Whose Cup Runneth Over--Pittsburgh's or San Jose's?

NBC's broadcast strategy for the Stanley Cup Final is interesting, and it's also kinda brilliant.  Going back to the days when it was a separate entity, two games of the Final have always been in NBCSN's contract.  In recent years, they've put Games 3 and 4 on cable, with the other five on the main network.  This year, it'll definitely be Game 2, with the second game determined by who wins that game.  If it's 2-0 when the teams leave Pittsburgh, Game 3 is on cable.  If it's 1-1, the first game in San Jose is on NBC, with Game 4 shifting over to NBCSN instead.

While the Final being on two different networks certainly isn't ideal, the fact that NBC and NBCSN are essentially the same thing certainly makes it easier.  And with the two Stanley Cup Final games worked into the cable contract, there's very little they can do about it.  Game 1 has to be on NBC, and all potential Cup-clinching games should.  When NBCSN had Games 3 and 4 guaranteed, it was possible the Cup would be awarded on cable.  This way, fans are guaranteed to see the Cup handed out on broadcast TV.  Ideally, NBCSN would have Games 2 and 3, with NBC showing the opener and all potential clinchers.  But I understand that scheduling these things isn't exactly easy, so I guess this will have to do.  At least people who don't get NBCSN will get to see who wins the series.

But which team will that be?  I said prior to the Penguins-Capitals series that whoever won that one would win the Cup, but Pittsburgh had a much tougher time putting away Tampa Bay than I thought.  San Jose, meanwhile, has finally exorcised the demons of playoffs past, and Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, Logan Couture, Brent Burns and Co. are finally making that first Final appearance.  Can the Sharks finish the job and lift the Cup for the first time in franchise history?

San Jose is loaded with talent.  That's why the Sharks' playoff struggles in the past have been so frustrating.  For everyone.  This year, they've finally put it all together.  And that offense is clicking.  All four lines are getting in on the act, and even the defensemen are scoring!  Meanwhile, Martin Jones has done exactly what he's needed to in goal.  And I think past his Final experience as Jonathan Quick's backup in 2014 could be important.  He's been here before, so he shouldn't be as nervous in the big spots.  That's more than I can say about the rest of the team.  Jones and Dainis Zubrus are the only players on the Sharks roster to have previously played in the Final.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has plenty of players with Stanley Cup experience.  Five Penguins (Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Letang, Kunitz) were on the roster when they won the Cup seven years ago, and two others (Matt Cullen, Carl Hagelin) have been in the Final with other teams.  That might not seem like a lot, but, with the exception of Cullen, those are all key players for the Penguins.

They've been the best team in the NHL since the calendar flipped to 2016, and they've certainly been the best team in the playoffs, too.  Matt Murray has done the job in goal, which means Mike Sullivan's gonna have a tough decision on his hands.  Does he stick with Murray or go back to Marc-Andre Fluery if he's healthy?  That decision could either win him or lose him the series.

Regarding the series schedule, the NHL made a very smart decision.  The Stanley Cup Final usually follows a Monday-Wednesday-Saturday format.  But with the cross-country travel this year, they've made a slight adjustment.  There are two days off before each game where there's travel required.  So, Game 5 will be on Thursday, Game 6 is on Sunday and Game 7 is back on Wednesday.  That extends the series over 17 days, but it was a smart move to not make them potentially fly cross-country and play the next day four times.  I'm sure the Rangers and Kings would've liked it if they'd done that two years ago.

That schedule will probably benefit the Penguins more than the Sharks.  The West Coast teams are used to that travel.  The Sharks' last two series were against Nashville and St. Louis, which are both in the Central time zone.  Meanwhile, the Penguins' travel this postseason has featured trips to New York, Washington and Tampa.  Even counting that series against the Kings, the Sharks have logged many more miles than the Penguins during the playoffs, as they always do during the regular season.

If they'd kept the series schedule the same, it might not have made a difference.  It might've affected both teams the same way.  Maybe we'd see tired legs all the way around.  And who's to say the travel won't be a factor even with the change?  The Sharks are used to it.  The Penguins aren't.  I think San Jose is much better-equipped to handle the back-and-forth.

However, my pick for the series is Pittsburgh.  I, like most of America, will be rooting for the Sharks.  But I think Pittsburgh is simply too good.  My concerns about the Penguins' goaltending have proven to be unfounded.  And that team has that never-say-die attitude that makes them very tough to beat.  They destroyed the Rangers.  They outplayed the President's Trophy winners.  They were down 3-2 to Tampa Bay and dominated the final two games to win the series.

This won't be a blowout by any stretch of the imagination.  This will be a very close series.  But Pittsburgh's got that killer instinct, and they've been there before.  The Penguins also have the two best players in the series, who are desperate to add another title.  Ultimately, I think the fact that Game 7's in Pittsburgh will be the biggest factor.  Because I don't see the Penguins losing that deciding game at home.

The Indy 100

It seems like we've been celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Indy 500 for a few years now.  The track opened in 1909, so that was cause for a celebration.  Then we rightfully honored the 100th anniversary of the first race in 1911 two years later.  Now, we've reached another Indy 500 centennial.  After the breaks for World War I and World War II, we've finally gotten to the 100th race, so it's party time in Indianapolis once again.

Everything about the Indy 500 is awesome.  It's called the "Greatest Spectacle In Racing" for a reason.  The Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend is the greatest day in racing.  Formula 1 kicks it off in Monte Carlo, and NASCAR of course has the Coca-Cola 600 pretty much immediately after Indy is over.  I usually can't do all 1100 miles, but I always make it a point to watch Indy from white flag to checkered.  There's just something about it.  I just love the Indy 500 so much.

Part of the mystique of the Indy 500 is that long-standing belief (among both drivers and fans) that the track decides who wins.  Think that's just a myth?  Ask any member of the Andretti family, which is at 47 years since Mario's win in 1969.  Or Tony Kanaan, who led every year, but didn't kiss the bricks until his 12th try.  Or J.R. Hildebrand, who lost control on the final turn of the last lap and finished second to the late Dan Wheldon five years ago and hasn't come close since.

Then there are those that the Brickyard has smiled upon.  Helio Castroneves won each of his first two Indy 500s, then finished second in his third.  He's drunk the milk three times, finished in the top 10 all but twice in 15 career starts, and he has a chance to join Indy legends A.J. Foyt, Rick Mears and Al Unser as the only four-time winners.  Or defending champion Juan Pablo Montoya, whose tour de force last year was his second Indy win, 15 years after his first.  (Montoya spent most of that time in NASCAR and has only started at Indy three times, winning twice.)

So who will add his name to Indy lore have his face inscribed on the Borg-Warner Trophy?  Will Castroneves or Montoya continue his Indy brilliance?  Will Kanaan or Ryan Hunter-Reay or Scott Dixon win for a second time?  Will one of the rookies have beginner's luck?  Will Marco break the Andretti Curse, or Graham Rahal get a win on the 30th anniversary of his father's victory?

Or will someone else get to write his Indy story?  Maybe someone like Carlos Munoz, who was second and fourth in his first two races before finishing 20th last year.  Or Will Power, who I think is the best driver on the circuit yet to win at Indy.  Or how about pole sitter James Hinchcliffe?  His story is already a remarkable one.  Hinchcliffe almost died in a practice crash before last year's Indy 500, costing him the rest of the 2015 season.  Not only is he back at Indy a year later, he's sitting on the pole!

Also worth noting is the Indy 500 debut of rookie Stefan Wilson.  Wilson's brother, Justin, died from injuries he suffered during the Pocono race last season.  Stefan's car number?  Justin's 25.  What else?  I don't think Stefan Wilson will be a factor in the race, but it's a nice story nonetheless.  Although, I'm sure they planned on racing together at Indy this year and never got that chance.

