The Utah Fill-In-The-Blanks

Now that the Arizona Coyotes have officially moved to Salt Lake City, the next step will be to find out what their new name is.  All we know is that the team will be branded "Utah" and that the plan is to have a nickname in place by the start of the 2024-25 season.  This won't be a "Washington Football Team" situation.  Owners Ryan and Ashley Smith want the team to have an identity and the players to be able to say they don't just play for "Utah."

Ryan Smith has some ideas for how he wants the team to look.  He also owns the Jazz and wants to connect the hockey team with them in some way.  But he also doesn't want to be "like Pittsburgh," where they share the same colors.  It seems more likely that the colors and possibly the logo will be similar, which will create a great opportunity for co-branding the teams that'll share the Delta Center.

Ultimately, though, it'll be up to the fans.  The Smiths are planning on having a "Name the Team" contest for the social media age by creating a bracket where fans will be able to vote online for their preferred name.  They registered nine different trademarks, which lends further credence to the idea of an eight-team bracket.  One of the names they trademarked was "Utah Hockey Club" (and "Utah HC"), but I think that was more to prevent somebody else from snapping it up than because it's a serious option.

Even if the Smiths hadn't already publicly committed to an actual nickname, this isn't MLS, where every team has some form of "FC" or "United" as part of their name.  "Utah Hockey Club," if it's ever used would be just as a placeholder name simply because it's so generic.  Don't forget, the ex-Coyotes don't just need a name.  They need a logo and uniforms, too.  These things take time to design, so, even though the Smiths have said they'll have a name in time for next season, I can see "Utah Hockey Club" being used next season if there's any sort of delay.

"Utah Grizzlies" is not among the options, which may have been a surprise to some.  There are likely two reasons for that.  The first is the most obvious one.  The minor league team known as the Utah Grizzlies still exists, so they own that trademark.  Even if they didn't, though, it probably would've been an issue to obtain a trademark to the "Grizzlies" name since there likely would've been an objection by the Memphis Grizzlies.  So, it makes sense that they'd want to avoid both of those potential problems and give the former Coyotes a completely unique identity.

Of the seven available choices (again, I'm not counting "Utah HC" and "Utah Hockey Club" as realistic options), some are better than others.  While none of them are great, there are a few that are definitely less bad.  And there are a couple that would give the Smiths their desired co-branding options with the Jazz.  If these are the eight, here's how I'd rank them heading into that fan vote:

7. Ice: Hockey's played on ice.  Everybody knows this.  You don't need to reinforce it by giving your team a name that sounds like the cheap local beer that people only buy because they're curious how it tastes.  Come to think of it, "Utah Ice" doesn't even sound like a good beer (it was almost certainly be non-alcoholic, too).

6. Fury: Sounds like the name of either a minor league team or one that plays a sport like arena football, soccer or rugby.  An NHL team, though?  Absolutely not!

5. Venom: We're starting to get better, but this one still seems a little amateurish.  It also sounds like the name of one of the gladiators on American Gladiators.  Although, if "Venom" were chosen, they could probably come up with a pretty cool logo with a snake sticking its tongue out wrapped around a hockey stick (or a U or V).

4. Yetis: Without a doubt, "Yetis" would have the coolest mascot!  The Avalanche already have a bigfoot logo as one of their secondary marks, though, so what would be the point of calling your team the "Yetis" if you couldn't use such obvious imagery?  It's also way too close to "Utah Utes," which is obviously already a well-established brand.

3. Outlaws: I wouldn't be opposed to the name "Utah Outlaws."  It doesn't seem to make too much sense for Utah, but, then again, "Jazz" doesn't either, so that's clearly not a big issue.  It's also unique, which is a big plus.  The only team I can ever recall being called the "Outlaws" was the Las Vegas entry in the original XFL.

2. Blizzard: This one would work well on several levels.  The Jazz's old logo featured the snow-capped Wasatch Mountains, and they could easily be incorporated into a logo for the "Blizzard."  It also has the same double Z as Jazz, so that would help with the co-branding.  However, it's close enough to Avalanche that I can see Colorado objecting.

1. Mammoth: In my opinion, this is the best of the seven.  There's a lacrosse team named the Colorado Mammoth, but I don't think there's much chance of people confusing the two (much like when the Golden Knights ran into the trademark issue because of that parachute troop).  And, aside from that, it's the most unique choice.  "Utah Mammoth" just sounds cool, and there are some great logo and mascot possibilities incorporating a woolly mammoth.  If I end up participating in this contest, "Mammoth" will be my choice.

Regardless of which name ends up being chosen, connecting Utah's new NHL team to the Jazz is a smart move.  I don't think doing the "Pittsburgh thing" is such a terrible idea, but it would also be tough to just automatically use the Jazz's colors before picking the franchise's new name.  The Jazz and the ex-Coyotes will be partners, and the Jazz are the recognizable brand that's been in Salt Lake City for 45 years.  Hopefully the Utah Whatevers of the NHL will become just as recognizable. 

