Seeding Serena

Before breaking down the bracket tomorrow, there's one issue regarding Wimbledon that I want to touch on, and it's the same issue that arose at the French Open.  ESPN.com might've just published a misleading headline, but why were people giving the USTA crap after Serena wasn't seeded at the French Open?  What does the USTA have to do with the French Open?!  Anyway, the USTA promptly announced that it was "changing its seeding policy" for the US Open, and Wimbledon followed suit, giving her the No. 25 seed.

Now, here's my problem with the entire thing.  It's special treatment.  And you can't say it isn't.  Victoria Azarenka came back from having a baby last year.  Did they go out of their way to seed her in tournaments?  When Kim Clijsters won the US Open after having her daughter, she needed a wild card to get into the tournament.  Yet nobody said boo when they returned.  

But now that it's Serena Williams, you've got all these people chiming in from every which direction.  And the implications that she was being somehow discriminated against are downright ridiculous!  The Peanut Gallery only cared because it's Serena Williams.  If you think this would've been a "controversy" if it was any other player, you're kidding yourselves.

Even the players are torn on the issue.  Many were OK with the idea of her being seeded, but didn't want it to affect their standing that they had earned.  Petra Kvitova, for example, is No. 8 in the world.  When she was asked where Serena should be seeded, she responded, "number nine."

The difference between seed lines is nearly as big as the difference between being seeded or unseeded.  If Serena had been seeded No. 8 and knocked Kvitova down, that would've meant she'd potentially have to play one of the top seeds in the round of 16 instead of the quarterfinals.  Ditto with the difference between the 16 and 17 seeds.  That was part of the reason it was such a big deal at last year's US Open when second-seeded Andy Murray withdrew after the draw was already made and they moved the No. 5 seed into his spot and left No. 3 Federer on the same side as No. 1 Nadal, promptly leading everyone to ask "Why?"

Speaking of Andy Murray, he hasn't played since last year's Wimbledon because of that hip injury.  This is his first tournament back.  Was he seeded?  No.  He's a two-time champ and a hometown favorite, yet nobody's up in arms because of his lack of a seed.  Since Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam that doesn't go strictly by the rankings, they had the power to do so, and it would've been justified.  Yet Andy Murray's unseeded.  Where's the uproar?

I can't help but feel for Dominikia Cibulkova, too.  She's ranked 32nd, so she would've been in line for a seed (with the women, they generally keep pretty close to the world rankings, if not exact).  But since Serena was seeded, Cibulkova was the odd-woman out, which seems a little unfair.  So, instead of waiting until the third round to face another seed, she was able to face anybody in the first round.  And she ended up with 42nd-ranked Alize Cornet, a tough first-round match, after which she'll have to face hometown favorite Johanna Konta, the No. 22 seed.  Serena, meanwhile, gets a cushy draw as the No. 25 seed.

Based on her body of work, is she deserving of a seed?  Of course!  She's won Wimbledon seven times, including the last two times she's played (2015-16).  And is she one of the top 32 players in the world?  Without a doubt.  So, in that regard, it makes sense that Wimbledon decided to seed Serena Williams.  And their rationale that seeding her balanced out the bracket better made complete sense, too.  From a competitive sense, it's definitely the right thing to do.  I just wish they'd gone about it a little better.

Ultimately this was a situation the WTA was going to have to deal with sooner or later, so it might actually be a good thing that this happened.  Being pregnant and being injured are not the same thing, so I understand the thought process in considering them differently.  But they shouldn't just be making up a policy mid-year because people got all bent out of shape when a top player returned and had to work her way back the same way every other player who's missed time due to pregnancy did before.

It's also worth noting that Serena Williams said nothing about it one way or the other.  The uproar about her being unseeded at the French Open all came from the outside.  When she wasn't seeded, she didn't complain.  She just went with it.  Just like I'm sure it would've been the same thing at Wimbledon or the US Open or any other tournament she enters.  And I'm sure the higher-ranked players are happy she's seeded, too.  They don't want to see her in the early rounds anymore than she wants to see them.

My only problem with her being seeded is that she's blatantly being given special treatment.  Whether it's warranted or not is irrelevant.  She was seeded at Wimbledon (and will be at the US Open) because the French Open got bad press for not seeding her.  And I'm having a hard time believing there was any other reason why.

There's no official WTA policy regarding players returning from pregnancy, though.  There needs to be one moving forward.  Especially after this situation.  Because they've already set the precedent.  And if whoever the next top player that has a baby and returns to the tour wants the same treatment, she'd better get it.  Otherwise, it'll be even more clear that Serena Williams is being given special treatment.

Revised World Cup Picks

So, I really nailed it with that Germany pick, huh?  Yeah, I think it's pretty safe to say no one saw that coming.  But that's why this World Cup has been so wonderful thus far.  Lots of late goals, many of which weren't just game-winners, they were scenario-changing for multiple teams.  The FOX crew has said almost daily that this is "the best World Cup ever."  There are still 16 games to go, so I'm not quite willing to go that far yet.  But, as we get ready for the knockout round, I think it's time to revise my picks based on what we've seen so far.

Before getting into the knockout round, two general observations about the group stage.  First, VAR works.  It's been a tremendous addition to the World Cup.  The delays haven't been crazy, and VAR is only being used to correct obvious errors.  I was worried they'd go overboard with it, which they haven't at all.  The best part is that it's been used correctly.  You can see where the official might've missed it live, which is why they have the officials sitting in the VAR room watching.  Even if you don't agree with every call/overturn, you can't argue that VAR has served its purpose.

Then there's the "fair play points" tiebreaker.  I could do an entire post just on that.  Japan didn't do anything wrong at the end of their 1-0 loss to Poland (where they didn't try for the last 10 minutes).  They just knew the rules and took advantage of it.

Sure, I bet FIFA didn't expect this to turn into an NFL-playoff situation where they got down to the seventh tiebreaker (although it was actually the fifth, since tiebreakers five and six are irrelevant in the World Cup).  But everyone knew those rules beforehand, so it's not like Senegal was screwed by some last-minute decision.  Does it suck?  Yes.  But a late goal by either team in the other game would've made this discussion moot.

Is there a better way to separate teams than the number of yellow cards?  Yes.  But they need some way to separate teams at the end of the group stage.  I've seen some suggestions regarding total number of shots on goal or goals during the run of play (as opposed to penalty kicks).  The Rugby World Cup uses world ranking, which, as flawed as FIFA's World Rankings are, isn't terrible, either. 

Either way, I think FIFA may revisit its tiebreaking procedures before the next World Cup in Qatar.  Because, while Japan advanced over Senegal because of it, there was also the possibility that fair play would determine first place in both Group B and Group G, as well.  (Fortunately, Spain and Belgium took care of that problem.)  It also doesn't make any sense that a head-to-head win isn't the No. 1 tiebreaker, so if they do revise it, I'd like to see that moved up the list (they already use head-to-head as the first tiebreaker in the Euro).

Anyway, on to the round of 16 picks.  Frankly, I haven't been overly impressed by anybody so far.  Croatia, Uruguay and Belgium were the only teams to win all three of their group games, but Uruguay and Belgium were in ridiculoulsy weak groups (and Belgium accidentally beat England in a game that both teams wanted to be 0-0).  Brazil and France definitely have more in them, and I think Spain is in a really good position for the knockout stage.

The bracket ended up looking really similar to the knockout round bracket for Euro 2016.  The top half is definitely the stronger side, while the bottom half has a very European feel with seven UEFA teams and Colombia.  So, I think it's safe to say we'll have at least one European squad in the final for the 17th consecutive World Cup.

