Respect the RedHawks

With a thrilling overtime win at Ohio on Saturday, Miami (Ohio) completed a perfect 31-0 regular season.  The RedHawks are the only undefeated team in the country.  They have been for weeks.  They're ranked in the Top 20.  Yet there are some who believe that Miami (Ohio) has to win the MAC Tournament to guarantee an NCAA Tournament bid.  Because apparently having their only loss of the season come in the conference tournament won't be enough.  Which is simply an asinine sentence to even type!

Bruce Pearl made himself look like a fool last week when he tried to argue on TNT that, despite being undefeated, Miami (Ohio) didn't "deserve" to be an NCAA Tournament team if they didn't win the MAC Tournament.  The crux of his argument was that, if they don't get the MAC's auto bid, they aren't one of the 37 "best" teams in the mix for an at-large bid.  He even said that he mid-major teams "recognize they're only going to be a one-bid league" and added that he thought Miami (Ohio) would finish last if they played in the Big East.

Not surprisingly, Miami (OH) Athletic Director David Salyer fired back.  He had a very pointed response to Pearl.  Salyer called Pearl out for his comments, saying it was "disgusting" how much disrespect he was showing the RedHawks.  He was also quick to note the blatant bias Pearl was displaying regarding the team he thought should in over Miami (OH).  Auburn.

Pearl took Auburn to the Final Four in 2019 and again last season.  He abruptly quit as the Tigers' head coach just before this season began and handed the reins over to his son, Seven.  So, to say he has a vested interest in Auburn's success would be an understatement.  It may not be Auburn grad Charles Barkley hugging a stuffed tiger on the set, but it's close.  Pearl might as well be painting his face orange and blue and chanting "War Eagle."  He even slipped a "we" into the discussion when talking about Auburn!

TV commentators are supposed to be unbiased.  Bruce Pearl clearly is not, which completely destroyed his credibility.  He claims his opinions on Auburn and Miami (OH) have nothing to do with him being Auburn's former coach or his son currently occupying the position, but come on now!  It got to the point where Pearl (no doubt in response to the controversy that he created and brought upon himself) tried to course correct and make light of his role as antagonist in an interview with Miami (OH)'s head coach...which only made him look that much worse!

Steven Pearl isn't exactly helping his father's cause, either.  Auburn lost its regular season finale on Saturday to fall to 16-15 overall and 7-11 in the SEC.  Yet, there was the younger Pearl in his press conference touting his team's tournament resume.  It was basically the same argument Bruce made.  Auburn has one of the best wins in the country at Florida.  That's the crux of their argument.  Oh, and strength of schedule, which is an inherent advantage Power 5 teams have because they, you know, play each other!

Miami (OH) doesn't have the strength of schedule of an Auburn (or any SEC team for that matter).  That isn't exactly their fault.  As their AD said in his response to Pearl, good teams didn't want to play the RedHawks, especially in Oxford, because they knew they might lose.  It's the same plight Gonzaga had to deal with for years.  It's also not Miami (OH)'s fault that the MAC is a mid-major league.  I'm sure they'd like to play better opponents if they could, but they can't control who's on their conference schedule or how good their conference is that particular year.

The "strength of schedule" argument has been a popular one for the talking heads advocating the tournament cases of specific teams for years now.  Not surprisingly, those strength of schedule advocates tend to be making a case for SEC or Big Ten teams.  Meanwhile, it's the same argument every year!  Of course SEC and Big Ten teams will have a better strength of schedule than mid-major schools! 

According to KenPom, the top 13 strengths of schedule and 28 of the 30 are from either the SEC, Big Ten or Big 12.  That's not a coincidence.  Once conference play starts, they're only playing each other and nobody else!  Which is true about all teams in every conference.  So, Power 5 teams are being rewarded for playing conference games.  Whether they win them or not is irrelevant.  Meanwhile, mid-major teams are essentially being penalized for playing conference games and having every loss held against them.  How does that make any sense?!  That's why strength of schedule can't be this end-all, be-all metric some would like it to be.

So, like all other mid-majors, Miami (Ohio), through no fault of their own, already has factors working against their at-large case.  The only thing the RedHawks can control is whether or not they win.  Which they've done.  Every time they've taken the floor this season.  They're the only team in the nation who can say that.  Now you're saying that's not enough, either?  What kind of a message does that send?

That's something the committee really needs to consider.  Mid-major teams already feel like the deck is stacked against them.  Even more so now that the Power 5 conferences have become supersized and extended their grip on college sports.  The number of mid-major berths for non-Power 5 programs has already been shrinking year-to-year.  Last year, there were only three.  If Miami (OH) can go the entire season undefeated and is still being talked about as only a bubble team if their first blemish comes in the conference tournament, what does that say?  If perfection isn't enough, mid-majors might as well not even bother, then.

Consider the optics of it, too.  We're talking about an Auburn team that's .500 overall and four games under .500 in conference play.  If they lose their SEC Tournament opener, they'll be 16-16.  The fact that we're even talking about a 16-16 team as being in the discussion for an at-large bid, frankly, is a joke!  Meanwhile, we're also saying that a team whose record entering the Tournament is, at worst, 31-1, is on the bubble if they don't win their conference tournament.  What are we even doing here if the .500 team gets the nod? 

