Texas Tech 1, Common Sense 0

No gambling of any kind has always been the golden rule at all levels of sport.  For very obvious reasons.  Protecting the integrity of the game is paramount.  There needs to be no doubt that the final score was the result of fair, honest competition and nothing more.  That's why gambling is taken so seriously and there's no tolerance for it.  Unless you're a judge in Texas.

In an absolutely shocking decision, a Texas judge granted Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby an injunction that overturned the NCAA's ruling and declared him eligible to play for the Red Raiders in 2026.  This despite the fact that Sorsby violated that golden rule.  Notice I'm not using the word "allegedly" here.  There's nothing alleged about it!  Sorsby has admitted to placing thousands of bets worth at least $90,000 on pro and college sports over a four-year period...including more than 40 involving Indiana football WHEN HE WAS ON THE TEAM! 

This is as clear-cut as it gets!  The NCAA was obligated to declare Sorsby permanently ineligible.  Just as MLB Commissioner Bart Giamatti had no choice but to give Pete Rose a lifetime ban.  And, going back more than a century, Judge Landis had that same obligation with the eight players involved in the Black Sox Scandal.  Even the appearance of impropriety is enough to bring the result into question.  Whether there actually is or not doesn't even matter.  Just wondering if there is does plenty of damage on its own.

Everybody except one Texas judge seems to understand that fairly obvious fact.  In his ruling granting the TRO, the judge (whose name I'm choosing not to use because, frankly, he doesn't deserve it) said that Sorsby could suffer "irreparable harmed" if he weren't allowed to compete while the legal process played out (which, coincidentally, likely won't happen until after the football season when his eligibility is exhausted).  The irreparable harm that will be done not just to college football, but college sports as a whole, is evidently irrelevant.  So is the irreparable harm that will be done to Texas Tech's opponents, who'll be taking the field questioning the legitimacy of the very game in which they're playing.  And what happens when Sorsby's ban is reinstated (or, more likely, the case is dropped since he already got what he wanted and it won't matter come February)?

Needless to say, this decision hasn't been well-received anywhere other than Lubbock, Texas.  Georgia's AD has ordered his coaches not to schedule non-conference games against Texas Tech until further notice.  The Big 12 AD's and coaches have a conference call scheduled for Tuesday, where this will undoubtedly be the main topic of discussion.  Some Big 12 schools have even suggested a reluctance to play Texas Tech and wondered what the consequences with the conference might be should they take that extreme stance (which they may do anyway to get their point across).

Consequences are something that don't apply to Brendan Sorsby.  That's the message that was sent loud and clear with the judge's ruling.  He violated the golden rule.  The one that preserves the sanctity and integrity of clean sport.  Which is apparently totally fine!  (Just think about how asinine that sounds.)  And, I'm sorry, he will face some consequences.  His punishment is a two-game suspension!  That'll teach him!

Sorsby's defense was that he's a gambling addict who received treatment during a 35-day stay at an in-patient rehab facility.  As such, his lawyers argued that, because he was diagnosed with an addiction, not letting him play would impact his mental health by having a negative effect on his recovery.  The judge bought this ridiculous argument.  Because being around the sport that helped feed his addiction can't possibly lead to a relapse!

He also made an argument that they were impacting his potential for future earnings because not allowing him to play would directly affect his NFL Draft prospects.  Sorsby played for Cincinnati last year before transferring to Texas Tech.  He didn't take part in the Combine or enter the Draft because he was planning on playing for the Red Raiders this season...and making him ineligible would impact his preparations for the 2027 Combine and Draft. 

The problem with this argument, however (and one Sorsby clearly failed to consider), is that the NFL's stance is just as clear as the NCAA's.  And the NFL has a collective agreement with the NFLPA, so Sorsby can't rely on the courts to get what he wants.  He has no NFL prospects.  Because the NFL's CBA expressly prohibits gambling in any form.  Even if it wasn't, Sorsby's radioactive.  No NFL team is going anywhere near him.  But that's beside the point.

Over the past few years, there have been numerous high-profile lawsuits that resulted in rulings against the NCAA.  This is just the latest.  It's also by far the most damaging.  It doesn't just put the integrity of the competition at stake.  Which is bad enough.  It undermines the NCAA's authority to enforce its own rules.  Worse, if the TRO holds, the NCAA will be the first sporting organization anywhere at any level to be forced to allow someone who's actively undermined the integrity of the game to play.