Nike's Bad Month

It hasn't been the best month for Nike.  There, of course, was the backlash over the women's Olympic track & field uniforms (which was a ridiculously stupid controversy), but that was just the tip of the iceberg.  They've also been dealing with the negative response to their MLB uniforms since Spring Training.  Reaction got so bad, in fact, that the MLBPA stepped in and essentially threw Nike under the bus.

To their credit, Nike acknowledged there were problems and vowed to fix them by the beginning of the 2025 season at the latest.  Although, I'd imagine it'll happen before the end of this season.  Because Nike knows they screwed up and knew they needed to do something about it.

This is vastly different than the track & field situation.  With the Olympic uniforms, the "controversy" was much ado about nothing from "experts" who were offering their opinion on a subject they know absolutely nothing about.  In this case, it's the MLB players themselves who were unhappy with the uniforms...that they were actually wearing!  And those complaints kept adding up from multiple different players who had multiple different issues with them.

The most noticeable thing about Nike's new MLB jerseys for this season is the player names.  They're significantly smaller.  And the small names look very amateurish.  With longer names that arch around the number, it doesn't look as bad.  But on every other player who has a shorter name, it does.  Instead of authentic MLB jerseys, they look like the replicas fans can buy in the team store.  That's one of the things Nike will address.  They'll be returning to the larger letters.  Not only that, but the colors on some of the team logos are noticeably lighter than in previous years, further adding to the amateurish look.

Another aesthetically significant issue with the new uniforms was the shades of gray on the pants and jerseys not matching.  This was evidently due to a change in the material used for the jersey, which is lighter in both texture and color.  However, the material used for the pants didn't change, resulting in the mismatched colors.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the uniforms don't retain sweat very well.  Like at all.  As a result, they leave very noticeable sweat marks.  And you can only imagine how it looks once the players start to sweat.  The jersey appearing darker because it's drenched in sweat is one thing.  But the pants become almost see-thru!  They're also prone to ripping, which, obviously, is not good.

All of these things have been brought up numerous times by multiple players, many of whom feel the overall quality has deteriorated.  They brought their concerns to both MLB and Nike, but were largely ignored until now.  The MLBPA was eventually heard, though, and all of the players' issues will be addressed.  The player names will be bigger, the grays will match and the pants will "return to the higher quality zipper used in 2023."

In a memo to union members, the MLBPA put the blame squarely on Nike's shoulders.  They didn't mince words, either.  "This has been entirely a Nike issue," it said.  "At its core, what has happened here is that Nike was innovating something that didn't need to be innovated.  We cautioned Nike against various changes when they previewed them in 2022, particularly regarding pants.  MLB had been, and has been, aware of our concerns as well."

They were also quick to absolve Fanatics, MLB's uniform manufacturer.  Fanatics received a fair amount of criticism, as well, but was doing everything to Nike's exact specifications.  The MLBPA actually defended Fanatics, pointing out that the company "recognizes the vital importance of soliciting Player feedback, obtaining Player buy-in and not being afraid to have difficult conversations about jerseys or trading cards.  Our hope is that, moving forward, Nike will take a similar approach."  That's not very subtle.  In fact, the MLBPA is straight calling Nike out for not listening to them.

Nike signed a 10-year deal to become MLB's uniform supplier in 2019.  Until this season, the biggest changes Nike has implemented are the addition of the swoosh logo to the front of every player's jersey, the establishment of City Connect uniforms (you know my feelings on that topic) and the American and National League All*Star Game uniforms that players now wear instead of their team uniform (which is something most fans wish they would go back to).  This is their first major uniform revamp, although the new uniform, the Vapor Premier, actually made its debut at the 2023 All*Star Game in Seattle.

Rob Manfred was optimistic about the uniforms and the innovations when they were first unveiled at last year's All*Star Game.  He predicted that the players would love them, citing feedback he received at the 2023 All*Star Game.  That prediction was obviously wrong.  The players didn't like them in Spring Training, and their opinion never improved.  Nike was trying to fix something that wasn't broken and ended up making it worse as a result.

That's the most telling thing about this whole debacle to me.  Nike is known for its innovation.  They're always trying new things that they feel will improve performance.  The response is usually overwhelmingly positive.  That wasn't the case here, though.  They tried to do too much, undoubtedly in an attempt to leave their mark.  They left their mark alright!  All of their "improvements" fell flat and, worse, they got on the union's bad side because they were giving the players the impression that their concerns were being ignored.  And, I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason those very public issues are only being addressed now is because Nike's hand was forced.