It's also crazy to think that either France or Argentina will get knocked out in the round of 16 (but, hey, that's still further than Germany).  With the winner of that match facing Portugal or Uruguay in the quarters, there'll be some major star power on display.  Meanwhile, Belgium got the easier round of 16 game against Japan, but now has a quarterfinal against Brazil.  England ended up winning by losing.  Because if they beat Colombia, which they should, they've got a clear path to the semifinals.

Uruguay is the only team in the tournament that hasn't given up a goal yet, but I think that changes against Pretty Boy and Co.  This is the hardest portion of the draw to pick, though, because you can see all four as semifinalists.  Just based on what I've seen from the four teams, I'll say that quarterfinal will be Portugal-France, with the winner set to face Brazil or Belgium. 

In the bottom half, Spain gets by Russia easily and meets Croatia in the quarters, with Switzerland and England in the other matchup.  Although, I'm not counting out either Sweden or Colombia.  Croatia, meanwhile, will give Spain all it can handle in an intense quarterfinal.  But I think Spain has enough firepower to get by a strong Croatian side.

For my semifinal matchups, I've got France meeting Brazil and Spain taking on England.  And get ready for a border battle in the final, since I've got France taking on Spain.  As for the winner?  I think Spain winning Group B and getting into the bottom half of the draw will be huge.  Yes, they have to play Russia in Moscow.  But, after that, their route to the final is much smoother.  And I think that makes a difference as Spain wins the World Cup for the second time in eight years.

10 Years of the Body Issue

When I checked my mail today, there was my favorite issue of ESPN The Magazine.  I'm, of course, talking about the Body Issue.  It usually comes out around this time, and they posted all of the photos online earlier this week, so it wasn't at all a surprise to see it.  And, since this is the 10th anniversary of the Body Issue, they included all of the photos from the past, as well.

There are a number of reasons (beyond the obvious) why I like the Body Issue.  It's much more than ESPN's answer to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.  It's also much more than a bunch of naked athletes.

It's a celebration of athletics.  It shows that athletes come in all shapes and forms, and proudly puts that on display.  You've got men and women of all ages and body types from all different sports.  The message is the same: they're all athletes.  And this is what an athlete looks like.

Sure, there's the Wow! factor of having the "pretty" athletes pose nude.  But the Body Issue has nothing to do with sex appeal.  If it did, they wouldn't agree to be in it.  And they get a ton of A-list athletes to pose every year (some have done it more than once).  They don't just agree to pose, either.  They're proud to...and many of them want to.

Over the years, more than 200 athletes have been featured in the Body Issue, some as individuals, some as pairs/groups, and even some whole teams together.  And the key word here is "tasteful."  Not just that, but the athletes seem to have a lot of fun, too.  Sure, it's a long day and some awkward poses.  But the end result is usually something amazing.

In fact, I had trouble narrowing down my favorite Body Issue images to a manageable number.  When I started going thru, I had more than 30 selected, including a few from this year.  But then I went thru those choices again and trimmed the list to 10...including what I think is the most artistic photo ever to appear in ESPN The Magazine.

Yes, it's this one from 2013.  Kerri Walsh posed while eight months pregnant, then came back and posed again after the baby was born.  They did a side-by-side in the actual issue, but I just love the photo of her and her daughter, Scout, so much more.  If you didn't know she was a 35-time Olympian, you'd have no idea this was from a sports magazine.  It's just a beautiful image of mother and daughter that you could easily see being the center spread in a parenting magazine.

As for my favorite cover, that's also easy.  It's gotta be Ronda Rousey.  Again, if you didn't know this was a sports magazine, you'd have no idea.  This is just an absolutely gorgeous image.

The Aly Raisman black-and-white looks like something that was hanging on the wall in some photo exhibition at an art gallery.  Apolo Ohno is displaying perfect speed skating form.  I have no idea what Camilo Villegas is doing, but it shows some incredible flexibility.  Bernard Hopkins, that's exactly what you would think a boxer looks like.  Anna Tunnicliffe it's all about degree of difficulty.  I don't even want to know how long it took them to get that shot.  Jermaine Jones is another perfect photo.  I know it's staged, but it reminds me of the iconic Bobby Orr flying thru the air picture.  Prince Fielder shows us that it doesn't matter what you look like if you can hit a baseball.  And the one of the U.S. women's water polo team is just cool.

Happy Anniversary, Body Issue.  It has its critics, but it's not going anywhere.  A celebration of the athletic form has turned into so much more.  It's shown us that athletes come in all shapes, sizes and forms.  Which is a beautiful thing.

The Women's Decathlon

Now that the women's 50 kilometer walk is a part of the World Championships, men and women compete in basically identical programs in track & field.  There are 24 men's events, 24 women's events and a mixed 4x400 meter relay (which was only added because the IOC added it to the Olympics, even though the IAAF didn't really want to).  The only real difference is that the men contest the 10-event decathlon, while the women's equivalent, the heptathlon, is only seven events.

In recent years, though, there have been attempts to change that with the creation of the women's decathlon.  The IAAF ratified it as an official event in 2005, and this weekend, one weekend after the USATF Outdoor Championships, they're holding the inaugural Women's Open Decathlon Championship in California.  Fourteen women are signed up for modest prize money ($500/$200/$100) in the first USATF-sanctioned women's decathlon.

There's been mixed reaction to the event.  Flotrack is all about it, while the British newspaper The Guardian is a little more skeptical.  Their argument has nothing to do with whether or not women are capable of doing 10 events.  They absolutely can.  It's more because no one really seems to have a problem with the heptathlon, so why the push to change it to a decathlon?

While some of the distances in the running events are different and the field events are in a different order, the main difference between the heptathlon and decathlon is that the decathlon includes the pole vault, discus and 400 while the heptathlon doesn't.  Now, the women's pole vault, while it's become an incredibly popular event (Hi, Sandi), only really caught on in the early 2000s. 

So, it's only been since the women's pole vault became commonplace that the idea of a women's decathlon has gained traction.  Before that, most women didn't compete in the pole vault, so it was unrealistic for it to be included in the multi-event competition.  Same thing with the discus, but to a lesser degree, since the shot put has always been a part of the heptathlon and the training for those two throws is similar.

Some of the women's decathlon advocates view this championship as groundbreaking in much the same way the 2017 World Championships were groundbreaking for the inclusion of the women's 50 kilometer walk.  However, I'm not sure the women's decathlon is going to catch on in the same way the open women's pole vault has.

Elite heptathletes seem unwilling to transition to the decathlon, and I don't think it has anything to do with the pole vault.  Yes, the pole vault takes forever and requires arduous, specialized training.  But their concerns about the decathlon don't even seem to be rooted in the additional three events.  Rather, it's about the order of events.

The first day of the men's decathlon includes the 100, long jump, shot put, high jump and 400.  On the second day, they do the 110 hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin and 1500.  For the women, the running events are the same.  But they reverse the order of the field events so that they could theoretically hold a men's and women's decathlon at the same time.

Meanwhile, the heptathlon starts with the hurdles before going to the high jump.  That's a very easy transition since those two events require roughly the same skill set.  (In fact, many heptathletes are world-class hurdlers or high jumpers, or both.)  Now you want them to go from the 100 to the highly-technical discus, then do the pole vault.  Those aren't just the two most technical events of the 10, they're also the two that aren't included in the heptathlon.

It's fair to say that the heptathlon favors the better athletes, but doesn't necessarily determine the best all-around athlete in the way the decathlon does.  The proof of this is that many former heptathletes have specialized and are excelling.  Dafne Schippers is a two-time world champion in the 200, Nadine Visser won a medal in the hurdles at World Indoors, and Jackie Joyner-Kersee, the greatest heptathlete ever, regularly medaled in both the heptathlon and long jump at the same meet.  You can't say the same about decathletes (although Ashton Eaton probably could've been an elite 400-runner if he wanted to be).