For months (years?), there have been calls for Congress to step in and pass some sort of federal legislation to cover college sports.  Because leaving up to the state courts creates a patchwork of 50 different interpretations.  As we saw in the early days of the NIL, that's an unworkable situation.  Which NCAA President Charlie Baker made very clear in his response to the Sorsby ruling.  There needs to be one interpretation that applies to everybody.  Not one that's decided by a friendly judge in one state that 49 other states completely disagree with, yet are forced to abide by.

While not even remotely close to the same, I can't help but compare this to the Lia Thomas situation.  In that case, Lia Thomas was allowed to compete for the women's swimming team at Penn after transitioning from male to female.  After being just an average male swimmer, Thomas became a dominant NCAA champion in the women's events.  That ruling was controversial, obviously.  As were all other eligibility cases regarding transgender athletes.

I don't bring that up to get into the politics of those cases.  I bring it up because of the impact the rulings had on the rest of the competitors.  They're narrow focused, which I get.  That's the point of bringing a lawsuit.  To get a favorable ruling for yourself.  But these cases have a far-reaching impact beyond just that one individual.  Biological women were losing to Lia Thomas.  Who was advocating for them?

That's the point I'm trying to make here.  This isn't about NCAA rules.  It's not even entirely about Brendan Sorsby.  It's about protecting the integrity of the competition.  That's why rules prohibiting gambling exist in the first place.  Rules that are common sense to just about everybody except Brendan Sorsby, his lawyers, a handful of people at Texas Tech (who obviously have a vested interest in his being able to play) and one Texas judge.

If this ruling is allowed to stand and Sorsby is eligible to play for Texas Tech this season, what kind of message does that send?  What's to stop coaches from actively encouraging their players to bet on their own games?  And how are fans supposed to believe that these games are being played on the level?  That's the heart of the issue.  If people lose confidence in what they're watching, it puts the entire operation at risk.

College sports in general, and college football in particular, are at a crossroads.  This is the latest, and most dangerous, example of that.  Because the integrity of the competition is at stake.  Which is why there was so much shock and outrage to the ruling.  Because most people understand that.  Unfortunately, the Texas judge who issued this ridiculous ruling is one of the few who isn't one of them.

Bring Back the NHL Awards

Remember when they used to have the NHL Awards?  That televised black-tie event after the Stanley Cup Final where they presented all of the league's trophies in one two-hour show?  What happened to that?  Why did they get rid of it?  Because the way they're doing it now is terrible!

Instead of announcing the NHL Awards all at once, they've been trickling them out one at a time.  Sometimes two at a time.  And there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind it, let alone a schedule.  Just a bunch of disjointed press releases accompanied by those videos where somebody "surprises" the winner by telling them they won.  Since, you know, everybody just randomly has an entire camera crew in their backyard at every family party.  That isn't suspicious at all!

There is one thing they've started doing that's good.  They're announcing the three finalists for each of the awards.  But what's the point of doing that if you're not inviting them to an awards show where one will receive it?  When all they're doing is putting out a press release, they could just as easily announce only the winner and release the results of the full voting at that time (which they already do anyway).

And, again, what's with the schedule?!  We found out Matthew Schaefer won the Calder like a month ago!  Meanwhile, they still haven't announced the winner of the Hart Trophy.  Which, as MVP, should be last.  But a month after Rookie of the Year?!  Talk about anticlimactic!

The NFL Honors will never be confused with quality television.  It's even pretty bad as an awards show.  But, the one thing the NFL Honors has going for it is that every award is announced during the two-hour show.  And they, of course, cap it with the NFL's highest honor...the Walter Payton Man of the Year.  So, in that regard, the NFL Honors is great.  They do all of the awards at the same time.

Baseball is the only sport where the postseason awards aren't presented until after the playoffs.  But there's no denying that they've also got the schedule figured out.  They do the Gold Gloves and Comeback Players of the Year ahead of time, but their major awards are all announced in the same week.  There's a one-hour show on MLB Network every day from Monday-Thursday, where they do Rookie of the Year, Manager of the Year, Cy Young and MVP in order.  Even when the winners are obvious, it builds up anticipation nonetheless.

