Whatever Happened to Sunday Afternoon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USA's Last World Cup?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shrinking In Brisbane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No More NCAA Tournament As We Knew It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everybody Gets a Trophy

You know how in youth sports, every kid, regardless of how good they are, regardless of their role on the team, regardless of if their team even wins or loses, gets a participation trophy after the season?  The value of that will never cease to be a source of debate, and both sides have their reasons.  Most people can agree, though, that as you get older, you realize that participation trophies are meaningless and value the trophies that to win because you have to earn them so much more. 

I don't bring this up to rag on youth sports and/or participation trophies.  I bring it up because that's the best analogy I can think of for what the Big Ten and SEC want to turn college sports into.  Because that's exactly what it feels like!  They don't want anybody to feel left out.  So, instead of actually getting better and earning their places in the College Football Playoff, why not just expand both?!  There's more money to be made, sure, but that's not the real motivation here.  The real motivation is to get more mediocre teams from supersized Power 4 conferences into what should be marquee, championship events.  Just so they don't feel bad.

The Big Ten has really been pushing for a 24-team College Football Playoff.  You don't need me to tell you how ridiculous that is.  The 12-team playoff has so far been a success in the two years since the field expanded, and further expansion to either 14 or 16 seems inevitable.  But doubling the size of the field?  That's too much.  You can't tell me that there are 24 teams deserving of playing for a National Championship.

Fortunately, the SEC has resisted.  But you know the Big Ten won't let up unless/until they get their way.  And the only reason they want the field expanded is so that they can get more of their teams in.  They don't just want a larger field.  They want a larger field with a guaranteed number of bids for each conference.  So, you wouldn't even necessarily need to be good.  You'd just need to finish fifth in the Big Ten.

Their rationale for this is just as stupid.  It's because, with expansion, the Power 4 conferences all have so many teams now.  Well, what did they expect when they went to 18-team leagues?!  Somebody has to finish 13th!  And no one forced the conferences to expand to ridiculous numbers.  Just as nobody forced schools to join these megaconferences.  Potentially finishing 13th with a mediocre record is a consequence of the league size.

Under the Big Ten's preferred format, the College Football Playoff would start the first weekend in December.  Conference championship games would be eliminated.  That's really what the SEC's big hang up is.  The SEC Championship Game means a lot to them and generates a ton of money for the conference.  So, they want to see it preserved.  Which, right now, is the saving grace that's preventing the 24-team College Football Playoff from becoming a reality.

Don't give the SEC too much credit, though.  Because they're the ringleaders behind the push to expand March Madness, which looks like it's all but a done deal.  Unless something drastic happens (beyond the incredibly negative public feedback), the men's and women's NCAA basketball tournaments will expand from 68 to 76 teams next season.  For the stated reason of "giving Power 4 conference teams more access to at-large bids."

While it's about more than just one team, the fact that Auburn didn't get into the Tournament this season is the "proof" of their argument that the field needs to be expanded.  I'm not rehashing the whole Auburn vs. Miami Ohio at-large debate, but the committee ultimately decided to go with one-loss Miami Ohio over one-game-over-.500 Auburn as the last team in the field.  To their credit, Auburn not only played in the NIT, they won it.  But the fact that they were essentially a .500 team trying to make a case that they "belonged" in the tournament was patently absurd.

In an expanded field, however, Auburn wouldn't have even been on the bubble.  They would've been comfortably in.  Which they also would've been in a 68-team field had they lost fewer games!  So, make no mistake, that's the motivation here.  They think it's "unfair" that mediocre, middle-to-bottom-of-the-pack teams in supersized Power 4 conferences don't get in when they're "better" than some of the mid-major teams also under consideration.  To which I say, "Boo hoo!" 

Again, somebody has to finish last in these conferences.  And, if the top teams go 16-2 or 15-3, somebody else has to go 6-12 or 5-13 in conference play.  That's what happens when you have conferences that are ridiculously large.  Why should we reward these teams with at-large bids to the NCAA Tournament?  (If bids were being added so that mid-major teams also had more access, I'd be all for it, but that's definitely not what's happening here.)

