The Caster Semenya Rule

When Caster Semenya burst on the scene in 2009, no one quite knew what to make of her.  She came out of nowhere to completely dominate the 800 meters, winning the World Championship by more than two seconds and running times unheard of for an 18-year-old.

It was later revealed that Semenya has hyperandrogenism, a medical condition where she has excessive testosterone.  She was held out of competition for nearly a year while the IAAF tried to determine whether or not that testosterone level gives her an unfair advantage.  Semenya was eventually cleared a returned to the track in 2010.  She has since become one of the most dominant athletes in the world, winning Olympic gold in Rio and two medals (gold in the 800, bronze in the 1500) at last year's World Championships.  Earlier this month at the Commonwealth Games, Semenya won double gold in the 800 and 1500.

Her eligibility has been a subject of controversy ever since those 2009 Worlds.  The IAAF passed a rule in 2012 requiring female athletes with hyperandrogenism to take hormones limiting their amount of testosterone.  Semenya's times were greatly impacted by this new restriction.  She did win Olympic silver (since upgraded to gold) in London, but didn't even qualify for the 2013 World Championships.

This rule was in effect until 2015, when Indian sprinter Dutee Chand successfully appealed against it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.  The CAS ruled that the IAAF suspend its testosterone regulations for two years while encouraging them to use that time coming up with more conclusive evidence.  Once the regulations were lifted, Semenya went from dominant to unbeatable.

Meanwhile, the IAAF commissioned a study to prove why the regulations are necessary.  Their new evidence shows that, in certain events, testosterone levels really can affect performance (testosterone is, after all, the main reason why there are separate men's and women's classifications in the first place).  Backed with this new evidence, the IAAF recently released its revised regulations.

Under the new rules, which likely won't take effect until November (if at all), athletes must maintain testosterone levels no higher than 5 nanomoles per liter of blood (half the previous limit) if they want to compete against females in events ranging from the 400 meters to the mile (the events where increased testosterone gives you a greater advantage, according to the IAAF study).  Those athletes who choose not to lower their level will either have to switch events, compete against men or other intersex athletes, or be limited to competing on the national stage.

Some experts have predicted that this could result in Semenya's could go up as much as seven seconds under the new regulations.  She would no longer be a threat to challenge the world record of 1:53.28 that has stood for 35 years.  Instead, they think she would struggle to break 2:00 (the standard for world-class women's 800-meter runners).  The most common projection is that Semenya would go back to her 2010-15 level (when she never broke 1:56).

Predictably, the response to these new restrictions has been overwhelmingly negative.  The South African government has accused the IAAF of "blantant racism," and the ruling definitely does seem like it was aimed specifically at Semenya.  Chand has offered Semenya her legal team in an effort to fight, which is a virtual certainty.

The IAAF has been stuck in a no-win situation regarding Semenya for nearly a decade.  The women who compete against her think it's unfair and feel as if they have virtually no chance of winning if Semenya's in the race.  But Semenya has always identified as a woman and shouldn't be forced to compete against men just to make other people feel better, either.

I get the IAAF's intent, too.  They're trying to level the playing field.  And, this was a topic that was bound to come up eventually, so getting something on the books isn't a terrible idea.  Except they aren't going about it very well.  Because it certainly looks like Caster Semenya is being singled out.  If she weren't so dominant and she didn't look the way she does, this would be a non-issue.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's going to be any resolution anytime soon.  Semenya will likely make a legal challenge, and will likely keep winning while she does.  Just like she has for the past 10 years.  And, try as they might, it doesn't look like they'll be able to stop it.

One thing we do know for certain.  As long as she runs, Caster Semenya is going to be a source of controversy.  For one reason or another.  And that controversy likely won't ever go away.

All Divisions, No Divisions

The NHL got exactly what it wanted with the second round of this year's Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Each of the four second round series is a de facto division championship, which is what they were aiming for when they introduced this format.  A format that virtually everyone agrees is stupid, but the NHL is (stubbornly) in no hurry to change.

As a result of this idiotic format, we're going to see one of the top two teams in each conference eliminated in this round.  Why?  Because Tampa Bay and Boston, the two best teams in the East, are in the same division.  So are Nashville and Winnipeg, the two best teams in the West.  This is the third straight year in which this has happened, after Washington and Pittsburgh were in the same situation twice in a row.

There was an article on ESPN.com where an NHL executive was quoted as saying this is an "anomaly."  If it was once or twice, fine, you can chalk it up to an anomaly.  But three years in a row, with it affecting both conferences this year?  That's more than an anomaly!

Among the many problems with the NHL's division-based format that the league conveniently chooses to ignore is the fact that not all of the divisions are equal.  This is especially true in the East, where the Metropolitan is significantly stronger than the Atlantic.  We knew at the All-Star Break that Tampa Bay, Boston and Toronto were all going to make the playoffs because they were so far ahead of the other Atlantic teams.  Meanwhile, the Met was a dogfight until the end.  And, just to show the divisions' strength relative to each other, the last-place Rangers finished ahead of four Atlantic teams in the overall Eastern Conference standings.

It's even worse in the NHL.  Nashville and Winnipeg were the two best teams in hockey this season.  The Predators won the President's Trophy with 117 points.  The Jets had 114.  Sure, it's rare that the two best teams in the league play in the same division.  But it's also completely asinine that being in the same division trumps being the two best teams.  The two best teams should meet in the Conference Finals.  Not in the second round.

So many people hate this format, but the owners don't, so it's not a priority for them.  As a result, we're stuck with it for at least two more seasons.  But count the players among those who dislike the format.  The NHLPA would like to see it changed, and they're hoping they can get it to coincide with Seattle's entry into the league (whenever that may be).

Contrast that to the NBA, where they flat out ignore divisions when it comes to playoff seeding.  The top three seeds in the East this season are Toronto, Boston and Philadelphia, who all play in the Atlantic Division.  Miami, meanwhile, won the Southeast and was only No. 6.  I'm not sure if they actually implemented this rule or not, but I remember Adam Silver talking a year or so ago about not even guaranteeing division winners a playoff berth.

In the NBA, it's been this way in one shape or another for the last few years.  I think it was probably around 10 years ago when San Antonio and Dallas were both really good and they ended up playing in the second round because the Mavericks were the 4-seed since they didn't win the division.  The next year they changed the rule that division winners were only guaranteed a top four seed, but could be displaced by a second-place team with a better record.  Which I think is the format they used until the current one.

I'm not saying the NBA's format is perfect.  I didn't think they needed to get away from the old format, and I think there needs to be some sort of tangible benefit for winning your division (even if it's a crappy one).  In football, division winners get a home game.  In baseball, they avoid the one-game playoff.  In basketball, they get nothing.  That doesn't seem right.

Now, the set bracket and three-division set up are the real culprits in the NBA.  With six divisions, there's likely going to be a bad one, which means there's probably going to be a second-place finisher with a better record than a division winner.  So, I kinda get the NBA's thought process.  But I don't like the idea of winning your division being essentially meaningless.  There has to be some sort of compromise.  Maybe it's reseeding the way the NFL does and the way the NHL used to.

At least the NBA is proactive about "problems" with its playoff format, even if they are anomalies (which, in the NBA's case, I think they were).  And, this year, it worked out for them.  Because the three Atlantic Division teams that got the top three seeds all won their first-round series.  Whereas if they gave the division winners the 1-, 2- and 3-seeds, Boston-Philadelphia would've been in the first round instead of the second.

This year, the top two teams in the NBA's Eastern Conference happened to be the Raptors and Celtics, who both play in the same division.  To the league, that's important, so they figured out a way to have the two best teams avoid facing each other until the Conference Finals at the earliest.  If only the NHL could do the same...

Silent No More

I finally got a chance to watch the full Dateline NBC episode about the USA Gymnastics scandal.  I was shocked by what I heard, but I wasn't really surprised.  In fact, the interviews didn't reveal anything people didn't suspect already.  Which doesn't make what happened any less disturbing.