Last year, Dixon looked poised to cap a dominant month at the Brickyard, leading for a race-high 84 laps before Montoya worked his way through the field to win going away at the end.  I don't think we'll see a repeat of that in 2016.  I have a feeling this year's race will be more like the ones we saw in 2013 (a record 64 lead changes) and 2014 (34 among 11 drivers).

Picking the winner of the Indy 500 is such a crap shoot.  Everything can go right until the very end, when one little mistake (not even necessarily made by you) costs you dearly.  Likewise, you can make an early mistake and think you have no chance, only to battle back and end up in Victory Lane (Montoya had a pit issue very early in the race last year).  Then sometimes it comes down to a simple drag race or getting a draft off a final restart.  No wonder winning it is so hard.

You obviously can't count out Hinchcliffe.  He was obviously the fastest qualifier, which is why he's on the pole.  But I don't think he'll be the winner.  Simon Pagenaud is the series points leader, but he's never finished higher than eighth at Indy.  He could be a factor, but I also don't see Pagenaud in the mix at the end.  Rather, I think this will finally be Will Power's year.

All the usual suspects will be there, too, but I just have a feeling about Power.  He's come so close, and last year he almost got it, finishing second to Montoya.  With a decent starting position (No. 6) and good speeds throughout the month, Power looks primed to grab his first Indy win.  Tony Kanaan and Scott Dixon have also regularly been putting up fast laps in practice and qualifying, but they've both won Indy before.  Power hasn't.  His luck will finally change, and he'll join them as an Indy 500 champion.

Count On Seeing Russia In Rio

I've been saying all along that I fully expect the Russian track & field team to be in Rio, and the actions/comments of the past few days have done nothing to make me change my mind.  In fact, I'm more certain than ever that the IAAF will lift Russia's ban in time for the Olympics.  And I'm not the only one.  Well-respected Olympic blogger Adam Abrahamson agrees with me, and he lays out a pretty convincing argument why in the great piece posted on his website today.

The IAAF and IOC aren't in an easy position here.  There's no question about that.  And whatever they do, somebody's going to end up being unhappy.  There's a large group that says there's no possible way they can allow Russia back in and still protect "clean" sport.  But the IOC has never banned an entire national team for non-political reasons, and doing so opens up a dangerous can of worms.

Yelena Isinbayeva, perhaps the most famous Russian track & field star, has threatened legal action of Russia's ban is upheld.  She should.  And she'd probably win, too.  Because Yelena Isinbayeva has done nothing wrong (she has plenty of negative drug tests to prove it), and depriving her of an opportunity to participate in the Olympics, which only happens once every four years to begin with, is definitely a violation of her rights.  Not to mention how much the blanket ban has been affecting her ability to make a living (no international meets=no prize money/appearance fees).

Isinbayeva isn't alone.  It's naive, wrong, and downright unfair to say that they're all guilty.  Even if the rumors are true and the retested samples from the Beijing Olympics do include a fair number of Russians, it's still a stretch to label them all as "cheaters."  And this guilt by association is unfair to all the clean ones, of which I'm sure there are plenty.

And Russia is doing its part, too.  Their federation president has put the odds on their participation in the Olympics at 50-60 percent, which might not sound that high, but is significantly higher than it would've been if you'd asked him that same question two months ago.  They made the necessary reforms to the doping program and taken the extra step of saying that anyone with a doping history will be excluded from the Russian Olympic team, provided there is one.  That includes 2012 gold medalist Anna Chicherova, who's evidently one of the ones from Beijing, where she won the bronze in the high jump.  It would also include the likes of Mariya Savinova, the 2012 gold medalist in the 1500, and Tatyana Chernova, a two-time World Championships medalist in the heptathlon.

Besides, it does seem like selective enforcement.  Russia's not the only nation embroiled in a doping controversy at the moment.  But are there calls for a blanket ban on all Ethiopians and Kenyans?  Was anyone pushing to keep all Americans out of meets immediately after the BALCO scandal?  So why now, and why just the Russians?

Not to mention the political ramifications.  Russia is one of the most politically significant and important nations in the entire Olympic movement.  Scratch that, in the entire sporting world.  Where were the Olympics two years ago?  Where's the World Cup in two years?  Alienating Vladimir Putin and such a vast sporting nation is not exactly high on anybody's agenda.  Not Seb Coe's.  And certainly not Thomas Bach's.

This is uncharted territory for the IOC, and I doubt this is the precedent they want to set.  The only countries ever to be banned from an Olympics were Germany and Japan in 1948 for their roles in World War II, as well as South Africa during apartheid.  Also, Afghanistan had to sit out Sydney because of the Taliban's treatment of women, but that's it.  Even when Iraq and India (and currently Kuwait) had their NOCs suspended because of political interference, their athletes were still allowed to compete under the Olympic flag.

It's also worth noting that we're talking about only the Russian track & field team here, not the entire Russian Olympic team.  The IOC hasn't suspended anyone.  It's the IAAF that imposed Russia's suspension.  In fact, the IOC has never suspended an entire nation for doping.  Once they do, there's no going back.  And that's a step they have to be 100 percent sure they want to take, which I'm not sure is the case here.

In 1984, the entire Soviet Olympic team was prevented from traveling to LA as a result of a political boycott.  Athletes were denied the opportunity to represent their country because of something that had nothing to do with them.  Thirty years later, we're in danger of that happening again.  And it would be equally unfair.  Especially if Russians who did absolutely nothing wrong are stuck at home watching their competitors (some of whom may have doping histories of their own) go for the Olympic glory that could've been theirs had they only been born in a different country.

A Walk Is Four Balls, Not One

Evidently, the whole time of game "problem" in Major League Baseball is a problem once again.  After seeing the average time of games drop to 2:53 early last season, it's up seven minutes, back over the three-hour mark over the first seven weeks of this season.  That upward trend has disturbed Commissioner Rob Manfred enough that he's vowed there will be changes.

When Manfred said that, there were a number of possible changes going through people's minds.  There's the pitch clock, which they currently use in the Minors, but they assumed, probably correctly, that Major League pitchers wouldn't go for that.  Likewise, limiting mound visits or making relievers pitch to more than one batter were both suggested and dismissed.

Instead, the recommendations put forward by MLB's competition committee involve the strike zone and intentional walks.  I can get on board with one, but I'm vehemently opposed to the other.

The change with the strike zone isn't that drastic.  It basically just redefines bottom of the zone.  The current strike zone goes from the chest to the knees.  But umpires have been calling the low strike more and more, even though it's technically not a strike.  Well, the new interpretation would move that lower portion of the strike zone to the top of the knees.

Basically, they want more balls put in play, and the best way to do that is to make hitters swing at strikes.  Right now, that's not the case, which isn't their fault.  They think the low pitch is a ball, so they don't swing at it.  Then the umpire calls it a strike (even though it isn't), and suddenly they're down 0-1.  Now they have to start swinging at crap out of the zone and end up striking out.  Adding to their frustration, some umpires then call the high strike and/or the inside/outside pitch.

It's tough to hit when everything is called a strike, whether it's in the zone or not.  By making the strike zone smaller, they're making it easier on the hitters.  Pitchers probably won't like it, but if a smaller zone results in more swings, that's less pitches they'll have to throw.  Ultimately, this shouldn't have that much of an impact.  As long as the umpires call it right.

I do have a major problem with the other proposed change, though.  Eliminating the intentional walk is a stupid idea.  Why is it such a terrible thing that a pitcher has to lob four pitches in the other batter's box when a team decides to intentionally walk somebody?  Issuing an intentional walk isn't as simple as the competition committee would like you to believe.  It's something that you still need to execute.  And telling the batter just to go to first base without having to go through the act of actually pitching isn't the answer.