But that specialization has nothing to do with the resistance among heptathletes about moving up to the decathlon.  (It's also worth noting that indoors the men compete in the heptathlon and the women compete in the pentathlon, but there's no clamoring to change that.)  It's more because they don't see the need for it. 

No one has a problem with the heptathlon, and no one thinks it's sexist that the women only compete in seven events instead of 10.  And if you can't get the athletes to buy in, how do you expect the fans to?

Who's Headed Where

As the baseball season reaches the midway point, it's incredibly obvious which teams will be buyers and which will be sellers at the trade deadline.  The Yankees, Red Sox and Astros already have 50 wins, and we could possibly be looking at three 100-win clubs in the American League alone.  So, needless to say, they'll all be looking to add that piece or two that will result in their lifting the Commissioner's Trophy in early November.  In the National League, meanwhile, a handful of teams will be fighting just to get to the postseason, where anything will be possible.

There are also fewer teams that are completely out of it in the National League, which means we're looking at a handful of AL clubs to provide contenders with the two-month rent-a-players.  It's not the potentially historic free agent class that awaits us in the offseason.  But there are definitely some difference-makers who'll be available.  And that could be the difference between winning a championship or not.

Washington already made the first move, coming out of nowhere to strike early and snag Royals closer Kelvin Herrera.  Herrera was definitely going to be traded and the Nationals definitely needed bullpen help, so, while the timing was somewhat unexpected, that deal made a lot of sense.  And it sets the Nationals up to not have to worry about that as they think about what other moves to make.

So, Herrera's out of the equation, but he's not the only big name who'll move.  Not by a long shot.  In fact, it would be very surprising if certain players are still in their current uniforms after July 31.  (I just hope it doesn't screw up All*Star selections and required team reps like Herrera did.)

Manny Machado: Certainly the biggest prize out there is Manny Machado, who'll certainly be a rental for whichever team gets him.  I am confident in saying that he'll go to a National League team.  Why?  Because all five AL playoff teams already have a shortstop.  But the Cubs and Dodgers don't, and neither do the Cardinals.  The Cubs can probably offer the Orioles more, including some actual Major League players such as their current shortstop, Addison Russell.  But the Dodgers are more desperate and will be willing to part with prospects, which Baltimore desperately needs.  My prediction: Dodgers

Cole Hamels: Houston doesn't win the World Series last year if they don't get Justin Verlander at literally the last possible second.  There won't be a Verlander-style difference-maker this year, but Hamels is the closest thing to it.  The Yankees need a starter.  That's not a secret.  They also have about five Major Leaguers currently playing in Triple A.  That's also not a secret.  My guess is a couple of those guys will end up wearing Rangers jerseys by the end of June.  Hamels to the Yankees just makes too much sense to not happen.  My prediction: Yankees

J.A. Happ: Hamels' former Phillies teammate J.A. Happ also likely appears to be on the move.  As much as they might want to trade Josh Donaldson, he's the one guy Toronto will actually get something of value for, even if it's not much for a 35-year-old potential free agent.  Still, I think Happ gets moved.  Atlanta makes sense.  So do the Dodgers, Cubs and Brewers.  Heck, I can even see him returning to Philly.  My prediction: Brewers

Jacob de Grom: Mets fans have finally stopped with their little Jacob de Grom for Gleyber Torres fantasy.  There's absolutely no chance they're sending de Grom across town, and even less of a chance Gleyber Torres is going anywhere (although I do think the Yankees would be willing to part with Miguel Andujar in the right deal).  Anyway, the Mariners haven't been to the postseason in 17 years.  They'll do whatever it takes to change that.  And, if they do get to October and make it past the Wild Card Game, they'll need another starting pitcher.  Someone like Jacob de Grom, for example.  My prediction: Mariners

Brad Hand: What relievers will be available is still up in the air.  But it's safe to say Hand will be, and where he lands could be a matter of who gives the Padres the best offer.  Both the Red Sox and Astros will be after Hand hard, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're fielding calls from the Nationals, as well.  My hunch tells me he's American League-bound.  Most likely to Boston, which needs a left-handed arm in that bullpen.  My prediction: Red Sox

Michael Fulmer: He's also been linked to the Yankees, but I think Hamels is a better fit, which means Fulmer could be headed elsewhere.  The Tigers did business with the Diamondbacks last year with J.D. Martinez, and I can easily see that happening again.  Arizona needs another starter behind Zack Greinke and Patrick Corbin, and Fulmer probably won't cost them that much.  My prediction: Diamondbacks

Chris Archer: Here's where things get interesting.  Archer's pretty much the only guy left on the Rays who you've ever heard of.  But he's also oft-injured (and currently on the DL).  So, I can see this one going either way.  If they don't get an offer they like or everyone thinks the price tag is too high, I can see him staying.  But I can also see him being on the move if the price is right.  When a team doesn't get the starter they want and gets desperate, they'll make the move on Archer.  I have a feeling he goes to the National League.  My prediction: Braves

Josh Harrison: With the Cardinals sitting in third place, it seems unlikely that they'll catch the Brewers and Cubs if they don't make a move.  And that move should be for a middle infielder.  So, in other words, they'll be in on Machado.  I don't think they have enough to land the big dog, but they should still be able to get something.  Enter Josh Harrison.  My only question here is whether the Pirates would actually trade him to a division rival.  My prediction: Cardinals

Am I way off on some of these?  Probably.  But don't be surprised if any of these guys (among others) are moved.  Because, as good as the three AL teams are, they know that they can be better.  And, in the NL, it's a matter of who makes the move first...and who's best-positioned to make a run in October.

For all the lack of action there was during free agency, expect plenty of it between now and the trade deadline.  That'll more than make up for it.

Hockey Award Time

The Stanley Cup has been awarded, and I think Alex Ovechkin is still drunk.  That party's going to continue all summer long, and I'm enjoying every minute of it!  Now there's one last bit of NHL business before the draft.  They presented the Stanley Cup in Las Vegas, so why not give out all the other awards there, too?

Adams: Gerard Gallant, Golden Knights-I'm starting with the easiest one.  It's cute how they announced two other "finalists," as if there was any chance someone other than Gerard Gallant was going to win the award.  I hope the other two didn't waste too much time on their speeches.  Because this should be unanimous.

GM of the Year: George McPhee, Golden Knights-This one should also be unanimous.  In fact, I'd even be willing to say McPhee deserves more credit than Gallant for the Knights' extraordinary inaugural season.  After all, he's the one who picked the players...and made those shrewd moves to stockpile draft picks and guarantee this wouldn't be a one-year thing.

Hart: Taylor Hall, Devils-Honestly, I have no idea who's going to win the Hart Trophy.  These aren't the three guys you would've expected to be the finalists when the season started, that's for sure.  In fact, Anze Kopitar isn't even a finalist for the Ted Lindsay Award, the players' MVP.  So, I think it's safe to say he didn't win.  I give Taylor Hall the nod over Nathan MacKinnon because the Devils don't make the playoffs without him.

Vezina: Andrei Vasilevskiy, Lightning-Any of the three finalists could win, and it would be deserving regardless.  This is perhaps the most competitive award of the night.  I'm going with Vasilevskiy because he played Vezina-quality goal night in and night out all season.  Pekka Rinne and Connor Hellebuyck put up ridiculous numbers, too, but the Lightning were the best team in hockey for most of the season, and their goaltender was a big reason why.