"How much did USA Gymnastics know?"  That's the question that has surrounded this entire disgusting affair.  Well, it seems to me that USA Gymnastics knew a lot.  And they did nothing about this toxic environment.  Their biggest concern wasn't stopping it.  It was keeping it quiet.  As a result, these victims were silenced for far too long.

USA Gymnastics deserves a good deal of the blame.  To call the federation "enablers" would be an understatement.  These young gymnasts were winning them medals, which was the only thing that seemed to matter.  And the athletes were really caught in a no-win situation.  Because if they talked, their chances of making the national team would be all but gone.  So they didn't have a choice other than to take it.

Whether the two are mutually exclusive is something that remains to be seen, and it will be a very interesting thing to watch as we reach the midpoint of the 2016-20 Olympic cycle.  The U.S. women have become the most dominant gymnastics team in the world.  All credit for that has to go to the athletes, especially since they were succeeding despite the conditions they had to deal with.  But with all the turmoil surrounding USA Gymnastics since Rio, you have to wonder whether that dominance will continue.

Part of the reason the U.S. women developed into a gymnastics power, of course, was the centralized National Team Training Center at the Karolyi Ranch outside Houston.  That's why the interview with Bela and Martha Karolyi was the one I really wanted to see.  Because, whether or not they were directly involved (which I highly doubt they were), it happened under their watch.  They shoulder a good portion of the blame for what happened, too.

The Karolyis definitely seemed to acknowledge their culpability, even if it was somewhat reluctantly.  They admitted to being demanding while denying some of the other allegations about the treatment of gymnasts at the ranch.  However, it also seems painfully clear that the atmosphere they created made it easier for a predator to get away with it.  And that might be the Karolyis' biggest fault in this whole sordid affair.

What's still unclear is the degree to which they knew what was going on in their midst.  Martha pointed out that her job was National Team Coordinator.  She was responsible for choosing the best gymnasts and preparing them for international events.  USA Gymnastics leased the property, and the USA Gymnastics employees present (which included the team doctors) didn't report to her.  But they were still the owners of the property, and they had to hear the grumblings.  Which is enough for guilt by association at the very least.

Are the Karolyis the Joe Paterno in this situation?  It's hard to say, but I don't think so.  It seems to me that they took the "ignorance is bliss" approach.  Was that the right thing to do?  Absolutely not.  But they weren't responsible for what happened, either.

Rather, I think the party most responsible for allowing what happened to continue for so long was USA Gymnastics.  There were complaints as far back as 2011, yet USA Gymnastics claimed it didn't learn of any accusations until nearly four years later, and the FBI wasn't contacted until after the 2016 Olympics.  Meanwhile, USA Gymnastics was trying to save face, keep the circle small, and keep it quiet.  And that behavior is simply inexcusable.

Not only are these gymnasts no longer being silenced, they're telling the whole story.  We're hearing every shocking detail and being left shaking our heads as to how this could happen.  To so many athletes.  For so long. 

They'll never get back what was taken from them.  But at least now they have a voice.  It's not much, but it's something.

Stanley Cup Playoffs, Second Round

Well, I've got to say, the first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs were a bit of a surprise.  They were a surprise in that there wasn't a single upset.  Seven of the eight teams with home ice ended up winning the series, with Tampa Bay, Winnipeg and Vegas doing so in dominant fashion.

It means we're in store for a pretty good second round, as well.  I'm not sure many people knew how good Winnipeg is.  But the Jets are the last Canadian team left standing, and they're going to give the Predators all they can handle.  The Golden Knights and Sharks both got sweeps in those Pacific Division series that I think we all expected to be more competitive.  Now they've both had a week off.  Meanwhile, you've got possibly the two best teams in the league facing off in Rangers South vs. Boston.  And, will this be the year Washington finally beats Pittsburgh?

Lightning vs. Bruins: This could be the series that determines who wins the Cup.  Because I really do think these are the two best teams.  Rangers South is a far superior team to the Devils, and they played like it.  They looked every bit like the Cup contenders in the first round.  But so did the Bruins.  Yes, they needed seven games in their Original Six matchup with Toronto.  But if their offense clicks the way it did in Games 2 and 7, they're going to be very tough to beat.

On paper Tampa Bay is the better team.  But for them to win, it's going to come down to defense.  That's the one area where they have the clear advantage.  If they end up in a shootout, though, the advantage swings Boston's way.  We've seen how deep the Bruins are offensively.  And when it comes to goaltending, I trust Tuukka Rask a little more than Andrei Vasilevskiy.  That's where I give the slight edge to Boston.  And that's why I think they win the series.  Bruins in six.

Capitals vs. Penguins: So they meet again.  For the third straight year, it's Washington-Pittsburgh in the second round.  The Penguins won each of the first two en route to hoisting the Cup.  This despite the Capitals having home ice each time.  Last year it went seven, when Pittsburgh won in a shutout.  In DC.  Although, the Penguins' goalie in that game is now playing in Las Vegas. 

All of this is really starting to wear on the Capitals.  Although, I think this year might actually be their chance to finally do it.  Why?  Because no one expects them to.  The Capitals felt the pressure of being the favorites and were burdened by it.  The cloud of getting Ovechkin past the second round lingered over them.  Pittsburgh felt no such pressure.  The Penguins just went out and played.  That's what the Capitals need to do.  Don't put pressure on yourselves.  Just go out and play.  And, until they beat the Penguins, Ovechkin will have to keep listening about his playoff failures.  For some reason, I have a hunch that stops.  It'll be a great series.  Will the outcome finally be different?  I think so.  Capitals in seven.

Predators vs. Jets: Nashville looked every bit the President's Trophy winners in that series against Colorado.  Yes, the Predators needed six games to get it done.  But that shutout in Denver to clinch it was vintage Preds.  Winnipeg, meanwhile, took it to a pretty good Minnesota team.  I don't think that says anything about the Wild.  It simply says how good the Jets are.  Patrick Laine is impossible to stop, and that arena full of white shirts is crazy intimidating.

We've got a sensational goalie matchup here.  Pekka Rinne vs. Connor Hellebuyk.  If one of them gets hot, it could be the difference in the series.  Either way, there's going to be at least one game that's decided by one of these guys standing on his head.  Especially in a one-goal game, of which I see a few.  The Jets are going to be tough to beat in Winnipeg.  The Predators are going to be tough to beat in Nashville.  It's a good thing for them that they've got home ice, then.  Because if this baby goes the distance, that catfish-throwing crowd will pull them through.  Predators in seven.

Golden Knights vs. Sharks: I was surprised by what happened in the two Pacific Division first round series.  Not that the Knights and Sharks won.  But by how much they dominated.  Vegas held the Kings to just three goals in four games, although I'm not sure how much of that was Fleury and how much of it was LA's anemic offense.  San Jose, meanwhile, looked like world beaters against the Ducks.  They dominated Anaheim (who, in fairness, only showed up for about four of the 12 periods played in the series) in every facet of the game and looked very much like the team that made the Final two years ago.

After those sweeps, they've both had plenty of time off, so they're well-rested to say the least.  Vegas has been on a magical ride all season, including a four-game sweep in its first-ever playoff series.  But these Sharks are a very different opponent than the Kings.  San Jose will give the Knights all they can handle and then some.  Vegas won three of the four regular season contests, but two games went to overtime and three were decided by one goal.  So, basically, there's not much difference between the two.  Except for playoff experience.  Which the Sharks have.  I don't know why, but I think the run ends here.  The Knights hit on 15 and bust.  Sharks in six.

For the first time in a long time, every team remaining in the second round has a legitimate Cup case to make.  This won't be like the first round.  No one's overmatched here.  Both Eastern Conference series could easily go either way.  And I wouldn't be surprised at all to see either Winnipeg or Vegas in the West Final.

What I do know is that we've got four good series on our hands.  And all four of them look like they'll be close.  Because there isn't much separating these eight teams.  That's why they're the only ones left.

What's Up With the Bullpen

We're just about a month into the baseball season, and the Yankees haven't quite been the juggernaut that people were predicting.  At least not yet.  The season is six months long, so let's not make too much about what we've seen in April, especially since they haven't really been at full strength for much of the opening month.

