Achilles during practice for one of the dances.  Well, now it's time for the other half of Kerri and Misty to give the dancing a go.  She's actually going to retire now, right?

Missy Franklin: Other than Ryan Lochte, name one U.S. swimmer who needs a bounce back more than Missy Franklin.  She was such a huge star in London, only to see that shining light flicker out in Rio.  Dancing With the Stars would be the perfect opportunity to reenter the limelight.

Abbey D'Agostino: If Missy Franklin were to using Dancing With the Stars to rebound from her Olympic disappointment, it would be exactly the opposite for Abbey D'Agostino.  She's America's darling right now after her incredible act of sportsmanship heard around the world.  Sure, the torn ACL is a problem, but it would still be a great way to extend her 15 minutes.

McKayla Maroney: Who better to be the next dancing gymnast?  She's not impressed with anybody else, but I bet the judges would be impressed with her.  Yes, post-London really would've been a better time for her, but Aly Raisman's already been on, so they only have three of the Rio team left.

Miesha Tate: She hasn't announced anything about her future career plans yet, but it's fairly obvious Kayla Harrison is going to join MMA.  If she doesn't, she's an idiot.  Anyway, I digress.  Miesha Tate already is an MMA star.  And I actually think she'd do pretty well if she ever did Dancing With the Stars.

Lindsey Vonn: Lindsey Vonn is everywhere.  Seriously, what hasn't she been on?  Surprisingly, Dancing With the Stars.  With our Olympic focus shifting back to skiers and skaters, it seems like a great time to start seeing a lot of Lindsey Vonn once again.

Colin Kaepernick: Talk about athletes who need to reshape their image.  Kaepernick would also get the football player requirement out of the way (although there are plenty of candidates, and I'm sure Tim Tebow would be as amazing at dancing as he is at everything else).  As long as the national anthem isn't one of the songs...

Tony Stewart: He's gonna have a lot of time on his hands coming up.  He also seems like the type of guy who would do it.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Tony Stewart actually appear on Dancing With the Stars in the near future.

Alex Rodriguez: Baseball season is so long that they're never able to have an active baseball player on the show.  Well, A-Rod isn't an active baseball player anymore.  And don't tell me you wouldn't tune in just to watch him.

George Foreman: Don't tell me this wouldn't be amazing.  Because you know it would be.  The boxer seems to be just as frequent as the football player, yet somehow George Foreman has never been on Dancing With the Stars.  (In the same vein, how has Regis Philbin never been on Dancing With the Stars, either?)

Cristiano Ronaldo: Well, they might as well cancel the season if Cristiano Ronaldo participates.  Because God's gift to the world is the greatest at everything he does.  He would automatically win, right?  (I think the reason he's smiling in the picture is because he can see his likeness in the trophy.)

Andy Roddick: I'm actually kinda surprised Andy Roddick has never been on this show.  Believe it or not, it's been four years since he retired.  It really seems like they've missed the boat on this one.  Because Andy Roddick would be perfect.

A Sit Down Kaeper

At least people have finally stopped talking about how unpatriotic Gabby Douglas is for standing with her hands in front of her instead of at her side during the national anthem after the team final at the Olympics.  Talk about making something out of nothing!

Our latest national anthem controversy involves 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick.  As you probably know by now, Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem prior to San Francisco's preseason game against the Packers on Friday night.  Kaepernick later said that he did it as a protest in response to what he feels is the mistreatment against African Americans and minorities in this country.

Now, nowhere does it say that people have to stand for the national anthem.  Even the NFL said that players are "encouraged but not required" to stand.  San Francisco's carefully-worded press release said: "In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem."  Even 49ers coach Chip Kelly told reporters that it's "his right as a citizen" and that "it's not my right to tell him what to do."

The public reaction to Kaepernick's protest is far less understanding.  He's been called "spoiled" and "selfish," which are probably the nicest things anybody has said on the matter.  A lot of people, including some of Kaepernick's teammates, are downright offended.  Some people feel like he's taking a swipe at military servicemen and women who fight and sacrifice to give Kaepernick the very rights he has as an American--like the right to protest.  NASCAR driver Tony Stewart called him an "idiot" who needs to learn what police go thru and respect the job they do.  Likewise, former 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh took exception to the "method of action" his former QB used.