What can go wrong on an intentional walk, you ask?  Well, for starters, there could be a wild pitch or passed ball.  When that happens and the runners move up anyway, they might decide to take the intentional walk off.  It's like when teams decide to take the sacrifice off with two strikes because the guy can't get the bunt down (or there's a wild pitch/passed ball) and he ends up hitting a double.

Or, they could throw one a little too close to the plate and it gets hit.  Think that's far fetched?  I've definitely seen it in the Little League World Series, and I'm pretty sure Vladimir Guerrero did it at least once, too.  And let's not forget about the intentional walk that only comes about after they throw two balls and the guy on first steals second, so they decide to just put him on since they're already behind in the count.

My point is a lot of stuff can happen in a baseball game.  Situations aren't as clear-cut as some people might think.  They've been very cognizant of striking a balance between speeding up games without compromising the integrity of them.  Getting rid of the intentional walk would do just that.  It's as much a strategic element of the game as making a pitching change or dropping down a bunt or when to shift (talk about things in baseball you need to get rid of).

One of the most beautiful things about baseball is the fact there isn't a clock.  I, for one, have never found the times of games to be that big of an issue (and I watch the Yankees, who are notorious for playing long games, on a regular basis).  It's more pace of game, and it always has been.  That's why the endless pitching changes and throws to first and defensive shifts are, in my opinion, a bigger problem than the two intentional walks you might have in a game.

Of course, none of this has been approved yet.  It still has to go to the rules committee, and you can bet it'll be discussed during the negotiations for a new CBA in December (although, they don't need the players union's approval to do it).  From what it sounds like, though, the Commissioner wants this to happen.  So, we'll probably see something change next season.  Even though we don't need it.

Tennis I Can't Watch

I'm probably not going to watch that much of the French Open this year.  It's got nothing to do with Roger and Maria not being there, although that's weird enough.  No, it's because the TV coverage of the French Open will be virtually nonexistent.  The reason why?  ESPN won't be covering the tournament this year.

ESPN is the exclusive broadcaster of Wimbledon and the US Open, but isn't for the French Open, where NBC is the longtime rights-holder, and Tennis Channel is the primary cable carrier.  As a result, ESPN was third in line, meaning they got whatever matches and time slots the other two didn't want.  And ESPN didn't like that, so they decided to give up their French Open contract.  Which would be fine if NBC's coverage wasn't limited to weekends and/or people actually got Tennis Channel.

It's hard to believe that in 2016, TV coverage of a Grand Slam tennis tournament will be so limited.  Hopefully it's just a one-year thing (why not use NBCSN for the matches no longer on ESPN?).  So, instead of watching on TV, I'll have to rely on online streams (hopefully they're in English!) and live scores in order to have any sort of a clue about what's going on during the first week in Paris.

The only time I've ever been to Europe, I was in Germany during the French Open, so that year I probably saw more of the tournament than I ever have before (or since).  Except it was all in German (obviously)!  And watching the French Open in the middle of the afternoon instead of early in the morning was strange, too.  At least I was able to watch it, though.

Regardless of my ability to watch the tournament, this year's second Grand Slam will go on as scheduled (I think it's a week earlier this year, too).  And Novak Djokovic will once again try to get the only thing that he's missing (he'll get his chance at that Olympic gold in August).  Last year, he beat Rafael Nadal in that brilliant quarterfinal, only to play his worst match of the year against Stan Wawrinka in the final.

For all the talk about Serena Williams going for the Grand Slam last year, it was Djokovic that ended up one bad match against Wawrinka away from doing it himself.  And let's not forget, he's won Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open since then.  So, if he does finally lift the Coupe des Mousquetaires for the first time this year, he'll have done something neither of his two rivals has ever done, and something no men's player has done period since Rod Laver in 1969--have all four titles at once.  What do you like better, the "Nole Slam" or the "Djoker Slam?"

With no Federer in the field, the fifth-ranked Nadal moved up to the No. 4 seed, which means his matchup with Djokovic will come a round later in the semifinals.  And I find it hard to believe the winner of that match won't be the champion.  Although, I also said that last year and we all know what happened.  Last year's final only added fuel to Djokovic's fire, though, so I don't think we're in store for a repeat of 2015.  If he beats Clay Boy, he'll finish the deal this time.

As for who he'd meet in the final, I wouldn't be surprised to see a rematch against Wawrinka.  Andy Murray is the designated runner-up when Djokovic wins Grand Slam tournaments, but clay is his worst surface, as evidence by the fact he's never been to the final here.  He has been to the semis three times, though, including the last two years, so a breakthrough isn't totally out of the question.  Murray would have to be at the top of his game and get a little lucky, though.  I'm not saying that can't happen.  I just don't think it's likely.

Before I move on to the women, a note about someone who's absence will definitely be felt.  For all of his records, Roger Federer's streak of 65 consecutive Grand Slam appearances might be his most remarkable.  He went 16 years without missing a Grand Slam, and you know this isn't the only time he's been injured during that span.  I just hope Roger's back in time for Wimbledon, which is his best chance at adding to his record haul of Grand Slam titles (that Djokovic might surpass within the next couple years).

Speaking of setting records for Grand Slam wins, Serena Williams can't match Margaret Court at Roland Garros.  In fact, this will be her third attempt at tying Steffi Graf for second all-time.  After that stunning loss in the US Open semifinals, she was simply outplayed by Angelique Kerber in the Australian Open final.  And, as fate would have it, guess who Serena's matched up with in the semifinals?

For the first time in a while, we go into a Grand Slam without Serena being the prohibitive favorite.  In fact, she's got a pretty tough draw, with fellow former champions Francesca Schiavone and Ana Ivanovic back-to-back in the third and fourth rounds.  And, if we've learned anything throughout the course of Serena Williams' career, it's that she's especially vulnerable in the earlier rounds.  And this is just to get to a potential matchup with Vika Azarenka in the quarters, then a semi against Kerber.

On the bottom half, last year's Wimbledon finalist and Nadal's new mixed doubles partner Garbine Muguruza (who beat Serena in the second round at the French two years ago) appears to be on a crash course with either Lucie Safarova, the finalist here last year, or 2014 finalist Simona Halep (who, interestingly, has lost in either the first or second round in each of her other five French Open appearances).  You've also got world No. 2 Agnieszka Radwanska, who's had a very good year, and Sabine Lisicki, the former Wimbledon finalist (when she beat Serena), who's somehow unseeded here.

What I do know is that, like the Blackhawks-Kings Stanley Cup rotation, the Maria Sharapova-Serena Williams French Open rotation is probably over.  Maria, of course, is waiting to find out how long she'll be suspended for her positive drug test, while Serena, despite winning in Madrid two weeks ago, appears vulnerable.

Knowing Serena Williams, it would be stupid to count her out completely, but I'm not just automatically putting her in the final, either.  I've got Serena reaching the semis, where she loses to Kerber, just like she did in Melbourne.  Then Halep defeats Kerber for her first Grand Slam title.  As for that Djokovic-Wawrinka rematch I'm predicting, give me Novak and the "Djoker Slam."

Changing Citizenship

Athletes change their national allegiances for any number of reasons.  Bernard Lagat and Meb Keflezighi are naturalized Americans who started representing the United States once they became citizens.  Becky Hammon was offered the chance to play for Russia after being told she wouldn't make the U.S. team, so she took it.  Same thing for Viktor Ahn, who was cut from the South Korean national team, so he moved to Russia.  American snowboarder Vic Wild married his Russian girlfriend and changed his citizenship in order to continue his career after USA Snowboarding stopped funding his event.

Those reasons are all legitimate.  Becky Hammon took a tremendous amount of slack for representing Russia in London, but I had no problem with her decision.  She took advantage of an opportunity that she otherwise wouldn't have had.  Like it or not, there was nothing that prevented her from doing that, so she did it.  I view that kind of like transferring colleges.  How many players leave a school after one year because they're unhappy about playing time or homesick or the coach left or whatever?  How is that any different?