There are definitely some areas of concern, though.  And those concerns will only grow if they aren't addressed.  Giancarlo Stanton's going to start hitting.  I have no doubt about that.  Once he gets used to the American League, he'll be back to the home run-bashing monster the Yankees traded for.

The more immediate concern, however, is the bullpen.  It's rightfully touted as one of the best in baseball and is considered by many to be the strength of the team.  The theory goes that the Yankee starters just have to be good enough, then they can turn it over to the bullpen.  Well, it hasn't quite worked out that way so far this season.

In fact, it's been the opposite.  The bullpen has blown a number of leads (or made things worse in games they were already trailing) and has one of the highest bullpen ERAs in baseball.  Meanwhile, outside of a few clunkers by Masahiro Tanaka and Sonny Gray, the starters have been pretty good.

Aroldis Chapman has three saves all season.  Not because he's blown any.  Because he hasn't had any opportunities.  They either win big or lose.  It's gotten to the point where Chapman pitches in non-save situations just to get work.  And we've all seen how it goes when closers pitch in non-save situations.  It's not just him.  It's all closers.

And, if you look at the numbers, Chapman's actually been pretty good this season.  He has two strikeouts per inning, is perfect in save chances (although, as I mentioned, he's only had three) and has given up just two runs and four hits.  Likewise, Chad Green picked up right where he left off last season, and Chasen Shreve has been quietly dominant.  If you throw out one really bad inning in Toronto, David Robertson has been pretty solid, too.

So who have the biggest culprits been then?  Well, Dellin Betances for one.  He was an All*Star in each of his first four full seasons, but really struggled with his command at the end of the season last year.  Those struggles have continued in 2018.  In 8.2 innings, he has a 6.23 ERA and opponents are hitting .314 off him.  Then there's Tommy Kahnle.  His batting average against is just .154, but he's issued eight walks in 7.1 innings, which has resulted in a 6.14 ERA.

Kahnle was recently placed on the DL with right shoulder tendinitis, so maybe that's what his problem's been.  Adam Warren is also currently on the DL.  He has a 3.24 ERA and opponents are hitting .294 off him in eight appearances.  Warren actually got hurt during the first series in Toronto and tried to pitch through it before being put on the DL, so it's actually not a stretch to think his problems have been physical.  But injuries can't be used to explain the plight of the entire bullpen.

My theory is something much more simple.  I think the bullpen's been overused.  Plain as that.  You can't really blame Aaron Boone for it, either.  He has all these people in his ear telling him how great his relievers are and how the starters (outside Severino) are terrible.  (By the way, I don't think the rotation is that bad, but that's a point for another day.)  This reputation is warranted, but it's given Boone an itchy trigger finger in much the same way his predecessor, Joe Girardi, had one.

Even though they won't admit it, overuse definitely affects the efficiency of relievers.  Chapman was ineffective at the beginning of last season, mainly because he pitched into November with the Cubs in 2016.  Meanwhile, in that crazy Game 5 of last year's World Series, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts used Brandon Morrow for the third day in a row after saying he wouldn't.  Morrow pitched to four batters.  Home run, single, double, home run, with a wild pitch thrown in.  Doesn't take a genius to realize using him three days in a row might not've been the best plan.

I'd also like to see the Yankees show a little more faith in their starters.  The bullpen bailed Severio out in the Wild Card Game last season.  But he's emerged as not just the Yankees' ace.  He's one of the top starting pitchers in the American League.  Don't take him out after six just because.  If he can go deeper, have him go seven.  Or eight.  Or even nine.  There's no rule that says starting pitchers can only pitch six innings. 

Same thing with CC.  He's allowed to pitch more than five innings.  And just because Montgomery's the No. 5 starter doesn't mean you're better off with a reliever in the game instead of him in the middle innings.

Will this all balance itself out as the season goes on?  Probably.  Is the bullpen still one of the strengths of the team?  Certainly.  But if looking for somewhere to place the blame for the Yankees' middling start, look no further than the bullpen.

Glancing at the 2018 Schedule

I wish the NFL would be a little more deliberate when it came to the schedule release date.  For a league that's so regimented and so strict when it comes to scheduling, you'd think we'd have more other than "sometime in April" for the day the schedule's released.  Especially because so many people look forward to it each year.

This year, the schedule arrived on Thursday.  And, as usual, it was dissected backwards and forwards.  Even though we've known everyone's opponents since January (we also already know 14 of each team's 16 games for the 2019 season, by the way), we didn't know when they'd be or what the prime time schedules would look like.  Now we do.

While it seems kinda silly that people get this excited about the schedule coming out, it makes sense, too.  The NFL is THAT big, and the schedule release is that first real sign for many people that football season is coming.  Pretty soon, it'll be the Draft, then mini camp, then training camp, then the Hall of Fame induction, then the preseason, then, before you know it, the season's here.

Speaking of the season, let's take a look at some of the highlights, as the NFL embarks on its 99th campaign:

Week 1: Falcons at Eagles-No surprise that they chose Atlanta as Philly's opponent for the opener.  Of all the teams visiting the Eagles this season, the Falcons seemed like the most logical option.  Rams at Raiders-Jon Gruden's two worlds collide, as his return to coaching is on Monday night.  I love it when the NFL has a sense of humor about things.  Bears at Packers-Interesting choice for the opening Sunday night game.  Yes, it's a big rivalry, and yes, the Packers are a national brand.  But the Bears suck.  And I thought it was an NFL rule that Giants at Cowboys was the Sunday night opener.

Week 2: Giants at Cowboys-Instead, it'll be in Week 2.  Would've been even more fun if the Giants had any interest in signing Dez, but it doesn't look like that's happening.  Patriots at Jaguars-An early AFC Championship Game rematch, as we find out whether the Jaguars are for real or 2017 was a fluke.  Seahawks at Bears-Two prime time games for the Bears in the first two weeks of the season?  Why?  Did I miss something?

Week 3: Chargers at Rams-The first "Battle of Los Angeles" (not to be confused with the terrible movie "Battle: Los Angeles") comes in Week 3.  More importantly, it's the first matchup between Phillip Rivers and Jared Goff.  Titans at Jaguars-Last year's surprise playoff teams from the AFC South meet for the first time in 2018.  Tennessee won both games last season, but Jacksonville won the division.  Patriots at Lions-A little surprising that they didn't put this one on Thanksgiving (when, once again, we get the Chicago Bears for some reason).  Also a little surprising they put it on a Sunday night.  I'm assuming that's because of the Brady vs. Stafford matchup.

Week 4: Vikings at Rams-FOX's first Thursday night game is actually a pretty good one between two division winners from last season.  Jets at Jaguars/Saints at Giants-It's been a few years, and I still don't understand this whole "cross-flexing" thing.  Why is Jets-Jaguars on FOX and Saints-Giants on CBS?  Better question: Why are the Giants in the national window when they were 3-13 last season?

Week 5: Vikings at Eagles-This was basically the only other option for the season opener, the NFC title game rematch.  Of course, the Vikings' QB is now Kirk Cousins, who knows the Eagles pretty well from his time with the Redskins.  Rams at Seahawks-Until last season, the NFC West was Seattle's domain.  Then the new kids on the block came and seized control of the division.  This is their first matchup of 2018.  Who'll have the edge?  Cowboys at Texans-It's a Texas-sized showdown on Sunday night!  It'll be even better if the Texans are at full strength (meaning DeShaun Watson and J.J. Watt).

Week 6: Seahawks vs. Raiders-London Game No. 1 is the first at Olympic Stadium.  And, for a change, London has three good games this year.  Chiefs at Patriots-Kansas City is the one team that has New England's number.  They blew them out on a Monday night two years ago.  They blew them out on the opening Thursday night last season.  What will happen on a Sunday night?