One of the biggest critics was Saints quarterback Drew Brees.  Brees spoke to ESPN.com on Monday night, explaining that he felt "compelled to speak out" because the protest had been "bothering him all day."  Brees doesn't disagree with Kaepernick's decision to protest.  What he doesn't like is his decision to disrespect the flag.  Brees called the American flag "sacred" and noted the irony that Kaepernick is choosing to sit down and disrespect the flag, which symbolizes the very freedoms to speak out.  Giants punter Steve Weatherford was also extremely critical.  His Facebook page is full of photos of veterans (including the late Arizona Cardinals safety Pat Tillman) thanking them for their service while at the same time calling out Kaepernick.  Personally, I think Weatherford took it a little unnecessarily over-the-top (and most of the criticism directed back his way isn't totally unjustified), but at least you know where he stands.

People are obviously going to be divided on this issue, and everyone is entitled to their opinion (another thing which makes America great).  The San Francisco police union has demanded an apology.  Even our next president has chimed in (don't worry, he fired back at both of them).

However, it is worth noting that Kaepernick is slated to make $11.9 million this year, so he's certainly not as "oppressed" as the people he's protesting for.  Likewise, and this is perhaps the most relevant part, Kaepernick is a mixed-race man, who was adopted and raised by white parents.  When the 49ers were in the Super Bowl three years ago, that was one of the biggest storylines.  I have no idea what it was like for Colin Kaepernick growing up and, at the risk of sounding ignorant, he probably never experienced that "oppression" either.

He obviously has his reasons for his protest, but I can't help but feel it's more about making the statement than anything else.  Kaepernick is making his point, and he's doing it successfully.  People are talking about him and the issue that he's bringing up.

Kaepernick is also putting the 49ers in a very difficult spot here.  He took them to a Super Bowl as the starter and was the reason Alex Smith got traded to Kansas City.  But he was also benched last season and isn't a guarantee to make the roster (for reasons that have nothing to do with this).  In fact, Kaepernick has done his protest at all three of San Francisco's preseason games, but nobody noticed at the first two because he wasn't even dressed.

According to the sources of FOX's Jay Glazer, the 49ers are seriously cutting Kaepernick and his $11.9 million salary.  And it has nothing to do with his political views.  It's because they feel like they're better off with Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder at quarterback, and they don't feel like paying him that much to sit on the bench (if he even dresses).  If they release him and he signs somewhere else, the 49ers' cap hit will only be the difference in his salaries.

San Francisco's got a very difficult decision on its hands.  If they cut Kaepernick before the start of the season (which is evidently a very real possibility), it'll look like a retaliatory move.  But if they keep him on the roster just for the sake of keeping him on the roster, that doesn't do anybody any good either.

Whatever the 49ers do, Kaepernick isn't helping his case by getting involved in a non-football controversy that's completely of his own making.  They might simply decide it's worth eating his salary just to be done with him and the distraction.  Teams have done it before (the Browns are paying Johnny Manziel, who isn't even on their roster, more than the Broncos are paying their starter, Trevor Siemian).  That might actually be the best thing for everyone.

US Wide Open

If there was ever a year where the US Open was more wide-open, I don't remember it.  But, because of injuries or other reasons, the story's more about who's not here and who looks vulnerable.  With three quarters of the Big Three battling injuries, the men's tournament certainly looks like it's anybody's for the taking.  On the women's side meanwhile, we've had three different winners in the first three Grand Slams, and Monica Puig is coming off a surprise Olympic gold, so it really is anybody's to take there, as well.

Let's start with the men.  Roger Federer is injured and not playing, which is weird in its own right.  Rafael Nadal only came back for the Olympics after missing a couple months with the injury that forced him to withdraw from the French Open mid-tournament.  Even Novak Djokovic has been dealing with an injury.  He'd been playing with a hurt wrist for a while, and it's probably at least part of the reason he was upset at Wimbledon.  Djokovic lost in the first round at the Olympics, a tournament he probably wouldn't have even played if he already had an Olympic medal.

So, that would lead you to think this tournament is Andy Murray's to lose.  Murray's clearly been the best player on tour this summer, winning his second Wimbledon title and defending his Olympic gold.  He'll justifiably head into the US Open as the favorite.  And if Murray's on his game (which he has been for the last couple of months), he'll definitely be very tough to beat.

