Working Russia Back In

Now that the IOC has lifted its ban on Russia, sporting federations are starting to do the same.  Slowly but surely, Russian athletes and teams are being incorporated back into the international fold.  The latest to welcome Russia back is the IIHF, which made the announcement this week at the World Championships.  It won't be right away, though.  Mainly because it's too late to work the Russian team into 2026-27 events.  But at the 2028 IIHF World Championships, we should probably expect to see the Russians there.

Throughout its suspension, Russia has continued receiving IIHF ranking points.  Why they didn't just freeze their points, I don't know (seeing as that would've made the most sense), but the point is they've gotten the points corresponding to what their ranking would be at every World Championships and Olympics since the suspension began.  While that's an absurd way of doing it, the number of points Russia has "accumulated" over the past five years are enough for them to be ranked No. 2 in the world.  When they officially reenter the rankings, I'd assume they'll be no lower than fourth.

Even though Russia's eligibility is being restored, the IIHF needs to figure out how to reincorporate them into the World Championships.  That's why it won't happen until 2028.  Because bringing them back isn't as simple as it sounds.  It impacts so many other nations that have already qualified for the 2027 tournament.  By delaying Russian readmittance until the 2028 World Championships, they're giving themselves a chance to sort out those logistics and make the necessary adjustments.

Russia's men's team will obviously immediately go back to the top level of the World Championships.  That's a necessary condition that I can't see Russia or the IIHF not accepting.  Not only is the team clearly one of the 16 best in the world, they were in the top level before their suspension.  Had they been relegated because of performance, that would be one thing.  But making them rise back up through the lower levels, where they'd dominate nations that have nowhere near the same talent level, wouldn't make any sense or be fair for anybody.

So, there's no question that they'll end up back in the main World Championships in 2028.  The question is how.  Expanding the field is one possible solution, but they're already at 16 teams and I doubt the IIHF would want to go beyond that.  It's also worth noting that whatever applies to Russia also needs to apply to Belarus.  While not one of the top teams like Russia is, Belarus was also playing at the main World Championships when they were suspended.  So, the same logic has to apply.  If Russia's going right back where they were, Belarus needs to as well.  Which actually would make things a little easier.

At the World Championships, the 16 teams are split into two groups of eight, with the bottom team in each group relegated and replaced by the top two countries in the second-level tournament.  One possible scenario could've been not having anybody promoted in 2027 and simply having Russia and Belarus replace the two relegated teams.  However, that's really not possible for 2027-28 because France, which is currently in that second tier, is hosting in 2028.  Which means the French have to be promoted for the 2028 tournament.  

Theoretically, they could do France and Russia as the promoted teams to replace those that are relegated, but what happens if France doesn't win the Division I-A tournament?  How could you justify taking only them and not the team that earned its way back to the top level by winning the tournament?  And what about Belarus?  Where do they go?  So, while that may sound like it could work in theory, in actuality, it wouldn't.  That option is out, then.

Another option, one that I think could work and may very well end up being what they do, would be to have the bottom two teams in each group relegated.  Those four teams would be replaced in 2028 by France and another team promoted from Division I-A, as well as Russia and Belarus.  That would (A) keep the top level at 16 teams, (B) keep the same promotion from Division I-A and (C) get Russia and Belarus back in with the least disruption to the main tournament.  It would create a trickle-down situation

No matter how they do it, when Russia and Belarus are back in IIHF tournaments, that's two additional teams to incorporate.  That's an obvious fact, but it complicates the math.  There are 16 teams at the top level, but each of the lower-level tournaments only feature six teams.  They'll have to readjust that in 2028, even if it's just for the one year.  Whether it's eight teams instead of six in Division I-A or seven in both Division I-A and Division I-B, it affects the promotion & relegation regardless.

The easiest thing might be to have seven teams in both levels of Division I for at least 2028, if not every year moving forward (that would account for the top 30 teams in the world).  Using the method I suggested, the four relegated teams would go into Division I-A with the three countries that finished third-fifth in 2027.  The last-place team from 2027 would still be relegated to Division I-B, but no one would be promoted to Division I-A.  Then, they could adjust everything accordingly so that each of the lower levels is back to six teams for 2029.  (There would still be the two extra teams, though, so they'd either need to keep one division with seven teams per group or just have eight teams at the lowest level--Division IV, which could then be split into two groups of four.)