Winning matters.  At least it should.  That's all Miami (Ohio) has done this season.  Meanwhile, Auburn hasn't done it nearly enough.  Yes, they have some very good wins.  The victory at Florida most prominent among them.  But are we supposed to just ignore the fact that they also lost half their games (including a 30-point drubbing against Michigan) and went 2-8 to end the regular season?  Sorry, but I'm not buying that.

This isn't intended to be a Miami (Ohio) vs. Auburn argument.  It's simply designed to highlight the absurdity of comparing a mediocre team from a Power 5 conference to a very good mid-major team.  Strength of schedule can't be the only factor considered.  Because it's an inherently unfair comparison (which may be the entire point).

It's also not an argument about whether Miami (Ohio) is a better team than Auburn.  It's about whether they deserve an at-large bid.  Which they most certainly do.  If that's at Auburn's expense, them's the berries.  Nobody is trying to make the case that Miami (Ohio) deserves a No. 1 seed or is even a contender for the National Championship.  Everyone understands that the RedHawks will most likely end the season with a loss.  That loss should come in the NCAA Tournament.  That's the point.

Of course, Miami (Ohio) could just win the MAC Tournament and make everybody's lives easier.  But it shouldn't even need to come to that.  Because the RedHawks deserve to hear their name called on Selection Sunday whether they have one loss or none.  It would be an absolute travesty if they don't.

Crazy Conference Tournament Brackets

It's March.  Which means we'll be on college basketball overload for the next few weeks.  The Power 5 leagues are still finishing up conference play, but conference tournaments have already begun in the mid-majors.  Everybody knows that these are one-bid leagues, so the conference tournaments have that much more meaning in these smaller conferences.  Which is what makes them so much fun to watch.

Conference tournaments used to be a straightforward proposition.  However many teams were in the league, you'd set your bracket so that everyone participates and is seeded accordingly.  If you have 10 teams, the top six get a bye, the other four have to play an extra game.  However many rounds there are, that's the number of days you need.  Most conferences had 10-12 teams, so the conference tournaments generally took four days from start to finish.

As conferences expanded, so did their tournaments.  Extra games and extra days had to be added.  Some conferences (I'm sure with TV and arena considerations taken into account) opted to keep the same number of days, games and teams, adding a new wrinkle of making teams need to qualify for the conference tournament.  While others have taken full advantage of their unwieldy conference sizes to have equally unwieldy conference tournaments. 

This season for the first time, all 18 teams will qualify for the Big Ten Tournament.  A six-day, 17-game extravaganza where the bottom four teams in the conference have to win six games in six days while the top four have byes into the quarterfinals, meaning they only need to win three in three.  The Big Ten bracket is at least straightforward, though.  Which is more than I can say for the absolute craziness some of the mid-majors are providing us.

Let's start with our friends in the West Coast Conference, who've used their stepladder tournament format for several years now.  With Washington State and Oregon State temporarily playing in the WCC while they rebuilt the Pac-12, the WCC Tournament has 12 teams this season.  It'll take six days to finish the tournament.  Why?  Because they're only playing two games a day!

In the WCC, the top two seeds (who are almost always Gonzaga and Saint Mary's in either order) get a bye into the semifinals!  The 3 & 4 seeds get byes into the quarterfinals, with the 5 & 6 seeds entering the round before that and the 7 & 8 seeds playing the winners of the first-round games between the bottom four teams.  Does it make sense?  Logically, yes.  Is it super unwieldy?  Absolutely!

The stepladder tournament was originally just a West Coast Conference thing.  They've now been one-upped by the Sun Belt Conference, which is doing the same thing, but with 14 teams.  Which means seven rounds!  The conference tournament will literally take a week!  And that's not even the craziest thing about it.

Finishing in the top two and getting that bye all the way to the semifinals is obviously a huge advantage in these stepladder tournaments.  Except the Sun Belt was such an evenly-balanced conference this season that there was a six-way tie for second (all of whom were only one game out of first)!  After the tiebreakers were applied, Marshall ended up with the 2-seed, meaning they only need to win two games to get the Sun Belt's NCAA bid.  Meanwhile, Arkansas State, which had the same conference record as Marshall, is the 7-seed and has to win five games in five days.

Therein lies the problem with stepladder tournaments.  In the WCC, it's hardly mattered or even really been noticed since Gonzaga and Saint Mary's are clearly the top two teams by a wide margin.  But, as the Sun Belt showed us, you can have two teams finish with the same record and one get an extremely favorable path while the other very much doesn't.  A problem that wouldn't exist in a traditional tournament format with four quarterfinals and the top two seeds not getting such a ridiculous advantage over everybody else.

Then there's the Horizon League, which is giving us the most unique conference tournament format I've ever seen.  There are 11 teams in the Horizon League.  The tournament started with a 10 vs. 11 play-in game for the right to go against the No. 1 seed in the first round.  The first round then consisted of five games played on campus.  The five teams that advanced were then reseeded, with the bottom two teams playing another play-in game at the conference tournament site to see who'll be the fourth semifinalist.