And, not to mention the fact that the NCAA Tournament is the closest thing there is to a perfect sporting event.  A big reason for that is because 64 is easily divisible.  Adding the 65th team was no big deal since it was a little appetizer.  That eventually became the First Four and a field of 68, which still didn't have that big of an impact on the larger bracket.  Going to 76 teams, though, that's where it becomes cumbersome.  And for what reason?  There's absolutely no need to expand March Madness.  So, of course, they're gonna do it anyway.

That's really the biggest problem with the proposed expansions in both the College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament.  We've all heard the expression "less is more."  This is a situation where the saying applies.  Bigger does not necessarily mean better.  In both of these cases, in fact, bigger would accomplish nothing other than diluting the product.  So why do it?

Are there good teams that don't make the field each year?  Yes.  Enough to warrant such drastic expansion to both events?  No.  Sure, those teams would no longer get snubbed.  But you'd also be adding a bunch of mediocre teams who have no business competing for a championship (if "competing" is even the right word to use).  Especially since it's not even actually about inclusion.  It's a blatant money grab designed just to make sure they get more teams (and thus more money) for themselves.

Expansion isn't just a bad idea, it's completely unnecessary.  People could probably get on board with a 16-team College Football Playoff, but is anyone outside of the Big Ten clamoring for it to be 24?  Likewise, who actually has such a problem with the 68-team March Madness field that they feel it "needs" to be expanded?  But, since it's what the Big Ten wants in football and the SEC wants in basketball, it's almost certainly gonna happen regardless of what anybody else thinks.

It Is High, It Is Far, It Is Gone

In the Summer of 2003, I went to visit my aunt in Baltimore.  Her significant other, Jim, was the Orioles' official scorer and he arranged for me to get a credential and sit in the press box during the game.  As we were having dinner in the press box, he introduced me to John Sterling.  Jim mentioned that I was a communications major, so Sterling invited me to sit in the Yankees' radio booth...where I sat for the entire game.

Roger Clemens started and Aaron Boone (yes, THAT Aaron Boone) hit the go-ahead home run in the top of the ninth.  After he hit the homer, the producer, who I'd been sitting next to the entire time, checked out my credential and got angry.  Thinking I'd worn out my welcome, I went to quietly make my exit.  A couple minutes later, he came back into the booth with a member of the Yankees' PR staff. 

The reason he was annoyed wasn't because I was no longer welcome.  It was because he wanted me to go down to the field with a microphone so they could interview Boone (this was pre-Suzyn, too), and I didn't have field access.   So, he brought the PR staffer in to escort me down to the field.  Here I am, this 21-year-old college kid walking through the Yankees' clubhouse (Don Zimmer walked right past me), then out on the field at Camden Yards helping them get the postgame interview with the player of the game.  And it was all because of John Sterling.

Afterwards, I wrote him a letter to thank him.  He actually responded!  This all happened more than 20 years ago, and I still remember it like it was yesterday.  It's something I'll never forget.  It left that big of an impression on me.  That's the type of person John Sterling was.  A truly gracious gentleman to everyone, even if it was the only time in your life he'd ever meet you and vice versa.

I know I've told that story before, so I'm sorry if you've already heard it.  (I must've told it about 10 times at Jim's wake last year.)  But I think it's only appropriate to tell it again today.  Because John Sterling deserves it.  It's only fitting that the Yankees were playing the Orioles today, too.  The perfect synergy between John and Jim and a moment that wouldn't have happened without either one of them.

Not everyone was lucky enough to have a personal story about John Sterling like that.  If they did, I'm sure they'd remember it just as fondly as I do mine.  But that doesn't change the sense of loss that so many Yankees fans feel.  Like Mel Allen and Phil Rizzuto before him, he was the voice of the Yankees for a generation of fans.  His ironman streak was twice as long as Cal Ripken's (another Oriole!).  Without fail, for 162 games a year plus however many in the playoffs, John Sterling was there to guide you through the action.  

Yankee haters, of course, found him irritating.  And accused him of being a homer.  One time, he talked about that on the air and had the perfect response, "of course I'm a homer!"  He then explained why wouldn't he be?  Why wouldn't he want to see the team that employed him, he traveled with and whose games he broadcast win?  And what local broadcaster isn't a homer to certain extent?  If they aren't, you can tell.