Week 7: Titans vs. Chargers-Tennessee and the Chargers play the first of back-to-back games at Wembley Stadium.  Like I said, London's got three good games this year.  Cowboys at Redskins-If Dez signs with Washington (which is what I'm assuming), he'll be out for blood in his first game against his former team.  His return to Dallas would be on Thanksgiving.  Rams at 49ers-Remember in the 80s and early 90s when this was one of the best rivalries in football?  We aren't back to that point yet, but at least the Rams are back where they belong in LA.

Week 8: Eagles vs. Jaguars-When they set it for London, they had no idea they'd come within one game of it being a Super Bowl rematch.  My only issue is that it's an NFL Network exclusive, which makes this the best NFL Network game of the season.  Packers at Rams-This has the potential to be just as entertaining as Philly-Jacksonville.  And it's Rodgers vs. Goff!  Saints at Vikings-We all remember what happened the last time these two met.  So, of course, the NFL made the rematch the Sunday night game opposite the World Series.

Week 9: Raiders at 49ers-The Bay Area Battle is on Thursday night, and it's one of the better Thursday night matchups of the season.  These two don't play in the preseason, either, which adds another layer of intrigue.  Rams at Saints-These two both entertained us last season.  I don't see this game being any different.  Not with these two offenses!  Packers at Patriots-Rodgers vs. Brady!  Somehow they've only gone head-to-head once (even though the Packers play the Patriots once every four years).  This was a no-brainer for a Sunday night.

Week 10: Panthers at Steelers-FOX's Thursday night games are much different than the selection CBS and NBC had.  For example, they get an intriguing interconference matchup between two really good teams.  Ordinarily, we'd see a game like this on Sunday night.  Cowboys at Eagles-As we all know, the NFL likes to put NFC East games on Sunday night.  We probably would've gotten this one on a Sunday night anyway.  But now you throw in the fact the Eagles are the defending Super Bowl champions, and it becomes even more fun.

Week 11: Packers at Seahawks-Another fun one on Thursday night!  This was a Week 1/playoff showdown how many years in a row?  Last season, they both missed the playoffs.  That'll add another layer to one of the best matchups the NFL can give us.  Eagles at Saints-Philadelphia and New Orleans possess two of the best offenses in the game.  On the turf of the Superdome, there should be plenty of points.  Steelers at Jaguars-Oh, that NFL sense of humor strikes again.  Someone forgot to tell the Jaguars it was supposed to be a Patriots-Steelers AFC Championship Game rematch last season.  America gets to see them go at it on a Sunday night.

Week 12: Bears at Lions/Redskins at Cowboys/Falcons at Saints: Once again, the AFC is shut out of Thanksgiving.  What did they do to piss the NFL off?  Instead we get the Bears (again, why?).  Redskins-Cowboys is a Thanksgiving staple, and Falcons-Saints is a fun one for the night game, which usually features division matchups.  Packers at Vikings-Like the NFC East games, Green Bay-Minnesota is an annual Sunday night matchup.  This one is Green Bay's four road game in five weeks, and it sets up for quite a stretch run.

Week 13: Chiefs at Raiders-When they both became good again, the Kansas City-Oakland rivalry was already rekindled.  Now you throw Jon Gruden back into the mix!  Yes, please!  Vikings at Patriots-We came thisclose to Minnesota-New England being our Super Bowl matchup last season.  Instead of being a Super Bowl rematch, this is just a showdown of two of the league's best.  49ers at Seahawks-Richard Sherman returns to Seattle.  Need I say more?  This game was tailor-made for Sunday night.

Week 14: Patriots at Dolphins-As usual, there are a ton of division games to start December.  But New England-Miami is one of the most appealing.  The Patriots have lost in Miami in each of the last two years.  Falcons at Packers-Atlanta beat the Packers in the 2016 NFC Championship Game and again in Week 2 last season.  This one, though, is in Green Bay in December.  Steelers at Raiders-Pittsburgh has to make a cross-country trip for a Sunday night game.  That's gonna be tough.  Especially since the Steelers usually lose on the West Coast anyway.

Week 15: Patriots at Steelers-We should be thankful for what happened between these two in Week 15 last season.  It got them to finally rewrite the catch rule.  Thanks to the Jaguars, this will be their first meeting since.  Eagles at Rams-It was probably the most entertaining regular season game last year.  But it was also the game where Carson Wentz got hurt (not that it ended up mattering that much).  What will the 2018 meeting have in store?  Saints at Panthers-The NFC South doesn't get enough credit for how competitive its division games are.  But let's not forget, they put three teams in the playoffs last year.  Including these two.

Week 16: There will be two Saturday games.  We just don't know what they are.  Another new NFL scheduling quirk that makes no sense!  Just pick a day and go with it!  Steelers at Saints-We know when this one will be.  It'll be the national late game on CBS.  Pittsburgh does not have the easiest December schedule.  Broncos at Raiders-Christmas is a Tuesday, which means the final Monday night game is on Christmas Eve.  And the Monday night season ends the same way it begins.  At the Oakland Coliseum.  Makes sense, seeing as it was the Monday night game on Christmas last year that got Gruden's return to the Raiders in motion.

Week 17: For the ninth consecutive year, it's all division games in Week 17.  And I'm sure there will be a Sunday night game this time after not having one last year (because they didn't want to have one on New Year's Eve).  Obviously, we have no idea which game they'll end up choosing for Sunday night, but I'm going to install Eagles at Redskins, Lions at Packers and Raiders at Chiefs as the early favorites.

Mother Nature's Fury

Mother Nature is notoriously fickle.  Early season baseball is especially susceptible to weather.  But this year has been worse than ever.  Winter's refusal to end has wreaked havoc on several teams' schedules.  It's a good thing that this is the first season with those extra off days.  Because they've needed them.

Some "highlights":

• The final three games of a four-game weekend set between the White Sox and Twins were postponed because of a blizzard in the Twin Cities
• The Cubs' home opener was snowed out...on a day when the White Sox were able to play their scheduled home game that night!
• The Tigers and Pirates were postponed on Opening Day, played the next day, were postponed again, and had to play their second and third games of the season as part of a doubleheader
• Even the Blue Jays, who play in a dome, had to postpone a home game because ice was falling off the CN Tower

Detroit has already had six home games postponed due to weather.  Minnesota has had four home games wiped out and went five days without playing from April 12-17, enough of a break to have the same starter pitch consecutive games (on regular rest!) had they so desired.

We're less than three weeks into the season, and there have already been 24 weather-related postponements.  There were six! on Sunday alone, including both ends of a Yankees-Tigers doubleheader, and three more on Monday.  The number of times this season in which all 30 teams have actually all played on the same day?  A grand total of three!

Of course, the ridiculously relentless winter in the Midwest and Northeast is to blame for most of this (it hasn't all been snow...there's been plenty of rain, too).  And, yes, this is abnormal.  The weather in April isn't usually this bad, and certainly not this late in the month.  And even when teams in the Northeast and Midwest have been able to play, it hasn't exactly been "comfortable."  But that's not really the issue.  That's what fans have come to expect in April and October.  The rash of postponements, though?  That's something different entirely.

This has led to the latest calls for everyone's favorite suggestion--shortening the season.  Today's USA Today had the most recent argument advocating the shorter season, citing not just this miserable April, but also the rain in Cleveland during the World Series two years ago.  They aren't just calling for 154 games, either.  They want to start later, end earlier, and chop 20 games off the season.  That's right.  142 games!

Now, this is ridiculous, unnecessary and never going to happen, so it's not even worth wasting our time discussing it.  And, while the weather in April is never great, this year has been an anomaly.  We could just as easily make it through April with just a handful of rainouts next season.  Let's not forget, either, that extreme weather isn't limited to early season games.  Both the Astros and Rays had home series relocated last season because of hurricanes--and that was in September!

Although, there is something that can be done about the schedule that has been brought to light by this rash of weather-related postponements.  It's a simple solution, really.  Front-load the schedule with division games.  This way, if you have games postponed, they're much easier to reschedule.  You can play a day-night doubleheader during one of the other series or, if you have an off day before or after, extend it by a day.