Norris: Victor Hedman, Lightning-Make that two awards for the Lightning.  Because I think Victor Hedman is in line for his first Norris Trophy.  Drew Doughty and Mr. Lindsey Vonn were their typical brand of brilliant, but Hedman took his game to another level in 2017-18.  He had 17 goals, 63 points, was a +32 for the season, and was on the ice nearly half the game.  That's an all-around defenseman alright.

Selke: Patrice Bergeron, Bruins-They might as well rename this the Patrice Bergeron Trophy.  They won't, but you could understand why if they did.  The Bruins center is a finalist for the seventh straight year and is looking to win for the fifth time, which would be the most ever.  While he might not have the numbers of the other two finalists (Sean Couturier and Anze Kopitar), he's developed a reputation as one of the toughest penalty killers in the league.

Calder: Brock Boeser, Canucks-Not surprisingly, the three Calder Trophy finalists are from teams that didn't make the playoffs.  My choice is the Canucks' Brock Boeser, who was named MVP of the All-Star Game at the ripe old age of 21 (as crazy as it sounds, he's the oldest of the three finalists).  He had 29 goals, and it likely would've been more if he hadn't missed the last 16 games with an injury.  We'll see how much that affects his vote total.  This award could very well end up going to the Islanders' Mathew Barzal as a result.

Lady Byng: Aleksander Barkov, Panthers-An award unique to the NHL, the Lady Byng is the sportsmanship trophy.  I wish the other leagues would have something similar.  Ryan O'Reilly of the Sabres took ONE! penalty all year.  One!  Think about that.  That alone could give O'Reilly the honor, but I'm going with the Panthers' Aleksander Barkov, an all-out thug in comparison with his seven penalties.  Seven penalties, 78 points, 22 minutes on ice per game.  That's a lot of time on ice to behave yourself so frequently while also being productive.

Masterson: Brian Boyle, Devils-"Sportsmanship, perseverance and dedication to hockey."  Those are the three criteria for the Masterson Tophy.  Brian Boyle checks all three boxes.  He was diagnosed with cancer during training camp, yet somehow managed to make his way back quickly enough to make his season debut on Nov. 1.  If that wasn't enough, he scored 10 goals in his first 25 games and made the Metropolitan Division All-Star Team.  One of the best feel-good All-Star stories in a long time.

King Clancy: Daniel & Henrik Sedin, Canucks-We've actually got four finalists for this one because, even after 17 years, the NHL still considers the Sedins to be one person.  This was their final season with the Canucks, and this effectively serves as a lifetime achievement award for all their community work, primarily to help children, since their arrival in Vancouver.

Mark Messier: Deryk Engelland, Golden Knights-Another deserving honor for the NHL's expansion darlings.  The Mark Messier Award is for leadership on & off the ice and plays a role in growing the game in the community.  Is there anyone who fits the bill more than Deryk Engelland?  The Golden Knights didn't have an official captain, but it would've been him if they did (he got the Clarence Campbell Bowl for a reason).  His stats are irrelevant.  He meant so much more to that team than his numbers.  He already lived in Las Vegas and was engaged in the community even before Oct. 1.  Then, after the tragedy, Engelland led the charge in the healing process.

Ted Lindsay: Taylor Hall, Devils-Kinda like Offensive Player of the Year and MVP in the NFL, the Ted Linsday Award and Hart Trophy go to the same player more often than not.  Just like I have no idea which way the writers are siding for the Hart, I don't know where the players are leaning for the Lindsay.  Since I said Taylor Hall for that one, I'll say Hall for this one, too.

Coming to (North) America

So, in the end, the vote wasn't really that close at all.  The heads of FIFA's 205 member confederations either saw how superior the bid was or how much money there was to be made.  Whatever the reason, what we've long suspected has now officially been confirmed.  The 2026 World Cup is coming to the United States, Mexico and Canada.

Even though it's still eight years away, there's a lot we already know about the first World Cup in North America since that tremendous edition hosted by the United States in 1994.  Instead of having one opening game, they'll have three...with each of the home teams playing in their home country.  The Mexico game at Azteca, the USA game at the Rose Bowl and the Canada game TBA, but most likely in Toronto.  We also know that the final will be at MetLife Stadium and the semifinals will be in Dallas and Atlanta.

We know these things because they were in the bid book, which is available online.  Although, I must admit I'm somewhat confused by some of the plans, too.

The most confusing thing to me is the fact that the US will host 75 percent of the tournament, but won't have 75 percent of the stadiums.  This is the first one that will be expanded to 48 teams, so they need 16 stadiums instead of 12.  Since 75 percent of 16 is 12, I figured that meant it'd be 12 U.S. cities, two Canadian cities, Mexico City and one additional city in Mexico.  But evidently that's not the case.  Only 10 of the stadiums will be in the U.S., while Canada and Mexico will have three host cities each.  And, since there are only three contenders remaining in each country, we know what they are.  Montreal, Toronto and Edmonton in Canada, Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey in Mexico.  So, instead of dropping just five of the remaining 17 American cities, that number will be cut almost in half.

Some of the cities are obvious.  The final and opening game were going to be in New York and LA in either order (my guess is the 2028 Olympics were involved in the decision), and you knew Jerry's World would be involved.  Atlanta's got a gorgeous new stadium and takes care of the Southeast, so that selection wasn't surprising, either.  But that leaves just six prospects, which will leave some tough decisions when it comes time to actually choose the final stadium list.

Cincinnati, Baltimore and Kansas City are most likely out.  Cincinnati and Kansas City aren't large enough cities, and Baltimore's too close to Washington.  I'd imagine they'll want to stay away from Denver because of the elevation, and the Central Florida humidity likely knocks out Orlando.

That leaves Seattle, San Francisco, Houston, Miami, Nashville, Philadelphia, Boston and Washington.  There's no chance the rabid Seattle fan base isn't rewarded with World Cup games, and San Francisco is a virtual lock since they need another West Coast city for late games.  Houston, meanwhile, is the fourth-largest city in the country and provides easy access to Latin America, making it easy for those fans to attend.

Three down.  Now for the three in the East.  Washington's the nation's capital, and there will likely be quarterfinal games on July 4, 2026.  Is there any other place for that 250th-anniversary celebration?  I didn't think so.  (To the guy who put on Twitter that he wants a USA-England final on that day, it can't happen.  The final's on a Sunday, and the 4th of July is a Saturday.)  Actually, there are two quarterfinals on the American Sestercentennial (yes, I looked that up).  Can you think of anything more appropriate than Washington and Boston?

Now we're left with Philadelphia, Miami and Nashville for the other host city.  Honestly, I can see it being any of the three.  Philadelphia's the largest city, but could be a victim of the Northeast Corridor already having three host cities.  So, I think it's more likely to be either Miami or Nashville, both of which will have MLS teams by then.  Just a hunch that they'll choose Miami.

Philadelphia and Nashville would be included on my list if there were 12 U.S. cities instead of 10, but since there aren't, these are the American hosts I'd select: New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle.  In Canada, it's Toronto, Montreal and Edmonton, and in Mexico, it's Guadalajara and Monterrey, as well as Azteca in Mexico City, one of the most famous soccer venues in the world.

If I were making these decisions, I'd make it incredibly easy and just have each stadium host one group so teams don't have to travel.  But that makes too much sense, so of course they aren't doing that.  Instead, teams will be crisscrossing the continent and  going from one country to another (although Canada and Mexico would play their first four games at home as long as they win their group and round of 32 game, and the U.S., obviously, will play all of its games at home).