None of this was necessary, either, which I think is also significant.  There was nothing wrong with MLB uniforms, yet Nike decided to tinker with them anyway.  And, even though the players had concerns, they pressed on anyway.  In hindsight, those were both massive unforced errors.  In every other sport, Nike is sure to involve athletes in the process and get their buy-in.  That didn't happen here, and it resulted in Nike getting egg on its face.

Of course, it's not just Nike with egg on its face.  Major League Baseball doesn't come out of this looking to great, either.  Eventually, the bad publicity about something so stupid became too much.  In the end, they ultimately listened to the players.  If they'd done that in the first place, though, this whole debacle could've been avoided.

Is It the Pitch Clock Or Something Else?

Over the past few seasons, the number of injuries to pitchers has really become alarming.  Last week, both the Guardians' Shane Bieber and the Braves' Spencer Strider joined the ever-growing list of top-line starters who'll need Tommy John surgery, ruling them out until the middle of the 2025 season at the earliest.  It's a problem that isn't going away and, frankly, is getting worse.  There are a multitude of explanations why, all of which are probably factors when considered together.

A lot of people want to blame the pitch clock.  When it was introduced last season, it was definitely an adjustment for pitchers, who suddenly had to work with a time limit.  It was initially 15 seconds with the bases empty and 20 seconds with runners on base.  This season, the 20 seconds was reduced to 18, which some think is too short.

There's no doubt that the pitch clock has had an impact.  Not only do pitchers have to work quicker, they don't really get an opportunity to take a break unless they take their one timeout per plate appearance.  And the pitches, of course, are all high intensity.  Some pitchers naturally work quickly, so the pitch clock makes no difference to them.  Some are more deliberate, however, so those two seconds were a huge difference.  Especially if they're having trouble throwing strikes and just want to slow it down, which is something they really can't do with the pitch clock.

However, I think blaming the pitch clock is too easy and too convenient.  The rash of pitching injuries isn't a recent problem.  It predates the pitch clock.  While some pitchers have certainly gotten hurt because they have to work quicker with the pitch clock, that isn't the case for all of them.  And, more importantly, it's not like they started getting arm injuries that require surgery two years ago when the pitch clock was instituted.  

I'm also not sure how much of it can be attributed to MLB's crackdown on Spider-Tac and other types of "sticky stuff" that help pitchers grip the ball better.  I get why MLB banned the use of sticky stuff and agree with the decision, but I have no doubt pitchers who used it thought it helped.  Whether it actually did or not doesn't matter.  It was as much mental as it was physical.  And, in their mind, it helped.

Pitchers who used sticky stuff had to adjust how they threw those pitches.  For some, that involves gripping the baseball tighter or differently.  Which puts additional stress on their arm.  Not to mention the mental factor now going the other way.  They thought it helped, but now they're not allowed to use it.  How could they not be thinking about that while trying to get Major League hitters out?

Then there's the analytics, which I think may actually be one of the biggest factors.  Analytics has crept into every facet of the game, for good and for bad.  With pitching, I'd argue that it's mostly bad.  Because there's so much data at everyone's disposal that it's overwhelming.  And it results in everything being overanalyzed.  Especially when it comes to pitching.

Analytics has led to an increased focus on two things in particular.  Spin rate and degree of break.  Instead of learning a pitch and letting it develop naturally, it's become a high-performance lab test where they work on getting that perfect spin rate or degree of break.  And the way they do that is throwing the same pitch over and over again 12 months a year.  While not throwing any other type of pitch.  Which puts a significant amount of undue stress on your arm.

Which leads directly into another analytics-driven problem, which I think is the biggest factor in the high-profile pitching injuries.  These days, it's all about velocity.  Every team has multiple guys in their bullpen who throw 100, and they just trot them out one after another.  You almost can't reach the Majors if you don't throw 100.  The hitters are better, so you need to blow it by them to get them out.  Or, at least that's how the thought process goes.

They aren't expected to go more than an inning or two, so it's go all-out on every pitch for as long as you can go.  There's no need to keep something in the tank since the next guy coming in after you also throws 100 and you're only facing hitters once, so you can let it loose and bring the heat, knowing it'll be a short stint.  But, even then, the repetition of throwing that hard that frequently with such a high intensity takes a toll.

It always amazes me when people wonder how Jamie Moyer was able to have a long Major League career when he topped out in the mid-80s.  Well, that's exactly why.  Hitters were so used to seeing upper-90s heat that Moyer's slow stuff threw off their timing.  And everything Moyer threw was slow crap, so he could rely on more than just one or two pitches.  More significantly, because he didn't throw hard, Moyer never got injured.