Teams visit each of their division opponents three times a season.  Non-division teams only visit once.  So, if a game gets postponed, the only options are to try and get in a doubleheader (which may be questionable if the weather won't cooperate) or find a mutual off day that works.  Or, in the case of the Yankees and Tigers, who had both ends of a doubleheader rained out on Sunday, playing that doubleheader on said mutual off day.

It's impossible for MLB to schedule only division games on a given day.  When everybody plays, there has to be at least three series that aren't, and one of those has to be interleague.  That's fine.  But you don't make the interleague series Pittsburgh at Detroit.  You make it Colorado at Houston.  And you don't have the Mariners' only visit to Minnesota in April.  You have it in July.

For teams like the Tigers and the Twins and Indians, they only get division home games in April.  For the interdivision and interleague games, use your domes.  Put them in Toronto or Milwaukee or Miami.  Or, better yet, in LA or Miami.  Save the non-division games for outdoor stadiums in cold-weather cities until later in the season.

Rain outs are something all baseball teams have to deal with over the course of the season.  You're not going to play a game on 162 days in 20 cities over the course of six months without it raining somewhere during that time.  And, when you only get 20 days off during that span, you'll want to do everything you can to preserve them.  So the schedule-makers could help out a little.  Make it easier to make up April postponements.  Make them division games.

The End of the Commonwealth Games?

The 2018 Commonwealth Games just concluded in Gold Coast, Australia.  I have two questions for all of you.  1. Did you even know the Commonwealth Games were going on?  2. If you did, did you care?

Now, I'm not saying I blame anyone for letting the Commonwealth Games get lost in the shuffle.  For starters, the United States isn't a part of the Commonwealth, which limits American interest already.  Then you throw in the fact that they were in Australia, leading to middle-of-the-night start times, further cuts into your potential American audience.  They did show more broadcast coverage of the Commonwealth Games in this country than ever before...but it was all on ESPN3, so you had to go online and physically seek it out if you wanted to watch anything.

Personally, I think the mid-April thing is the main reason why this edition of the Commonwealth Games didn't get quite the buzz.  Even in the Commonwealth nations, there's a lot going on at this time of year.  The Premier League and Champions League are both nearing the end of the season, so "football" has England's attention.  Canada, meanwhile, is preoccupied with the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  And, it's not exactly the heart of summer sports season yet, anyway.

Contrast that to the last edition of the Commonwealth Games in 2014.  Four years ago, the Commonwealth Games were held in Glasgow and took place in late July, when there's nothing else going on and following the Commonwealth Games, even if your interest was limited, was much easier. 

But Australia has opposite seasons and the Commonwealth Games doesn't have the same restrictions with regard to when they can take place as the IOC does.  As a result, we get a Commonwealth Games scheduled at a time that's really only convenient for Australia.  This actually happens pretty frequently with the Commonwealth Games, which only ever actually take place in the Northern Hemisphere's summer when they're in Great Britain (which competes as four separate teams) or Canada.  Like they will be in 2022, when Birmingham (not the Birmingham that's hosting the 2021 World Games) hosts.

Evidently interest in this year's Commonwealth Games was even limited in the Commonwealth countries themselves.  The reasons that I already listed probably came into play, but they can't be the only factors.  The lack of competition within the Commonwealth certainly has to be one, too.  Sure, you've got Australia and New Zealand and Canada and separate teams from the four Home Nations.  But that's really about it.  The other Commonwealth nations are smaller teams from the former British territories (and some leave you wondering how they're a part of the Commonwealth at all). 

Even for the athletes, the importance of the Commonwealth Games is somewhat limited.  For some, they're a very big deal and they make it a priority to be considered Commonwealth champion.  But they're not the World Championships or Olympics (or even the European Championships), and the top athletes, understandably, will focus their efforts on those larger, more competitive events.  Laura Muir, the star British (or, I should say, Scottish) miler, meanwhile, opted not to travel to Australia for the Commonwealth Games because of her school schedule.

All of this had even experts wondering if the Commonwealth Games are even worth it anymore.  When they started in 1930, they were known as the "British Empire Games."  The name has evolved over the years before settling on "Commonwealth Games" in 1978.  But the critics have pointed out how the Commonwealth Games are one of the last vestiges of the days of British Imperialism and wonder how relevant they are in this day and age.

I'm not willing to go quite that far.  I do think there is some value in the Commonwealth Games, just like there's value in the Pan American Games and the other second-tier events.  For many of the athletes, the Commonwealth Games is the highest level of international competition they can strive for, which is reason alone for them to continue.  Likewise, the Commonwealth Games features sports like lawn bowls and netball that aren't included in other multi-sport festivals, so this is literally the most prestigious international event for athletes in those sports.

However, the biggest problem that the Commonwealth Games are facing right now is the same one as the Olympics.  No one wants to host them!  Counting Birmingham 2022, five of the last six Commonwealth Games have been in either Great Britain (two England, one Scotland) or Australia (twice).  And Edmonton is the favorite for 2026 (a year in which Calgary is bidding for the Olympics and Canada will probably host 10 World Cup games).

That's the real issue facing the Commonwealth Games moving forward.  They can't just keep going back and forth between Great Britain and Australia.  A total of 71 teams competed at the edition that just ended.  But many of those teams don't have the resources to host. 

They have to figure out a way for that to change.  Otherwise, we could very well see the Commonwealth Games come to an end.  The 2022 Games are in Birmingham because they were taken away from Durban after the South African city defaulted on some of its Games-related payments.  Fortunately, Birmingham was there to bail them out.  But that won't always be the case.  And that could be what kills the Commonwealth Games after nearly a century.  Which would be an incredible shame.

Figuring Out a 32-Team NHL

When Seattle is approved as the NHL's 32nd franchise, realignment will be necessary.  The division missing a team is the Central, but Seattle won't go there.  Not when Vancouver is in the Pacific.  Obviously, what makes the most sense is to move Arizona to the Central Division, which is likely what they'll do. 

Although, the addition of a 32nd team would give the NHL ample opportunity to realign beyond that.  Instead of the difficult-to-manage eight-team divisions, why not break them in half and have eight divisions of four?  Which, frankly, would be pretty easy to do.  (Although, yes, that would screw up the All-Star Game.)

Let's start with the division that put all of its teams in the playoffs.  The all-Pacific Division side of the playoff bracket was part of the inspiration for this post, and a division of Vegas and the three California teams makes complete sense.  As would taking the other half of the Pacific Division--Seattle and the three teams in Western Canada.  And, as it turns out, this is the only division I'm creating that doesn't have a team currently in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Calgary had the best record of the three, so I guess that means they'd be in and Colorado would be out.

Speaking of Colorado, that's where things get a little tricky.  They'd obviously be with Dallas and Arizona, but the fourth team in that division is tough.  Because you're putting Chicago, Minnesota and Winnipeg together, which leaves St. Louis and Nashville.  St. Louis is closer geographically to that group, but the NHL would likely want to keep the Blackhawks and Blues together.  So, the Predators end up getting stuck with the extra travel.

There's a similar problem in the East.  Boston and the three Canadian teams is easy, and the three New York teams obviously have to be together.  But there doesn't seem to be a way to avoid splitting up the Flyers and Penguins, which the NHL would obviously prefer to avoid.  However, you'd almost have to for these divisions to work.  So, the Flyers go with the Rangers, Devils and Islanders, while the Penguins get division opponents similar to what the Steelers have in the AFC West--Detroit, Columbus and Buffalo.  All of those cities, by the way, are closer to Pittsburgh than New York.

The remaining division is an old one that used to make sense before its teams were separated in the 2013 realignment.  You no longer have the two Florida teams in the same division as the three Canadian teams, which makes about as much sense as the pre-Vegas 16-14 conference breakdown.  So, I'm reuniting the old Southeast Division (minus Winnipeg, of course).