One of the geniuses on either FOX or BeIn was concerned about teams potentially having to go from Guadalajara to Montreal, nearly 5,000 miles away, but they'll obviously set it up to avoid extreme travel.  They implied cities will be grouped together, but judging by which games would be in certain cities, there will still be some heavy travel involved (there wouldn't be if they did it my way, BTW).

All of those logistics will have to be hashed out, but they've got eight years to do it.  For one, they've got to figure out how the keep the three hosts separated (which I think they already did in the bid book).  It's also worth noting that there will be 16 more games, but the tournament will take the same amount of time, so there will be a lot more four-game days during group play.  We won't even know the official dates until probably sometime next year.

But none of that matters now.  All that matters is that the World Cup is coming to America, and it's going to be quite the party.  And, hey, the USA already qualified!  That's enough of a reason to celebrate, isn't it?

2018 World Cup Preview

As some of you may know, this blog got its name because a former co-worker was impressed that I picked Spain to win the World Cup eight years ago and started calling me "Joe Brackets" after that.  I didn't get it four years ago, when I thought Argentina would win in Brazil.

Now it's time for another World Cup, and I've seen a wide array of selections for who's going to hoist the trophy in Moscow on July 15.  Will Messi finally get that major trophy or Neymar solidify his place among Brazilian footballing legends?  Will Germany defend?  Will Pretty Boy add a World Cup to the European title he "won" two years ago?  Can an ultra-talented French team make up for World Cup disappointment at the last two editions?  Can Spain overcome all its inner turmoil and get back to the top?

And what about the new guys?  Iceland crashed the party.  How far can the darlings of Euro 2016 go in their first World Cup?  How will Costa Rica follow-up its quarterfinal showing in Brazil?  Then there's Egypt and Peru returning to the World Cup for the first time in a while.  And let's not forget the hosts.  How much will Russia benefit from their home field advantage and incredibly weak group?

Group A: Uruguay, Russia-Leave it to FIFA to have the two worst teams in the tournament play each other in the opening game.  There's absolutely no way in hell you're going to convince me the draw wasn't as rigged as the 2022 host election.  Anyway, Uruguay is the big beneficiary here.  They're by far the strongest squad in Group A and should advance pretty easily.  I'm taking Russia over Egypt for the second spot for two reasons.  1) Russia will have the home field/crowd advantage and will likely get all the calls when they play each other.  2) Perhaps more importantly, there are questions about the health of Egypt's best player, Mo Salah, after he was injured in the Champions League Final.  A healthy Salah is key if Egypt has any hope of advancing.

Group B: Spain, Portugal-Want an example of how stupid FIFA's World Rankings are?  Here it is.  Spain and Portugal ridiculously ending up in the same group at the World Cup.  Making it worse, they play each other in the first game.  That one will likely determine the group winner, since they're both going to beat Morocco and Iran pretty easily.  Although, finishing second in this group wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, since that means avoiding Argentina in the quarterfinals.  They should both win their Round of 16 matches against Group A teams.

Group C: France, Peru-This group is where things get interesting.  Because I can see any number of things happening in one of the more competitive foursomes.  France has made the finals of the last two World Cups in Europe, winning at home 20 years ago and losing to Italy in Berlin 12 years ago.  And "Les Bleues," finalists at Euro 2016, are the strongest team here.  I'm giving the second spot to Peru, which got that last South American spot over two-time defending Copa America champion Chile.  It's their first World Cup since 1986, but they're ranked in the top 10 in the world for a reason.  Denmark is very strong, though, and as long as the Socceroos have Tim Cahill, they'll be fun to watch.  Australia even has a shot at pulling off a surprise.  I don't think they have enough to advance, though.

Group D: Argentina, Croatia-Argentina and Nigeria will play their quadrennial World Cup meeting on June 26 in St. Petersburg.  Incredibly, this is the third straight World Cup and the fourth time in five editions that they've ended up in the same group.  This year they're joined by Croatia and everybody's favorites from Iceland.  This Argentina team isn't nearly as good as the squad that should've won the title four years ago (or at least the Copa America).  But, this is also Messi's last chance to fill that last void on his resume.  Sports Illustrated doesn't think Argentina will even make it out of the group stage, which I think is a stretch.  They'll win the group and be joined by one of the European teams.

Group E: Brazil, Switzerland-Brazil is getting a lot of support, which is kinda surprising to me.  After that embarrassment at home in the semifinals four years ago, followed by an equally embarrassing group stage elimination at Copa America Centenario, they're out for a bit of redemption.  And they did get that long-awaited Olympic gold in Rio, with that squad making up a bulk of this team.  Don't forget this, too.  Neymar's one of the best players in the world.  Costa Rica had an incredible run in Brazil, but I'm not sure they'll repeat that this time.  Can they get out of the group stage?  Yes.  But the Swiss are really good.  Better than the Costa Ricans in fact.

Group F: Germany, Mexico-Why is nobody picking Germany?  They're the defending champions, and they won the Confederations Cup last summer with their B team.  In other words, they're loaded.  How are they not the favorites?  Especially in this group, they'll cruise.  Mexico should get that other spot over Sweden and a South Korean squad that's among the weakest in the field.

Group G: England, Belgium-I don't get the obsession with Belgium.  They're the most overrated team in the world!  I thought that four years ago (even after they beat the U.S.), and I think that still.  Yet they're No. 3 in FIFA's incredibly flawed world rankings.  Yes, they've won like 15 in a row entering the World Cup, but I'm still not impressed.  In fact, I think Belgium and all its Premier League guys end up finishing second behind all the Premier League guys on England.  Either way, with Panama and Tunisia as their competition, they should both easily get out of the group.

Group H: Colombia, Poland-Your best chance on an African side advancing is probably Senegal.  I don't want to say this group is weaker than Group A, but Poland never should've been seeded over Spain.  And Colombia enjoyed that nice little run at the top for a few years, so you have two quality, if not great, sides at the top of Group H.  And Senegal's probably the strongest African team, which puts really that top three on the same level.  I'm not completely counting out Japan.  I just think they've got some work to do if they're going to advance over three teams that are better than them.

So, here are my Round of 16 matchups: Uruguay-Portugal, France-Croatia, Brazil-Mexico, England-Poland, Spain-Russia, Argentina-Peru, Germany-Switzerland, Colombia-Belgium.  In the quarters, I've got: Portugal-France, Brazil-England, Spain-Argentina and Germany-Belgium.  My semifinals are France vs. Brazil and Spain vs. Germany, with Germany defeating Brazil in the final to become the first nation to win back-to-back World Cups since Brazil in 1958-62.

Decision 2026

On the Eve of the 2018 World Cup, it's Decision Day for FIFA.  Representatives from each of FIFA's member nations will decide whether Morocco or the combined North American bid will host the 2026 World Cup.  This is FIFA's first World Cup host election since Russia and Qatar were able to buy the next two editions, leading to the massive corruption revelations that brought down longtime FIFA President Sepp Blatter and resulted in a number of necessary reforms to the voting process.

Instead of the FIFA Executive Committee making the decision, all 211 member nations have a vote.  Although, bidding nations can't vote (for themselves), which brings that number down to 207.  And, it looks like Morocco was successful in its attempt to disqualify the four U.S. territories that are FIFA members on "conflict of interest" grounds, taking away four pro-United votes and.  From what I understand, Ghana and Kosovo aren't present at the meeting, which eliminates their votes, as well.  Which would mean 201 countries are voting and it'll take 101 to win.  (If Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands remain eligible to vote, those numbers become 205 and 103.)

Not surprisingly, most of Africa is supporting Morocco and pretty much all of the Americas are backing the USA/Mexico/Canada bid.  The New York Times has a vote tracker that shows United with a 54-28 advantage among countries that have made their preference public, but they also have a lot of African nations in the "undecided" column, and Africa is the largest confederation.