While I'm not sure if we'll ever see another Jamie Moyer-type make it to the Majors (and the reason I doubt it is because the analytically-driven focus on velocity has dipped into the lower levels), I sincerely hope we do.  Because he's living proof that you don't need to throw 100 to have a long, successful MLB career as a pitcher.  Not only that, but your likelihood of suffering a serious elbow injury that requires Tommy John surgery is significantly less.  Eventually having Tommy John surgery doesn't have to come with the territory.

When you put all of those things together, I think you have your answer.  There's not one specific reason why pitching injuries are up.  It's all of it.  The pitch clock, not being allowed to use sticky stuff, analytics, the focus on velocity.  They're all factors.  And when you combine more than one of them, the chances of serious injury increase.  As we've seen.

So, what's the answer?  I don't know.  I'm not even sure there is one.  Because that would require MLB first diagnosing the problem and identifying a solution.  Which I'm not entirely sure they're super interested in doing.  This is what baseball has become.  And the pitchers are the ones paying the price.

New Old Looks

Earlier this week, three NFL teams--the Jets, Broncos and Lions--unveiled new uniforms for the 2024 season.  All three of them had some variation of a throwback.  The Lions went away from the "modern" font on their jerseys in favor of a more traditional look, while the Broncos did something similar with their jerseys and also brought back their "D" helmets as an alternate look.  The Jets, meanwhile, took their 1980s New York Sack Exchange throwback from last season and made it their primary logo and uniform moving forward.

More and more teams are introducing a throwback look as an alternate uniform, and fans often like the throwback better than their current uniform/logo.  And some of them, like the Jets, realize the fans are right and go back to it permanently.  They're just the latest example of a team realizing that their classic logo is classic for a reason and didn't actually need modernizing after all.

While we've only seen one other football team (the Giants) completely go back to a throwback logo as their primary full-time (the Rams did it when they moved back to LA, but that was only temporary), this is actually the second time the Jets have done it.  When Bill Parcells arrived as head coach, they adopted a modernized version of their uniforms from the 60s (when they won the Super Bowl).  Now they're going back to the 80s.

Despite the popularity of the throwback looks, no other team has brought theirs back full-time, even though some of them probably should.  In recent years, we've seen Pat the Patriot and Buccaneer Bruce return, as well as the Seahawks' blue jerseys and silver helmets.  The Atlanta Falcons' black jersey/red helmet combo has also made a comeback, along with a 1972 Dolphins throwback and the Eagles' amazing Kelly green.  But, so far, it's just the Jets (and Giants) who've made it permanent.

In the NHL, NBA and MLB, though, we've seen plenty of throwback uniforms make permanent returns.  It seems to be especially prominent in the NHL, where teams introduce throwbacks as a third jersey, only to promote them to the regular uniform because of how much fans love them.  The NHL, in fact, embraces the throwback theme so much that they've built one of their signature events--the Winter Classic--around it.

Ever since the first Winter Classic, the participating teams have worn some variation of a throwback uniform.  Some have directly taken their historical logo and jersey, while others have adapted either their own or another franchise from their city's hockey history.  They even had throwback sweaters for this year's Winter Classic between the Golden Knights (founded in 2017) and the Kraken (founded in 2022).

The Sabres wore their original uniforms in the first Winter Classic.  Shortly thereafter, it was brought back as their primary logo and uniform.  The Islanders had a disastrous attempt at a rebrand that saw their original logo resurrected after just a few years.  The Penguins actually had a decent new logo when they changed it in the 90s, but they still went back to the skating penguin in front of a triangle from their Lemieux-Jagr Stanley Cup years.  After changing their logo when they moved to Glendale, the Coyotes went back to their original Phoenix logo during their final years in the Desert.

Washington is another team that made a logo and color change that wasn't well-received, so the Capitals created a modernized version of their old-school logo (complete with an excellent eagle shoulder logo).  Ditto with the the Ottawa Senators, who modernized the senator in their logo before reverting back to the original.  The Maple Leafs, meanwhile, updated their logo again a few years ago, with the inspiration drawn from their logo in the 60s.

Teams don't even need to have the same name or be in the same place to embrace their history.  The Titans' Oilers throwbacks from last season were amazing!  So were the Avalanche's "reverse retro" jerseys with the Nordiques logo in Avalanche colors, and the Hurricanes' version with the Whalers' logo and colors.  I'm still waiting for the Nationals to rock the Expos' logo.  (Or, even better, for Montreal to get an expansion team when MLB goes to 32 after the A's relocation to Las Vegas is complete.)

What I really love about what the baseball teams have done is how they've taken their beloved, historic logo and modernized it.  Take the Blue Jays, who have some of the nicest uniforms in baseball.  After so many logo changes, they went back to the original and hit a home run.  Same with the Orioles going back to the cartoon bird on the hat.  And the Brewers, who returned to the ball-in-glove, one of the greatest logos ever designed.  (The Phillies have their equally amazing powder blues with the maroon "P" with a baseball in the middle as an alternate uniform.)