That, to me, is the biggest problem with the NHL's current system of giving out its postseason awards.  There's absolutely no build up and no anticipation.  It's just "here's who won."  I'm sure there's some sort of formal schedule, but has anyone in the public ever seen it?  And why are the awards so spread out?  If they were doing it one per day for a week, that would be one thing.  But I don't even know what this is!

This is more like the NBA's haphazard system of announcing its postseason award winners.  The NBA has always done their awards the same way.  But even that has some sort of structure.  Oftentimes, they'll present the award to a player on the court before a home playoff game.  And that at least makes sense.  Unlike what the NHL does.

I can only assume they want to have some sort of personal touch with the award winner finding out from a friend or family member.  The idea was probably inspired by what the Pro Football Hall of Fame does with their knock on the door videos.  But some of those Pro Football Hall of Fame knock on the door videos are clearly staged (as much as they want us to believe they aren't).  And, by doing basically the same thing, the NHL is taking the suspense away from some of their award winners.  I'm sure some are genuinely surprised, but for the rest it's a dead giveaway.  Especially since they've been doing the same thing for a while now.

Are there those who prefer it this way, who like the awards having that little personalized touch?  I'm sure.  For the award winners, is it more meaningful to get the trophy from somebody they're close to in front of family members instead of on a stage in a tuxedo from some random celebrity or NHL luminary where they have to give an acceptance speech after?  Perhaps.  But I'm sure there are others who like it the other way, where they can celebrate with their NHL brotherhood.

Bringing it back to the NFL Honors, that's where they've gotten it right.  The players are honored and celebrated with each other.  It gives a sense of camaraderie.  That used to be the case in the NHL, too, when they did the NHL Awards show.  Getting your award in front of your family is one thing.  Getting it in front of your family and the guys you spend the entire season playing with and against?  That's something else entirely.

An argument could be made that giving out all of the awards together perhaps makes some seem less important than others.  By contrast, announcing each award separately puts them all in the spotlight individually.  The Norris Trophy gets its due one day, and the Selke Trophy gets its the next.  Although, if somebody wins multiple awards, he's not getting all of them at the same time, which is another point against not having a centralized NHL Awards.

Did they ever even give the reason why they stopped doing the NHL Awards?  Was it the league's choice?  The NHLPA's?  Both?  Was it a matter of not being able to find a venue or coming to an agreement with their American and/or Canadian TV partners for the broadcast?  Is it simply a matter of the timing being too tight between the end of the Stanley Cup Final and the NHL Draft to squeeze it in between them?

Whatever the reason, I hope this situation is only temporary.  Because I'd love to see the NHL Awards return someday.  At the very least, they need to figure out something better than what they're doing now.  Because, while I get the idea of having each award announced separately, it was so much better when they were presented at the same at a formal awards show.

2026 Stanley Cup Final Preview

There's been a lot of talk about the Stanley Cup playoff format this year.  It's pretty much just been reinforcing how much people hate it.  Players hate it.  Fans hate it.  But Gary Bettman likes it, so we're stuck with it.  One of the reasons Bettman likes it is because the NHL "has the greatest first-round in sports."  Too bad the playoffs last four rounds.

While the conference finals both being duds can't be blamed completely on the format, it certainly didn't help.  The Canadiens played 14 games in the first two rounds.  The Hurricanes have played 13 games total in the first three rounds (they won't even reach 100 for the season until Game 5 of the Final).  Carolina had two weeks off between the clincher against Philadelphia and Game 1 against Montreal...which is the only game they've lost in the playoffs.  And the only reason the Hurricanes lost was because they were sitting around too long and were rusty/flat.  By the end of the series, Montreal was exhausted and it showed.  Hence Carolina dominating Games 4 & 5 so thoroughly.

It is the format that gave us a 39-win Golden Knights team winning the West.  Is Vegas the best team?  Not even close.  But they got hot at the right time and took advantage of their matchups.  Colorado being without its two best players for long stretches in the series sure didn't help, either.  Credit to the Golden Knights, though.  The opportunity presented itself.  They seized it.  And now they're in the Final for the third time in their nine-year history.