Are you as confused by this format as I am?  It's like something you'd see in a double-elimination conference baseball or softball tournament where they're trying to protect the top seed as best they can.  And the reseeding thing would even make sense if they were having four teams go right to the semifinals.  But the second play-in game is as stupid as it is unnecessary.  Why not just have two first-round games and four quarterfinals?

All of these wacky conference tournaments are designed with the NCAA Tournament in mind.  No conference wants to see its 6-seed go on a run and end up in Dayton (although, I'm not entirely sure why...a First Four win counts the same as any other NCAA Tournament win).  They all want to have their best team represent the conference in the NCAA Tournament, especially if they're a one-bid league.  So, they're doing everything they can to make sure the regular season champion (or, at worst, the 2-seed) has the best chance of advancing.  Which isn't a guarantee even with some of these crazy setups.

While I have no data to support this theory, I'd even argue that some of these tournament formats may actually be a disadvantage to the higher seeds.  Not only do they have an immense amount of pressure on them, they're sitting around waiting while everyone else is playing.  It's the classic rest vs. rust argument.  And if a team gets hot, a higher-seeded team, even a well-rested one, ain't doing anything to stop them.  (In the glory days of the Big East Tournament, we saw Gerry McNamara's Syracuse team and Kemba Walker's UConn team both win five games in five days to win the championship.)

And, ultimately, it doesn't matter.  Whether intended or not, the wacky formats have achieved another goal.  They've got people talking about them.  If they didn't have a ridiculous six-way tie, no one would know how quirky the Sun Belt Tournament setup is.  So, I guess they're getting the last laugh after all.  Because they've got people paying attention to the conference tournament instead of just the final.  Where the higher seeds may or may not capitalize on the huge advantage they've been given.

Best In the Baseball World

With the United States fresh off a pair of Olympic golds in hockey, another American team has a chance to add to the patriotic feeling in this 250th year.  And this might be the best team the United States has ever put together for the World Baseball Classic.  Better than the 2017 championship squad.  Better than the 2023 team that made the final.  And yet, despite this being the best American WBC team ever, there's no guarantee of anything.  That's the beauty of this tournament.  Major League stars on every team, so many with a legitimate chance to win.

So, why do I think this is the best American team ever?  Pitching.  It's that simple.  Pitching has always been the weakness.  It's understandable that teams and pitchers are cautious at this time of year.  The tournament takes place during Spring Training and there are so many rules put in place to protect the pitchers.  As a result, the U.S. has never had elite top-tier starting pitchers available and willing to participate.  That's not the case this year.  Both Cy Young winners will make a start, as will Giants ace Logan Webb, who'll pitch the opener.  People are making a big deal about Tarik Skubal only making one start.  But...the maximum number of starts he'd make is two anyway, and I'll take one Tarik Skubal start over zero Tarik Skubal starts!

You also still need to consider defending champion Japan as, at the very least, a co-favorite.  Japan has the best player on the planet.  Ohtani won't pitch in the WBC, but his mere presence is intimidating enough.  And the Japanese pitching staff still includes a Dodger--who just happens to be coming off winning World Series MVP.  So, yeah, the Japanese will be as formidable as ever.

Then there's the Dominican Republic.  They have the strongest lineup in the tournament (the United States is really the only team that's remotely comparable).  They also have the pitching to back it up.  Sandy Alcantara.  Cristopher Sanchez.  Brayan Bello.  Then, in the bullpen, Gregory Soto, Camilo Doval and Seranthony Dominguez, among others.  A second WBC championship by the DR wouldn't be a shock at all.

There's one other team I think is a formidable contender for the title.  Venezuela.  This is the first time they're playing a WBC without Miguel Cabrera (who's on the coaching staff), but still boast an incredibly strong lineup.  The only question is the pitching.  They nearly beat the U.S. in the quarterfinals three years ago.  You know the memory of that loss will drive them in 2026.  And getting past the quarterfinals is definitely a realistic possibility.

Pool A: Pool A is perhaps the most evenly-matched of the four.  Puerto Rico is playing at home and probably the most talented of the four teams (even if they've had stronger rosters at past WBCs).  Cuba, meanwhile, reached the semifinals in 2023 and boasts the legend Alfredo Despaigne along with a good number of Cuban-born MLB players.  Either one of them can win the pool.

This is a really great opportunity for Canada, too.  Canada is not in the same pool as the U.S. for the first time, which could be their ticket for advancing to the second round for the first time.  Panama finished fourth in its group in 2023 to avoid the qualifying round, while Colombia had to play in the qualifiers and rolled right through it.  Colombia beat eventual semifinalist Mexico in the opening game of the 2023 tournament and has a much stronger roster than Panama.  I expect them to win that game and get the automatic spot in the next WBC.

Pool B: It's odd that they put two of the 2023 semifinalists--the United States and Mexico--in the same group.  I get wanting Mexico to play in Houston.  But they also just as easily could've had Mexico hosting the first round and send either Venezuela or the DR to Houston.  Either way, they should both easily advance.  It's just a question of who'll win that game to take the pool.

