Two Months of ABS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Isn't Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More NFL Schedule Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever Happened to Sunday Afternoon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USA's Last World Cup?

There's a month to go until the World Cup kicks off.  Soccer's grand event returns to the United States for the first time in 32 years, and it's the biggest World Cup ever with 104 games (double the amount in 1994).  It's also the most expensive World Cup in history.  Which is enough to make you wonder if it's even worth the headache.  So, is it possible that this will also be the last time the United States hosts the World Cup?

The entire thing has been running the risk of being a massive debacle.  FIFA's greed and corruption have been brought front-and-center for all the world to see.  The ticket situation has been a mess, with fans who wanted to attend games priced out and opting to watch on TV instead.  And the corresponding travel costs will be nearly just as bad in some places.  FIFA is expected to receive a massive financial windfall, but how much of that will they actually share with the host cities?

Let's start with the tickets, the most obvious point of contention.  FIFA President Gianni Infantino has beamed that all 104 games will be sold out and bragged about the number of ticket applications that FIFA received.  Yet, despite that, they opened up a second "last-minute sales phase" a few weeks ago, and they keep releasing new batches of more-expensive tickets in new categories that didn't exist prior to this.  Meanwhile, their sales for a number of games, including the USA's opener against Paraguay, are lagging...almost entirely because of the price, bringing their "104 sellouts" seem more like an optimistic goal than a realistic claim.

And the word that most accurately describes FIFA's ticketing policy, especially the pricing, would be "deceptive."  They advertised affordable tickets as low as $60.  The reality was that the $60 tickets were few and far between, and long gone by the time public on-sale started.  It was so bad and they got so many complaints that they had to make $60 tickets available to the supporters' groups for the participating countries...with demand still far outpacing supply!

Infantino's defense of the ticket prices and FIFA's decision to use dynamic pricing (which it didn't seem equipped to handle) has only made things worse, too.  He compared it to the NFL or college football, where fans normally pay hundreds of dollars for tickets.  That may be true, but European soccer fans don't!  Same thing with the resale market.  Americans are used to it.  Europeans aren't.  And using the fact that tickets are reselling for higher than the already high price FIFA set doesn't exactly help your argument.  Especially not when FIFA is getting 30 percent of the sale price on its resale platform.

Reselling tickets for more than face value is illegal in Europe, as a matter of fact.  That's also the case in Mexico, so those tickets have to be resold at face value.  Ontario just passed a law prohibiting it, as well, so all of the games in Toronto had to be reposted.  And, because of the associated fees, the sellers will end up losing money if they do post their tickets in those places.

It's very obvious why they're having trouble selling tickets to certain games.  The prices are too high, and it turned people off.  If prices rise on the resale market because of the demand, that makes complete sense.  To charge $300 for seats in the upper deck for every game and expect people to just pay it is something else entirely.  If the initial prices were lower, they wouldn't have had a problem selling out every game.  But the high prices, combined with the deception and the bad PR have turned people off.  And, as a result, they've decided it's not worth it.  Which has a trickle-down effect on everything else.

Hotels were expecting a World Cup boon.  They were under the impression that they'd be sold out for the entire month, filled with fans coming in from all over the world for the tournament.  That hasn't been the case.  Because people either don't want tickets or can't get them, hotels in multiple World Cup host cities haven't seen those reservations that they were promised.  As a result, they've had to lower prices and/or make rooms that had been blocked available.  They stand to lose money because of those empty promises.

Transportation has been another big issue.  When the United bid was first awarded the World Cup, it was part of the contract that free transportation be made available to the games.  FIFA eventually amended that to allow the host cities to charge for transportation, with the expectation that it would be at the normal cost.  That obviously wasn't the case.  Citing the extra cost associated with getting so many people to the games and the lack of financial assistance from FIFA, the price of public transportation has been jacked up in so many host cities...where it'll be the only option and people will have no choice but to pay it.

What's scary about all this, too, is that nobody knows what the in-stadium prices for food, merchandise, etc., will be.  People are (probably rightly) assuming they'll be just as high.  It's gotten so bad that Falcons owner Arthur Blank had to publicly declare that concession prices wouldn't be higher for World Cup games in Atlanta than they are for any other event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium.  Frankly, it's sad that he had to do that.  And it certainly earned Blank some goodwill.  But it's really more a condemnation of the prices that have been charged for everything World Cup so far.

On paper, bringing the World Cup back to North America made complete sense all around.  In 1994, soccer was a curiosity in the United States.  That's most certainly not the case in 2026.  Why wouldn't FIFA want to take advantage of that fact?  The 1994 World Cup set an attendance record.  With more games and 70,000-seat NFL stadiums, why wouldn't the 2026 World Cup set another?  And the U.S. is one of the few countries that can take on the logistical and organizational challenge of a 48-team, 104-game tournament.  Plus, the celebrational aspect of this being the 250th year since American independence.

