Time For Tennis In London

It sure is a busy time in London.  Well, it's always busy there, but it seems busier than usual right now.  The Yankees-Red Sox series at Olympic Stadium just ended, and now it's time for an annual London tradition--Wimbledon.  Thankfully today's game was on ESPN (which also has Wimbledon rights) because I almost completely forgot it was time.  And, if I didn't already have enough reasons to be completely jealous of A-Rod's life, he sticking around London for the sole reason of attending Wimbledon.

Anyway, Clay Boy did some whining after the seeds were announced and he was No. 3 despite being ranked No. 2.  That's because Wimbledon uses a seeding formula and doesn't just go down the rankings.  They take the top 32 players, then determine their grass court points and adjust their seeding based on that.  Since Roger's good on grass and won Wimbledon two years ago, while Clay Boy rarely plays any grass court tournaments other than Wimbledon, that was enough for them to have their seeds flipped.  (And, for the record, their seeds were flipped last year, too.)

One of the articles I read on this topic said that being No. 3 means you would potentially have to play both of the others to win the title, but that argument makes no sense since the same possibility exists for either No. 1 or No. 2 (whichever draws No. 3 in the semi).  And Federer wasn't the only player to benefit either.  Last year's finalist Kevin Anderson is ranked eighth and was seeded No. 4, dropping Dominic Thiem to No. 5 (which actually is significant since it means you could play one of the Big Three in the quarters instead of the semis).

Speaking of Kevin Anderson, he and John Isner played a match that will forever be a part of Wimbledon history.  Their six-hour semifinal last year, which Anderson won 26-24 in the fifth, can never happen again.  It wasn't the only reason, but that match got the powers that be at Wimbledon to finally implement a final set tiebreak (leaving the French Open as the only holdout).  It won't be right away at 6-6.  They'll let you play it out for a while.  But if the score gets to 12-12, it goes to a tiebreak.  So, no more John Isner Wimbledon marathons.  (Although, that semifinal Friday/Saturday was one outstanding day of tennis.)

I'm interested to see what kind of an impact, if any, that has on the big servers.  Frankly, I don't see it making that much of a difference.  Had the rule been in effect last year, Anderson-Isner is the only match that would've gone to the 12-12 tiebreaker (two other matches were decided 13-11 in the fifth, one game away from the tiebreak, including Anderson's quarterfinal win over Federer).  And I know everyone will welcome the change.  Because the tiebreak means shorter matches, which means the winner will be fresher for their next match.

Is any of that ultimately going to matter though?  The same four guys have won Wimbledon every year since 2003, and there's no reason not to think they won't extend it to 17 straight years.  Murray's semi-retired (although it's great to see him playing doubles here).  But the other three are all in form and looking to add another Grand Slam title to their ridiculous resumes.

Roger won his eighth Wimbledon two years ago and knows this might be his last best chance for Grand Slam title No. 21.  Grass is his best surface and Wimbledon is his favorite tournament.  With his career winding down, his number of remaining appearances at the All-England Club is also dwindling.  He hadn't played the French Open since 2015, so we'll see if playing those extra matches (on clay) before Wimbledon for the first time in four years took any sort of a toll on his body.  My guess is probably not.

If I had to pick a favorite, though, it would be the world No. 1.  Last year, Djokovic was coming back from an injury and entered Wimbledon ranked 21st (and seeded 12th).  Then he won the title, showed us all he was fine and went back to being Novak Djokovic.  One year later, he's back at No. 1 and was two French Open wins away from a second Nole Slam.  So, yeah, he's the favorite.  And he should be.

So that's my pick.  Djokovic has beaten Federer in the Wimbledon final twice (2014-15).  Make that three times.

On the women's side, like pretty much every other Grand Slam tournament over the past two years, it's wide open.  Although, a Williams sister is probably a good bet.  This marks the 20th year since Venus won her first title in 2000, and at least one of them has been in the final 15 times in that span.  And this has always been Serena's best tournament, so you'd have to consider her one of the favorites.  If not THE favorite.