Hammon's not the only athlete to jump at the opportunity to be an Olympian, even if that meant representing another country.  Dual citizens have their choice (and sometimes change their minds), and they have their reasons for choosing one country over the other.  Sometimes it's as simple as picking the one where it'll be easier to make an Olympic team.  Or maybe it's to honor a parent/grandparent.  Or (like in Keflezighi's case), it's going with the country you grew up and live in over the one you were born in.

Citizenship rules vary by country, but some are very lax.  For example, the Greek baseball team at the Athens Olympics consisted entirely of Greek-Americans.  If you're Jewish or have a Jewish family member, you're eligible to compete for Israel.  A lot of nations have rules similar to that.  If you have a parent or grandparent was born in the country, you can declare your allegiance.  There are a couple athletes who I've worked with who represent Ireland because of their Irish heritage.  That's also why Alexi Pappas, who went to the University of Oregon, will run for Greece in Rio, and another Duck, sprinter Hannah Cunliffe, may very well be there representing Italy.

Then there are the nations that buy elite athletes, which I don't agree with.  I don't even know how many, but rest assured it's a lot, native Kenyans represent nations in the Middle East.  Why?  Because they're not good enough to make the Kenyan team, but still world-class, so these oil-rich countries offer them citizenship and a salary with the only condition being they're now suddenly from Qatar or Bahrain instead of Kenya, even though they've possibly never even been to the country.  It's a win-win for both.

While that's a highly questionable/borderline shady practice , there's no rule against it.  And, again, you can understand why they do it, both the athletes and the nations involved.  However, it seems to have gotten more and more prevalent in recent years.  Prevalent enough for people to take notice.

IAAF President Seb Coe, who was the head of the organizing committee for the London Olympics four years ago, is one of those people who's noticed the trend, and he doesn't like it.  Coe has gone on record saying that he thinks athletes should only be allowed to represent one country during their careers.  Now, it's not that black-and-white (if you become a naturalized citizen of a country, you should have every right to represent the nation you voluntarily choose to live in).  But his point remains a valid one.

FIFA makes you choose a country and stick with it.  There are a lot set of rules regarding dual citizenship and eligibility, but, they've purposefully made it very difficult to switch national allegiances.  You can change if you've never played internationally, as long as you live in the country you want to represent.  And they're a little more lenient on changing nationalities moving up from the junior level to the senior level.  But even then, you need to meet a certain set of requirements.

Of course, FIFA needs strict citizenship rules.  Otherwise, Spain and England and Germany would naturalize every top player in La Liga and the Premier League and the Bundesliga, which would, obviously, significantly weaken world football.

It's far-fetched and ridiculous to envision that scenario in soccer, and track & field is a completely different sport.  But there are parallels, and the the FIFA method is a reasonable one to draw from when coming up with rules to deal with the citizenship "problem."

I have no issue with representing one country at the youth/junior level and another at the senior level.  Likewise, if you are granted citizenship in a country by whatever that nation's legal means are (it's not easy to become an American if you weren't born here), you shouldn't be prevented from representing your adopted homeland internationally.  And, regarding the use of familial ties, as long as you've never competed internationally before, if you meet a country's eligibility criteria and want to represent that nation, go ahead.

Does Sebastian Coe have a point?  Yes.  It's certainly disturbing to see African distance runners representing every country on the globe, but I'm not sure there's much that can be done about it.  The discussion is definitely a worthwhile one, though.

Happy Anniversary

It's hard to believe, but 2016 marks two important 20th anniversaries in the North American sports landscape.  The WNBA is celebrating its 20th season of play, while we're actually in year number 21 of MLS, which began play in 1996.  Neither one will ever reach the level of the Big Four leagues, but the fact that they've both reached the 20-year mark is significant.

How many leagues have tried to catch on and failed?  Arena football?  It's down to eight teams.  The USFL?  Three seasons.  And, for all the success of the U.S. women's national soccer team, where on what number attempt at a professional women's soccer league?  Yet these two have survived.  At times they've even thrived.  And it doesn't look like either one is going anywhere anytime soon.

Let's start with the WNBA.  It was founded on the heels of UConn's first undefeated championship and the dominant 1996 U.S. Olympic team.  There were actually two women's basketball leagues that kicked off at the same time, but the WNBA had a couple things the ABL didn't: the NBA's backing, NBA arenas in major cities, and the big names.  At the beginning the quality of play in the ABL might've been a little bit bitter, but that league folded in 1998 and the WNBA is still going strong.

The WNBA will never be on the same level as the NBA or any of the other men's leagues.  They know that and they accept that.  But the WNBA has also filled an important gap that had been missing for entirely too long.  The top players in women's college basketball don't have to go to Europe anymore (although, most still do since the money's better there and they play a different season).  And, more importantly, girls in this country who want to be professional athletes have something to strive for.

Sure, there have been some bumps in the road.  Of the eight original teams, only three are still in existence in their original market (the New York Liberty, Los Angeles Sparks and Phoenix Mercury).  They've folded a couple franchises, including a Houston Comets team that won the first four WNBA championships, and moved some others.  But they've found a business model that works, and they've enjoyed a reasonable amount of success.

They've also found a league size that works well, as they've been holding strong at 12 teams for the last couple years and I haven't heard any talk of expansion.  They're smart about where they play, too.  No longer are WNBA franchises the sister teams of their NBA counterparts.  There's a team in Connecticut, which obviously draws a lot of support from the preexisting UConn fan base.  When the Sonics went to Oklahoma City, the Storm stayed in Seattle.  (Although, I think they're missing out on a golden opportunity by not having a team in Nashville.)

Another stroke of genius was to move out of the NBA arenas.  WNBA attendance will never approach NBA-type levels, so playing in those half-empty 20,000-seat arenas doesn't look good and doesn't make much sense.  So why not go to smaller venues?  Fill an arena that sits 8,000-10,000.  You've still got the Liberty playing in Madison Square Garden and the Sparks playing at the Staples Center, but that's balanced out by the Chicago Sky and Dallas Wings playing at local colleges, or the Connecticut Sun being the main show in town at the Mohegan Sun Arena.

You can point to attendance figures and TV ratings all you want (the WNBA does need a better TV deal), but you can't argue that the WNBA hasn't been a rousing success.  The NBA's backing certainly has helped, but the WNBA hasn't lasted two decades on that alone.

And, like I said, the WNBA isn't going anywhere.  The biggest names from the best college programs stay at home, and they're also the ones that make up the U.S. national team.  You get to see them play past college other than once every four years in the Olympics.

I don't think there's a person out there who wouldn't argue that the WNBA has made the game of women's basketball better as a whole, either.  It's not the richest women's basketball league out there, but the quality of play is absolutely top-notch.  And the best players in the world come to play in the WNBA, simply because of the competition.  Lauren Jackson is the biggest name that comes to mind, but there are plenty of others.

As for MLS, it's never been stronger than it is right now.  They're sitting at 20 teams, with plans to expand to 24 within the next few years.  There are even teams in the three biggest cities in Canada!  MLS, too, endured its growing pains, but it's in a good place right now.  They've got a great TV contract with ESPN and Fox Sports.  They've got soccer-specific stadiums that get filled.  Most importantly, they're no longer considered a joke or a passing fad.  Not by the fans, not by the players, and not by the soccer world.

David Beckham and Thierry Henry and David Villa certainly helped bring credibility to MLS, which will never rival the Premier League or Bundesliga or any of those top leagues in Europe.  But the quality isn't poor in comparison, either.  More importantly, the U.S. National Team, for the most part, has improved as MLS has improved.  These guys get a chance to play competitive professional soccer at home, and they don't have to travel great distances for national team duty.  Sure, some of the top Americans still play in Europe, where the money is better.  But, you've also seen how many Americans leave their European team for MLS (and more playing time)?