Maybe all of these problems during the leadup will fade away once the World Cup actually starts.  And maybe it will be as spectacular as some are predicting/hosting.  Everyone knows the U.S. is fully capable, too, so it wouldn't come as a complete surprise.  It would be a pleasant change of pace from what's been going on over the past few months, though.  And it's those last few months that have to leave you wondering if the U.S. and FIFA will even think it's worth it to do it again.

This is something that nobody will have to think about for quite a while once the World Cup concludes.  And it's certainly possible that public opinion will change when the time comes.  But, if the United States were given another opportunity to host the World Cup again in 2038 (the next World Cup available), would a bid be forthcoming?  That's not likely, but that's not my point.  My point is, with all the negative memories still front of mind, would US Soccer even want to host the World Cup unless some significant changes were made?

Don't get me wrong.  I highly doubt that the United States will never host another World Cup at any point.  What I am saying is that right now, it sure seems like hosting the World Cup is a lot more hassle than it's worth.  And there doesn't seem to be much benefit.  Just angry and annoyed fans who'd rather stay at home and watch the games on TV than in the stadium.

Shrinking In Brisbane

Under Thomas Bach's 12-year IOC presidency, the Olympics kept getting bigger.  It was his idea to let the local organizing committees choose sports to add to their edition of the Games along with the core Olympic sports.  It's how we ended up with 33 sports in Tokyo and breaking in Paris.  Two years from now in LA, there will be more sports and events than ever--353 gold medal events in 36 sports, with nearly 13,000 athletes participating (far exceeding their target number of 10,500).

Kirsty Coventry succeeded Bach last year and has already made it clear her vision for the Olympics is much different than his.  She's on record as saying the Games can't keep "getting bigger and bigger."  So, it's safe to say that the 2032 Olympics in Brisbane won't be anywhere near as big as the LA Games...in terms of number of events, number of sports or number of athletes.  The Olympics will be slimming down when they get to Australia, getting back closer to that 10,500 number.

So, it's safe to say that lacrosse and flag football will probably be one-and-dones on the Olympic program.  I wouldn't be surprised if squash is, too.  Baseball, softball and cricket might have a chance at staying because Australia is strong in those sports.  But they're all team sports, which means a lot of athletes for one set of medals, so it wouldn't be totally surprising if they aren't contested, either. 

It's also probably not a good sign for the sports federations looking to get their shot at Olympic inclusion in Brisbane.  Ditto about summer sports/disciplines that were hoping the 2030 Winter Games might be their shot.  Coventry has made it clear that the Winter Games are for winter sports...meaning those on snow and ice.  That may change in the future, but for 2030 at least, the Winter Olympics will remain what they should be.  Winter Games, not overflow Summer Games.

There's a practical reason for all of this.  Cost.  Bach's big thing was using existing and temporary venues so that cities weren't blowing their Olympic budgets building new venues that had no post-Games use.  That worked spectacularly in Paris, and that model is being used again in LA.  It's also the plan for Brisbane.  But, as we saw in Milan-Cortina, the use of only preexisting venues results in a very spread out Games.

Brisbane's venue plan has changed multiple times since they were first awarded the Games (another argument for not awarding the Olympics with 11 years of lead time!), and will likely change again before it's finalized.  But the current plan is to have three venue clusters throughout Queensland, as well as a few outlier venues elsewhere in Australia.  And, interestingly, it's not the location of the venues but the number of venues that could lead to the downsizing.

The number of sports on the Olympic program isn't really the problem.  It's the number of disciplines within those sports.  Specifically the number of disciplines that require their own dedicated venue.  So, while the 31 core sports aren't in jeopardy, some of the disciplines within those sports could be in danger when they look at the Olympic program and finalize the event schedule for Brisbane.  They'll likely get plenty of pushback if they try to cut certain disciplines within a sport.  But that doesn't mean they won't do it.  Especially if downsizing the program is the goal.

With that in mind, there could be some obvious targets.  Coastal beach rowing is making its Olympic debut in LA, replacing the lightweight boats in traditional rowing.  Lightweight rowing was contested within the main rowing program, though.  Coastal beach rowing will require a different venue.  So, it could easily be dropped and have the lightweight events return.  Although, would it be fair to determine coastal beach rowing's fate before it even debuts?

BMX freestyle is fairly new, but it shares a course with skateboarding, so it's probably in a fairly good position to stay on the Olympic program.  BMX racing and mountain biking, though, are exactly the type of events they're talking about as possible drops.  They both require their own venue for just that discipline (although, they could add cross country running and have it on the same course as mountain biking), and they're both only the single men's and women's events.  (There are so many events in track cycling that it justifies the existence of a velodrome.)