In World Juniors, the problem is similar but far less pronounced.  There are only 10 teams at the top level of World Juniors.  However, only one team is relegated.  The two teams that don't make the quarterfinals face each other in a relegation game, with the winner staying at the top level.  To reinsert Russia, they could simply not play a relegation game and have both last-place teams relegated, with Russia joining the team that's promoted as their replacements in 2028. 

They'd still have to figure out the lower levels, but Belarus wasn't in the top level of World Juniors, so they won't need to worry about putting both them and Russia at the top when they reenter.  Although, they had earned promotion in 2022 (the last edition when they played), so an argument could be made for putting them in the top level.  I think it's more likely they'd go back in Division I, though.  Or, they could make the top level of World Juniors a 12-team tournament in 2028 only, having Russia and Belarus both in the main tournament and keep the standard promotion/relegation (with the adjustments then following in 2028-29).

On the women's side, Russia would slot in at No. 7 based on points.  Belarus doesn't have a women's national team, so they're a nonfactor.  Like World Juniors, the top level of the Women's World Championships is a 10-team tournament with a relegation playoff.  So, they could do the same thing and have two teams relegated with Russia and whoever's promoted replacing them in 2028.  Although, there are 47 women's teams in the world rankings (including Russia), so there would have to be an odd number at one of the lower levels.

All of this is why, despite being reinstated, Russia's reentry into international hockey won't be immediate.  Is it all easy enough to figure out?  Absolutely!  Will it all be figured out in the next few months without affecting the 2027 tournaments?  No.  But, they'll have plenty of time for 2028, when we'll finally see the Russian hockey team back in international play.

MLB Expansion Candidates

MLB expansion has been a popular topic of late.  The consensus is that MLB expanding to 32 teams is inevitable within the next few years.  Once the new CBA is signed, the A's move to Las Vegas is complete and the Rays' stadium situation is squared away, expansion should be the next thing on the docket.  So, it won't be until probably 2030 at the earliest.  But it's going to happen.  Rob Manfred has made it a priority before he retires.

The real question is where the two new teams will end up (it needs to be two teams for obvious reasons).  Plenty of cities have expressed interest, but clear frontrunners have emerged.  Manfred would prefer to have one team in the East and one in the West, and the reported favorites--Nashville and Salt Lake City--fit that bill.  But others are certainly in the mix.  And I'm not sure East and West is necessarily the best idea.

Let's start with Nashville.  There's a reason why Nashville has been considered a favorite from the get-go.  It's the 25th-largest market in the U.S. with a rapidly-growing population that already supports two Major League teams (the Titans and Predators).  They just built a new stadium for the Titans, so you'd figure an MLB expansion team would also get a brand new downtown stadium.  Nashville already an ownership group in place, too.  Most importantly, it would place a second team in the Deep South, which has long had only the Braves representing that entire region of the country.

Like the Braves in the Deep South, the Rockies are the only team to represent a large portion of the country.  Salt Lake City would place another team in the Mountain time zone who would have a natural rivalry with Colorado.  And they've welcomed the Mammoth with open arms after years of the Jazz being the only game in town.  Plus, the Triple-A Salt Lake Bees just opened a new stadium that was constructed to Major League specifications.

Salt Lake City isn't alone among Western cities.  Portland has long been mentioned as a possible expansion candidate, and any Portland team would obviously be a natural rival for the Mariners.  Sacramento, meanwhile, is saying "Don't forget about us."  They'll host the A's for one more season before Oaklamento officially relocates to Las Vegas, but California's capital wants a team of its own after that.

Other cities that have been mentioned include Montreal and Charlotte.  Montreal obviously has historical significance.  The Expos were the first team based in Canada before moving to Washington in 2005.  People have been clamoring for their return pretty much ever since.  Although, the Blue Jays like having Canada all to themselves.  So, they may be resistant to an Expos revival. 