In the Olympic gold medal match, it was Juan Martin Del Porto, he who vanquished Djokovic, that took on Murray.  Del Potro now has an Olympic silver to go along with his bronze from London (when he also beat Djokovic).  The 2009 US Open champ, Del Po has always shown that he can play with the big boys.  He's always injured, though.  Del Potro has been healthy so far this summer, so you've got to view him as a contender, too.

Unfortunately, Murray-Del Potro can't be the final here.  It's a tantalizing semifinal, though.  Del Potro might be unseeded, but he's not your typical unseeded player.  He beat Wawrinka at Wimbledon and inherited the seed.  He beat Djokovic at the Olympics and inherited the seed.  At the US Open, he doesn't really have to deal with any top players until a potential quarterfinal with Wawrikina, who I see losing to Fernando Verdasco in the first round.  Murray, meanwhile, has to deal with Grigor Dimitrov and Kei Nishikori or Ivo Karlovic just to get to Del Potro in the semis.

Because the top two contenders are in the bottom half, things actually worked out pretty well for Djokovic and Nadal in the draw.  The two of them have had some epic US Open battles in recent years, including those memorable finals.  Except they're potentially gonna have to deal with Marin Cilic (Djokovic) and Milos Raonic (Nadal) in the quarters.  Cilic is probably excited about that possible matchup with Djokovic after he was embarrassed by the world No. 1 in last year's semifinals.  And just ask Roger Federer about how good Milos Raonic is.  This guy's a star in the making, and, after making the finals at Wimbledon, I can easily see him hoisting the trophy in New York.

I don't see Raonic winning his first Grand Slam title here, though.  Not with the way Andy Murray's been playing.  Just like in 2012, I think he follows up Olympic gold with a US Open crown.

What a difference a year makes when it comes to storylines.  Last year, it was all about Serena Williams going for the Grand Slam.  She was, of course, upset in the semifinals by Roberta Vinci, who fell to countrywoman Flavia Pennetta in the final.  Pennetta retired immediately after winning her only Grand Slam title and won't be defending her crown.

Pennetta's US Open title started a string of four different Grand Slam winners for the women.  The only constant has been Serena in the finals.  But she lost early in the Olympics, which was definitely out of character.  In 2012, she won Wimbledon, the Olympics and the US Open all in a row.  She was in top form four years ago.  I can't say she is this year.  But she's still Serena.  And if she is on her game, she's still the one to beat.

However, Angelique Kerber did that at the Australian Open, and she also reached the Wimbledon final, where she lost to Serena.  Kerber is also the Olympic silver medalist.  Her first Grand Slam breakthrough came in 2011, when she made the semis here.  Kerber hasn't been past the fourth round since, but I see that changing.  If she goes out before the quarterfinals, it'll be a major upset.  Kerber should go much further than that, though.

Don't be surprised to see Puig carry the momentum from her Olympic gold (the first ever for a Puerto Rican) into the US Wide Open.  Same thing with Madison Keys.  She finished fourth in Rio and reached the round of 16 at each of the first three Grand Slams this year.  The only potential roadblock for Keys is Caroline Wozniacki, who always does one of two things at the US Open--lose early or make a deep run.  She's unseeded this year, which takes some of the pressure off, so don't be surprised if it's the latter.

Meanwhile, you know Serena wants to make up for last year.  Winning the 2016 US Open will never make up for last year's semifinal loss when she was trying to finish off the Grand Slam.  But it would be No. 23, breaking the tie with Steffi Graf and moving her within one of Margaret Court's all-time record.  She's twice followed up a Wimbledon win with a US Open victory.  Will she make it three?

Despite all of her ups and downs this year, Serena Williams is still the player to beat in any Grand Slam tournament she enters.  That's no different here.  I've got her and Kerber facing off in the rubber match.  Kerber won in Australia.  Serena won at Wimbledon.  Who wins in New York?  Give me the woman who's made it to at least the semis in each of the last seven times she's played here and is looking for her fourth title in five years.  Of course, that one loss since the 2011 final, is the one she'd like to have back.