Here's what my division breakdown would look like:

EAST
Northeast: Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
Atlantic: New Jersey, Islanders, Rangers, Philadelphia
Metropolitan: Buffalo, Columbus, Detroit, Pittsburgh
Southeast: Carolina, Florida, Tampa Bay, Washington

WEST
Central: Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, Winnipeg
Southwest: Arizona, Colorado, Dallas, Nashville
Northwest: Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Vancouver
Pacific: Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Vegas

Really the other thing that got me thinking about this was the schedule.  Right now, Eastern Conference teams play their division four times, the other division three times and the West twice.  Adding two games against Seattle means you'd have to take away two games somewhere else, making the schedule imbalanced (I'm assuming going to an 84-game schedule would be off the table).

Under this format, though, they'd be able to easily keep it at 82 and also keep it somewhat balanced.  Interconference would remain at one home one away against everybody for a total of 32 games.  Likewise, the interdivision games would stay at three (with the extra home game alternating each season).  That's 36 games, bringing us to 68.  So, we've got 14 games left, which means you'd play two of your division teams five times and the other four.  The rotation would be set up so that you play seven home games against each of the other three over a three-year period.

This is how the schedule breaks down:

Division: 5 games vs. 2 teams, 4 games vs. 1 team (14 total)
Conference: 3 games vs. 12 teams (36 games/50 total)
Interconference: 2 games vs. 16 teams (32 games/82 total)

Now, here's the best part of my plan.  I'm revamping the Stanley Cup Playoffs, which I think everyone can agree are in need of an overhaul (seriously, it's not that hard, you just seed the non-division winners 3-8!).  Basically, I'm going back to the old way.  Division winners are seeded 1-4, with four additional teams from each conference qualifying, regardless of division. 

And, if a division winner happens to have fewer points than their first-round opponent, they don't get home ice!  It wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would help.  With the reseeding still in effect, it would still be possible for the best and second-best teams to end up meeting in the second round (the second-best team would either be seeded 2 or 5), but you wouldn't have first-round series between No. 6 and No. 7, so that's the trade-off.

Is this something that seems at all likely?  Of course not!  When Seattle joins the league, the NHL will just make the slight adjustment of adding a team to the Central (again, likely Arizona, which could be in Houston by then anyway). 

Frankly, as long as the Stanley Cup Playoffs are fixed, it really doesn't make any difference to me how they do the divisions.  But the additional team would give them the perfect opportunity to do that and realign at the same time.  So why can't we have both?

Active Future Hall of Famers

I saw an article on ESPN.com the other day predicting the active players in MLB who'll eventually be elected to the Hall of Fame.  That article listed 30 current players who made the cut (at least according to the author), basing that number on the average number of current Hall of Famers active in any one year throughout history (obviously the numbers for the late 90s and early 2000s will get higher as more guys from that era become eligible).

Some of ESPN's selections were obvious.  Others were well on their way, but haven't played the minimum 10 years yet.  Still others were based on speculation, assuming they'll keep up their current pace.  And there were some reaches, too.  Guys who I'd put in the Tommy John/Dale Murphy/Don Mattingly category.  Very good, but not necessarily Hall of Fame-caliber.

For the most part, I agreed with the top guys, even though I disagree that Yadier Molina is "borderline" (he'd get my vote every time until he was elected).  In fact, I've got Yadi in my Top 10.  There are probably five active players (three of whom play in the AL West) who could retire tomorrow and be Hall of Fame locks and several more who may not be first ballot, but will likely get in eventually.

Everyone obviously judges Hall of Fame criteria beyond the obvious Albert Pujolses and Ichiros differently, which is why it's rare to find two Hall of Fame ballots that are the same.  But, using that same 10-vote maximum that Hall of Fame voters are held to every year, these are the active players that I would vote into the Hall of Fame if they never played another game:

Albert Pujols, Ichiro Suzuki, Miguel Cabrera, Adrian Beltre, Clayton Kershaw, Yadier Molina, Justin Verlander, Madison Bumgarner, Felix Hernandez, Max Scherzer

That got me thinking who in the other sports is a sure-fire future Hall of Famer.  Some are ridiculously easy.  In fact, we're seeing all-time greats in LeBron James, Sidney Crosby and Tom Brady.  But I think it's the same case in football, basketball and hockey, as it is in baseball.  Once you get past the obvious few, filling out the top 10 is definitely up for debate.

But I'm gonna give it a shot.  Here's what I've got for football, which no longer includes the now-retired Joe Thomas:

Tom Brady, Larry Fitzgerald, Jason Witten, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, J.J. Watt, Von Miller, Julius Peppers, Drew Brees, Adam Vinatieri

Hockey's perhaps the easiest one.  The NHL kinda did it for us, naming a bunch of active players to the NHL 100 All-time Team (although I'm still not really sure Duncan Keith belonged on there).  Actually, with hockey, narrowing it down to 10 is the tricky part.  (Jaromir Jagr not currently being in the league did open up a spot, though):

Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews, Evgeni Malkin, Duncan Keith, Henrik Lundqvist, Zdeno Chara, Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau

Lastly, we've got the NBA, which actually does consist of some players not named Steph or LeBron.  Finding 10 who are Hall of Fame caliber is somewhat difficult, though.  Because the difference between the haves and the have-nots in the NBA is so vast.  But, here it goes, starting with the greatest player of his generation:

LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Stephen Curry, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Dirk Nowitzki, Carmelo Anthony, Vince Carter (who apparently is still active), Pau Gasol. Tony Parker

Like I said, some are more obvious than others.  But don't be surprised to see all 40 of these guys end up in their respective Halls of Fame after they retire, as well as a whole host of other active players.

2018 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Once again, this year exposes the flaws of the current Stanley Cup playoff format.  Everyone knows the current format is dumb, including a bunch of people associated with the NHL, yet no one seems to care enough to change it.  As a result, we'll have a first round series between the second- and fourth-best teams in the East, with the No. 1 seed awaiting the winner.  Meanwhile, No. 5 plays No. 6, with one guaranteed to advance.

Out West, it's not nearly as bad.  Although, Nashville and Winnipeg are the top two teams, so we could end up with the same situation in both conferences...where the two best teams end up playing in the conference semifinals.  I have a feeling this issue is going to keep creeping up every year until the NHL finally does something about it.

I also have no idea why they're showing some of the first round games on Golf Channel, which does seem like an odd selection.  Although, as people asked me about it and I got a chance to think about it, it's not totally crazy.  Golf Channel has a higher distribution than NHL Network, and they needed an overflow channel, which is probably why they wanted to keep NHL Network free.

It obviously shows the pecking order of first round series, too, that the Lightning-Devils and Ducks-Sharks series are the ones that will be moving around.  It doesn't really surprise me, either.  Penguins-Flyers and Bruins-Leafs are obviously the two marquee series, and Knights-Kings is going to be a whole lot of fun.  And, since that series will be entirely on the west coast, you pretty much knew every game would be on NBCSN.

OK, time for the predictions.  Pittsburgh is the two-time defending champions and will certainly be a tough out.  The Penguins aren't the best team in the East, though.  That's a toss up between Rangers South and Boston.  And, the pressure's finally off Washington.  Which might mean this is the year they finally get by Pittsburgh and reach the Conference Final.

The Predators, meanwhile, might've won the President's Trophy, but they know their road back to the Stanley Cup Final is full of potential pitfalls.  And if anybody knows about winning on the road in the playoffs, it's them.  They were the No. 16 seed of the 16 playoff teams last season and made it all the way to Game 6 of the final despite never having home ice.

As for everybody's favorite expansion team, I don't think we can call them that anymore.  Vegas is a playoff team.  And as great as their regular season was, playoff hockey's an entirely different animal.  They might've won the Pacific going away (and will face a division opponent in each of the first two rounds), but it's a lot to ask to think they'll advance through three rounds of playoffs.  Although, none of us thought they'd be a playoff team, so...

Heading back to the East, Rangers South vs. Devils is probably the most one-sided series of the eight.  Tampa Bay is simply much too strong.  The Devils might get one game, but they're not getting four.  Lightning in five.  The Original Six matchup between Boston and Toronto, meanwhile is arguably the best first-round series.  The last time they met in the playoffs, the Bruins had that crazy Game 7 comeback to win the series and eventually get all the way to the Final.  If this year's series is half as good, we're in for a treat.  Give the Leafs another year and they'll be really good.  But for now, I'm taking Boston.  Bruins in seven.