And the case for Charlotte is very similar to the case for Nashville, which is a near lock.  Which is why I don't think Charlotte will eventually end up with a team.  I simply don't see MLB putting both new teams in the same general area.  Especially if Manfred wants to do East and West.  I hope that isn't set in stone, though.  Because putting one of the expansion teams in the West wouldn't work logistically.

When the expansion happens, they'll obviously have to realign the divisions.  It would make the most sense to have each league go from three divisions of five to four divisions of four.  Which actually works out perfectly.  Because there are currently eight teams in the Western portion of the country.  They could take Houston and Texas out, flip Arizona to the American League and have the two West divisions all set.

Putting one of the expansion franchises in the West, though, would make it nine teams for those eight spots.  In that scenario, Portland or Sacramento could take that AL West spot and let the Diamondbacks stay in the National League.  But it would also mean that the Rockies, as the furthest east of the Western teams, would be the odd man out.  They'd end up in a very awkwardly configured division just to even up the math.  And, most significantly, they wouldn't be in the same division as Utah.  Which would defeat the entire purpose!

Nashville obviously doesn't cause the same problem.  They could be in the NL South with the Braves, Marlins and Nationals or the AL South with the Texas teams and the Rays (or the Texas teams and the Royals).  Regardless of which league they're placed in, Nashville works in pretty naturally.  So does Charlotte, in fact.  But it wouldn't work with both of them.

Manfred has teased that when the expansion and realignment happens, the divisions might be organized geographically.  Of course, the divisions already are organized geographically, but some people took that to mean something much more drastic like eliminating the traditional AL and NL entirely.  Or even having multiple teams switch leagues.  Now, I don't think they'll do anything that severe.  While there are those who support it, the amount of pushback will be far greater and likely end up in Manfred abandoning that push for something far less extreme.

Even if MLB were to abandon the traditional leagues in a dramatic realignment when the two expansion teams come in, putting one team in the West still wouldn't make much sense logistically.  Then, you bring the Astros and Rangers back into the equation, but that's 11 teams, so it still doesn't work.  If you did, say, Utah and Sacramento, then you'd have 12, so it would.  But that's extremely unlikely.  Not when Nashville is such an obvious and clear favorite to secure an expansion franchise.

We're still a few years from MLB even approving the idea and beginning the expansion process.  And, once it starts, who knows how many cities will put in bids?  So, while Nashville and Salt Lake City may be viewed as favorites right now, there's no guarantee that they'll ultimately land the new teams.  And I'm sure many factors will come into play beyond just the idea of one team in the East and one team in the West.

Personally, I'd like to see Montreal join Nashville in the MLB expansion.  And not just because I'm one of those fans who waxes poetically about the Expos and think the city deserves another chance.  It's also because I think that makes more sense than adding a ninth team in the West.  Whether that's something MLB will consider is anybody's guess.  It absolutely should be, though.

Not On Board With 2042

Over the weekend, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced her support for a 2042 Winter Olympic bid.  The Games would follow the Milan-Cortina model where all of the outdoor sports would be held at existing facilities in Lake Placid, while the Greater New York City area would host indoor sports.  You'd think I'd be all about this idea.  I'm not.  For a number of reasons.

For starters, New York City and Lake Placid are nowhere near each other!  Granted, neither are Milan and Cortina.  And the 2030 Winter Olympics don't even have a host city.  They're just labeled "French Alps" and will be spread throughout the region.  But Lake Placid is closer to both Ottawa and Montreal than it is to New York City.  And it's not exactly an easy trip through the Adirondacks to a tiny town of 2,000 people that was borderline too small in 1980, when the Winter Olympics were much smaller.

Co-brand it as "Lake Placid/New York" all you want.  A majority of the events would end up in Lake Placid since that's where the venues are.  Lake Placid has the bobsled track.  Lake Placid has the ski jump.  Lake Placid has the mountains for skiing.  Lake Placid has the biathlon/cross country course.  Lake Placid has the 1980 Olympic arena that was the site of the Miracle On Ice and could conceivably be used for curling.  And the 1980 Olympic Stadium would also likely figure in somehow.