Also curious was the decision to put Great Britain and Brazil, two of the weakest teams, in the same group.  Which is good news for whoever wins that game and doesn't have to go to the qualifiers.  Italy advanced to the quarterfinals in 2023 thanks to that wacky five-way tiebreaker.  And, in 2017, they beat Mexico in the opening game, then only missed reaching the second round because they lost a winner-take-all tiebreaker game.  If any of the other three teams is gonna challenge the U.S. or Mexico, it'll be Italy.

Pool C: Czechia was the darlings of the 2023 WBC, qualifying for the first time and beating China in the opening game.  That got them a spot in the 2026 edition, where they've once again been drawn into the Asian pool.  Unfortunately, I don't see how the Czechs avoid dropping into the qualifier this time.  This pool is just too strong.  It's arguably the strongest of the tournament.

Japan has been to the semifinals of every WBC, so let's assume they've got one of the two quarterfinal spots.  Australia took the other one in 2023 after beating South Korea in the opening game.  Chinese Taipei, meanwhile, went 2-2, but finished last in its pool on a tiebreaker, then nearly didn't make it out of the qualifiers.  But they're the No. 2 team in the world and looking to get out of the first round for the first time since 2013.  On paper, you've gotta give the nod to the Koreans, though.

Pool D: I already pegged the Dominican Republic and Venezuela as two of the tournament favorites, so it shouldn't be a surprise to hear that I expect them both to advance.  This pool doesn't have a "home" team, but has the advantage of playing the entire tournament in Miami.  The teams they'll face in the quarterfinals will both be traveling from Tokyo, meanwhile.  That could make a huge difference, and it's one of the reasons I can see both the DR and Venezuela reaching the semifinals.

Of course, getting out of the pool isn't guaranteed.  Not when a formidable team from the Netherlands, a two-time semifinalist, is lurking.  While I don't expect it to happen, it wouldn't be shocking to see the Dutch advance over either of the Latin American teams.  Israel had a much better WBC in its 2017 debut than it did in 2023, when they lost back-to-back games 10-0 and Puerto Rico threw a perfect game against them.  Still, they should beat Nicaragua and avoid needing to play the qualifiers next time.

My quarterfinal matchups are Puerto Rico vs. Mexico, the United States vs. Cuba, Japan vs. Venezuela and Dominican Republic vs. South Korea.  That's the importance of that Dominican Republic-Venezuela game.  Winning Pool D and avoiding a quarterfinal against Japan.  It's the last game of pool play in the entire tournament, and it might as well be a playoff game.  Because the stakes will be HUGE.  And you know the intensity will be there.

Whoever wins that goes to the semifinals.  Whoever loses likely loses to Japan.  Since I've got the DR winning that game, I've also got them reaching the semis.  Along with the United States, Mexico and Japan.  The semifinal matchups would be a rematch of 2023: Mexico vs. Japan and arguably the game of the tournament: the United States vs. the Dominican Republic.

That USA vs DR game could easily be a de facto championship.  Although, I do have the United States winning to set up a rematch of the 2026 championship against Japan.  Except this time, the U.S. will come out on top.  After two hockey gold medals over archrival Canada, why not add a baseball championship over archrival Japan to the collection in 2026?

ABS Is Here

After almost a full month of Olympics and football posts, I've decided to give you all a break and talk about something else.  Baseball.  A topic that I'm sure you'll probably be sick of once the season starts, especially with the WBC starting next week.  One of the things we'll see in the WBC is something new for the regular season that we've already seen used in Spring Training.  The ABS challenge system.

We've known that the ABS challenge system was coming this year since MLB announced it towards the end of last season.  While some fans were clamoring for MLB to fully adopt ABS, that was never going to happen.  They experimented with it both ways (challenge system and completely automated) in the Minors, and the clear preference among players was the challenge system.  Which was definitely the way to go, for several reasons.

Each team gets two challenges per game, and only the pitcher, catcher or hitter can challenge.  They also need to do it immediately.  No asking the dugout.  No checking with anybody else.  So, there's a strategy element to it.  Because you've gotta know the situation and whether it's worth it to use a challenge that may be needed later in the game.

Some teams have already indicated that they won't let their pitchers challenge.  Which is probably a good idea.  Because pitchers think everything is a strike!  We've seen that already in Spring Training--pitchers challenging on pitches that aren't even close to being in the strike zone.  The Yankees were out of challenges in the second inning the other day because Luis Gil was completely wrong twice!

Another thing that we've seen thru the first few days of Spring Training games is how some ABS challenges are kind of ridiculous.  There are clips of ABS challenges that show an umpire's call being overturned from a ball to a strike because a low pitch nicked the very bottom edge of the zone.  Likewise, ABS turned a strike into a ball because the pitch was a millimeter outside.

Seriously, how can you blame the home plate umpire for "missing" either of those?  If anything, ABS is showing just how accurate Major League umpires actually are.  They are the best in the business for a reason, after all.  And everybody's getting used to the system, so is it possible that we're seeing pitches challenged in Spring Training that wouldn't necessarily be challenged in the regular season?  Absolutely!

Challenging pitches that close really isn't in the spirit of the ABS system.  Especially since teams only get two challenges.  Do you really want to use one unless you're sure you're right?  And, again, can you fault the umpire for getting that "wrong" initially?  It's worth keeping in mind, too, that the ABS strike zone is based on the individual batter's height, so the exact same pitch might be a strike to one hitter and a ball to somebody else.