Washington's never had an issue with the first round.  It's the second round that's the problem.  I don't think that'll be any different this season against Columbus.  While those Metropolitan teams were battling for the wild card spots, Washington was cruising to another division title.  That rest will prove to be a big difference.  As will the fact that the Capitals are the better team.  Capitals in six.  And how about those Philadelphia Flyers?  They needed to beat the Rangers on the last day to get in, and they not only did it, they ended up third in the division, which is both good and bad.  They don't have to leave Pennsylvania, but they have to play the Penguins.  Pittsburgh's a much better matchup for Philly than either Tampa Bay or Washington would've been, though.  I'll take the Penguins, but it'll be a grind.  Penguins in six.

Nashville had the type of regular season in 2017-18 that many expected out of them in 2016-17.  Can the Predators keep it going in the playoffs?  A first-round matchup against the Avalanche should provide them with a good warm-up for the intensity of the next two rounds (just to get back to the Final).  Predators in five.  Minnesota-Winnipeg isn't receiving nearly as much fanfare as it should.  But this Border Battle features two really strong teams who are both outside Cup contenders.  The Jets might be the most unheralded good team in hockey.  Except they're inexperienced at this level.  Minnesota, on the other hand, is in the playoffs for the sixth straight season and looking to get out of the first round for the first time since 2015.  I see a lot of overtimes in this series, including in the Game 6 clincher.  Wild in six.

In the Pacific Division, we've got Vegas vs. LA in the Golden Knights' maiden playoff voyage.  The Kings are like the hockey version of the San Francisco Giants.  They either miss the playoffs entirely or make a deep run (including a pair of Cups).  Don't be surprised to see the Kings take this one the distance.  But I do think Vegas will keep this wild ride going for at least one more round.  Golden Knights in seven.  Anaheim had its five-year run of division titles snapped by the Golden Knights.  Which could end up being a blessing in disguise for the Ducks, who have a terrible habit of losing Game 7's.  Of course, they have to with San Jose first.  The Sharks aren't as good as their Western Conference championship team of two years ago, but they'll give the Ducks all they can handle.  Ducks in six.

Even though I think Tampa Bay is the best team, my pick for who'll end up playing for Lord Stanley's Cup is Bruins vs. Predators.  And I've got Boston lifting the hardware after the two long, grueling months of playoff hockey concludes.

The Greatest Expansion Team Ever

When the Vegas Golden Knights were put together, we knew they weren't going to be your typical expansion team.  We knew this team had a chance to be competitive and thought they might have an outside chance at the playoffs.  Nobody expected this, though.  Not only are they headed to the playoffs, they won the Pacific Division going away, and they're among the handful of teams that you'd have to consider legitimate Cup contenders.  The '62 Mets they are not.

People have been calling Vegas the "best expansion team ever" for most of the season, and it's hard to argue.  Sure, the St. Louis Blues made it to the Stanley Cup Final in their first season of existence, but that comes with an asterisk since the NHL put all six expansion teams in the same conference, guaranteeing one would make the Final.  But this is unprecedented.  The Golden Knights have been winning at a ridiculous clip all year.  And they've broken the mold for what expansion teams consider "reasonable" expectations.

Now, most of the recent expansion teams across all sports have found success fairly quickly.  The Panthers (Carolina) and Jaguars both made it to the conference championship game in their second season, the Diamondbacks won the NL West in their second, and the Panthers (Florida) played for the Stanley Cup in their fourth.  We also saw the Marlins and Diamondbacks win the World Series within five years. 

The Chicago Fire (which, by the way, is my favorite TV show), meanwhile, are the real expansion standard bearers.  They won both the MLS Cup and US Open Cup in their inaugural season.  But, that was just the third season of MLS, when the league was nowhere near what it is now.

What the Golden Knights have done is something different entirely, though.  They were set up well with a very generous expansion draft format (getting a three-time Cup-winning franchise goalie didn't exactly hurt).  But, Marc-Andre Fleury aside, the players made available to them weren't exactly stars.  Expansion teams are constructed, essentially, from the other teams' rejects, and this wasn't really any different. 

It just turns out that these "rejects" were pretty good.  What's more, they all felt like they had a chip on their shoulder because their previous team didn't want them (or, in some cases, couldn't keep them), and they played like it.  Jonathan Marchessault and William Karlsson have turned into stars, and Gerard Gallant has to be the favorite for Coach of the Year as Vegas has broken record after record.

I wish I knew what their secret is, but I'm not even sure that they do.  I think it was a fortunate combination of many factors.  A lot of people have credited their incredible home record to the "Vegas factor," suggesting that opposing players might be enjoying their time in Sin City a little too much.  This is also the first pro team in a market that was desperate for a team to call its own.  And the tragedy that struck Las Vegas on October 1, just days before the Knights' first game, further strengthened that bond between this brand new team and the city it represents.

Meanwhile, Bill Foley is quickly establishing himself as one of the best owners in sports.  He doesn't want T-Mobile Arena overrun with opposing fans during the playoffs, so the Golden Knights made all their season ticket holders sign a pledge not to sell their playoff tickets.  In return, they pay a much cheaper price for playoff tickets than they otherwise would.  They don't have to sign the pledge.  But if they don't, they don't get the discount.

Foley took it a step further, too (which actually makes pretty good business sense considering the "don't sell your tickets" pledge).  Fans don't have to pay for their first-round tickets until after the fact.  They'll be sent an invoice after the playoffs are over, but don't have to pay anything upfront (at least for the first round).

Whether or not there will be future rounds of the playoffs for Golden Knights fans to attend is anyone's guess.  As we all know, winning in the Stanley Cup Playoffs is a vastly different proposition than winning during the NHL regular season.  But, with a veteran of three Cup-winning Penguins teams in goal, you've gotta think their chances of advancing at least one round are pretty good.

Frankly, though, does it really matter?  The Knights could get swept in the first round and it will take absolutely nothing away from this incredible season.  The NHL gambled on a franchise in Las Vegas, and they hit the jackpot (sorry, I couldn't resist the Vegas puns). 

But I doubt anyone pictured it going this well.  Suddenly, Bill Foley's "playoffs in three, Stanley Cup in six" prediction doesn't look so crazy.  In fact, he wasn't giving his team nearly enough credit.  Because they're two years ahead of schedule. 

Best expansion team in history?  Without a doubt!  And it's really not even that close.

Temporary Just As Costly

A week or so ago, I was reading an article about the planned post-Games use for many of the PyeongChang Olympic venues.  This is the same legacy problem that has plagued Rio and Sochi and even Beijing (which will at least be reusing some of them when they go again in four years).  At a time when the Olympic Movement is struggling to find cities willing to host, mainly because of cost concerns, this is an alarming trend.

The IOC bigwigs are well aware of this.  That's why they're encouraging future bid cities to focus on existing and temporary venues rather than building shiny new permanent venues that will be used during the Olympics and Paralympics, but are unlikely to serve any purpose afterwards.

PyeongChang's Olympic Stadium, which was used for just the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, was one of these temporary structures.  The stadium is currently in the process of being demolished.  So, after spending $109 million on a purpose-built stadium that was used a grand total of four times (both ceremonies at both the Olympics and Paralympics), they're spending however much more to tear it down.  Not very cost-effective.

That was the entire point of the article, and it brings up a very good point that people rarely consider.  Are temporary venues cheaper than permanent ones?  Yes.  But there's still considerable costs associated with them.  Because with temporary venues, you need to account for the costs involved with dismantling the venue, as well.

Even permanent venues usually have these extra construction costs.  Take London Stadium.  It was an 80,000-seat venue that was packed to the gills for the Opening Ceremony and every track & field session at the 2012 Olympics.  Then it closed for nearly four years while it was rebuilt.  The top level was removed and the stadium now seats 60,000.