There are a number of baseball teams, in fact, that returned to throwback uniforms before that was even a thing.  The Phillies, Giants and White Sox all based their current primary uniforms off of a uniform set from their history.  And it was a glorious day when the Padres went back to the brown & gold, a color scheme that has only ever worked on them!

Over in the NBA, it gets somewhat confusing because every team has like five different uniforms, and many of those have a throwback as one of the options.  And no NBA team has really brought back its classic, throwback look as a regular option.  Two have gone back to a historic logo, though, even if it's with modern uniforms.  The 76ers went through a bunch of different logos before returning to the 13 stars from the original U.S. flag on top of the 7 in their name.  The Hawks, meanwhile, went back to their circular hawk head logo from the 80s (now if they would only bring back the outstanding uniforms that went with them back then).

That seems to be the more common tactic in the NBA.  Not going all the way back to an old logo and uniform, but going back to the old logo and updating the uniform.  That's what the Utah Jazz did with their music note logo and what the Detroit Pistons did when they went back to the basics.

With the popularity of retro logos and uniforms, I'm sure we'll see more return in the future.  It's really more a question of who will be next and which era they'll return to.  And if they'll go all the way back, giving their fans memories of yesteryear, or if they'll put a modern spin on it.  Either way, it's bound to look pretty good!

Already Setting Up For 36

Now it's official.  The Arizona Coyotes will be moving to Utah next season.  Well, technically, Utah is getting an expansion team with all of the Coyotes' players, while the Phoenix franchise is being "put on hold" with the chance of being resurrected if Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo can get an arena built within the next five years.  So, basically, the Arizona Coyotes are getting the Cleveland Browns treatment.

For those of you who aren't old enough to get that reference, 30 years ago, when Art Modell announced he was moving the Browns to Baltimore, the NFL wouldn't let him take the Browns' colors, logo and history with him.  Cleveland was also promised the return of the Browns as an expansion team once the new stadium was built.  So, the Ravens entered the NFL as an "expansion" team in 1996, with the Browns returning to the league in 1999.

The NHL, for its part, seems committed to the Phoenix area.  That's why they're giving Meruelo the opportunity to bring the team back should he win the land auction and the arena project is completed.  Considering the Coyotes' success (or lack thereof) in their previous attempts to get a new arena in Phoenix, I'm skeptical that he'll be successful.  But, for argument's sake, let's assume he is.  That would bring the NHL to 33 teams, which obviously isn't a workable number.

Almost immediately after the Kraken joined the league, the talk began about where the NHL would expand next, even though expansion wasn't on the horizon.  The Salt Lake City thing wasn't even planned.  It moved quickly once it became clear that the Coyotes' situation in Arizona was not sustainable and they needed a more permanent solution.  Although, should the Coyotes return, that expansion talk will kick into high gear again, since the NHL would want to get back to an even number.

I've seen plenty of projections that the NHL will eventually grow to 36 franchises, which doesn't sound all that unrealistic.  It would split nicely into six divisions of six.  Which is obviously a much easier number to deal with than the 17-team conferences that would come with the league being at 34.  One step at a time, though.  Before getting to 36, they'd have to go to 34 first.

One of the cities I've seen mentioned the most, and even considered "inevitable" by some, is Atlanta.  Now, I personally don't see why Atlanta would ever be an option.  Yes, it's a Top 10 market and a chance to establish the NHL in one of America's largest cities.  Except the NHL has already tried and failed in Atlanta twice, with both franchises moving to Canada after a few years.  Maybe the thought process is third time's the charm?  But, it seems more likely it'll be three strikes, you're out.  So, why bother?

When the Coyotes relocation talk started, I actually thought the most logical place for them to move was Houston.  Houston's the biggest market that's never had an NHL team, and the Rockets' arena was built to NHL standards so that it would be able to accommodate a hockey team without having to do any major renovations.  They also had a very successful minor league team, the Aeros, for many years, which would give Houston a built-in fan base.

And, if we're talking about bringing the NHL back to cities that used to have a team, let's not forget Quebec.  Things are much different now than when the Nordiques left Quebec City to become the Avalanche.  Some of those problems would still exist.  Quebec City is still a francophone city that's smaller and further north than anywhere else in the NHL.  But that's not the reason the Nordiques left.  And you can bet a Nordiques redo would work just as well as the Jets' reboot in Winnipeg has.  Quebec also already has an NHL-ready arena, which is a major point in its favor.

Hamilton's been pushing pretty hard for an NHL expansion team, too, but I don't think there's any way Hamilton gets a team (either through expansion or relocation).  It's halfway between Buffalo and Toronto.  Do you really want to put a third team in essentially the same area?  Especially since they're all either Sabres or Leafs fans already?  Would they really abandon the team they've supported for years to adopt an expansion team instead?