The speed skating oval made famous by Eric Heiden is still in use, but it's outdoors.  Olympic speed skating competition has been held exclusively indoors since 1994.  (That's one of the reasons the speed skating venue for 2030 hasn't been announced yet...the 1992 venue in Albertville is also outdoors.)  Would they allow them to use the outdoor facility?  Because there aren't really any other options.

What does that leave for New York City?  Pretty much just figure skating, short track (which shares a venue with figure skating) and hockey.  Which would take both Madison Square Garden and presumably Barclays Center offline in the heart of NBA season.  And they'd still need another hockey venue, so they could theoretically use all three NHL arenas (only one of which is actually within the city limits) and leave Barclays for the Nets (while forcing the Knicks on the road and St. John's to play on campus for two weeks).

And, where would the Opening Ceremony be?  You'd have to figure they'd want to have it at MetLife Stadium (which is in New Jersey) or, possibly, Yankee Stadium, but a majority of the athletes would be situated 275 miles away in Lake Placid.  But Lake Placid doesn't have a suitable venue to hold an Olympic Opening Ceremony (and, not to mention, the fact that the town is just too small).  Logistically, I don't see how it would possibly work.

One of the other politicians involved in the Governor's announcement pointed to the fact that Paris and London have hosted the Olympics three times, while Los Angeles will host its third in 2028.  Tokyo and Beijing have hosted twice.  Yet, the Olympics have never been in New York City.  That's true.  But it's also not a reason to just give the Winter Olympics to New York.  With the exception of Beijing, which has hosted one of each, all of those cities have hosted multiple Summer Olympics.  If you want the Olympics in New York (which I very much do), a Summer Games would make way more sense.

He also argued that it was the East Coast's "turn" after LA 2028 and Utah 2034.  I'm not sure how the fact that New York is on the East Coast has anything to do with it.  All three are in the United States.  That's the only relevant point.  And a huge one that would work against any potential Lake Placid/NYC bid.

If Lake Placid/New York were to host in 2042, that would be three Olympics in the U.S. in 14 years.  If that sounds like a lot, that's because it is.  The six years between LA and Utah is close, but that's not uncommon.  It was also six years between the last two Olympics in the United States (Atlanta 1996, Salt Lake 2002), and it'll be six years between the 2024 Paris Games and the 2030 Winter Games in the French Alps.  Three in 14 years, though, that's a heavy burden to put on the USOPC.  More significantly, it'll also get everybody else wondering "Can we go somewhere else?"

That, I think, is the biggest point to be made against a Lake Placid/New York bid for 2042.  It's too soon.  Even with the dwindling amount of potential hosts and interested bidders, it's highly unlikely that they'd return to the U.S. for another Winter Games just eight years after Utah 2034.  Especially since it will have been 20 years since the last Winter Olympics in Asia by that point.  (Remember how everyone had Asia fatigue after the three in a row from 2018-22?  It would be the same thing.  U.S. fatigue.)

Who's to say if the USOPC would even be on board with it?  Yes, it's the local organizing committee that has the responsibility of actually putting on the games.  But the bid has to come from the National Olympic Committee.  So, it's ultimately up to the USOPC if an American bid is even put forward...and if that bid is from Lake Placid/New York or somewhere else.

Unless there were absolutely no other bidders, a bid for the 2042 Winter Games from any American city would probably be DOA.  Especially since the IOC is again reforming the bid process and likely moving away from the "preferred candidate" system favored by Thomas Bach.  We don't know what the bid process for 2042 will look like or who the other bidders will be, but many in Olympic circles have been looking towards Sapporo, Japan as a favorite when/if they ever decide to pursue the Winter Games again.  And 2042 will be 20 years since the Winter Olympics were last in Asia and 21 years since the Olympics were last in Japan.  That's certainly a reasonable amount of time for a return.

It's also incredibly early in the process.  Gov. Hochul expressing interest could be just that.  Interest.  It might ultimately amount to nothing.  They may realize that it would be too big of a logistical challenge or determine that support is just lukewarm.  Or they may deem that it's simply not worth the cost to put into a bid that doesn't have that high a chance of success.  We don't even know what the bid process for an Olympics 16 years from now will look like!