But the same things that made him so irritating to non-Yankees fans made him so beloved in the Bronx.  And, love him or hate him, you had your John Sterling impression.  They say imitation is the highest form of flattery.  And who doesn't do their imitation of a John Sterling catchphrase?  At the end of every game, I still go "Ballgame over!  Yankees win!  Theeeeeeeeeeeee Yankees win!"  (Or the less fun "Yankees lose!  Theeeeeeeeeee Yankees lose!" variation.)  And I'm not the only one!

His game-ending celebration was only part of it.  There was also the signature home run call: "It is high.  It is far.  It is gone!," followed by an individual one for each player.  Everyone loved it...including the players!  Whenever somebody joined the Yankees, the first thing they wanted to know was what their home run call would be.  Those individual calls weren't schtick, even if it might've seemed like that.  They were merely expressions of joy with a little personal flair!

Sterling was known just as much for those individual home run calls as anything else.  The very first one, "Bern Baby Bern" for Bernie Williams.  Jason Giambi was the "Giambino."  We got "A-bombs from A-Rod."  Aaron Judge hit "Judgian blasts."  That mangled Italian phrase for Giancarlo Stanton.  "You're on the Mark, Teixeira" every time he sent a "Tex Message."  Everybody got one.  And everybody had a favorite.

You can only imagine what he would've come up with for some of the players who've become Yankees since he retired.  Jazz Chisholm didn't get traded to the Yankees until July 2024.  Both he and Sterling lamented the fact that there would be no "And All That Jazz" references from the musical Chicago.  And you know it would've been something good for Ben Rice!  (It's as if he knew which ones he'd say the most, so he made sure those were particularly catchy.)

To say that John Sterling was "beloved" among Yankee fans would be an incredible understatement.  The Yankees don't have a mascot, of course, but you could argue that it was unofficially John Sterling.  In the team store, they sold t-shirts with cartoon versions of John and longtime broadcast partner Suzyn Waldman that featured another of his trademark sayings: "That's baseball, Suzyn."  There was also a John & Suzyn talking bobblehead giveaway once!

WFAN eventually installed a "Sterling Cam" so that they could post social media clips of him in the booth.  It captured more than just his excited "Sterling shake" at the end of victories.  Late in his career, Justin Turner of the Red Sox hit a foul ball into the booth that hit him in the head.  They captured the moment, complete with John saying, "Ow!  That really hurt!," then continuing to call the action as if nothing had happened.  The next day, Turner sent him a signed ball with a band-aid on it.  Sterling had that kind of rapport even with opposing players!

While he was best known for his three-and-a-half decades with the Yankees, he actually did TV for the Atlanta Braves in the 80s.  It was during that time that he called one of the most famous games in baseball history, a 19-inning marathon between the Braves and Mets in 1985 that started on the 4th of July (which, incidentally, was both his and George Steinbrenner's birthday) and didn't end until the wee hours of the morning on July 5.  It's now known affectionately as the "Rick Camp Game."  Yet another highlight in a career full of them.

Through it all, John Sterling won 12 Sports Emmys and called eight World Series, including five Yankees championships.  Even though he retired early in the 2024 season, the Yankees coaxed him back for the stretch run and postseason.  Because of that, he got to call one last World Series.  The Yankees ended up losing to the Dodgers.  But, had they won, it wouldn't have felt right to hear anybody other than John Sterling call the final out.

As the tributes came pouring in, they all had a common theme.  There's never been anyone like John Sterling before, and there never will be again.  He was truly a special individual.  He left a permanent mark on the Yankees, their fans, and anyone he ever met.  Just like his signature phrases (of which there were many), John Sterling will never be forgotten.

Blue vs. Gray

The Yankees' iconic pinstriped uniform is one of the most famous and recognizable uniforms in all of sports.  That classic look has also been unchanged for the better part of a century.  And it's unlikely that it ever will.  Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle wore the same uniform as Derek Jeter and Aaron Judge, and whoever's on the Yankees 20 years from now will continue the tradition.

That tradition is why the Yankees are the only team to have resisted the urge to create a City Connect jersey.  Not that they ever had an urge in the first place.  They don't even have an alternate jersey.  If the Yankees are playing, you can count on them wearing pinstripes at home and gray on the road.  But that may be changing.

In Spring Training games, the Yankees occasionally wear their blue batting practice tops on the road.  It's become an option that's more and more popular among the players.  So popular, in fact, that Aaron Judge has made the request to Hal Steinbrenner that they can occasionally wear the blues at road games.  It would be quite a change for such a tradition-rich franchise, which has never worn an alternate top in the regular season.