Except Serena's got a difficult draw.  In the fourth round, she'll have to face either Angelique Kerber, who beat her in the final last year, or Maria Sharapova, who she beats all the time but can still give her a match.  Then in the quarters, it would be French Open champ and new world No. 1 Ash Barty, with two-time champ Petra Kvitova awaiting the winner in the semis.

The bottom half of the women's draw, where Venus resides, seems a lot more wide open.  I'm still waiting for that Grand Slam breakthrough from both Karolina Pliskova and Elina Svitolina.  As fate would have it, they'd play each other in the semifinals (assuming they make it that far), so maybe this is where we'll finally see that breakthrough.

This is also Naomi Osaka's first trip to Wimbledon as a Grand Slam champion, and I'm curious to see how she plays.  She's the reigning champion at both the US Open and Australian Open, so you'd think her style, especially her big serve, would play well at Wimbledon.  I actually really like Osaka's chances.  Although, she could face either Venus, Madison Keys or Vika Azarenka in the quarters, which could definitely be a challenge.

Ultimately, though, I've gotta stick with a player who has a proven track record at Wimbledon.  I think Kvitova beats Serena in one semi and Svitolina beats Keys in the other.  And Petra Kvitova tops Elina Svitolina in the final for her third Wimbledon title.

The 2019 Joe Brackets All*Star Teams

When MLB announced that they were completely revamping the All*Star voting process this year, I wasn't sure what to think at first.  I didn't think the concept was a terrible one.  I just wasn't sure about the execution.  But I ended up liking the primary and starters elections.  I especially liked the live updates during the starters election, which meant there were very few surprises during the "Election Night" special (which didn't need to be an hour long!). 

"Election Night" also made me realize something else.  Basketball and hockey always announce the starters before the rest of the team, but baseball never did.  This is the first time we aren't finding out the entire rosters at once.  Which I really liked.  No starter coming out of nowhere because of a late voting surge. 

And, frankly, it made the process a lot fairer.  It wasn't the popularity contest it's been in the past (Bryce Harper wasn't even one of the nine finalists among NL outfielders).  Of the 17 elected starters, the only one that's somewhat questionable is Hunter Pence at DH.  The other 16 likely would've made the team as reserves anyway.  So, basically, the fans did a really good job choosing the starters this year.

It made the process of making mock rosters a lot easier, too.  No need to guess who's going to start.  You can select your reserves and pitchers without having to worry who's gonna end up getting bumped by an unexpected starter, so it's really just a matter of determining who the next-best player at each position is before filling in your team reps.

They changed the process for the reserves this year, too.  The Final Vote is no more (essentially replaced by the Starters Election), so the teams that are announced on Sunday night will be the full teams.  No campaigning from the five guys in line for one last spot on the roster.  Sure, we might see an injury replacement or two (and pitchers who start on Sunday may or may not pitch in the All*Star Game), but we'll essentially know the full rosters.

Eliminating the Final Vote makes things a little easier for picking the reserves, too (a job that no longer belongs to the managers).  Until this year, the AL only had five additional spots after the player ballot to fill the token team reps...and last year they needed all five for the teams that weren't represented.  This year they have six, two of which are position players, which is just as important since it means we won't have a random Mariners middle reliever because they needed someone and he's their "best" pitcher.  (That has obviously never been a problem in the NL, which doesn't have two roster spots taken up by DHs.)

I also think it's funny that in the All*Star Game, each league has a 32-player roster, which includes 12 pitchers.  But in the regular season, when teams have 25 players, most of them carry at least 13 pitchers. 

Anyway, just another fun little All*Star quirk.  On to the rosters...

NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *-Willson Contreras, Cubs; Yasmani Grandal, Brewers; J.T. Realmuto, Phillies
1B: *-Freddie Freeman, Braves; Pete Alonso, Mets; Josh Bell, Pirates
2B: *-Ketel Marte, Diamondbacks; Mike Moustakas, Brewers
SS: *-Javier Baez, Cubs; Trevor Story, Rockies
3B: *-Nelson Arenado, Rockies; Kris Bryant, Cubs; Anthony Rendon, Nationals
OF: *-Christian Yelich, Brewers; *-Cody Bellinger, Dodgers; *-Ronald Acuna Jr., Braves; Charlie Blackmon, Rockies; David Dahl, Rockies; Jeff McNeil, Mets; Marcell Ozuna, Cardinals
SP: Zack Greinke, Diamondbacks; Mike Soroka, Braves; Luis Castillo, Reds; Walker Buehler, Dodgers; Hyung-Jin Ryu, Dodgers; Caleb Smith, Marlins; Max Scherzer, Nationals; Stephen Strasburg, Nationals
RP: Kenley Jansen, Dodgers; Josh Hader, Brewers; Kirby Yates, Padres; Will Smith, Giants

AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *-Gary Sanchez, Yankees; James McCann, White Sox
1B: *-Carlos Santana, Indians; Luke Voit, Yankees
2B: *-DJ LeMahieu, Yankees; Tommy La Stella, Angels
SS: *-Jorge Polanco, Twins; Xander Bogaerts, Red Sox
3B: *-Alex Bregman, Astros; Rafael Devers, Red Sox
OF: *-Mike Trout, Angels; *-George Springer, Astros; *-Michael Brantley, Astros; Trey Mancini, Orioles; Mookie Betts, Red Sox; Domingo Santana, Mariners; Austin Meadows, Rays; Joey Gallo, Rangers
DH: *-Hunter Pence, Rangers; J.D. Martinez, Red Sox
SP: Lucas Giolito, White Sox; Justin Verlander, Astros; Jose Berrios, Twins; Jake Odorizzi, Twins; Charlie Morton, Rays; Mike Minor, Rangers
RP: Brad Hand, Indians; Shane Greene, Tigers; Ian Kennedy, Royals; Aroldis Chapman, Yankees; Liam Hendriks, Athletics; Ken Giles, Blue Jays

As for the starting pitchers, that's easy.  After three straight years of Chris Sale starting for the AL, it'll definitely be someone else this time since he almost certainly won't make the team.  Even if Sale were to make it, the choice for the AL starter is incredibly obvious.  Justin Verlander has been the AL Cy Young winner so far.  If the rest works out, he should make his second career All*Star Game start.

In the National League, there are two starting positions to fill.  Both of which should be just as big a no-brainer as Verlander.  As good as Verlander has been, Hyung-Jin Ryu has been even better.  His batting average and ERA are almost the same, and he's not exactly Shohei Ohtani with the bat.  Max Scherzer will be on the team and could conceivably start for the third straight year, but I think even he'd agree the honor should go to Ryu, especially since Ryu's own manager will be the one picking the starting pitcher.

The NL DH should be a first baseman, either Josh Bell or Pete Alonso.  It would be awesome to see Alonso start after his monster first half.  As good as he's been, though, Bell has been better.  If not for Cody Bellinger and Christian Yelich, we'd be talking about him as the NL MVP of the first half.  I think he should've gotten the nod over Freddie Freeman at first base, but that can be somewhat rectified by inserting him into the starting lineup as the DH.

Back Where They Belong

UConn is coming home!  The news that first broke over the weekend has finally been made official.  UConn is returning to the Big East!

When I first heard they were making the move, I was somewhat surprised but not totally shocked.  The truth is UConn never belonged in the American, a conference that was created for football.  They were the only ones left out of the great conference realignment, which was 100 percent football-motivated.  And when the Big East split, the football schools went one way while the basketball schools went another.  Seeing the money that was there because of football, even in a non-Power 5 league, UConn made the difficult decision to separate from its longtime rivals to create the American, which is, essentially, a football conference.

But the American was never a fit.  UConn is, was and always will be a basketball school.  And, for the most part, the American is a weak basketball league.  And the UConn basketball programs have suffered as a result.  

The men won the National Championship as members of the American in 2014, but have only been to one NCAA Tournament since.  The women will always be a national power, but they got a 2-seed in the NCAA Tournament last year despite being No. 2 in the polls, mainly because the committee had very little regard for the competition they faced in their own conference.  In fact, the UConn women have never lost a conference game in the six-year existence of the American.