In a way, I love that Gov. Hochul wants to host the Olympics.  And if she was talking about a Summer Olympics just in New York City, I'd be all for it.  An NYC/Lake Placid joint bid, though?  I just don't think it would work.  Especially not in 2042, when the Winter Olympics will almost certainly take place somewhere else.

Roland Garros 2026

Leading up to the French Open, there was some talk among top players about a boycott.  Aryna Sabalenka and Novak Djokovic were two of the most vocal in their dissatisfaction with the prize money structure, specifically the players' percentage of tournament revenue compared to the other three Grand Slams.  A full-scale boycott was unlikely.  They mainly spoke out to get their point across.  But they did stage a mini boycott by limiting their availability at the pre-tournament media day.

It'll be interesting to see what develops from that moving forward.  But in 2026, the players are set to receive less at Roland Garros than they are at the other Grand Slams.  Which is still a hefty payday for the winners.  Who will those winners be, though?  That's the question.  Because, on the men's side especially, we enter this year's tournament without a clear favorite.

That's because Carlos Alcaraz is injured and missing this year's French Open.  Last year, he won that classic final against Jannik Sinner in what might've been the defining match of their rivalry so far.  Alcaraz then went and started this year by winning the Australian Open, the only Grand Slam title he was missing.  He's the two-time defending champion here and the best clay court player on tour, so Alcaraz would've been the heavy favorite to make it three in a row.  Instead, you'd probably have to say it's Sinner's tournament to lose.

Sinner has been on a roll since losing to Djokovic in the Australian Open semifinals.  He regained the No. 1 ranking in April and won every clay court tune-up he played, including his hometown Italian Open.  Alcaraz completed his career Grand Slam with his victory in Australia.  Sinner can complete his with a victory here.  And, like his rival in Melbourne, winning the French Open is Sinner's goal for 2026.  That goal is easily achievable, too.

But, if it isn't Sinner, who else could it be?  The No. 2 and 3 seeds both got their tournaments started with victories on Sunday.  Djokovic has been sitting at 24 Grand Slam titles since the 2023 US Open (Sinner and Alcaraz have won the last nine between them), but he beat Sinner in the Australian Open semifinals.  He just turned 39.  Now he's the veteran.  And no one that age has made a Grand Slam semifinal since Ken Roswell 50 years ago.  Would you put it past him at all to make a run, though?

Or maybe Alexander Zverev can finally get his first Grand Slam title.  Zverev is up to No. 2 in the world and has been a French Open finalist in the past.  More importantly, with Alcaraz out, he doesn't need to worry about beating both him and Sinner.  Which isn't to say his road is easy.  He still has to deal with Djokovic in the semis.  But that's certainly a winnable match.  And he might be one of the only players who can beat Sinner in the final.

If it's anybody other than one of those three, I'd be surprised.  Felix Auger-Aliassime is the No. 4 seed, but he has no chance.  He's never been past the fourth round at Roland Garros.  I do think Daniil Medvedev might have a shot.  Although, he hasn't had a very good clay court season.  They're both in Sinner's half of the bracket, which only makes me even more confident that Sinner will get back to the final.

Then there's the Americans.  Can they continue the momentum from 2025, when three (Frances Tiafoe, Tommy Paul, Ben Shelton) reached the round of 16 and two (Tiafoe & Paul) made the quarterfinals?  If the seeds hold, Tiafoe and Shelton would face each other in the round of 16, with Sinner waiting for the winner in the quarters.  It's definitely realistic to see that Sinner vs. American quarterfinal happening, even if that's as far as the American men get.

This is also set to be the final French Open for a retiring French legend.  Gael Monfils is calling it a career at the end of the season.  He was given a wild card for his farewell appearance and takes on countryman Hugo Gaston, another wild card, in the first round.  Whenever Monfils is eliminated, it'll mark the end of an era.