It's also worth noting that this US Open is going to be much different than any before.  The retractable roof on Arthur Ashe Stadium has been installed and is fully operational, so there will be no more rain delays on the main court.  I noticed how much of a difference it was last year with just the superstructure in place even compared to 2014.  I wonder how much more of an impact the full roof will have.

There's also a new Grandstand.  Although, I'm going to miss the old one.  So many great matches took place on that court over the years.  I'll have to check out this new version, but it's not going to have that same ambiance.  I'm sure it'll create plenty of memories of its own, though.

Baby Bombers Earning Their Stripes

For most of this season, the Scranton-Wilkes Barre RailRiders were a more entertaining team to watch than the New York Yankees.  The Yankees would even tease their fans with the "prospect watch" between innings of home games, when players like Aaron Judge and Gary Sanchez and Ben Gamel were touted as future All-Stars before they even arrived in the Majors.  People were excited about the future, which really was the primary motivation for wanting them to cut ties with A-Rod and move on.

Well, that future has arrived.  Sanchez and Judge are here, and they're here to stay.  Many experts have predicted that they'll be the foundation of the Yankees' next dynasty.  And, after just two weeks with them in Pinstripes, you can see why they had everyone so excited.  Because they're tearing up Major League pitching the same way they did in Triple A.  And they won't be tearing up Triple A pitching ever again.  The Yankees have found their starting right fielder and starting catcher for the next 10 years.

Everyone knows the "Core Four" and the reverence Yankees fans have for that quartet.  Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera were the home-grown anchors of the Yankees' last dynasty.  The team that won four titles in five years and made six World Series appearances in eight seasons from 1996-2003.  That's what made them legends in the eyes of Yankees fans.  That's why all four of them have (or, in Jeter's case, will have) their numbers on the wall in Monument Park.  And that's why Jeter and Rivera (and possibly Pettitte) will have plaques in Cooperstown once they're eligible.

But since the Yankees lost to the Marlins in 2003, they've been to the World Series just once.  And since that memorable 2009 title run, each season has been the same as the last.  High-priced free agents underperforming and coming up short of a championship, only to be replaced by more veterans after they didn't get the job done.  The last time that worked was prior to the aforementioned 2009 campaign, when the newly-acquired CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira proved invaluable for the World Series champs.

That method clearly hasn't been working, so it's worth giving this way a shot.  And, it's worth noting, that's exactly how the Core Four Era Yankees became a dynasty in the first place.  They hadn't been to the World Series in 15 years prior to that 1996 title, mainly because of George Steinbrenner's obsession with big-name free agents throughout the 1980s.  It was only during the time that Steinbrenner was suspended from baseball that Gene Michael was able to build the farm system, which would become the foundation of that dynasty.

Fittingly, it was the day of the 20th anniversary celebration for that 1996 team that Judge made his Major League debut.  That was also the Yankees' first game after A-Rod's retirement.  Guess who took his roster spot?  Tyler Austin also made his debut that day.  And they both hit a home run in their first Major League at-bat, becoming the first teammates in Major League history to do that in the same game.  Oh yeah, they did it in the same game, too.

Gary Sanchez was already on the team by then.  He was called up after Carlos Beltran was traded to take those DH at-bats and give the Yankees a long look at what they had.  They didn't need a long look.  In fact, Gary Sanchez was probably the main reason for A-Rod's hasty retirement.  He's been in the Majors for three weeks, and he hasn't stopped hitting!  Sanchez isn't just a constant in the Yankees' lineup, he's their No. 3 hitter!  When he doesn't catch, he DHes.  There's even been some clamor that Gary Sanchez will make Brian McCann expendable during the offseason.

It's been less than a month, but it's already obvious why there was so much buzz about Gary Sanchez and Aaron Judge.  Every game I go to, there's at least one No. 24 Tino Martinez jersey and one No. 24 Robinson Cano jersey somewhere in the stands.  It won't be too long until the No. 24 Gary Sanchez jerseys start appearing as well...if they haven't already.  We're also likely to see No. 99 jerseys start popping up.  (In general, I'm opposed to guys keeping their random high numbers after Spring Training ends, but Judge kept it in Scranton and is wearing it now, so it looks like he won't be changing it anytime soon.)