Much like instant replay, the purpose of the ABS challenge system is designed to correct calls that are obviously wrong.  Close pitches that just nick the corner aren't "obviously" wrong.  If it's late in the game and you have your challenges left, I can see it.  Even if you're not sure.  But that's the type of challenge I hope we don't see (from either the offense or defense) with the bases empty and nobody out in the third inning of a 0-0 game once the games start to count.  Does it really matter if the count is 2-0 or 1-1 at that point?

Umpires aren't perfect.  They know that.  That's why they're in favor of replay.  And that's why they're all for the ABS challenge system, as well.  They want to get it right.  Just like replay, ABS is a tool for them to do that.  And that's what ABS is designed to be.  A tool.  No one is looking to replace human umpires.  This is just a tool at their disposal to help them get it correct.  Which is everyone's goal.

Like replay reviews, ABS challenges will be a fun new element for fans.  As soon as the challenge is initiated, it'll be shown on the stadium video board for everybody to see.  And, like replay reviews, whatever the video shows is the call.  It'll either confirm that the call was correct and the count stays the same or overturn it and change the count.  Teams are required to put the remaining challenges on the scoreboard, too, so the entire stadium will know how many each team has left.

It'll change broadcasts, too.  Any team that has the strike zone box on their TV broadcast has to put it on a delay.  Likewise, MLB has asked broadcasters that have little circles in that box to not differentiate between balls and strikes on the graphic.  It'll be up to them to determine how to do it, but I'd imagine it'll just show the location of each pitch and nothing else (although, balls that are put in play would probably still be notated on MLB.com's live stats).

So, why a challenge system instead of full ABS?  Well, for one, it would eliminate the human element, which I don't think anybody wanted.  It would also eliminate catchers' ability to frame pitches, a skill that has been developed over time that players don't want to see taken out of the game.  Not to mention the fact that full ABS (A) would be boring and (B) wouldn't entirely be correct.

During the Minor League testing, they found that full ABS resulted in more walks, which made games longer.  And, as I said, it wouldn't necessarily be completely accurate.  Breaking balls that broke late for strikes could still end up getting registered as balls based on where the ABS picked up when they crossed the plate.  Same thing with pitches that catch the corner.  And, as infrequent as it is at the professional level, a pitch could bounce before the plate, then get picked up by ABS as a strike even though it's obviously a ball.

Ultimately, the ABS challenge system is the best of both worlds.  It's a compromise between fully automated and a fully umpire-called zone.  It's a welcome change without fully removing the traditional element.  And, like instant replay, the ABS challenge system will only enhance the game experience for everyone.  Players, umpires and fans alike.

Some Truly Stupid Suggestions

Count Gary Bettman among those who wishes the gold medal game had been "at a more convenient time."  Apparently, he's a member of that group who either doesn't understand time zones, that the game was being played in Italy and/or that world doesn't revolve around North America.  Or how the Olympic schedule actually works.  Because I've seen some absolutely moronic "suggestions" for how they should "fix" the men's hockey gold medal game, which isn't broken.

It's worth noting that the 8:15 am start time clearly wasn't a deterrent.  It was the most-watched hockey game on NBC since the 2010 Olympic gold medal game in Vancouver, and NBC's highest-rated sports program that started before 9:00 am ever!  It's also worth noting that the only reason people even cared and made a big deal about this "problem" is because it was the United States vs. Canada.  Had either one lost, different story.  Had they both lost and the gold medal game was Finland vs. Slovakia instead, nobody would even be batting an eye.  It's only because it was Canada-USA, a final that wasn't locked in until Friday evening.  Yes, they came into the Olympics as the two favorites.  But you can't just assume that'll be the gold medal game.

Each of the last two Olympics prior to Milan was in Asia.  That meant the men's hockey gold medal game started in the middle of the night in North America!  In 2022, it started at 11:10 pm on Saturday night, and it was 11:45 pm Saturday night four years earlier.  Even bringing it back to 2014, the last Olympics in Europe (and the last with NHL players), it started at 7:00 am Eastern time.  Yet we didn't hear a peep about any of them!

I think my favorite "idea" regarding the timing of the gold medal game was an article suggesting it'll be "fixed" in 2034 when Utah hosts.  This article was based on the premise that, since the game will be played in the U.S., it'll be scheduled for prime time.  Hate to break it to you, but it won't.  The gold medal men's hockey game is the final event of the Winter Olympics, played a few hours before the Closing Ceremony.  Since the Closing Ceremony is on Sunday night, the hockey game has to be in the afternoon local time.  It shouldn't really be that hard to understand this point.

When the 2002 Olympics were in Salt Lake City, the hockey game started at 1:00 Mountain/3:00 Eastern.  At the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, it started at 12:15 Pacific/3:15 Eastern.  So, it's probably safe to assume that the men's hockey gold medal game in 2034 will be at either 1:00 or 1:15 local time (probably depending on whichever NBC prefers).