Assuming Morocco gets all of Africa and United gets all of both CONCACAF and CONMEBOL, that's a 55-47 edge for Morocco.  Morocco is also an Islamic country, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them get a lot of support from the other Islamic nations (although not all, as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Afghanistan are firm U.S. votes).

After Qatar literally bought its way to hosting duties for 2022, you'd expect FIFA to be diligent in making sure that doesn't happen again.  But, the organization was so corruption-laden for so long.  You know there are still going to be backroom dealings.  There will just be fewer of them.  And they won't be as obvious.

As a result, this could end up being close.  And Morocco, despite being the far weaker and far riskier choice, could actually end up winning.  I don't think that'll be the case, especially because current FIFA President Gianni Infantino has expressed his preference for the USA-led bid.  But no one thought Qatar had a chance, either, and we all know what happened there.

I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of the two bids and compare their strengths relative to each other.  Because everyone knows the USA/Mexico/Canada bid is far stronger in every regard.  But everyone also knows that the USA should've won the right to host in 2022, so that obviously doesn't mean anything.

This will be the first World Cup with 48 teams instead of 32.  I'm not even sure Morocco would be capable of hosting a 32-team tournament.  The United States couldn't just handle the additional 16 teams, they'd be able to do it tomorrow.  For the first expanded tournament, wouldn't it make more sense to go to the place where you know there won't be any logistical issues?

If the common-sense argument isn't enough to sway them, maybe the financial one will.  Because, after all, we know how much these guys like money.  And the amount of money to be made by bringing the World Cup back to North America is astronomical.  The 1994 World Cup is still one of the best and most profitable in history.  That one only had 24 teams and 52 games.  In 2026, there will be twice as many teams and 80 games.  The profits could be in the billions!

Of course, there are other factors at play.  Donald Trump's rhetoric and some of his policies have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.  Although, he also wrote letters on official White House stationery in support of the bid.  And, perhaps more importantly, Donald Trump won't be President in 2026.  There's also plenty of resentment left over from the bribery scandal, which was primarily U.S.-led, so I can see some votes going Morocco's way because of that.

So, a vote that really shouldn't be that close on paper could end up being just that.  Even though the USA/Mexico/Canada bid is significantly stronger in every aspect, Morocco has its supporters.  When Morocco first announced its bid, it looked like just a token bid to prevent it from just being an automatic award to North America.  But the Moroccan bid gained traction and what was long considered a slam dunk suddenly became a nail-biter.

Ultimately, I do think the United bid will emerge victorious.  It's the better option, it's the smarter option, and it's what FIFA wants.  But we also thought that in 2010, when they awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar instead.  So, I'm not declaring victory until the votes are counted and the host is announced.  Although, I'm still confident that I'll be attending World Cup games at MetLife Stadium in 2026.

A Potential AL All*Star Problem

Today's release of the first National League All*Star voting update served notice that the Midsummer Classic is only about a month away.  The talk of who's going to make the rosters has already been going on for a few weeks, and some experts have already started releasing their projections.  Atlanta's Nick Markakis sure seems like a safe bet to finally make his first All*Star team, while the talk of April was which AL shortstops would be left out.

Shortstop's not the only position where the American League is going to have several worthy All*Star candidates who don't get the invite to Washington.  In fact, the AL is so top-heavy this year, that there are going to be a number of difficult roster decisions to make.  I'm even beginning to wonder how they'll figure out getting all the mandatory team reps.

And, before I get started, I want to make something clear.  I actually like it that Major League Baseball requires each team to be represented at the All*Star Game.  I know there are a lot of people who disagree, but I've never had a problem with it and I hope they never change it.  Issues like this are rare.  But, like either the Yankees or Red Sox potentially having 100 wins and still ending up in the Wild Card Game, they can happen.

Because of the DH, the AL only has five roster spots left after the fan and player votes.  And, since the All*Star rosters must include 12 pitchers, four of those five need to be pitchers.  But, taking the positions out of it for a second, when you consider there are five commissioner's selections and you need to have a representative from the Rays, Blue Jays, Twins, Royals, Tigers, A's and Rangers, that's a problem.

Baltimore and the White Sox weren't included on that list because it's inconceivable to think that Manny Machado and Jose Abreu won't be chosen by the players at their respective positions (assuming they don't start).  And, believe it or not, first-place Seattle might need to be thrown into that mix, too (although James Paxton could easily be a players' selection, and now that Shohei Ohtani is out of commission, it's easy to see Nelson Cruz being the backup DH).

Now, are we going to end up with more than five teams for five spots?  Probably not.  Salvador Perez has started at catcher for the last several years.  If he does again, that takes care of the Royals.  Likewise, a Miguel Cabrera start, however unwarranted, would take care of the Tigers.  If not, assuming the AL's starting outfield is Mike Trout, Aaron Judge and Mookie Betts, Nicholas Castellanos would be a logical candidate for a player-chosen backup spot.  However, if neither of those things happens, we need a Tiger (and Castellanos would still be the likely choice).

Tampa Bay is another team that might take care of itself.  Because AL catcher has been an overall terrible position this year, and Wilson Ramos has been the best of that unstellar group.  If he doesn't get the call, though, we need a Rays pitcher, which means Blake Snell takes Corey Kluber's or Chris Sale's or one of the Astros' spots.

Ramos and Castellanos being chosen by the players is probably best-case scenario.  Because that brings us down to four teams.  Although, there's still a slight problem, since the best All*Star candidates for both Minnesota (Eddie Rosario) and Texas (Nomar Mazara) are outfielders, neither of whom figures to be selected by the players (although Rosario conceivably could).  Of those five spots coming from the Commissioner's Office, only one is a position player.

So, we could be stuck with an unspectacular pitcher representing the Twins or Rangers (cue the random set up guy) on the All*Star Team instead of a deserving starter like Charlie Morton.  Toronto and Oakland don't pose a problem in this regard, because it's easy to justify taking J.A. Happ as your Blue Jay and Blake Treinen as your A.  Likewise, if Kansas City somehow ends up in the boat of needing a pitcher, Kelvin Herrera (assuming he's still on the Royals at that point) being on the team won't turn any heads.  (I actually think Herrera will be chosen by the players anyway.)

The National League, meanwhile, doesn't have this problem.  They don't have a DH, which gives them two extra spots to fill.  And you're never going to have eight teams needing representation after the fan and player selections.  Even last year, when it was reversed and the NL was top-heavy, there were only five token team reps (Josh Harrison, Michael Conforto, Brad Hand, Corey Knebel, Pat Neshek) among the eight players added by the commissioner.

We're, of course, going to see a ton of Yankees and Red Sox and Astros, too.  As we should.  They're the three best teams in baseball.  But it may not be as many as we originally thought.  Simply because there won't be room for any more Yankees or Red Sox or Astros after the fan and player votes are calculated.

Unfortunately, it also means Andrelton Simmons' best chance at making his first All*Star Team is through the Final Vote.  Which isn't to say he hasn't put together an All*Star worthy campaign.  He'll just be a victim of the rules.  Specifically the mandatory team reps.

Hayward Field's Farewell

This weekend's NCAA Championships mark the final track meet at the University of Oregon's iconic Hayward Field...at least in its current form.  Hayward Field isn't going anywhere, but it'll be closed for the better part of the next two years while it's gutted and rebuilt.  When it reopens, it'll be a state-of-the-art 35,000-set modern stadium, which doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

Hayward Field is on my bucket list, and it's iconic for a lot of reasons.  It opened in 1921 and is the marquee track & field venue in the United States.  It's the site of the the annual Prefontaine Classic, the only U.S. stop on the Diamond League circuit, and has hosted the last three Olympic Trials, as well as becoming the regular venue for the NCAA Championships. 