There are things about MLS that FIFA and the rest of the soccer world are never going to like/accept, but they're also things that would be difficult, if not impossible, to change.  The second league's not comparable enough to have promotion and relegation (which is one of the many reasons that wouldn't work here).  We use playoffs to determine our champions here (sorry Europe, I know you don't want to hear this, but the Champions League is playoffs, too).  We can't play in Toronto and Seattle and Colorado in December and January (there's also less going on in the summer, when MLS doesn't have to compete with the NFL and college football).

Considering how nuts people get during the World Cup, it was probably inevitable that MLS would build a reasonably strong fan base.  And I still find it funny that MLS is still nowhere near as popular as the Premier League, which NBC shells out millions a year to televise, or the Champions League.  I'm not sure that'll ever change, though, and I think MLS accepts that.  As long as people are watching and coming to games, it really doesn't matter.

Will MLS ever get to the level as the Big Four?  Probably not.  But this country has finally gotten the memo about soccer that the rest of the world has already had for a while.  It makes sense that MLS eventually caught on, even if it did take a while.

FIFA might've made USA Soccer start MLS as a condition for getting the 1994 World Cup, but the league has succeeded on its own merits.  Once they stopped trying the gimmicks that simply didn't work and just played the game pure, MLS has helped America figure out why the Brazilians call soccer the "beautiful game."

Maybe the timing was right.  Maybe the U.S. national team's rise coinciding with the rise of MLS is purely coincidence.  Or maybe it's because the players are better and there are more of them.  But whatever it is, MLS isn't destined to end up like the NASL.  The league has never been stronger.  And, like the WNBA, MLS is here to stay.

Rough Ned Odor

It all started with a bat flip.  Back in October.  In another country.  But the Texas Rangers never forgot.  And on Sunday, they did something about it.

Just in case you're one of the 11 remaining people who hasn't seen the video, Jose Bautista got hit by a pitch in the eighth inning of Sunday's game, and it certainly looked intentional.  He then had a hard slide into second base while tying to break up a double play in a one-run game, and Rangers second baseman Roughned Odor took exception.  Odor clocked Bautista right across the face with a punch a boxer would be proud of, setting off a benches-clearing melee that got six people ejected and at least that many suspended.

This fight was ridiculous on so many levels.  First, the pitcher the Rangers appointed to do their dirty work was a rookie that wasn't even on the team during last year's Division Series.  He had nothing to do with it.  Second, this Bautista's last at bat in the last game of the year between the teams.  Now this is going to be the lasting image that sticks with the Blue Jays until they meet again, whether that's in the playoffs or next season.  So, instead of being over, the Rangers made sure it's going to keep going.  It's like Baseball's version of Deflategate.

I'm not saying Bautista didn't have it coming.  After the bat flip, he probably expected some sort of retaliation.  But, logical thinking dictates that the retaliation would come in his first plate appearance in the first game.  Everyone would've seen it coming, Bautista would've taken it, and the whole thing would've been over.  Instead, they play six games without incident before finally taking their shot at him at the end of the seventh.

The timing doesn't make much sense.  Did the Rangers forget until now?  Or did they actually think that putting the tying run on base was a good idea?  Or did they just want revenge against Bautista so much that they didn't care what the situation in the game was?

Odor said he "doesn't regret" anything.  He also expects to be suspended, which he most definitely will be.  I'm putting it in the range of 10 games.  Plenty of others involved in the incident are going to get an MLB-mandated timeout, as well, but none of those suspensions will come anywhere near the length of Odor's.  And they shouldn't.  Because, if you think about it, it wasn't the hit by pitch that started things.  It was Odor.

That's why I think it's so ridiculous people are defending Odor.  They're using crazy reasons such as "he was defending himself," but he's the whole reason the fight started, so I don't see how you can justify anything Odor did.  Bautista was the one who got hit.  Bautista was the one trying to break up a double play.  Was the slide late?  Maybe.  But we're not talking about the Chase Utley Rule here.  The only chance Odor was going to get hurt on that play was if Bautista body-slammed him after the haymaker.

Bautista's not blameless in this situation.  If he doesn't crush a home run that just landed in Winnipeg and stand there looking at it, then toss his bat aside like David Ortiz does all the time, none of this happens.  But it's a stretch to any fault for Sunday's fight anywhere but the Texas Rangers dugout.

Yes, the Rangers got even with Bautista.  But Odor better watch his back.  Because now it's the Blue Jays that have a score to settle.  Why?  Because the Rangers couldn't just hit him right away and be done with.

Time to Change the Playoff Format

I've been promising this post for a couple days, and with the Western Conference Final set to begin, I figure now's as good a time as any.  The NHL is in the third year of its current playoff format, and I've gone on record as not being a fan.  Because it's not set up the right way.  The best teams shouldn't meet until the conference finals.  Your division shouldn't matter.

For about 15 years in the 1980s, the Stanley Cup Playoffs were 100 percent division-based.  You had Division Semifinals and Division Finals before the Conference Finals.  In a 21-team league with 16 teams making the playoffs, you were essentially guaranteed to make it no matter what.  It was the top four in each division, so as long as you didn't finish last, you were in.

But there were some significant problems with this format.  In the Campbell Conference (which became the West), the Smythe Division, which featured the Oilers and Flames, was much stronger than the Norris Division.  Yet a Norris Division team was guaranteed to be in the Conference Finals, where they would inevitably lose to either Edmonton or Calgary (whichever team survived the other), each season.  It was the same in the Wales (East), but the disparity between the Adams and Patrick Divisions was much less drastic.

The NHL finally realized that this method was stupid in 1993-94, when they renamed the conferences "East" and "West" and went from division-based to conference-based playoffs.  The division winners got the top two seeds, but the remaining six teams would determined solely on points and could come from either division.  And, since it was reseeded after each round, the No. 1 seed was guaranteed to play the "weakest" team that advanced in the second round.  So, if the 7 beat the 2, it would be 1 vs. 7 in the second round instead of 3 vs. 7.  When they split each conference into three divisions, the only change was that the division winners would be seeded 1-3.

That format worked incredibly well.  Yet, for some reason, the NHL decided to change it as a part of the Winnipeg Jets realignment in 2013-14.  And they must've been feeling nostalgic for those division playoff days.  Because, instead of the perfectly fine 1-8 in the conference system they'd been using for 20 years, they essentially went back to the division-based system with a few minor tweaks.  (They also aren't good at math, seeing as there are 16 teams in the East and 14 in the West, but one thing at a time.)

If you finish among the top three in your division, you're guaranteed a playoff spot, with two wild cards going to the two teams with the next highest point totals.  So, in theory, there can be five teams from one division and only three from the other (both the Metropolitan and Central Divisions had five playoff teams this year).  And that only came about after the Union objected to the originally-proposed method of just the top four in each division, using that exact situation as their main point.  (Last year, in fact, both wild cards in the West came out of the Central Division, and they both had more points than Calgary, which got in by finishing third in the Pacific.)  So, the NHL tweaked it, came up with the wild cards, and the Union agreed to the revised format.

Here's the problem with the current format: the bracket is division-based.  The second- and third-place teams in the same division play each other in the first round, and the winner of that series plays the winner of the series involving the first-place team in their division.  But what if one division is significantly stronger than the other?  What if the third-place team in one division was the third-best team in the conference during the regular season?  Not only are they not guaranteed home ice, you're also guaranteeing that either the second- or third-best team won't get out of the first round.  And, since one of the better teams will definitely be knocked out, you're also guaranteeing that a weaker team has to advance.

What's worse, there's no protection for the top team.  Washington and Dallas finished 1-2 in the race for the President's Trophy, and, as such, had home ice in their respective conferences.  But they both had to face the team with the second-highest point in the conference in the second round of the playoffs!  Why?  Because Pittsburgh and Washington are in the same division, and so are Dallas and St. Louis.