The sample size has been small.  Gary Sanchez has had a monster start to his Major League career, but he's bound to eventually endure some struggles.  Aaron Judge had a miserable West Coast trip, his first real slump.  We'll see how he rebounds.  Same thing with Tyler Austin, who had a torrid start, but hasn't played as much as the other two.

I'm not saying they're going to be the new "Core Four."  There's no way to predict what's going to happen in the future.  But, with Sanchez and Judge being joined by the likes of Greg Bird, Rob Refsnyer and Clint Frazier, as well as Didi Gregorius and Starlin Castro up the middle, the Yankees feel they have the foundation in place for their next extended run of success.

Years from now, we may look back at the 2016 trade deadline as a turning point for that next dynasty, whenever it may be.  The Yankees were sellers instead of buyers, yet may end up being the biggest winners of anybody.  Because if not for the deals made at the end of July, we'd probably still be seeing the same boring veteran team that had no shot of making the playoffs.  They're still unlikely to reach the postseason, but they're at least fun to watch now.

Instead we're getting a sneak peek at Gary Sanchez and Aaron Judge.  Who are leaving us salivating and the thought of what they might do in the future.  And how many World Series trophies the Yankees might collect with them leading the way.

A New York Olympics

The Olympics aren't coming to New York anytime soon.  I know this.  The bid for the 2012 Games went up in flames as soon as the plans for a West Side stadium that would eventually host the Jets were squashed and they had to change everything at the last minute to one centered around Citi Field.  (No comment on the fact that five new professional sports venues, which currently play home to six of the New York area's 11 teams, have been built since then.)

And with all of the problems potential Olympic bids have with garnering the requisite public support have had in recent years, the chances of New York bidding again in the near future seem unlikely.  Even if a New York bid were put together, the USOC would likely go with somewhere else unless that support was unwavering, if only to avoid another embarrassment like Boston.

Of course, we all know what happened there.  The USOC picked Boston as the American bid city for the 2024 Olympics, only to switch to Los Angeles after Boston balked.  The LA bid is stronger anyway and has a very good chance of winning (while Boston definitely wouldn't have), and I suspect that LA will be presented as the American candidate until the bid is successful.  But, assuming that LA does host the Olympics again, whether it be in 2024, 2028, 2032 or some other point in the future, the USOC will need to move on to a new bid city.  And they could choose worse places than New York.

With 11 professional teams (12 including the Liberty) and so many colleges, there are plenty of venues already in place to make use of.  And transportation, which plagued the Rio Games, would obviously not be much of an issue.  Sure, it can take a while to get places on the subway and some venues would require a lot of transfers, but it could be done.

Really, the biggest problem with using all of New York's existing venues is that they're so spread out, so there wouldn't be a centralized Olympic park.  And you'd still have to drive out to Hofstra or the renovated Nassau Coliseum.  Plus, figuring out a location for the Olympic Village would be a challenge, although I'd imagine one of the colleges could chip in some land in exchange for the apartments being turned into dorms post-Games, like Georgia Tech did for the Atlanta Olympics.

There are a couple other venues that would need to be built, as well.  The most obvious is an Olympic Stadium.  That West Side land is almost certainly not going to available, and Icahn Stadium on Randal's Island is too remote to renovate and make the main stadium.  So it would have to be a temporary venue or one that could ultimately be downsized (this would be the perfect scenario if New York City FC eventually gets its soccer-specific stadium).  Likewise, there are no velodromes anywhere in the city, and a stadium for swimming would have to be built (the Goodwill Games pool in Nassau County would be used for water polo and diving).

An IBC would also need to be constructed.  Although, NBC shoots many of its New York-based shows in the Chelsea Piers area, so those sound stages could conceivably be used as the IBC.

However, my hypothetical New York Olympics would be able to have something that no other Olympics (at least any in recent memory) has done--have all the soccer games in the host city.  No ridiculous traveling to Manaus (totally unnecessary as an Olympic soccer city).  We're making use of existing professional and college football/soccer venues, which would allow the soccer teams to stay in the Village and actually feel like they're a part of the Olympics.

My venue plan is different than the one presented to the IOC 11 years ago.  In addition to venues like the Barclays Center, which didn't exist in 2005, there are more sports in the Olympics than there were then.  And, for the sake of consistency, I'm using the sports on the program for Tokyo 2020 in my plan for NYC 2028.