Eugene calls itself "Tracktown USA" and doesn't get an argument from anybody about that claim.  So, when the IAAF made it known they wanted the World Championships to come to the U.S. for the first time, there was only one place that made sense.  Hayward got a trial run with the 2014 World Junior Championships and passed with flying colors.  Less than a year later, Hayward was awarded the 2021 World Championships without a vote (causing some controversy).

However, in order to host the World Championships, Hayward needs to be expanded.  The current capacity is around 10,000, while the minimum size requirement for Worlds is 30,000.  Even with temporary seating (which they do for Olympic Trials), there's no way to get Hayward Field up to IAAF standards in its current form.  Thus, a renovation is needed.

Initially, the renovations were only going to take place during the offseason so as not to disrupt Hayward's regular events (which also includes the Oregon High School Championships).  But, construction delays have resulted in the project being pushed back to the point that the facility has to be shut down entirely in order to be finished on time.

Part of the reason for these delays is the community's negative reaction to the design.  Some object to the whole idea in general, and there have been a number of lawsuits designed to preserve the current Hayward Field. 

The university has tried to be sensitive to these concerns, but they're running out of time.  It's only three years until the World Championships, and the renovations need to get done.  Because if they don't, Oregon can't host Worlds.  It's that simple.

A lot of the uproar is because the plan calls for the complete replacement of the East grandstand, which is nearly as old as the stadium instelf.  People even went to the Eugene City Council trying to get landmark status for the grandstands, but the petition was denied.  Here's the thing, though.  If those grandstands were salvageable, they'd salvage them.  But they're 100 years old and made of wood.  They need to be replaced.

There are also plans for a nine-story tower at one end of the stadium.  Phil Knight (who's putting up most of the money for the renovations) wanted to name it after Bill Bowerman, the famed Oregon track coach whose waffle-iron design led Knight to create Nike.  But count Bowerman's family among those who object to the new Hayward Field.  They don't want their father's name on the tower.  So it won't be.  Steve Prefontaine's family is also against the design.

I think a lot of these objections are because people are worried Hayward Field will lose some of its ambiance and won't feel as intimate, which I get.  There are also those who've suggested that the facility will no longer yield fast times because it's bowl-shaped and the wind will swirl (the current Hayward is open on either end), which is ridiculous.  That's not something that should factor into the decision at all.

Let's remember this, though.  Hayward Field isn't going to lose its status as the premier track & field venue in the United States.  In fact, just the opposite.  The facility will become world class in every way, including some amenities that it doesn't currently have.  Hayward Field has served the people of Oregon, and track & field in the United States, well for a long time.  And once the renovations are completed, it will continue to do just that well into the future.

None of this is that out of the ordinary.  Anytime a new facility is built to replace an outdated on, there are complaints and lawsuits and hard feelings.  Then the new one opens.  Does it make people forget the old one?  Of course not!  But the new one will produce plenty of its own memorable moments.  And in the case of the new Hayward Field, some of those memorable moments are bound to come at the 2021 Worlds.

So, the options are either the current Hayward Field and no World Championships or the World Championships at the new Hayward Field.  Is that even really a choice?

What the new Hayward Field will look like when it opens in 2020.

The Luke Heimlich Dilemma

As much as I try to keep my personal politics off this blog, the Toddler-In-Chief makes it really difficult at times.  Trump was supposed to welcome the Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles to the White House today, only to abruptly cancel it and throw the team under the bus in the process.  Instead, he held some ridiculous event "for Eagles fans" where evidently all they did was sing the national anthem.

But I'm NOT going to give that idiot any more attention by devoting an entire post to another one of his me-first, publicity-seeking stunts.  Instead I'm going to focus on a topic that's controversial for another reason.  Oregon State pitcher Luke Heimlich is likely to be selected at some point during the MLB Draft (he might even be taken while I write this), which will draw a whole lot of negative reaction towards whichever team ultimately ends up drafting him.

I was vaguely familiar with Heimlich's story, then I read the excellent Sports Illustrated cover story that detailed his situation very well.  Heimlich withdrew from Oregon State's NCAA Tournament roster last year (when he almost certainly would've been a first-round pick) due to a personal legal matter, which obviously soon became known to everybody.

When he was 15, Heimlich plead guilty to sexually assaulting his niece.  To this day, his story has never changed.  He claims his innocence and says he only agreed to the plea deal because it was in the best interest of his family.  None of that, frankly, is relevant.  What is relevant is the fact that, as a part of the plea, if he met all the terms, his juvenile record would be expunged after five years.

That five-year time frame expired last summer, and he no longer has to register as a sex offender.  Heimlich has fulfilled all the criteria and, as far as the legal system is concerned, is free to go about living a normal life without any restrictions.  His future almost certainly includes professional baseball, which rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Obviously, the feelings about Heimich are mixed.  There are a lot of people who view him as a pariah and won't change their opinion.  He's the equivalent of Michael Vick to them.  And there are others who think he's entitled to a second chance.  They're unlikely to change their stance either.  Neither side is "wrong."  I get both of their points.

Here's the thing that bothers me about the whole situation, though.  Heimlich's juvenile record is supposed to be sealed, and it would've been had the story not broken last June.  And the only reason the story broke in the first place is because The Oregonian fell into it while working on a feature about Heimlich for the NCAA Tournament.  I don't blame The Oregonian for reporting it at all.  But had they not been working on that feature, Heimlich would've been drafted by somebody last year and none of us would've been the wiser.  He might even be in the Majors by now.

Instead, he missed the 2017 NCAA Tournament and was simply undraftable.  He returned to Oregon State this season (where he was welcomed back by his teammates) and continued to put up solid numbers.  There was some backlash at Beavers games, but Heimlich was allowed to play and didn't have to serve any sort of suspension, either from the school or the NCAA.  (I also highly doubt that he's the only Division I baseball player who's had past legal issues.  He's just the only one we know about.)

Yet that hasn't stopped the headline writers of every article written about Heimlich from using the splashy words that make people just assume he's some guilty scumbag instead of letting them make their own judgment (since "criminal" means "a person who commits a crime," yes, he is technically a criminal).  Which I think is completely unfair to him.  Because there's a lot more to the story.

Is it a complicated situation?  Absolutely!  But whatever happened to second chances?  Do you want him to just curl up in a ball and die?  He made a mistake.  And he's paid for it.  But he's also a 22-year-old kid who deserves a chance to live his life.  A life that will almost certainly include professional baseball.

Some teams have taken Heimlich off their draft boards, which is their prerogative.  But I guarantee that he will be given a chance.  Whether or not he's drafted doesn't make that much of a difference, because he'll catch on as a free agent if he isn't.

Do I agree with what Luke Heimlich did?  Of course not.  But he shouldn't be forced to wear it like a scarlet letter, either.  We're a society based on second chances.  Whether you like it or not, he deserves at least that.  And if that second chance includes the opportunity to play professional baseball, so be it.

Three Games In 24 Hours? Really?!

Starting this year, they built four extra off days into the baseball season.  The Yankees have certainly needed them.  Rain has followed them wherever they go, and they've incredibly already had seven games postponed by weather!  Of course, when you have that many rainouts, you have to make them up by either giving up an off day or playing a doubleheader (or both).

Two of the Yankees' four scheduled games in Baltimore over the weekend were rained out, and they're going to make them up by playing a doubleheader during each of their other two series in Baltimore.  One will be in August (even though the Yankees and Orioles have a mutual off day on the Thursday before the series starts).  The other will be on a Monday right before the All*Star Break, when the Yankees will be coming from Toronto. 