On the women's side, it would be easy to say Iga Swiatek is the one to beat.  She was the three-time defending champion when her reign was ended by Sabalenka in the semifinals last year.  Swiatek then went on to win Wimbledon out of nowhere, getting herself back on track.  However, Swiatek's Achilles heel is Jelena Ostapenko, who's 6-0 all-time against her.  And who would Swiatek meet in the third round?  Ostapenko.  For that reason alone, I can't go with her to win.

Instead, I've got to go with Sabalenka.  She reached her maiden French Open final in 2025, falling to Coco Gauff in three sets.  It was her first Grand Slam final not on hardcourt.  Sabalenka's been to five of the last six Grand Slam finals.  She's had a rough clay court season (she was eliminated in the third round at the Italian Open), so we'll see if that has any bearing.  But I still like Sabalenka to make another deep run.

The draw sets up for a rematch of last year's final between Gauff and Sabalenka in this year's semifinals.  And Gauff has a real shot of defending her title.  She comes in as the No. 3 seed and has had a very good clay court season.  But she needs to get past the other Americans to have a shot at Sabalenka.  Madison Keys, Jessica Pegula and Amanda Anisimova are all in the top half of the draw with Gauff and Sabalenka.  So, it'll be a challenge.

Another one to watch is Elina Svitolina (who's Gael Monfils' wife).  She started the season by reaching the semifinals in Australia and won the Italian Open tune-up event, where she defeated Elena Rybakina, Iga Swiatek and Coco Gauff.  So, Svitolina's a definite player.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see her in the final.

Rybakina, meanwhile, won the Australian Open and has risen to a career-high ranking of No. 2.  Her best-ever French Open result is the quarterfinals twice, so she isn't considered a favorite.  But it's not totally inconceivable that she can make a deep run, either.  After all, her Australian Open title came a little out of nowhere.  And we've seen some unlikely French Open women's champions before.  A Rybakina title wouldn't be completely out of nowhere like it was Australia, though.

Last year, French wild card Lois Boisson was the out of nowhere semifinalist.  Who will it be this year?  Will there be one?  Or will this be a year when all of the semifinalists are higher seeds?  Could that be our unexpected French open result in 2026?  Either way, I think the ending could be somewhat predictable.

While I'm not completely confident in my pick (I think there are four or five women who can win), give me Sabalenka for the women's title.  She's the best women's player in the world, after all.  And she came so close last year.  So did Sinner.  Without Alcaraz here this year, Sinner gets his first French Open title and completes his career Grand Slam.

Tragedy Strikes Racing's Greatest Weekend

This is supposed to be the greatest weekend in motorsports.  A celebration, with a marquee race in all three major series back-to-back-to-back.  Monaco, then Indy, then Charlotte.  Instead, Memorial Day Weekend will take on a different meaning after the unbelievably sad news that shocked not just the racing community, but the entire sports world.  Suddenly and unexpectedly, Kyle Busch is gone.

The announcement on Thursday that he would miss the Coca-Cola 600 didn't seem that out of the ordinary.  His having to take a week off because of a health issue surely shouldn't be a cause for alarm.  Drivers miss races because of injury or illness all the time, so why would this be any different?  Sure, sitting out of a crown jewel event like the Coca-Cola 600 is uncommon, but sometimes you can't control the timing of these things.

It was only a couple hours later that they made the second announcement informing people of his passing.  Which was jarring on so many levels.  First, how quickly it happened.  The "serious health issue" that he was hospitalized with took him within a few hours.  While no official cause of death was given initially, details began trickling out about how he had a sinus infection and how he started not to feel well on Wednesday and what was said on the 911 call.  But, still, this was an otherwise healthy, 41-year-old racecar driver who died merely hours after being admitted to the hospital with what his family later revealed was severe pneumonia that turned into sepsis.  How could it not shake people up?

Driving a racecar is obviously an incredibly dangerous job.  You take your life in your hands every time you get behind the wheel.  Every driver knows that and is willing to take that risk.  That's part of what's so shocking here, too.  It wasn't a racing crash.  Had it been, it would've been no less shocking and no less tragic, but it would at least be easier to understand.  But it wasn't.  It was a sudden illness that acted fast and without warning.

