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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pricing Out the Common Fan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Good Problem to Have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nationally Exclusive and Extremely Confusing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New World Order In College Basketball

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA28 Qualifying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hockey's Playoff Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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