Another "suggestion" I saw was playing the men's gold medal game on Saturday night, which is currently when the bronze medal game takes place.  That wouldn't work for several reasons.  First and foremost, the men's hockey gold medal game is the marquee event on the final day.  And the schedule is also built around it being on Sunday.  The semifinals are on Friday, the quarterfinals are on Wednesday, and the playoffs are on Tuesday, with the women's semifinals and medal games on the two off days (Monday and Thursday).  If they moved the final to Saturday, they'd have to shift everything else up a day, which sounds easy until you factor in how it would impact both the women's tournament and the NHL schedule.

Or how about this one, which I also saw?  Playing the men's and women's gold medal games as a doubleheader.  Yeah, that's a no-go.  The men's gold medal hockey game is one of the most expensive, most in-demand tickets of any Olympic event, and the women's gold medal game isn't far behind.  No Olympic organizing committee is gonna be stupid enough to combine those two events and give up the ticket revenue that comes with both of them selling out separately.

If you wanted to make an argument for a bronze/gold doubleheader, that would at least make a little more sense.  But that would also be unworkable.  The men's bronze medal game is played the day after the semifinals while the finalists get a day off.  And, again, they'd have to rework the entire schedule to make that work.  Besides, tickets to every men's hockey game are sold as separate events.  And they're pretty much all sellouts.  So, again, why would they be stupid enough not to do that?!

There was also a thought that they should've scheduled the gold medal game for 3:10 pm Eastern, which is when each of the first five USA games were.  Those 9:10 pm local time starts were NBC's request.  But scheduling the gold medal game at that time WAS. NOT. POSSIBLE!  That would've put the hockey game during the Closing Ceremony!  Which obviously ain't happening!  (And, again, they're not moving the Closing Ceremony just to make things more convenient for North American hockey fans who don't want to get up early.)

Somebody said in one of the comments that the NHL "missed an opportunity" because of the early start time.  Well, there's a couple things wrong with that.  For starters, the NHL doesn't set the start time.  The IOC does.  The NHL isn't even allowed to use Olympic highlights for marketing purposes, much to their own frustration.  Second, the IOC doesn't care.  The start time is gonna be inconvenient for somebody regardless, so they're gonna do what works best for the host country and the people actually attending the game.

One guy was like, "that's like holding the Super Bowl at 10 am on a Wednesday!"  Not only is that a ridiculous comparison, it's also partially true.  If you're in Australia and you want to watch the Super Bowl, you're watching it on Monday afternoon.  If you're in Europe, it's midnight (which is why the people who think a Super Bowl in London is "inevitable" are morons!).

What I find funny, too, is how quickly people forget.  It was only a little more than a year and a half ago that the United States played France in the women's basketball final at the Paris Olympics, which, like the hockey game, was the last event of the Games.  Wanna guess what time it started?  9:30 am Eastern!  Where was the outrage about that?

Meanwhile, in every other situation people not only seem to understand the time difference between the United States and Europe, they seem to enjoy it.  The NFL's Europe games all start in the afternoon local time/9:30 am Eastern.  Fans love it.  It's a fourth window on Sundays.  Ditto about watching the Premier League on Saturday mornings or the Champions League on weekday afternoons.

And how do they think European fans will feel about their teams' unusual start times at the World Cup this summer?  What people seem to forget is that the North America has the latest time zones in the word.  The final is at 3:00 in the afternoon in New York.  Why is it in the middle of the afternoon?  Because that's prime time in Europe!

On the other end of the spectrum, the European team that ends up in Group C with the United States will have two 9 p.m. Pacific time starts.  That's 6 a.m. in Europe!  Their third game will be against the U.S.  At 4 a.m. local time!  And, you know what?  They're gonna get up early to watch the game and not complain about it!  The most convenient times here (the evening) are inconvenient for them and vice versa. 

Why should North American fans care about that?  Short answer: they shouldn't.  Kinda like how European fans/organizers shouldn't care about how convenient the timing of events in their countries are for North American fans.  If it works out for both, so much the better.  But sometimes you'll have events that happen either early in the North American morning or in the European overnight and there's nothing you can do about it.

Best of Milan Cortina

Another Olympics is in the books and LA28 is officially on deck.  Milan Cortina was an ambitious plan.  The first Olympics with two official host cities and venues spread across Northern Italy.  But you know what?  It worked!  Despite the competition being so spread out, it looked and felt like an Olympics.  And, like any Olympics, the Milan Cortina Games had plenty of memorable moments.

Norway made history with the most medals (41) and most gold medals (18) ever at a Winter Games.  Italy used the host country boost for its best-ever Winter Games, and the United States won its most-ever Winter Olympic gold medals with 12 (including both hockey tournaments).  Lucas Pinero Braathen's gold medal in the men's slalom wasn't just the first for Brazil--it was the first Winter Olympic medal ever for a South American nation.  Georgia won its first Winter Olympic medal, too, in pairs figure skating.

There were so many top moments to choose from that any top 10 list will seem like it's missing something.  So, I'm not going to call these the 10 most memorable moments of the Milan Cortina Games.  I won't even call them my 10 favorite moments.  They're simply the ones that will immediately come to mind when I think about the 2026 Olympics.

King Klaebo: Is there any other possible place to start?  It's Johannes Klaebo's world.  We're all just living in it.  He became the winningest Winter Olympian in history and now has more Olympic gold medals than anybody other than Michael Phelps.  Klaebo went a perfect 6-for-6 in Milan Cortina, winning both the longest and shortest events on the cross country program in the process.  Only Phelps has won more at a single Games.