Modern pentathlon is a core sport, but has been on life support for quite a while.  It originally wasn't on the Olympic program for LA and was only added after they replaced equestrian with an obstacle course (which won't take effect until after the 2028 Olympics, where it'll still be equestrian).  The sport also has a champion in Juan Antonio Samaranch, Jr., the son of the longtime IOC President who was a candidate against Coventry last year.  It's the same thing with modern pentathlon, though.  A sport that isn't too popular and needs its own venue for just men's and women's individual events.  So, while it wouldn't be a shock to see the sport completely dropped, I'd expect it to survive at least one more cycle.

Equestrian presents an interesting dilemma.  There have been the same six equestrian events on the Olympic program for quite a while.  Show jumping isn't going anywhere.  And dressage can be done in the same space as show jumping.  Eventing involves both of those disciplines, as well as a cross country race.  The cross country course obviously isn't the same as the dressage/jumping stadium (although, in Paris, they used the whole grounds at Versailles for the entire equestrian competition, which was awesome!).  Would they ever consider eliminating eventing?  Or does the fact that it's so seeped in Olympic history protect equestrian from any cuts?

Then there's slalom canoeing.  Personally, I prefer slalom canoeing to flatwater canoeing.  But, the simple reality is that there aren't many slalom canoeing courses, and a purpose-built one for the Olympics would almost certainly become the type of white elephant the IOC and Olympic host cities are trying to avoid.  That's why slalom canoeing at LA28 will be in Oklahoma City, where they already have a course.  So, as entertaining as slalom canoeing is, the need for a venue could make it a candidate for elimination.

They won't make any decisions until the summer, but I'm very curious to see what they ultimately do.  One thing is for sure.  Brisbane 32 will look very different than LA 28.  The question is how different?  And how much input will the Brisbane organizers have in the decision-making process?  Because that's another thing Coventry has made clear.  The organizers will get a say, but the final say belongs to the IOC.

What the IOC does with that final say will set the course for the direction of the Olympic movement throughout Kirsty Coventry's tenure as President.  The Olympics were getting too big.  The supersized LA Games are Exhibit A of that.  So, Brisbane will be scaled back to something more manageable.  Which means something will have to be sacrificed.  What that'll ultimately look like remains to be seen, however.

No More NCAA Tournament As We Knew It

When I was writing about the ridiculous, unnecessary expansion of both the College Football Playoff and the NCAA Tournament, I knew it was pretty much already a done deal in basketball.  It was just a matter of them finalizing all the details, but it was happening.  And, sure enough, the NCAA made the announcement that the March Madness field will be increasing from 68 teams to 76 next season.  Which is something nobody (other than a handful of conferences) asked for or wanted.  Yet, we're getting it anyway.

The NCAA Tournament has long been seen as about as close to perfect as a sporting event can be.  Not just because the math works out perfectly with the 64-team main bracket.  Not just because of the all-day basketball bonanza on Thursday and Friday of the first weekend.  Not just because of the upset potential with a 14-seed from a mid-major taking on a blue blood No. 3 seed from a Power 4 conference.  Rather, it was because of all those things.
 
That NCAA Tournament is effectively dead.  By adding eight at-large teams (who will, almost assuredly, all be from the Power 4 conferences and Big East), they're taking away a lot of the things that make their marquee event so special.  And for what?  Just to make the Power 4 conferences happy?  Because mediocre power conference teams weren't getting in?

In their announcement, the NCAA defended the move by citing the number of Division I teams in 1985 (when the tournament expanded to 64), 2001 (when it went to 65), 2011 (when it increased to 68) and now.  They also gave the percentage of overall teams that make the tournament, which will go from roughly 18 percent to a little over 20.  NCAA President Charlie Baker also said earlier this year that he thinks "too many good teams are being left out."  All of which was used to justify such an unnecessary expansion that will only serve to benefit Power 4 teams while hurting everyone else...and the tournament as a whole.

Let's not pretend that this is anything other than what it is.  A blatant power grab.  The Power 4 (and Big East) wanted more access to the tournament.  And, since the NCAA was never going to get rid of autobids for smaller conferences, tournament expansion was the only way to achieve that.  In the NIL Era, the Power 4 have essentially wiped out any chance mid-major teams have of competing in the tournament anyway.  This expansion further tilts the balance in the direction of the major conferences, while taking away everything that makes the NCAA Tournament great in the process.