BROOKLYN
Barclays Center: Basketball
Coney Island: Surfing
Olympic Aquatic Center: Swimming, Synchronized Swimming

BRONX
Pelham Bay Park: Modern Pentathlon
Pelham Bay Shooting Center: Shooting
Yankee Stadium: Baseball

MANHATTAN
Baker Field (Columbia): Field Hockey
Central Park: Archery, Beach Volleyball, Marathon (Finish)
Grand Central Station Atrium: Sport Climbing
Hudson River Park: Triathlon, Race Walk
Javits Center: Badminton, Fencing, Judo, Karate, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Weightlifting, Wrestling
Madison Square Garden: Gymnastics, Rhythmic Gymnastics, Trampoline
Madison Square Garden (Theater): Boxing
New York Harbor: Sailing, Swimming (Open Water)
Olympic Velodrome: Cycling (Track)
West Side Highway: Cycling (Road)

QUEENS
Flushing Meadows Corona Park: Canoe/Kayak, Rowing, Skateboarding
Olympic Stadium: Track & Field
USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center: Tennis

STATEN ISLAND
Greenbelt Park: BMX, Mountain Biking
Richmond County Bank Ballpark: Softball

LONG ISLAND
Belmont Park: Equestrian
Nassau Coliseum: Handball
Nassau County Aquatic Center: Diving, Water Polo

WESTCHESTER
Winged Foot Golf Club: Golf

NEW JERSEY
MetLife Stadium: Soccer (Finals)
Prudential Center: Volleyball
Red Bull Arena: Rugby

Soccer Venues: Citi Field (Queens), Icahn Stadium (Manhattan), Mitchel Field (Long Island), Rutgers Stadium (New Jersey), Shuart Stadium (Long Island)

Final Thoughts On Rio

Well, the Rio Olympics have come to an end.  And, despite of the Armageddon predictions about how these Games were going to be a disaster, Rio pulled it off.  Just like you knew they would.  Were these Olympics perfect?  No.  Were they a massive failure?  No to that one, too.  They weren't London.  They were Rio.  They had their own identity and left their own indelible moments.

In Rio, we saw the end of two of the greatest careers in Olympic history.  Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are already the stuff of legend.  Years from now, there will be Olympic fans watching clips of the two of them on YouTube just wishing they'd been able to see them in their prime.  We would've been lucky to see one in his prime.  We got to see both!  It really is amazing that they're contemporaries.  And I hope everyone realizes just how privileged we were to live in the Era of Bolt & Phelps.

But these Games were about more than Phelps and Bolt, both of whom made Rio their Olympic swan song.  We were introduced to plenty of stars that we'll see again in Tokyo and beyond.

Team USA paced the medal count with 121 medals, 46 of which were gold.  That's the most for an American team since 1984 (which comes with an asterisk because of the Soviet-led boycott), and the most for anybody since the Soviet Union won 132 in 1988.  It's also the most-ever for Team USA in an Olympics held in another country.  The women were particularly successful, contributing 61 of those medals and winning 27 of the golds.  If the American women were their own country, they would've finished fourth in the medal standings!

The United States won at least one medal in 20 of 27 sports in which it competed, which is a remarkable showing of depth.  But, as usual, most of the American success was found in the pool and on the track.  Team USA captured an incredible 65 medals (29 gold) in its two powerhouse sports of swimming and track & field, plus another 12 in gymnastics.

Towards the end of the swimming competition, Rowdy Gaines gave his theory about why the U.S. swim team was so dominant at these Olympics, and I completely agree with him.  The U.S. Olympic Trials are later than all of the other countries, so the Americans are in much better form heading into the Olympics.  Likewise, just making the team is so hard that all the pressure is on Trials.  Once they make the team, it's gravy.  If other countries want to close the gap in Tokyo, they'd be smart to take a page out of the Americans' playbook.

Meanwhile, it was quite a contrast between last summer's World Championships and this year's Olympics for the USA track & field team.  This was the best Olympics anybody can remember for USA Track & Field, with medals all across the board, including an impressive distance showing to go along with the usual haul in the sprints and field events.  So why did the Rio Olympics go so much better than the 2015 Worlds?  The same reason as swimming.  Olympic Trials were a month before the Olympics.  Last year, U.S. Nationals were nine weeks before Worlds.  Clearly a shorter gap is better.