Think I'm overreacting to a one-year anamoly?  Well, I'm not.  The NHL has used this format for three years.  Of the six Conference Finals since then, three of them, including both series this year, would've been first-round series if the teams were seeded straight 1-8 regardless of division.  In fact, with the exception of the Eastern Conference last year, the first round would've been totally different:

2014: EAST: Boston-Detroit, Pittsburgh-Columbus, Tampa Bay-Philadelphia, Montreal-Rangers; WEST: Anaheim-Dallas, Colorado-Minnesota, St. Louis-Los Angeles, San Jose-Chicago
2015: WEST: Anaheim-Calgary, St. Louis-Winnipeg, Nashville-Minnesota, Chicago-Vancouver
2016: EAST: Washington-Detroit, Florida-Philadelphia, Pittsburgh-Tampa Bay, Rangers-Islanders; WEST: Dallas-Minnesota, Anaheim-Nashville, St. Louis-San Jose, Chicago-Los Angeles

As you can see, setting up the playoffs based on where you finished in the division instead of the conference has had a major impact...and not necessarily in a good way.  The best teams shouldn't meet until the later rounds.  I don't care if they're in the same division.  If they're the two best teams, they're the two best teams.  And don't you want the best teams to be the ones playing for the Cup?

My solution is incredibly simple.  All the NHL needs to do is change it from division-based to conference-based.  The two division winners get the top two seeds, but the remaining teams are seeded 3-8 based on their regular-season point totals, NOT where they finished in their division.  Because, as this season proved, sometimes the best team and second-best team come from the same division.  And if that's the case, they should meet in the Conference Finals.  Not the semifinals.

Halfway to the Cup

It's eight down, eight to go for the remaining four teams in the Stanley Cup.  But these eight are probably the hardest ones to get.  Just ask the two teams that are left out West.  Either the Blues or Sharks is finally going to play for the Cup (I said to a friend of mine a few weeks ago, "watch them play each other and one will have to not lose").  Neither has ever won it.  San Jose has never even played for it, while St. Louis hasn't been in the Finals since Bobby Orr went flying thru the air.

St. Louis is the only remaining original expansion team (excluding the defunct California Golden Seals) that hasn't won at least one title.  The Blues actually made it to the Finals in their first three years of existence, though, although they're 0-12 all-time in Stanley Cup Finals games, getting swept by the Canadiens in 1968-69 and the Bruins in 1970.

One of the Blues' 1967-68 expansion brethren is the Penguins, who've been the best team in hockey since the calendar flipped to 2016, and they proved it in the Eastern Conference semifinals, where they pretty much dominated Washington for the duration of the series.  The Capitals were the best team in the league for most of the year, but they were outclassed in every way by a Penguins team that's better (and, more importantly, deeper) than they are.  My biggest concern about Pittsburgh heading into the start of the playoffs was their inexperience at goalie, but that's proving not to be an issue.  And, as Pierre McGuire pointed out after their Game 6 clincher against the Capitals, they won the Stanley Cup with a rookie goalie (Marc-Andre Fleury) in 2009.

Of course, they'll have to get past the defending Eastern Conference champion Lightning in order to play for the Cup.  Tampa Bay was challenged big time by the Islanders and certainly had luck (and Nikita Kucherov) on their side, but the Lightning's experience won the day.  They're looking to become the first team to reach the Finals in back-to-back years since...the Penguins, who beat the Red Wings in 2009 after losing to them in 2008.

For the Lightning to get back to the Finals, they're going to need to keep playing at a high level.  Pittsburgh's the better team, but Tampa Bay has the better goalie in Ben Bishop.  That experience of playing Chicago last year can't be discounted, either.  Now, I don't know the status of Steven Stamkos, but his return can only help.  With Stamkos, they have the horses to score with Pittsburgh.  Without him, I'm not sure Tampa Bay has enough.  So, it'll be interesting to see what happens with Stamkos.  The Lightning will monitor his situation closely, and if he can play, he'll play.  And he needs to.  Because I don't see Tampa Bay winning this series without him.

Out West, I think our perennial playoff chokers have both turned a corner.  They were both absolutely dominant in Game 7 victories over Dallas and Nashville.  The Blues' 6-1 win was made all the more impressive by the fact that they smacked the Stars around so completely in Dallas.  They've beaten the defending champions and the top team in the conference in the first two rounds, and they came out of the tougher division.  And they have home ice.  There's reason to be optimistic that the Blues could make their first Stanley Cup Finals appearance in 46 years.

Except San Jose will definitely have something to say about that.  One of the reasons watching the Sharks has been so frustrating in recent years is because everyone knows how much talent they have.  It's finally coming together in the playoffs, and I don't see it stopping.  The Sharks are just on such a roll right now.  They're kind of like last year's Lightning.  You knew they could make a run, you just weren't sure if they would.  Well, they have.  Will it result in the Stanley Cup's first visit to the Bay Area?

There are no division winners remaining, and the top seed in each conference was knocked out by the second-best team in the semifinals (more on that later, but you already know my feelings on the format).  But I don't think there's any doubt that the four best teams are left.  As for who will survive and play for the hardware, it really is a toss-up.  I think we're in store for a pair of long series, and I can see both going either way.

As for my Finals prediction, I've got to go with the two hottest teams.  And that's the Penguins and Sharks.  Pittsburgh beats Tampa Bay in six, and San Jose wins a dramatic Game 7 in overtime in St. Louis.

A Great Analogy

There's obviously been a lot of skepticism surrounding golf's return to the Olympics and the number of top players who are opting out of the tournament.  There are plenty of questions, all of which are legitimate, regarding whether or not the players even care about the Olympics and if golf will still be around past the 2020 Tokyo Games.

This isn't the first time a sport's return to the Olympics after a long absence has received a lukewarm reception from its participants.  As this great article I read on NBCOlympics.com today notes, many of the same sentiments felt about Olympic golf in 2016 were felt about the sport of tennis when it returned to the Olympic program in 1988.  And today, nearly 30 years later, there are no such concerns.  The Olympic gold medal in tennis is the equivalent of a Grand Slam title.

The 1988 Olympics started in mid-September, or, in terms of the tennis calendar, right after the US Open.  A trip from New York to Seoul isn't exactly short.  I can only imagine what it must be like to play a grueling, two-week tennis tournament only to turn around, fly halfway around the world, and play another one.

A lot of the top men found various reasons to back out, much like the top golfers we've been hearing about.  Others, like Boris Becker, wanted to play so badly that injury was the only thing that would stop them (in Becker's case, that's exactly what happened).  Still others were kept out by the maximum per country rule, which will keep a number of golfers who otherwise would want to play out of Rio.  Stefan Edberg was the only top men's player who went to those Olympics in Seoul 28 years ago, and he was upset in the semifinals by Miloslav Mecir of Czechoslovakia, who went on to win the gold medal.

Mecir was succeeded as the gold medalist by Switzerland's Marc Rosset, but Andre Agassi won the gold four years later in Atlanta, and ever since, the men's Olympic tennis gold medalist has been one of the top players in the world.  Rafael Nadal won in 2008 and Andy Murray won on Centre Court at Wimbledon four years ago.  Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic still haven't won Olympic singles gold, and they've both gone on record saying that they want it.  It's the only thing they're missing in their careers (although, Djokovic hasn't won the French Open yet, either).  All four of them will be in Rio, even though the Olympics end a week before the US Open.

Steffi Graf lent credibility to the Olympic tennis tournament right away.  She won the gold in Seoul two weeks after completing the Grand Slam in New York.  Her "Golden Slam" is still one of the greatest achievements in tennis history.  The women have never really had a problem with Olympic participation, with the likes of Jennifer Capriati, Lindsay Davenport and Justine Henin also winning gold medals.  Oh yeah, and both Williams sisters have one, too (as well as three golds together in doubles).