Carolina, meanwhile, finally won a Conference Final game.  Four of them, in fact.  The Hurricanes have been one of the best teams in hockey for the past several years.  This season, they finally put it all together in the playoffs, and they've looked practically unbeatable!  In fact, the Hurricanes have played the fewest postseason games--13--of any Stanley Cup Finalist since they expanded the playoffs to four best-of-seven series in 1987.

Of course, we can't count Vegas out by any means.  They may have won their division by stockpiling loser points, but they're also a different team under John Tortorella.  The Golden Knights clearly thought they could position themselves for a run in the playoffs, hence the late-season coaching change.  And whatever Torts has done has certainly clicked.  They're on that roll, as they showed in their sweep of the President's Trophy winners.

Can they keep it going against a Hurricanes team that has been simply dominant thru the first three rounds?  That's the big question.  In the Western Conference Final, the Avalanche were banged and bruised.  That series would've been completely different if Colorado was healthy.  Carolina won't have that problem.  Vegas will have to deal with a healthy and well-rested Hurricanes team.  Which means this will likely be a very different series than the Western Conference Final.

For the last three years, we've seen the Florida Panthers make the Final playing a grind-it-out, wear-you-down defensive style.  Which is exactly how both of these teams play!  It's been part of the secret to their success.  So, it'll be very interesting to see each of them essentially play against themselves.  Especially since they were both able to impose their will in the Conference Finals.

Now let's talk about Mitch Marner and Freddy Andersen.  Those two have more in common beyond just being former Maple Leafs.  They're also the leading candidates for the Conn Smythe Trophy.  Unless somebody goes absolutely nuts in the Final, it's likely that one of them will win it.  Especially if Carolina lifts the Cup.  Andersen has been that good.  (There's at least a chance that somebody else from Vegas could snag the Conn Smythe, even if it's a slim one.)

The irony of them both being former Leafs who are having ridiculously good playoffs isn't lost on anybody, either.  There are two schools of thought, neither of which is pleasant for Toronto fans.  The first is "you get them out of Toronto and look what happens!"  The other is "why couldn't he do that for the Leafs?"  Well, one of them is getting his name on the Cup.  And he'll likely be a big reason why.

Andersen has been simply sensational.  There have been six shutouts in the playoffs.  He has three of them, one in each series.  Outside of Game 1 against Montreal (Carolina's only loss of the postseason), he hasn't allowed more than two goals in any game.  The Golden Knights are more dynamic offensively than Ottawa, Philadelphia or Montreal, so it might be a lot to expect him to keep it going in the Stanley Cup Final.  But we've seen a goalie lead his team to the Cup by standing on his head for two months before, and Andersen is playing at that sort of level.

He'll have to deal with much more than just Marner, of course.  Jack Eichel has 16 playoff assists to lead all players.  Brett Howden and Pavel Dorofeyev have both scored 10 goals.  And, Shea Theodore is a +8 while playing more than 25 minutes per game.  Let's not forget, too, that Carter Hart has been nearly as good as his counterpart.

Still, though, the Hurricanes are simply too good.  Given their recent history, getting past the Eastern Conference Final was the big challenge.  Now that they've gotten over that hump, and in such a dominant fashion, I don't see anything slowing this team down.  Especially since, with the exception of the last two games against Montreal, all of their wins this postseason have been close.  They have six one-goal wins (five of which were in overtime) and two two-goal wins.  So, even though they've been dominant, the games were still tight.  Which means they weren't coasting.  Don't let those scores deceive you, though.  They were controlling play.

Whoever can control play the most should have the edge in this series.  They're both great at playing with the lead, although the Golden Knights have also shown an ability to come back.  They haven't faced an opponent that plays Carolina's style of clamp-down defense, though.  Neither have the Hurricanes for that matter.  Scoring first should make a huge difference in every game.  Because that'll be the team who gets that opportunity to control the game and make the other team chase it.

Starting in Raleigh could make a huge difference, too.  More importantly, Game 7 being in Raleigh could be a huge difference.  I know the Golden Knights swept the President's Trophy-winning Avalanche.  But there's just something about this year's Hurricanes that makes it seem like they're a team of destiny.  Which is why I simply can't pick against them.  Carolina in six.

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.