As for Brazil, they enjoyed the usual host country boost.  It may not look like it to outside observers, but this was actually a very successful Olympics for the home team.  Brazil had its most-ever medals with 19, and its seven gold medals also set a record.  And, most importantly, they got the golds they wanted.  They won men's beach volleyball and indoor volleyball, which was nice, but they would've been willing to trade those for the gold in men's soccer.  And that's exactly what they got.  Neymar had the Maracana rocking when he clinched Brazil's first-ever Olympic men's soccer title on Saturday night.  it was Rio's signature moment.  Brazil's Super Saturday or Sidney Crosby goal.  If that had been Brazil's only gold medal, it would've been enough.

Speaking of the Maracana, it was full for every game.  So were Copacabana and the Maracanazinho and some other marquee venues.  But there were noticeable empty seats at some others, which the critics were quick to point out.  In London, everything was sold out, so that's not a fair comparison.  And all of the venues that were packed were the ones that housed sports popular in Brazil.

And, frankly, some of the other ones might've been full, too, if not for the media.  For months leading up to the Games, all you saw were articles trying to spread panic by saying how unsafe Brazil was or that they were going to get Zika.  Because of this, a lot of people who might've traveled to Rio for the Games decided not to go.  And they didn't buy those tickets as a result.  You can't have it both ways!  You can't tell everyone to stay away, then criticize the organizers for all the empty seats.

Of course, everyone loves to criticize.  And we never see that more than when people speak out about NBC's Olympic coverage.  I had a discussion with a friend earlier about NBC's coverage in Rio, and we both agreed that it was a solid B+.  The Opening Ceremony was a disaster, but they really did settle into a groove once the Games themselves began.  I actually kinda liked Ryan Seacrest on the late night show, and Mike Tirico further proved that he's one of the best in the business.

My "favorite" thing about the criticism of NBC's coverage, though, is when people get all bent out of shape about the tape delay.  Either that, or when they complain about what they show on which channel.  ("Why do they focus so much on the Americans?".  Well, because they're the American rights-holder, that's why.)  Well, guess what, they're never going to make everyone happy.  But no one is possibly able to say they weren't able to watch what they wanted.  They just needed to find it.

They had coverage on seven! different networks during the Games, much of it overlapping, and dedicated channels for both basketball and soccer.  If you didn't want to watch rowing on NBC, you didn't have to.  And if you couldn't find your sport on TV (or it wasn't being shown live), every event was streamed live online.  So, it would be inaccurate to say that NBC didn't give you plenty of options.  In fact, they offered more viewing options than ever before.  This isn't Sydney, or even Athens, where you had no choice.  It was what was on NBC, when they decided to air it, and that was it.

It also goes without saying that, like-it-or-not, NBC has Olympic rights in this country until at least 2032, so if you don't like their coverage, but still want to watch the Olympics, you don't really have much of a choice.  And the next three are in East Asia, which isn't ideal for anybody.  But that's the way it is.  We turn the page from Rio and get ready to head across the Pacific.  The countdown to PyeongChang 2018 is on.

Alright Lochte, What Really Happened?

Heading into these Olympics, there so much concern about security in Rio.  The city has a reputation for street crime and that, along with worries about the Zika virus, probably scared a lot of potential Olympic visitors away.  Brazil wanted to make it a point to let anyone traveling to Rio (whether it be a fan, athlete, official, family member, whatever) that they would be safe.  The last thing they wanted was a high-profile member of a country's delegation to become the victim of a street crime, yet that's exactly what happened on Sunday morning.  Or was it?

American swimmer Ryan Lochte claimed that he and three other swimmers (Gunnar Bentz, Jack Conger and Jimmy Feigen) were robbed at gunpoint in the early hours of Sunday morning while returning from a party.  This was Brazil's worst nightmare, both from a security and PR perspective.  Not only was somebody the victim of a robbery, it was an Olympic athlete, and a high-profile one at that.

With Rio's reputation, Lochte's original account seemed completely plausible.  In fact, some spectators and athletes from other nations have said that they've also been robbed since they've been in Rio.  The Australian team went so far as to ban their athletes from going out in the Copacabana area at night, and they've barred two of their Olympians (one of whom was robbed) from the Closing Ceremony for breaking that rule.