Even those that once questioned tennis' place in the Olympics have come around.  The tournament at London 2012 was unique because it was played at Wimbledon less than a month after The Championships.  And everybody showed up.  It was the best Olympic tennis tournament ever.  Having the tennis tournament at Wimbledon was a stroke of genius.  If there were any lingering doubts that tennis belonged in the Olympics and the tennis players wanted to be there, they were answered.

Getting the players to buy in was one of the big keys in establishing the legitimacy of Olympic tennis.  And while they didn't all right away, the tennis players get it now.  Being an Olympian means just as much to them as it does to the swimmer or fencer or gymnast.  The only difference is that they get the public's attention more than once every four years.  Which is exactly why it's important to have tennis (and now golf) in the Olympics in the first place.

It's also interesting that the only golfers we've heard from are men.  I'm curious to see how the LPGA players feel about the Olympic tournament.  Do the women feel the same way as those skeptical men we've heard from?  Or do they feel like Jordan Spieth?  Although, seeing as we haven't heard anything from the women, I'd imagine they're excited about the potential of being Olympians and winning that first gold medal in more than a century.

If I had to guess, I'd bet the men will eventually come around, too.  They'll see the Olympic tournament on TV or hear about it from the golfers that do choose to go to Rio.  They'll see that gold medal put around somebody's neck and hear the anthem played and get a huge dose of national pride.  It's the same pride they feel when they're selected to play in the Ryder Cup.

Tennis needed a few cycles to find its place in the Olympic family.  But it has.  An Olympic gold will never be a Grand Slam title, but it's not meaningless, either.  Golf will eventually find that balance, too.  Who knows what the Rio 2016 golf tournaments will be like?  This might all be much ado about nothing.  Or maybe there will be some growing pains.

I do know this, though.  Once somebody wins that gold medal in August, everybody else will want one of their own in Tokyo.  The Olympics tend to have that effect on people.

NHL Award Picks

After the seemingly endless one-at-a-time reveal, we finally know the finalists for the NHL Awards.  I love the NHL Awards.  Mainly because they're all awesome trophies with cool names that they keep on display at the Hall of Fame.  Even if there do seem to be a few more than you see in other sports (imagine if the NFL had an award for best punter).

Anyway, some of the eventual winners are fairly obvious, while I have no idea who's going to win some others.  But I was also surprised that some players I thought would definitely be in the running weren't even finalists for the award I expected.  For example, how is Braden Holtby NOT a Hart Trophy finalist?  He had a better year this year than Carey Price did last season, when he won both the Vezina and the Hart.  Likewise, can someone tell me how Dylan Larkin isn't a finalist for the Calder Trophy?

The NHL has a lot of awards, but I'm going to narrow my picks down to the eight biggest ones, which doesn't include the Ted Lindsay Award since it's voted on by the players (although, interestingly, Holtby IS a finalist for the Lindsay, proving the players sometimes know better than the media).

Hart: Patrick Kane (Blackhawks)-Like I said, I'm shocked Braden Holtby isn't a finalist.  I figured this would be a nice battle between Kane and Holtby.  I was just trying to figure out who the third finalist would be.  Holtby certainly should've finished in the top three over Sidney Crosby.  But since he's not a finalist, I don't see how Patrick Kane isn't the MVP.  He led the NHL is scoring by a wide margin, becoming the first American scoring champion.  He'll also become the first American-born Hart Trophy winner (Brett Hull was born in Canada).

Vezina: Braden Holtby (Capitals)-Duh.  They didn't really need to name any other finalists for the Vezina.  This is the biggest no-brainer of them all.  Holtby's name is probably already engraved on the base.  He tied Martin Brodeur's record with 48 wins for a Capitals team that had the best record in the league.

Norris: Drew Doughty (Kings)-Ottawa's Erik Karlsson won it last year and will probably win it again this year.  He had 82 points in 82 games, becoming the first defenseman with a point a game in 20 years.  But this is my pick, not who I think will win.  And I'm going with Drew Doughty.  Simply because I think he's the best defenseman in the NHL at the moment.

Calder: Shayne Gostisbehere (Flyers)-There were a lot of good rookies this season.  So many in fact that Larkin and Jack Eichel aren't even finalists.  Chicago's Artemi Panarin scored 77 points and led all rookies in both goals and assists, but he was Patrick Kane's linemate, so that has to be taken into account.  Gostisbehere didn't have nearly as big an offensive impact as Panarin, but he was a big reason why the Flyers made the playoffs.  They wouldn't have without him.

Selke: Patrice Bergeron (Bruins)-Bergeron is the two-time reigning best defensive forward, and I think he makes it three in a row.  Although, it'll be close between him and the Ducks' Ryan Kesler, who's never won the Selke, I think Bergeron's reputation will precede him and push him over the edge.  The third finalist is Anze Kopitar, who's the Kings' best player and I still think of more for his scoring than anything else, so a Selke nomination is quite a testament to his all-around game.

Lady Byng: Anze Kopitar (Kings)-Kopitar is also a finalist for the Lady Byng, and this is the one I think he wins.  His 16 penalty minutes were the most of the three finalists, but Kopitar also had a lot more ice time than either Loui Eriksson or Alekansder Barkov.  The other half of the critera for the Lady Byng is combining gentlemanly play with "a high standard of playing ability," and Kopitar certainly lived up to that end of the bargain, leading his team in points and ranking second in the NHL in plus/minus.

Masterson: Mats Zuccarello (Rangers)-How can you not give the award for "perseverance, sportsmanship and dedication to hockey" to the guy that suffered a brain contusion in last year's playoffs, only to come back and set a career-high for points while playing every game but one this season?  Pascal Dupuis has a compelling story, too, but Zuccarello is the clear winner here.

Adams: Gerard Gallant (Panthers)-You could make an argument for any of the three finalists as the NHL's Coach of the Year.  But I'm going with Gerard Gallant.  The Panthers came out of nowhere to win the Atlantic Division.  It's tough to go against Barry Trotz after that outstanding regular season the Capitals had.  But Washington being good didn't completely come out of the blue.  Dallas being good kind of did, especially their having the best record in the Western Conference, but we've already established that Lindy Ruff is an excellent coach.  Still, if you needed to choose a more unexpected team, I've gotta go Panthers over Stars.  As a result, I've gotta give Gallant the nod over Ruff.

Of course, there's one more major individual award that won't be handed out in Las Vegas.  Can't make predictions for who's going to win the Conn Smythe this early in the playoffs, though.  I can't even begin to narrow it down.  There are seven teams still in the running for the Cup.

An NHL-less Olympics?

Rene Fasel, the President of the International Ice Hockey Federation, said earlier this week that he doesn't expect the NHL to send its players to the 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea.  We heard this same chatter in the lead-up to the Sochi Games, which eventually did include NHL players.  The issue then was the same as it is now.  Somebody has to cover the players' insurance, and neither side wants to pay for it.

As a part of the negotiations that led to the NHL agreeing to go to Sochi, the IOC and IIHF agreed to pick up much of the tab for the insurance costs, which are actually pretty high.  Evidently, the IOC will no longer contribute to the insurance and travel for the hockey players.  As a result, the IIHF is left with a $10 million gap that it has to fill.  And the NHL, for its part, has come to expect certain provisions for interrupting its season to send its players to the Olympics.  The insurance and travel coverage are two of those provisions.

While I'm sure there's a middle ground that can be reached here, it would almost certainly be a deal-breaker if the NHL and NHLPA had to pick up those costs entirely themselves.  It's also worth noting that the NHL has nothing to gain by sending its players to the Olympics, which partially explains why the IOC and IIHF have been willing to grant such concessions in the past.