There are a few other places that haven't been discussed nearly as much as those four, but I can easily see making a run for an NHL franchise if and when the "new" Coyotes need an expansion partner.  One is Kansas City.  The Penguins almost moved there in 2006, and the T-Mobile Center is a first-rate arena that hosts the Big XII men's basketball tournament every year.

Milwaukee has an AHL team, and I can see the NHL wanting to establish even more of a foothold in the Midwest by placing a team in Wisconsin for the first time.  And, while this one seems unlikely, Portland could be interesting.  The three-way rivalry between Vancouver, Seattle and Portland is perhaps the best in MLS.  Why not trying it in the NHL and seeing if you can recreate some of that same magic?

So, again, for argument's sake, let's assume Phoenix is back in the NHL as the 33rd franchise.  The other team to join the league would have to be from the East to balance out the conferences (although, they could always move Nashville to the East if they needed to).  Which would actually bode well for Atlanta's chances.  Then, when the NHL increases in size to 36 teams, Houston and Quebec City get the nod.

That would set up these conferences and divisions: EAST--Atlantic: Atlanta, Carolina, Columbus, Detroit, Florida, Tampa Bay; Metropolitan: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Washington; Northeast: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto; WEST--Central: Arizona, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Nashville, St. Louis; Northwest: Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Seattle, Winnipeg, Vancouver; Pacific: Anaheim, Colorado, Los Angeles, San Jose, Utah, Vegas

Does the NHL need to expand to 36 teams?  It does not.  At least not in the near future.  That's why the Phoenix situation will be an interesting one to follow.  Because the NHL seems set at 32, but with the promise to resurrect the Coyotes at an undetermined future date, they've essentially committed themselves to further expansion, as well.  That's, of course, assuming an NHL-caliber arena can eventually be built in the Phoenix area.  Which is by no means a guarantee.

Stanley Cup Playoffs, Round 1

I wasn't planning on doing a full Stanley Cup Playoff bracket this season.  Instead, I was just gonna do it round-by-round and hopefully spare myself some of the inevitable unpredictability.  Then my brother-in-law texted me asking to join his NHL Bracket Challenge league, so there went that plan!  So, I guess I'll have to make a call and stick with it.

Before I get to that, though, I've gotta say, the NHL's season-ending schedule was beyond stupid!  The season ended on Thursday, but some teams were done on Monday!  As a result, the Rangers will have almost a week off before the start of the playoffs, while six of the eight Western Conference playoff teams will have two days!

It makes absolutely no sense that each team's final games were spread out so much!  I'm fairly certain that they extended the season until Thursday because of TV (Thursday is ESPN's NHL night), but, if you want to satisfy your TV partners, why not end the season with eight Eastern Conference games on Wednesday and eight Western Conference games on Thursday (or vice versa)?  That makes more sense than having some teams who are done while others still have a back-to-back to end the season.  Or having Nashville sit there with 99 points waiting to find out who they're playing (at least they knew they were already in the playoffs).

The race for the final spot in the East was great.  It came down to Washington, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh fighting for one spot.  The Flyers played the Capitals and the Red Wings were in Montreal on Tuesday night, while Pittsburgh was waiting to play the Islanders on Wednesday.  It all got settled on Tuesday, but imagine if the Capitals or Red Wings could do nothing but watch the Penguins to play on Wednesday, hoping they'd lose, knowing that would determine their playoff fate.  (That is what happened in the West, where it was almost like the final day of the group stage at a World Cup, with the Kings and Golden Knights flipping positions with seemingly every goal scored in either game.)

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, it's time to move on to the unpredictability that is the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Just think about last year, when the Panthers only got in because Pittsburgh lost to Chicago at the end of the regular season, then took out a record-setting, President's Trophy-winning Bruins team en route to a surprise Stanley Cup Final apperance.  And the 2022-23 Bruins became the latest in a long line of President's Trophy winners knocked out in either the first or second round of the playoffs.  That's why I was so adamant in my desire to see the Rangers not win the President's Trophy!  Can they break the curse?

This season, meanwhile, Florida is a legitimate Cup contender.  So are the Rangers.  So are the Bruins.  And the Hurricanes.  That's just in the East!  Out West, you've got the Stars, Canucks, Avalanche, Jets and Oilers.  That's over half the field I can realistically see lifting the Cup two months from now.  But I can also see each of them losing in the first round (either Colorado or Winning definitely will).  Which is part of what makes playoff hockey so great!

Even though this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs and the early-round upsets have become expected, I do think that form will at least somewhat hold.  There are a few matchups between evenly-matched teams, but there are others where the higher-seeded team is very clearly better.  While we've seen that make absolutely no difference at times in the past, we've also seen superior teams start their Stanley Cup runs with dominant first-round showings.