Free Bird: For the first time since the 1980 Miracle on Ice, the United States won the gold medal in men's hockey.  In the final event of the Games, Jack Hughes scored the Golden Goal in overtime to beat archrival Canada, 2-1.  That was also the final score of the women's gold medal game, which was also against Canada.  Which also went to overtime.  The American men and women went a combined 13-0 in Milan Cortina and, for the first time, both brought home the gold.

Alysa Liu: Retired from the sport at 16, Olympic champion at 20.  Alysa Liu simply doesn't care anymore...and I mean that in the best possible way.  The smile never left her face in Milan Cortina!  And that free skate that won her the gold was simply spectacular.  That's how you win an Olympic title!  She, of course, left Milan with two gold medals, having also contributed to the Americans' victory in the team event.

Corypalooza: Prior to 2026, the United States had never won a medal in mixed doubles curling.  Korey Dropkin and Cory Thiesse changed that with a silver medal that captured the country's attention over the first few days of the Games.  The women's team then ended up making the semifinals for the first time in 24 years.  Cory Thiesse was a very busy lady in Italy.  Between the mixed doubles and women's tournaments, she played 22 curling games over two and a half weeks from two days before the Opening Ceremony to the day before the Closing.

Golden Dog: Every Olympics has its light-hearted moments, too.  Milan Cortina's came in the women's cross country team sprint, when a dog named Nazgul got loose on the course and ran across the finish line alongside some of the skiers.  Nazgul became as big a star as any of the human Olympians who took part in the race!

Bobsledding Mama: Milan Cortina was 41-year-old Elana Meyers Taylor's fifth Olympics.  She won five medals at the previous four, but never a gold.  That finally changed in Milan Cortina, when she won the women's monobob competition for her first career Olympic title.

Ilia's Implosion: Unfortunately, there are bad moments that we'll remember, too.  There was no bigger favorite in any event coming into the Games than Ilia Malinin in men's figure skating.  Instead, we were all stunned when he had one of the worst performances of his career in the free skate.  Malinin didn't only not win, he didn't even medal!  That's the thing about sports, though.  Nothing is preordained.  The Olympic pressure got to him, and now he has to wait four long years until French Alps 2030.

Bellissima: On the opening day of the Games, Italian Francesca Lollobrigida set an Olympic record to win gold in the women's 3000 meters in speed skating.  That was just the start of the host country's best Winter Olympics ever.  Lollobrigida added another gold five days later in the 5000.  Alpine skier Federica Brignone, meanwhile, only returned to competition in January after suffering a serious injury in an April 2025 crash.  All she did was win gold medals in the giant slalom and Super G.  The first two Olympic titles of her career.  At age 35.

Big Ben: Fifty years ago in Innsbruck, Bill Koch won the silver medal in the 30 kilometers.  Until 2018, that was the only cross country skiing medal ever won by an American.  It was still the only men's cross country medal until Milan Cortina, when Ben Ogden finished second behind Klaebo in the sprint.  Ogden then tripled the United States' all-time medal total in men's cross country skiing when he grabbed another silver with Gus Schumacher in the team sprint...then did a bad-ass backflip off the podium during the medals ceremony!

Jordan Stolz Arrives: Watching the 2010 Olympics on TV inspired Jordan Stolz to become a speed skater.  In his Olympic debut, the expectations were high.  He was entered in four events.  Could he win them all?  Stoltz started with victories in the 1000 and 500, then he settled for silver in the 1500.  He ended up off the podium in the mass start, finishing fourth.  Still, three medals were the most by any American speed skater at a single Olympics since Eric Heiden's legendary 5-for-5 performance in 1980.

While that rounds out the list, I want to wrap up by acknowledging some teams that dominated.  The Swiss men's alpine ski team won four of the five events, with Franjo von Allmen taking home three gold medals.  The French in biathlon and Sweden in women's cross country.  Japan in snowboarding and the ski jumping Prevc siblings, who contributed to all four of Slovenia's medals.  Finally, there's the Dutch short track team.  We already knew what they can do on the long track.  In Milan Cortina, they also painted the short track oranj.

Oh, and how about the American women?  Of the 12 gold medals won by the United States, eight were in either women's or mixed events.  The only exceptions were Stolz's two, the men's hockey team and Alex Ferreira.  If they were their own country, the American women would've had more gold medals than all but five other nations.  (For the record, Klaebo would've finished tied for eighth in the gold medal count all on his own.)

Milan Cortina 2026 was an unforgettable Olympics.  For so many reasons.  From the NHL's return to Klaebo's brilliance and everything in between, it was one for the history books, as well.  They tried something new in Northern Italy and they pulled it off in spectacular fashion.  Congratulazioni Italia per delle Olimpiadi meravgliose.

People Did Watch

Remember back four years ago when NBC's Olympic ratings weren't good and critics were quick to say that "nobody" watches the Olympics anymore?  Well, as the Paris Games proved, that analysis couldn't be further from the truth.  And that point was reiterated in Milan Cortina, which set a Winter Olympics ratings record!  They were the most-watched Winter Games since 2014 and had an average of 23.5 million viewers a night, an astounding 96 percent increase from Beijing. 