All hope is not lost.  But it doesn't look good right now.  Fasel optimistically put it at a 50/50 chance that the NHL players participate in Pyeongchang just as they have at the last five Winter Olympics.  Realistically, though, the number is more like 60 percent they won't and 40 percent they will.  Either way, they have to figure this out sooner rather than later because of the necessary planning.  The NHL has to make the 2017-18 schedule, and knowing whether or not they need to include an Olympic break is obviously an important detail.

Let's not kid ourselves, though.  This wouldn't even be an issue if the Olympics were somewhere else.  With Sochi, we knew there was no chance the NHL players weren't going to be there.  Why?  Because Sochi's in Russia, and Russia's a hockey hotbed.  Korea?  Not so much.  And, while Russia's not exactly convenient for the players based in North America, it's still a lot easier travel-wise (and on your body) to fly to Russia than it is to fly to Korea.  The same goes for 2022, which will also be in the Far East.

The first time the NHL shut the season down for the Olympics, they went to Japan in 1998.  But since then, it's been a back-and-forth between North America and Europe.  Salt Lake City and Vancouver obviously presented no logistical issues, and Torino and Sochi really didn't either.  And at least the trips to Europe were to areas where hockey is popular and many of the players are from.  That's not the case with the two upcoming Olympics in Asia.

Part of the reason the players ended up going to Sochi was because you had a group, led by Alex Ovechkin, who really wanted to go.  Ovechkin wanted to win an Olympic gold medal on home ice.  There are no Korean or Chinese players in the NHL, and their national teams are nowhere near the level of the top nations.  South Korea simply hopes to be competitive in 2018, and China's national team is so weak that there's talk that 2022 might be the first Olympic hockey tournament not to include the host.

If the 2018 and 2022 Olympics were in Sweden or Finland or Canada, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  There wouldn't be any doubt the NHL players would be representing their national teams.  But they don't see the value of shutting down the season to go to Korea or China, although both represent a great opportunity to grow the game beyond the traditional European/North American hotbeds.

I don't think we've heard the last word about this, though.  Because there's one key group that hasn't been considered: the broadcasters.  NBC and CBC are the North American broadcasters that currently have Olympic rights.  They're also the primary networks for NHL coverage.  You think they have any interest in covering a hockey tournament that doesn't include NHL players?  Likewise, if the NHL players aren't at the Olympics, they're stuck in the awkward position of trying to work their regular NHL coverage around their Olympic coverage.  And what about Doc Emirck?  Do you have him cover a second-tier Olympic tournament and not do the NHL?  Or do you have him stick with his regular NHL gig and not have your best hockey play-by-play guy doing the Olympic hockey tournament?

Reaction to the NHL's participation in the Olympics has always been mixed.  From the media to the fans to the executives to the players themselves, some think it's a great idea and some have never been on board.  But everyone can agree that the quality of these tournaments has been first-rate.  And after having NHL-level hockey at the last five Olympics, they can't really go back.  Because it would be a very different tournament, and it might not be one worth watching.

Even the World Championships, which are always held during the Stanley Cup Playoffs and feature players whose teams either didn't make it or were already eliminated, are nowhere near the same quality as the Olympics.  The World Cup of Hockey returns this year for the first time since 2004, so we'll at least have something (although you can't really trust in the regularity of a tournament that had an eight-year gap between the first two editions and now 12 years between the second and third installments).

Both the NHL and NHLPA insist that the World Cup of Hockey isn't meant to "replace" the Olympics for the players.  I sure hope so.  For everyone's sake.  Because you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.  The NHL has proven that it can make it work.  They owe it to everybody to try and do it again.  That way we'll get the Olympic tournament we've come to expect.  And deserve.

What Would George Do?

Finally.  Finally somebody in the front office said something about the Yankees, who have been downright awful so far this season.  It was general manager Brian Cashman who called the players to task, saying in not so many words that if things didn't change soon, he'd have to change things for them.  He also indicated that owner Hal Steinbrenner is "not happy."  Of course, if Hal's father was still around, it wouldn't have taken this long.  There already would've been changes.

George Steinbrenner, of course, was notorious for his lack of patience whenever the Yankees struggled, especially when it came to his managers (as George Costanza put it, "He fires people like it's a bodily function!").  So, if The Boss was still alive and running things, Joe Girardi's job would likely be in jeopardy.  He might even have been let go already.  (George Steinbrenner did get softer in his later years and let both Joe Torre and Girardi ride out rough stretches

But Cashman gave no indication that Girardi's in any sort of trouble.  Rather, he put the onus on the players.  They're not performing up to their capabilities (and expectations), so it's on them to right the ship.  If not, the "changes" that have been promised will likely be players either being traded or released.

So, who are the biggest culprits?  Well, we've got to start with Chase Headley.  Yankees third basemen are the only position in baseball without an extra-base hit this season.  That's just difficult to even fathom.  Then there's Aaron Hicks.  I was so excited about that trade during the winter, and Hicks has been great defensively.  But he hasn't hit a lick.  His average was below .100 for a while.  I think it still is.  And Mark Teixeira has been victimized by the shift more times than I can count.

Girardi, in his frustration, has said that if he could change anything about baseball, he'd outlaw the shift.  The Yankees have been shifted against more than any other team in baseball...by a wide margin.  But that's the way the game is played now, and it doesn't look like opposing teams are going to stop shifting anytime soon.  So they'll have to figure out a way to beat the shift.  If not, we're gonna see a whole lot more of this.

The entire team hasn't hit all season.  The Yankees are last in the Majors in scoring.  They've scored more than three runs only six times all year (and in one of those games, they had a whopping four!), and three of those were in the first four games of the season.  Simply put, it's tough to win when you don't score.  And the only way this team ever seems to score is on solo home runs.  I love the home run as much as the next guy.  But it would be nice if they hit one with somebody on base once in a while.  Or, better yet, if they got a couple hits in a row and scored in another way.  Then maybe they'd score more than once an inning.  Or maybe even score in multiple innings.

There have been a couple "bright" spots, but they're few and far between.  Starlin Castro has been great.  That trade may end up being one of the best moves Cashman ever made.  He and Brett Gardner seem to be the only guys on the team on base with any sort of regularity.  And A-Rod has been hitting home runs.  Although, it looks like he might be headed to the DL.

It's not completely on the offense, either.  The pitchers do get somewhat of a break because when the offense is only scoring two runs a game, they have virtually no margin for error.  But that doesn't mean the pitching has been good.  Not by a long shot.  Masahiro Tanaka has been the only consistent starter.  Luis Severino has been so bad that they're talking about sending him down, Michael Pineda gives up a few too many long balls, and Nathan Eovaldi can't seem to get past that one bad inning.  Even Dellin Betances has been lit up this season.

This isn't the first time this has happened.  In 2005, they had a terrible April, then called up a rookie by the name of Robinson Cano in May.  They went on to win the division title.  In 2013, they got Alfonso Soriano at the trade deadline and he resuscitated a moribund Yankees offense for the final two months of that season.  Soriano didn't lift them into the playoffs, but the point remains.

Problem is, they don't have a Cano waiting at Triple-A.  Reinforcements are on the way in the form of Aroldis Chapman.  But there's only so much a short reliever can do.  Especially on a team that can't score any runs.  How many opportunities will Chapman have to actually affect the game when they never have the lead in the late innings?  A relief pitcher isn't going to help the offense, so something more drastic might be in order.  Like releasing Headley, trading Carlos Beltran for a third baseman, and bringing Nick Swisher (who's currently in Scranton) back to play right field.

One month does not make a season.  You can't win the division in April, and you can't lose it in April either.  The Blue Jays were 50-50 after 100 games last year and won the division going away (acquiring David Price at the trade deadline certainly helped).  Likewise, the Yankees had an unexpectedly good April three years ago, but didn't make the playoffs.

If the 2016 Yankees want to be anything like the 2015 Blue Jays, though, they have to go back to being the Bronx Bombers.  And soon.  Otherwise, this is going to be a long season.  It already has been.  And it's only May.