Panthers vs. Lightning: As much as I didn't want the Rangers to win the President's Trophy, I did want them to win the Metropolitan Division.  Why?  Because I had absolutely no interest in facing Tampa Bay!  I doubt that's something the Panthers were looking forward to, either, but here we go.  The two Florida teams have won the last four Prince of Wales Trophies between them, so they're obviously both battle-tested.  And they'll make each other grind it out.  Ultimately, though, I think we see the same result as when these two met in the second round two years ago.  Lightning in six.

Bruins vs. Maple Leafs: Boston and Toronto both have a chip on their shoulder.  The Bruins, of course, suffered that first-round loss at the hands of the Panthers last season.  The Leafs, meanwhile, actually advanced to the second round for the first time in forever, only to become Florida's next victims.  They finally got that monkey off their backs, but you know they come in still thinking they've got a lot to prove.  Which they do.  So do the Bruins.  This'll be a great series, and it'll likely end the same way every Toronto series prior to last season did.  Bruins in seven.

Rangers vs. Capitals: Washington somehow emerged from that crazy, jumbled race for the final Eastern Conference playoff spot.  I'm still not entirely sure how.  The Capitals are, by far, the weakest of the 16 playoff teams.  Although, as we've seen, that means absolutely nothing.  That doesn't mean the Rangers should or will take them lightly, however.  I can see the Capitals taking a game or two off them, but definitely not four.  Rangers in five.

Hurricanes vs. Islanders: For the second straight season, Carolina meets the Islanders in the first round.  Last year, the Hurricanes won in six, with two of those victories coming in overtime.  This year, I can see it going either way.  Carolina is the better team, but the Islanders are on quite a roll entering the playoffs.  Either way, Sebastian Aho makes it to the second round.  Hurricanes in six.

Stars vs. Golden Knights: We've got a rematch of the 2023 Western Conference Final in the first round of this year's playoffs, as Dallas takes on the defending Stanley Cup champion Golden Knights.  Vegas dropped from third in the Pacific to the second wild card by losing its last game, which gave it the far more difficult matchup against Dallas.  There's something about the Knights that just doesn't give off the same feeling as last season's championship team, but only a fool would count them out.  Regardless, I do think Dallas wins the series.  Stars in six.

Jets vs. Avalanche: After that three-team race in the Central, it was Winnipeg who ended up with home ice in the first-round series between legit Cup contenders.  That mattered far more for the Jets than it would've for the Avalanche.  While it would've been nice for Colorado, they can win without it.  I'm not sure the Jets could.  Frankly, I'm not even sure the Jets can even though they do.  Whoever does win this series, though, has every reason to believe it's just the start of something big.  Avalanche in seven.

Canucks vs. Predators: In January, I went to a Rangers-Canucks game at Madison Square Garden.  Until that game, I had no idea how good Vancouver actually was!  The Canucks are arguably the deepest, most well-balanced team in the NHL, and they absolutely deserve to be considered one of the Cup favorites.  First, they need to get by Nashville, which shouldn't be much of a challenge.  Canucks in four.

Oilers vs. Kings: Edmonton and LA meet in the Pacific 2-3 series for the third consecutive time.  So, needless to say, they're familiar with each other.  Especially at this time of year.  I'm still waiting for that Oilers playoff breakthrough that's been coming, but we still haven't seen yet.  (They did make the Western Conference Final in 2022, but were swept by Colorado.)  Edmonton has won its playoff matchup with the Kings in each of the last two seasons.  Make it three.  Oilers in six.

So, there you go.  Those are my first-round picks.  But, as I said, I filled out a full bracket going all the way to the Stanley Cup Final.  And I keep going back to that Rangers-Canucks game I saw in January.  They looked like the two best teams in the NHL then, and they're still the two best teams in the league now.  Thirty years after they met in that memorable 1994 Stanley Cup Final, they square off again.  And the result will be the same as 1994.  President's Trophy jinx?  What President's Trophy jinx?!  The Rangers get past the Canucks for the Cup once again.

They Knew Exactly What They Were Doing

Last week at an event in Paris, Nike revealed some of its Olympic track & field, basketball, soccer and skateboarding uniforms for a number of countries, including the United States.  The event featured several American Olympic and Paralympic track & field stars, including Rai Benjamin, Sha'Carri Richardson, Athing Mu and Tatyana McFadden modeling the uniforms, with images of both the men's and women's kits later released online.  To say those images caused controversy would be a bit of an understatement.  Which might be exactly what Nike wanted.

I'm actually amused by how stupid this controversy is.  Because it's not actually a controversy!  But that hasn't stopped the so-called "experts" from speaking out as if they know what they're talking about when, in reality, they have no clue.  And, frankly, all they're doing with their fake "outrage" is exposing their ignorance on the subject!