Except it's becoming more and more apparent that what he claimed didn't happen at all.  First, there were changing stories and conflicting accounts.  Now there's surveillance video, which makes it pretty clear things didn't go exactly as Lochte said they did.  At first, I had no doubt they were robbed, but was skeptical of the ever-changing details.  After seeing the video, however, it seems obvious that they made the whole thing up.

Of course, the obvious question is why would they fabricate such a story?  Lochte said that they didn't come forward at first because they feared they'd get in some sort of trouble, and only did when he realized they wouldn't.  (Sidebar, how would four consenting adults who are all of legal drinking age and done with their competition deciding they wanted to go out and blow off some steam be a problem with anyone?)  But even if that was the case, how do you immediately decide on being robbed at gunpoint was going to be your story?  The only reason I can think of is because that with the time of day and Rio's reputation, that explanation was believable.

And people did believe it.  The four swimmers were viewed as victims and the Brazilian police began investigating it as a crime.  Although, frankly, it's because the Brazilian police are doing their job that the swimmers' story started to fall apart.  They claimed the robbery happened a little after 4:30 a.m., yet there's video of them returning to the Olympic Village well after 6 a.m., not appearing at all traumatized from the incident.  And the video from outside France House shows them leaving the party after 5:30, which would make it pretty tough to be in a cab and robbed at 4:30.

From watching the videos, you can piece together what actually happened.  They got drunk and were acting like idiots.  They stopped at a gas station, went into a bathroom and vandalized it in some way.  When the gas station attendant wanted them to pay for the damage, one of them took out their wallet and did (which I assume is the so-called "robbery").  They did have a gun pointed at them.  By a police officer who wanted them to get out of the taxi.  But it was never pointed at Lochte's head, as he originally claimed.

This story has taken one bizarre turn after another over the past five days.  Lochte went home.  The others tried, but had their passports seized.  Two were even pulled off their flight so that they could be questioned by authorities.  It was in one of those police interviews that it came out Lochte made the whole thing up.  They weren't robbed at all.  If any crime was committed, it was likely by the swimmers.  Vandalism, destruction of property, maybe even assault.  Now, police are seeking an indictment against Lochte and Feigen for falsely reporting a crime (although Lochte, perhaps not coincidentally, got out of dodge beforehand).

Which brings me back to my original question, how is this any better than being upfront about what happened?  Now this has been turned into an international incident.  One that has completely hijacked the Olympics.  When people look back at the Rio Games, this is one of the first things that's going to come up.  And it's not a good look for anybody.  Not the Rio organizers.  Not Brazil.  Not the USOC.  Not USA Swimming.  And especially not the four swimmers.

Sadly, this whole think wreaks of the Duke lacrosse scandal 10 years ago.  In that case, we all jumped to conclusions and assumed they were guilty, until the facts came out and, as it turns out, the players were all telling the truth.  Nothing happened.  This is the reverse.  We assumed they were innocent victims.  But now the facts have come out and revealed them to be liars, who made up a story to try and cover up their drunken idiocy.

So far, Ryan Lochte's erroneous account is the only story we've heard about that night.  I want to know what the other three have to say.  Because the truth about the incident is out there somewhere.  And it's going to come out.  Did they think it wouldn't eventually?

A good number of Brazilians are demanding an apology from the swimmers.  That's the least of what they deserve.  Because there was absolutely no reason to fabricate such a tale to cover up your own behavior.  Especially in a country so self-aware about its reputation.

I'm not surprised Ryan Lochte is the one who cried wolf.  He's a 31-year-old child.  (Proving how oblivious he is, he posted an Instagram video this afternoon where he was goofing around with a friend, only to delete it a couple hours later.)  Hopefully this will serve as a wake-up call.  It's time to grow up.

Because this entire story is completely despicable.  And it never would've happened if you'd just kept your mouth shut.  Nothing happened.  We all know it.  You should be embarrassed and ashamed that you said something did.  It's not just the Brazilians who deserve an apology.  It's the 318 million Americans that you were representing in Rio who are owed one, too.  Because you're a reflection of us, and you're not making us look very good right now.