It's not a coincidence that the last two Winter Olympics were lower rated.  They were both in Asia.  Because of the time difference, Olympics in Asia aren't as highly-watched in the U.S.  Even with live primetime events (which are held the following morning local time), Games in Asia draw lower viewership numbers than Games in Europe (where live primetime events are impossible).  Then you throw in the fact that three Olympics in a row were held in Asia, and there was definitely some Asia fatigue there.

There were some other very obvious circumstances that came into play for both the Tokyo and Beijing Olympics that contributed to the low viewership.  It wasn't just because of Asia fatigue, which absolutely played a part.  It's because those were both COVID Olympics.  The Tokyo Games were delayed a year and held without spectators.  They looked and felt stale. 

Then Beijing 2.0 was only six months later.  In addition to Asia fatigue, having two Games so close together likely led to some Olympic fatigue, as well.  And there were still COVID restrictions that led to Beijing having limited crowds.  Plus, the American diplomatic boycott led to NBC doing all of its coverage from Connecticut instead of on-site.  And some people likely didn't watch as their own personal protest to China's policies.

Asian Olympics are difficult, too, because of the time difference.  Yes, it allows for live events in primetime, but a vast majority of them take place overnight and in the early morning.  That's not optimal viewing time.  And it makes for daytime shows that consist entirely of pre-taped competition.  That can be a tough sell, especially since those (A) aren't marquee events that NBC got scheduled for the morning so they can show them live and (B) Americans typically aren't strong in them.

American success obviously helps, too.  This was the United States' most successful Winter Olympics outside of North America ever.  And the 12 gold medals won by American athletes were a record for any Winter Olympics.  Don't think that didn't contributed to NBC's ratings success.  Whether they'd already watched it or not, people wanted to see Americans win on the primetime show.

For Paris, NBC changed its Olympic broadcast strategy with great success.  The time difference with Europe, while it didn't allow for live coverage in primetime, was advantageous in many other ways.  Most significantly, it allows for live coverage all afternoon.  And the marquee events take place in the late afternoon, which makes it much more likely that people will be able to watch them live if they want to.  And, if they missed it or wanted to see it again, they could watch in primetime only a few hours later (not half a day later).

And, yes, there were still early-morning events.  That's always going happen at any Olympics that isn't in North America (in LA, it'll be the opposite...the time difference goes the other way, so there won't be anything in the morning on the East Coast).  Most events didn't start until later in the morning or the afternoon in the United States, though.  That makes viewing live much easier.  And people were certainly willing to make an exception regarding the early-morning starts.

The men's hockey gold medal game began at 8:10 am Eastern.  People, of course, still complained about the start time, but what did they expect?  The game was in Italy and had to start in the afternoon local time because of the Closing Ceremony!  And, you know what?  Getting up at 8, even on a Sunday, isn't that crazy.  And plenty of people were willing to get up at 8 so that they could watch USA vs. Canada live!

After the success of their broadcast strategy in Paris a year and a half ago, it was no surprise that NBC used the same approach in Milan Cortina.  Primetime in Paris and Primetime in Milan were succinct, well-produced shows that had coverage of some of the same events that had aired only a few hours earlier, yet was also different.  Not just because it was edited, but because it had those prepackaged features.  And, in Milan Cortina, they also held some events for primetime.  Most alpine skiing was shown live on USA early in the morning, but wasn't featured on NBC until the primetime show.  So, they still managed to have something "new" on primetime every night.

Let's not forget the setting of the last two Olympics, either.  Paris is Paris.  It sells itself.  Milan does, too, in many ways.  Highlighting Milan and highlighting Italy is a winning strategy.  And it's one that really only works with those classic European locations framed with so much culture and so much history.  (I'm not a fan of the Snoop Dogg filler segments, but Mike Tirico and NBC seem to be, so it's doubtful they're going anywhere.)

When they first started making every event available live on streaming, some people thought NBC was cannibalizing itself and that it would eat into their linear television audience.  If anything, it's had the opposite effect.  People will stream it live and watch it on TV later.  Or they'll watch it live on USA in the morning before NBC shows it later in the day during their coverage.  Giving people a streaming option has only enhanced NBC's reach.  Because it wasn't just the Peacock-exclusive stuff available online.  All of NBC's broadcast and cable coverage was streamed, as well.  So, they could "watch" NBC even without watching NBC.

Up next, of course, is Los Angeles, where coverage will be completely different than the two most recent European Olympics.  Nothing will happen in the East Coast's morning.  Everything will be live, including the late night show.  It'll be NBC's first mostly-live Olympics since Rio 2016, and there won't be nearly as much room for the ridiculous filler.  But they'll also take some of the things they did well during their coverage in Paris and Milan Cortina and do them again in LA.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway here, though, is that those reports that "no one" watches the Olympics anymore were greatly exaggerated.  Paris was the perfect storm.  But it wasn't a fluke.  That momentum carried over to February 2026 and the Milan Cortina Olympics.  That enthusiasm for the Olympics is back.  NBC has 17 days' worth of viewership numbers that prove it.