For those of you who haven't seen it, the controversy centers around the women's uniform.  The design that Nike chose to feature (which anyone who knows anything about track & field knows is one of many options) was the one-piece, bathing-suit style version, which has been called everything from "sexist" to "patriarchal" by critics.  (There were also some very humorous comments from members of the U.S. women's track & field team.)  Some have even questioned who designed them and wondered how women can be expected to perform in them.

When I first saw them, I didn't like them, either.  But my reaction was more "Boy, are these ugly!"  And also, "Why are they purple?"  (I think they're technically supposed to be primarily blue, but it definitely looks purple, just like how the Tokyo version of the same uniform was evidently supposed to be red, but looked pink.)  They're also essentially the exact same uniforms the British women's team has worn since Tokyo (Nike is a sponsor of British Athletics, but not the British Olympic Committee, which is sponsored by Adidas, so the British team wears Adidas in the Olympics, then Nike at all other times).

But, like I said, I'm amused by the reaction to the uniforms and some of the asinine comments from the critics.  Some of those critics include former Olympic runners like Lauren Fleshman, who was incredibly vocal on Instagram, but really just made herself look like an idiot.  Fleshman has been on multiple U.S. National Teams.  She should know as well as anybody that there are multiple options.  The women can even wear the men's uniform if they want!

That to me is the funniest part of the entire thing.  There were three American female track & field Olympians at the reveal.  They were all wearing different styles of the uniform, and NONE of them had on the one-piece in question!  Sha'Carri Richardson came the closest.  She wore the one-piece uniform, but it was with spandex instead of briefs.  So, there's obviously more than just the one option!  (As anyone who's ever watched track & field before already knew!)

It even got to the point where both Nike and USA Track & Field had to clarify there are many options for the women to choose from.  And they were both sure to mention that the uniforms were designed after consultation with numerous parties, including the athletes themselves!  Katie Moon, the reigning Olympic and World Champion in the pole vault, went on Instagram to not just respond to Fleshman, but to flat-out state that she prefers to wear the briefs, as well as her reason why.

The fact that she had to say that, frankly, is ridiculous.  It's not sexist if the women are given options (which they are).  And it's really not sexist if they choose to wear a particular uniform!  It's obviously about performance.  If it wasn't, they wouldn't wear it.  Shouldn't it tell you something that they have the choice and still pick the one that the ignorant have decided is sexist?

Same thing in beach volleyball, which was inevitably going to be brought into the conversation.  They aren't required to wear bikinis.  Many of them do anyway.  Not just because they're more comfortable in them, but also because it's hot and because there's less places for sand to get stuck.  But they can also wear leggings or long-sleeved tops if they want to.  And there are Arab countries that have women's beach volleyball teams.  Those athletes obviously don't wear bikinis for religious reasons.

This is nothing new for track & field, either.  The one-piece uniform style in question goes all the way back to at least 1984 and 1988, when it was worn by Florence Griffith-Joyner.  Maybe even further.  It fell out of style for a little while in favor of the crop top and racing briefs, but gradually started to come back and was an option for every Nike-sponsored country at the Tokyo Games.  At the request of the athletes!  British sprinter Dina Asher-Smith likes the one-piece better than the other options and wears it all the time.

Comparing the men's and women's uniforms is also an incredibly dumb argument.  That's like asking why women's bathing suits cover their chest and men's bathing suits don't.  Because there are anatomical differences between men and women that make having the same uniform not only impractical, but impossible!  Meanwhile, both Nike and USA Track & Field have said the women can wear the men's uniform if they want to (just as the disgraced Marion Jones did), further invalidating that argument.

Track & field uniforms are also very event-specific.  They've never been a one-size-fits-all type of thing.  Throwers and distance runners have very different body types.  They're not expected to wear the same style of the uniform, and they don't.  Athletes can wear whichever style they want, and there's even been events where three Americans in the same race have worn three different uniforms.  Although, that may not be the case in finals in Paris.

Since 2008, Nike has had a different singlet just for the relays.  At this Olympics, for the first time, if an athlete makes it to the final in their event, they'll get a separate, finals-only uniform top, as well.  There's even a one-piece version of the women's finals uniform should they choose, as well as all of the others...which, with all of the different variations, number over 20.

But nobody's talking about that.  They're only talking about the "sexist" singlet that they saw on a mannequin (not even an actual athlete).  They are talking about it, though.  And that might be the whole point.  Because there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?  Suddenly people care and all sorts of articles are being written about Nike's Olympic track & field uniforms...which likely wouldn't have happened otherwise.  And Nike knows that.  We'll never know if it was deliberate or not, but Nike probably isn't complaining about the amount of attention this story has drawn.  In fact, it may have been exactly what they wanted.