He was in the car doing what he loves literally last weekend!  In fact, he won the truck series race at Dover.  In the winner's circle, he made the seemingly innocuous comment that "you never know when it'll be your last."  The cruel irony of what those words mean now.  Because he was exactly right.  Only not in a way anybody could've seen coming.

And I get that Kyle Busch wasn't everybody's cup of tea.  To say he was polarizing would be an incredible understatement.  So many fans (including my friend Joyce) loved him.  He was their favorite driver.  Just as many couldn't stand him and hated his antics.  Yet, whether you loved him or hated him, you couldn't deny how gifted Kyle Busch was.  A truly special talent.  A legendary competitor.  He was motivated by one thing--winning, which he did a lot.  And that drive is what made him so great.

Another part of his greatness is that it truly didn't matter what type of car he was in.  He won in all of them, sometimes in the same weekend!  He was a two-time NASCAR Cup Series champion and took the checkered flag 63 times at the sport's highest level.  Busch also had 102 wins and one series championship in the Busch series, which came in 2009...when he was competing in both series on the same weekend pretty much every week (now's not the time for my diatribe about Buschwhacking, which NASCAR later made a rule change to prevent).  Throw in 63 truck wins, including last weekend at Dover, and that's 234 victories in NASCAR's top three series.

Kurt Busch was inducted into the NASCAR Hall of Fame this year.  There was never any question that his brother will one day join him.  He was going to be a slam-dunk first-ballot selection someday down the line.  That was supposed to be years from now.  After he'd broken every record there was to break.  After he'd capped perhaps the most dominant career across all three series in NASCAR history.  Instead, we're left wondering how much more he could've accomplished in what was already a historic career.  A career that could've been right there at the top among the Pettys and the Earnhardts and the Johnsons as one of the all-time greats.

In a cruel twist of fate, this is the second time Richard Childress has had a NASCAR legend who was a member of his racing team die during the season.  Childress, of course, was Dale Earnhardt's car owner when Earnhardt lost his life on that final-lap crash in the 2001 Daytona 500.  He took Earnhardt's No. 3 out of circulation immediately.  When Kevin Harvick took over the car, it was rebranded as the No. 29.  No. 3 continued to be held out until Childress eventually gave it to Austin Dillon.

So, Childress retiring Busch's No. 8 not only wasn't a surprise, it was an appropriate tribute.  Austin Hill was already set to drive the No. 8 at Charlotte this weekend.  That was when he was just keeping the seat warm.  Now it'll be the No. 33.  No. 8 will be held out of circulation until Kyle Busch's son, Brexton, is ready to follow in his father's footsteps.  Brexton Busch is currently 11 years old.

Once the news of Kyle Busch's death got out, the tributes came pouring in from across the sporting universe.  The Carolina Hurricanes had a video montage and moment of silence before Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Final.  Since Busch was from Las Vegas, I wouldn't be surprised if the Golden Knights do something similar before Game 3 in the West, which will not only be their first home game of the series, it'll be on Sunday night at the same time as the Coca-Cola 600.

NASCAR will obviously honor him this weekend, as well.  At the truck race on Friday night (which he was originally planning on racing in), two teams added the Kyle Busch Motorsports logo to their trucks, and the pit crews did his salute as the trucks passed by on pit lane.  I would imagine similar tributes are in store for the rest of the weekend in Charlotte, from other drivers, fans, and NASCAR itself alike.  And, I'm sure they'll also at the very least observe a moment of silence for him in Indianapolis, where Kyle Busch was a two-time winner of the Brickyard 400.

My original plan for this post was for it to be my annual Indy 500 preview, but it took an obvious (and understandable) pivot.  The racing community is so tight that this devastating loss will be felt all over.  The great celebration of auto racing that is Memorial Day Weekend has taken an incredibly sad turn.  This isn't just NASCAR's loss.  This isn't just racing's loss.  This is the entire sports world's loss.

You know what the best way to honor Kyle Busch is, though?  To go out there, give their all, and race their asses off.  Just like he did.  That's what they'll do in Indianapolis, and that's certainly what they'll do in Charlotte.  Kyle Busch wouldn't have wanted it any other way.  Because if he was out there, you know he'd be going full throttle to be the first across that finish line. 

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.