It had already become an uphill battle for a team from a conference outside the five biggest leagues to make a deep run in the NCAA Tournament.  In fact, there hasn't been a team from outside of the top five conferences to even make the Sweet 16 since 2024, when San Diego State and Gonzaga both made it (and they're both joining the rebuilt Pac-12 next season).  The last true mid-majors to reach the Sweet 16 were Princeton and Florida Atlantic in 2023.  Princeton was a 15-seed that year.  In the last three years, only three double-digit seeds (all from Power 4 conferences) have reached the Sweet 16.

There always used to be at least one mid-major team that would reach the second weekend and get adopted by America.  Now, we're lucky to see a mid-major team get to the second round.  The first-round upsets, the thing that helped make the NCAA Tournament what it is, have already gotten fewer and further between.  Don't be surprised if next season, they truly become a remnant of the past.  I'm not saying it'll never happen again.  But it'll be a rare occurrence when it does.

Under the new format, the 12 lowest-ranked conference champions will play in the opening round (I don't know what they plan on calling it, but it can't be the "First Four" anymore).  When it was four teams, there was at least a chance a conference could avoid having its champion go to Dayton.  For some conferences, that will no longer be the case.  Because, even if they're not in the bottom four, they won't be in the top 20 (next year, the revived Pac-12 brings us back to 32 conferences with automatic bids).  So, the chances of those conference champions not having to go to Dayton (or the other opening round site) range from slim to nonexistent.

Consider the impact this has on the bracket as a whole, too.  All four 16-seeds will come out of the opening round (which I'm actually OK with, since that means all four 1-seeds will play a team that already played a game instead of just two), and so will two 15-seeds.  But, with eight at-large teams being added to the field, that knocks down everybody else.  If this year's tournament had been 76 teams, the other two 16-seeds, all four 15-seeds and two of the 14-seeds would've had to play in the opening round...while the 12- and 13-seeds would become 14s and 15s.

First-round upsets used to be something you could count on.  In the last two tournaments, do you know how many top four seeds lost in the first round?  Zero!  The 5-12 upset is still pretty reliable, but even that seems likely to go away now that the highest-rated conference champions from outside the Power 5 will be 14-seeds instead of 12-seeds.  Seeing those potential upsets is part of the fun!  What even is the point if you go in knowing the chances of one happening are slim to none?

And, frankly, how "good" are these middle-of-the-pack power conference teams that stand to gain the extra at-large bids.  The first four out of this year's tournament (who would be comfortably in next year) were Oklahoma, Auburn, San Diego State and Indiana.  Was the tournament lacking because they were missing?  Does anyone think any of those four teams would've made a deep run?  I didn't think so.  It's adding them for the sake of adding them.

All the tournament expansion accomplishes is rewarding mediocre teams for being in ginormous Power 5 conferences.  If the additional at-large bids resulted in increased opportunities for mid-majors, as well, that would be one thing.  But you and I know full well that at least six of those eight additional bids will go to the same five leagues (I'm not including the new Pac-12 yet, so it's just the Power 4 and Big East right now).  Because Heaven forbid we hold the NCAA Tournament without the 11th-place team from the Big Ten or the 13th-place team from the SEC!  

Those debates over who "deserves to be in" and who should get in over somebody else won't stop, either.  If anything, they'll get worse.  Because now that the tournament is being expanded, the quality of the field won't be the same.  What constitutes an NCAA Tournament team will be different.  President Baker was right that there are some quality teams that don't get into the tournament each year.  That's always the case.  But, while there might be one or two more teams you could argue belong in the field, can you really make that argument for eight teams?!

This will, no doubt, also be framed as an "opportunity" for those mid-to-low-major teams that are now being relegated to the opening round.  It'll be sold as "enhancing the student-athlete experience" (which, apparently, the NCAA suddenly cares about again).  Six of those 12 teams will get an NCAA Tournament win and have the chance to play in a second NCAA Tournament game.  Just think about all the extra NCAA Tournament units their conference will get because of that extra game!  (Yeah, and think about all the extra NCAA Tournament units the Power 5 will get because of their additional teams in the field!)

I'm also curious how the schedule will work.  The NCAA has said it'll be two tripleheaders on Tuesday and Wednesday at both sites.  So, they're going to have teams find out where they're going on Sunday night, then four of them have to play at 5:00 on Tuesday?  And who's broadcasting that second doubleheader?  I'm assuming TNT or TBS will, but does the NCAA even know?  Or are they just leaving it up to Turner (and ESPN on the women's side) to figure that out?  

Bottom line, the NCAA didn't have to do this.  Nobody was clamoring for NCAA Tournament expansion.  They did it because they could and because it will make the Power 4 conferences happy.  This isn't a case where bigger makes better, though.  It should've been a case where less is more.  But, hey, at least they didn't go to 96, so I guess we dodged a bullet there!