Right after the teams agreed to play the doubleheader on that date, ESPN announced that the Sunday Yankees-Blue Jays game would be featured on Sunday Night Baseball, meaning an 8:00 start time.  So, ESPN wants them to play at 8:00 in Toronto, finish the game, go through customs, fly to Baltimore, and play a doubleheader at 5:00 (which means the second game will start at around 9:00).  The Yankees are understandably upset about this.  And they have every right to be!

ESPN offered a couple of pretty flimsy "reasons" for the change.  They claimed that they wanted to use the Yankees as the lead-out from the All*Star Game selection show, which is taking the place of Baseball Tonight that night.  They also said that they'd planned on this being the Sunday night game that week since December. 

If that was actually the case, though, why did both teams have the start time listed as 1:00 when they released their individual schedules?  And why did every media outlet in Canada go nuts about the fact that the Blue Jays were playing their first Sunday night game in 14 years?  And, most of all, would the Yankees have agreed to play a doubleheader in Baltimore on Monday if they knew they were playing a Sunday night game in Toronto?  Of course not!

How is this acceptable?!  I'm not saying this as a Yankees fan.  I'm saying this as a person with common sense.  How do you expect a team to play three games in two different cities in roughly 30 hours and think it's OK? 

The Yankees get screwed by having to travel after Sunday Night Baseball all the time, but this is beyond ridiculous.  It's an integrity of the game issue first and foremost.  You've also got to worry about the possibility key players getting injured.  As Ken Singleton said during the broadcast of this afternoon's makeup game in Detroit, "tired players become injured players."

Yankees manager Aaron Boone (who, ironically, worked as a broadcaster on Sunday Night Baseball last season) summed it up pretty well: "Hopefully there is some pressure being applied because that is not good for the product on the field or the safety of our guys, having to go from night game, flight and right into a doubleheader.  Anybody who would argue with that is not being truthful."

And, it's not like ESPN needs this game for the opportunity to show the Yankees.  They max out the Yankees' Sunday Night Baseball appearances every year.  In fact, they're scheduled to play three Sunday night games in July alone (plus one this week when they play the Mets at Citi Field).  They play the Red Sox on July 1 and the Mets on July 22.  Both of those, as everyone knows, are required Sunday Night Baseball matchups (in the case of Yankees-Red Sox, every time they play on the weekend, a Sunday night game is required).

This is a major issue that needs to be addressed.  David Robertson, the Yankees' player rep, was immediately on the phone with the Players Association after the change was announced, and the team has been in touch with the Commissioner's Office.  Obviously they'll get some push back from the Blue Jays and ESPN, but Rob Manfred has to put his foot down and do the right thing here.  Because making a team--any team--play a Sunday night game before a doubleheader in another city the next day is flat out wrong.

In response, the Yankees have threatened to boycott ESPN if things aren't changed.  They obviously can't prevent ESPN from showing them entirely.  But they can refuse to do interviews and any other sort of promotional pieces that you regularly see on the network.  And this wouldn't just apply to that Sunday night game against the Blue Jays.  It would last all season.

So, ESPN is being given a choice.  Do the right thing or risk pissing off one of the best teams in the game even more.  Boone isn't optimistic that the right thing will be done.  He's fully expecting ESPN to get its way and his team to get screwed (more than they already have). 

Which is why the commissioner needs to step in.  Who's more important, the players or the TV networks?  We'll find out soon.  And we'll find out what side Manfred's on.  He'll either show the players that he's on their side with a favorable resolution.  Or he'll show them that he doesn't care about them at all and make a team play three games in little more than 24 hours.  Which is a ridiculous thing to even think about.

Some Expected, Some Surprises After Two Months

We're a third of the way thru the baseball season, and we pretty much already know the American League playoff teams.  Like the National League last season, this year's AL is definitely separated into "haves" and "have-nots."  Which will make trade deadline decisions easier, but will take a lot of suspense out of the playoff races.

Although, there's one race in the American League that figures to last all the way until September...and even into October.  It's crazy to think that the Yankees and Red Sox could theoretically finish with the two best records in baseball, yet one of them is going to end up in a winner-take-all Wild Card Game, only to potentially have the rivals then meet in the Division Series.  Meanwhile, Houston would effectively get a bye into the ALCS by playing a Cleveland team that, as it stands right now, figures to finish in the 84-86 win range, which will be more than enough in a very weak AL Central.

I can't really call this a "flaw" of the playoff system.  It's something that hasn't remotely been an issue in the seven years of the two wild cards.  But this year, it's not just a likely scenario.  It seems inevitable. 

The only uncertain things about the Yankees and Red Sox, really, is which one will win the division and which will end up hosting the Wild Card Game.  That and who their Wild Card Game opponent will be.  Going into the season, most people thought it would be the Angels.  And I still think the Angels are better than the Mariners, even though Seattle has built a bit of a gap and is actually tied with the Astros for first place.  Assuming the Astros get their act together, the only race we're looking at in the American League (at least for playoff qualification) will be between the two AL West teams for the second wild card.

You can't really say this is a surprise, though.  Going into the season, most people expected the Yankees, Red Sox and Astros to be the three best teams, and that the Indians on paper looked the strongest in the Central.  We also thought a bunch of American League teams would be bad (although, not this many, and not this bad), so unless something drastic happens, we pretty much know the American League teams that will be playing in October.

Over in the National League, however, this season has been full of surprises.  The Brewers have the best record (and third-best in baseball), the Phillies and Braves have been duking for the NL East lead all season, and, until recently, the expected "top" teams have struggled (the Dodgers will be lucky to make the playoffs at this point).

Washington has started to get its act together, moving into a first-place tie with a surprising Braves team that, in a lot of ways, resembles last year's Yankees.  I don't think Atlanta's going away, but a healthy Nationals club is arguably the best in the National League.  And they haven't been completely healthy yet.  Don't stick a fork in the Nationals yet.

Last year's other division winners, the Cubs and Dodgers, also stumbled out of the gate.  The Cubs did the same thing last year and still won the division going away, but this year they have to deal with a much better Brewers team.  And let's not forget about the Cardinals, who haven't made the playoffs in a couple years.  The NL Central has the makings of a really good three-team race.

So does the NL West, which had three playoff teams last year.  The Diamondbacks and Rockies have been trading first place back-and-forth while the Dodgers try to figure some things out.  Although, as bad as the Dodgers have played, they're still just 2.5 games behind Arizona.  Clayton Kershaw's been out, and you know they have the money to be aggressive at the deadline.  Call me crazy, but I think they've still got a run in them.  Will it be something like the ridiculous 43-7 run that saved Dave Roberts' job a few years ago?  Probably not.  But will it be enough to get them into the playoffs, especially if they add, say, Manny Machado or Hanley Ramirez?  Possibly.

October's still a long way away, and there's still a lot of season left.  Although, if you're looking for playoff races, the National League's probably where you should turn.  Because the top teams in the AL have already separated themselves, and that gap's only going to get larger. 

In the NL, however, the "top" teams haven't played their best baseball yet.  When and if they do, they'll be coming hard for the teams currently leading their divisions.  And that'll be worth watching.  Can the Nationals, Cubs and Dodgers assert their division dominance once again?  Or will the Braves, Brewers or Phillies keep their surprise runs going into the postseason?

Either way, it looks like we're going to have two very different types of playoff races on our hands.  In the AL, the elite teams will be positioning themselves to beat each other in October.  In the NL, everyone will position themselves just to try and get there.  Both should be interesting.  We'll see what the remaining four months brings, and if anything changes.