Same thing with Atlanta's Olympic Stadium, which is one of the best examples of post-Games legacy for any Olympic Stadium.  It seated 85,000 for the Ceremonies and track & field before being reconfigured into the 50,000-seat Turner Field, which was the home of the Braves for 20 seasons.

There's obviously a difference between venues that are intended to be permanent and those that aren't.  And temporary venues are a necessary evil.  They not only make sense, they often provide some of the most spectacular views of the Games (beach volleyball at Copacabana anyone?).

I think the scope of the temporary venue is important, too.  Venues are made larger for special events all the time with the addition of temporary seating, and a lot of temporary venues, at least the public portion of them, are often just portable bleachers/grandstands (in addition to all the associated backstage athlete-support areas).  I'm not talking about setting up a grandstand at Copacabana.  I'm talking about building an entire stadium from scratch, only to tear it down a few months later.

At the Summer Games, temporary venues are easy enough to find/create.  You can easily use an existing park or other large public area.  But in the Winter, it's not quite so easy.  You can't exactly build a temporary ski jump or speed skating track or bobsled/luge/skeleton track, and figure skating and hockey are getting the two largest indoor arenas in the city. 

Which leaves curling, alpine skiing, snowboarding/freestyle skiing and cross country/biathlon (which are being grouped because they usually share a venue).  Those are the only Winter Olympic sports that lend themselves to temporary venues.  But the alpine events require a ski resort, so, the stands can be as temporary as you want, you still need that mountain.  And what are you going to use that mountain for post-Olympics other than skiing?

It's an interesting dilemma that the IOC faces with the Winter Olympics.  Because temporary venues work much better in the Summer, where they can be put pretty much anywhere.  In the Winter, though, there are some things necessary for the competition that makes temporary venues somewhat impractical. 

Yet, they're encouraging the use of temporary venues, which is why some of the 2026 bids have gotten creative.  But is it really better to have the sliders get shipped all the way to Nagano if Sapporo is chosen, just so they don't have to build a bobsled track?  I'm not so sure.  It's cheaper, though.  And even cheaper than building a temporary venue.

So, they're definitely stuck in a catch 22.  And they probably will be for a little while.  Because, for the Winter Olympics, temporary venues don't really make a lot of sense for most sports.  And, even if organizers were to go that route, it would bring the price tag up.  Which is what's been scaring off potential Olympic hosts.  Even, potentially, some of the seven in the running for 2026.

The 2026 Race Is On

The deadline to submit bids for the 2026 Winter Olympics was Saturday, and we've got six bidders.  This is the first Winter Olympic bid process since the disaster that was 2022, and it's the first using the reforms that were put in place after everyone withdrew from the 2022 race. 

IOC President Thomas Bach has expressed his preference to return to a "more traditional" location after the back-to-back Asia trips.  Most people took that as code for Europe or North America, which is where four of the six bids are from (and all four of those are traditional winter sports destinations).  As of now, it looks like four of the five bids have full support, as well, avoiding the dreaded referendum.

Sion, Switzerland is the only bidder that appears headed to a referendum, which, should it happen, will almost certainly kill the bid.  However, if Sion suffers the same fate as way too many recent Olympic bidders, an Italian replacement is ready to step in.  Italy currently can't bid because the IOC Session where the vote takes place is supposed to be in Milan, but if Sion withdraws (which many expect), they'll move the Session to IOC headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland, allowing Italy to move in.

If Sion stays in the race, I think it'll be among the favorites.  But, I'm assuming the referendum will do to the bid what referendums have done to so many others over the years.  The good news is that Italy has identified two potential bid cities, so it's really a matter of whether Milan or Torino is brought forward as the replacement.

There are some other cities that have decided to wait until 2030, which is shaping up to be a competitive race in its own right.  Lillehammer and Salt Lake City hosted arguably the two greatest Winter Olympics ever, and they both opted to sit out this race looking ahead to that one instead.  Had Lillehammer entered, it would've been the odds-on favorite, just as Oslo was for 2022 until pulling out of the race (and pissing off the IOC beyond belief).

But, that's a conversation for 2023.  The six cities that are in the running for 2026 are Stockholm; Calgary; Graz, Austria; Erzurum, Turkey and Sapporo, Japan (who evidently didn't get the Europe-North America memo), in addition to either Sion or, more likely, one of the Italian cities.

Let's start with Sapporo, which has virtually no chance of winning.  Sapporo was the first Asian city to host the Winter Olympics in 1972 and hosted a very successful Asian Winter Games last year.  I'm not saying Sapporo isn't capable of hosting the Winter Olympics again.  On the contrary, I think Sapporo is very well-equipped to take another turn.  But they would've been well advised to wait until 2030.  They aren't going to put a third straight Winter Games in East Asia, and they aren't going back to Japan just six years after the Tokyo Summer Games.

The most intriguing bid, to me, is Erzurum.  This was a late entry, but it has the full backing of the Turkish government.  And it should.  Because this Erzurum bid is solid.  They hosted a successful Winter Universiade in 2011, which means many of the necessary facilities are already in place.  Istanbul has bid for a number of Summer Games, but Turkey has never thrown its hat into the Winter ring before.  Will the first time be the charm?

Graz stepped up as Austria's bid after two-time host Innsbruck didn't get the public support, but there are plenty of doubts about this one, too.  There have been calls for a referendum, and the Austrian Minister of Sport isn't even sure the Austrian people even want to host the Winter Olympics.  They also want to spread events all over in order to make use of existing venues (including some in Germany).  I know that this is OK, even encouraged, but I just don't like the idea of holding events at the same Olympics in two different countries.

Either Italian bid would be strong.  Torino, of course, hosted the Games in 2006, so there would be no questions about venues and sustainability.  Milan, meanwhile, would host the ice events while the outdoor events would be held in the nearby Alpine towns that are already regular World Cup stops in the various winter sports.  And, let's not forget, Torino and Milan both have highly successful and popular soccer teams whose stadiums could be used for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies.

Calgary, the 1988 host, is also seeking its second Winter Games.  Most of the venues from 1988 are still in use (most of them serve as Canadian Olympic Training Centers) and would only need a small upgrade.  And, they're talking about building new facilities for the Flames and Stampeders, anyway.

Canada isn't just a "traditional" site, it's one of the top winter sports nations in the world right now, so that would obviously fit Bach's criteria.  Another benefit is that Calgary is an NHL city, which would pretty much guarantee that NHL players would participate in the hockey tournament.  Although, 2026 already has the makings of a busy year in Canadian sports.  Edmonton is the likely host of the 2026 Commonwealth Games, and two of the World Cup venues would be in Canada (likely Montreal and Edmonton) should the United bid be selected.  Three major events in one year is a lot.

My early favorite to host the 2026 Winter Olympics, though, is Stockholm.  There are still some political hurdles to navigate, but, as long as Stockholm is in the race, it'll be a serious contender.  It certainly fits both parts of the "traditional."  Sweden has won at least two medals at every Winter Games (and six figure skating medals at Summer Olympics) and is eighth in the all-time Winter medal count.  Yet, despite bidding seven times previously, the country has never hosted the Winter Games.  That's just crazy, and it's time to change that.

Stockholm hosted the 1912 Summer Olympics and would become the second city to host both (after Beijing, which would make it back-to-back Winter Games in a previous Summer host city).  Sure, there are some potential logistical problems (the alpine events would be three hours away, they might use a sliding track in Latvia).  But the appeal of bringing the Winter Olympics back to Europe in a traditional winter sports nation could override those concerns.  Of course, they need Stockholm to stay in the race for that to happen.

One downside is that a Stockholm Games in 2026 would pretty much rule out Lillehammer 2030.  (Although, after two straight in East Asia, why not two straight in Scandinavia?)  But I still think that, right now, Stockholm would have to be considered the early favorite, with Calgary not too far behind. 

It's still 17 months until the election, though.  A lot can change between now and then.  It at least looks like we'll at least have an actual multi-city race, though.  And the IOC needs that more than anything.