They have, in the past, sometimes worn something other than their primary road uniform.  Normally for some sport of special event.  For example, when the Red Sox celebrated the 100th anniversary of Fenway Park in 2012, they played the Yankees and both teams wore 1912 throwbacks.  Same thing when then played the White Sox in the inaugural Field of Dreams Game and wore a special event uniform.  And, the participate in Players' Weekend like all other teams.

But a normal, non-special-occasion Tuesday night game in May?  They're either wearing pinstripes at home or gray on the road.  If the players get their wish, though, we may start seeing blue tops when they're on the road.  Of course, Hal needs to give his go-ahead for that to happen.  Which is by no means a guarantee.  But it's not impossible, either.

Don't forget, the Yankees used to have a very restrictive no facial hair policy.  George Steinbrenner instituted it in the mid-70s, and it remained in place until Hal loosened it last year.  And, as we've seen over the past two seasons since the policy's removal, plenty of Yankees players have taken advantage of the opportunity to grow a beard or let their hair a little longer.  Hal proved that he isn't resistant to change.  Which is why it actually is plausible that he might allow them to wear the blue tops for select road games.

One reason why I think this may happen is because we're only talking about road games here.  That's a key point.  Nobody wants to touch the iconic home pinstripes.  The Yankees would never even consider wearing blue jerseys at Yankee Stadium.  That would be blasphemous and a non-starter.  But occasionally wearing the blue batting practice top on the road?  Frankly, that doesn't seem like too big a deal.  Especially since it's the players doing the asking.

Michael Kay, however, is very opposed to the idea.  As soon as the news first went public, he went on his radio show and went off on the players simply for making the request.  He even said, "Win me a championship first."  Basically, he thinks the players should deliver a World Series title to the Bronx before even making such a request.  His position is a little extreme.  Because, really, what difference does it make?

Wearing navy instead of blue on the road every once in a while is something that the players have clearly been thinking about and is clearly important to them.  That's why Aaron Judge is the one who brought it up.  This isn't just some random player.  It's their franchise player and team captain.  It's the only guy in the clubhouse who has the clout to speak up and make such a request.  Which is another reason why I think it may be taken seriously.

And, to think that it should be conditional is just silly.  Why should they only be allowed to wear blue jerseys after winning the World Series?  Especially since it's entirely possible the opposite could be true, as well.  Granting this simple request would show the players that ownership is willing to listen to what they want.  Look at what happened last year with the facial hair policy.  And maybe being allowed to wear the blues could motivate the players and turn them into that championship team Michael Kay wants (and thinks they need to be before they can even make such a request).

But, at the same time, I see where he's coming from.  Yes, Michael Kay is a Yankees broadcaster (which makes him a team employee).  But he's also a lifelong Yankees fan.  And he was speaking as a fan.  A fan who thinks it's blasphemous to even suggest that the Yankees wear something other than pinstripes at home or gray on the road.  It's the only look Yankees fans have ever known.  While some other teams have a different uniform for each day of the week, with the Yankees that's never been the case.  You know what they're wearing for every game.  It's been the same for generations.  And it's hard for some fans to even envision it ever being any different.

For some Yankees fans, the idea of them wearing blue is akin to the team putting names on the back of their jerseys.  Now that would be a step too far, and everyone knows it!  It's an MLB rule that teams are required to have names on the back of their road uniforms.  The Yankees are the only team that doesn't have them.  They aren't required to.  They got grandfathered in.

This is not that.  As I mentioned, the Yankees already wear blue in some Spring Training road games.  Occasionally wearing those same jerseys in regular season road games wouldn't be this drastic, Earth-shattering change it's being made out to be.  The Yankees, in fact, are the outlier in that they've never worn an alternate top as a part of their regular rotation.  Nobody's suggesting they become the Rays and wear three different uniforms in a three-game series.  It's simply giving them another option.

Whether this actually happens or not is entirely up to Hal Steinbrenner.  There's an argument on both sides, and people feel passionately about both sides.  Ultimately, though, how much of a difference would it really make?  That's why I don't have a preference either way.  As long as you don't touch the pinstripes, it really doesn't matter if they wear blue or gray on the road.