And they're hurting financially, too.  One of the numbers that I saw was $40 million.  That's the amount of the budget deficit faced by the UConn Athletic Department.  Because instead of hopping on a bus to go to St. John's or Villanova, they're flying everywhere.  The only American school that's remotely close to UConn is Temple.  Every other conference road game involves a trip to Tulsa or Houston or Memphis or another far-off city.

They also took a hit at the ticket office.  UConn's football team isn't any good and the fans don't care about any of their opponents.  Rutgers being in the Big Ten doesn't make any sense either, but they at least play home games against Ohio State and Michigan every once in a while.  Central Florida and Tulane don't have that same appeal, though.  As a result, Rentschler Field is half empty (at best) for pretty much every game.

What's worse, though, is that their basketball attendance has also been effected.  It's not just because the men's team has had a few down years (which I think isn't unrelated to the "strength" of the conference, or lack thereof).  People aren't going to see the women either.  Why?  Because East Carolina and SMU simply don't get them going the way Villanova and Georgetown do.

Those rivalries are what helped build the Big East and make it what it is.  UConn was a founding member of the league, and it never felt right to see them playing teams like Tulane and South Florida instead of St. John's and Seton Hall.  Sure, the Syracuse rivalry is no more.  But they missed playing Villanova and Providence twice a year.  So did the fans.

It's been six years, but it's still extremely weird to see a Big East Tournament without UConn, while the Huskies were busy playing their conference tournament somewhere other than Madison Square Garden.  There are some things that just go together.  UConn basketball and the Big East are two of those things.

This is also a declaration that UConn no longer has aspirations of joining a Power 5 football conference.  Frankly, that never really seemed like a possibility to begin with (Boston College doesn't want them in the ACC).  The American was probably the best conference they were going to get.  But their brand is basketball, and the American was hurting their brand.

They haven't said what'll happen to the football team.  That's one of the many details that needs to be figured out.  My best guess is that they'll either become a football-only member of the MAC or an independent (which would give them the flexibility to play more local teams).  There are no indications that they'll drop down to FCS.  And, who knows?, maybe staying in the American just for football is still possible (although that seems unlikely).

For the American, meanwhile, this was one of the worst possible things that could happen to them.  The conference has always been in a kind of awkward position to begin with.  It's not a Power 5 league, but it's got some of the biggest name schools that aren't in one.  And the next one of those conferences wants to expand, you know exactly where they'll look first.

There were those few marquee programs that brought the American credibility, though.  And UConn was the biggest of those big dogs.  Their departure relegates the American almost completely to mid-major status.  Sure, they've still got the ESPN deal (which was another factor in UConn's decision), but everyone in the American knows that the conference won't be the same.

Ultimately, though, this is a great day.  It's a great day for UConn.  It's a great day for the Big East.  It's a great day for college basketball fans everywhere.  The Huskies are back where they belong.  And the Big East feels like itself again.

Les Rays

The Tampa Bay Rays have had attendance and stadium problems ever since they came into existence 20 years ago.  In the early days, it was easy to blame the lack of fans on the fact that the expansion team wasn't any good.  But, even as the Rays have been more or less competitive for the last decade, the fans still don't show up.  They have the fourth-best record in the American League, yet are lucky to draw 15,000 people for a home game.

Tropicana Field is a big part of the problem.  The place is a dump.  I understand why they thought they needed an indoor stadium when it was built in the late 80s (the Lightning actually played there for their first three seasons), but it's now terribly outdated.  And it has been pretty much since the Rays' first game in 1998.  It's the only completely indoor facility in the Majors, as well as one of only two with artificial turf (and the Blue Jays are planning on installing grass at SkyDome relatively soon).

None of this is news to the Tampa Bay Rays.  They know that people don't want to go inside to watch a baseball game when the weather's gorgeous outside.  Although, the thunderstorms in that area can be pretty nasty (just ask the Bucs), so a roof is needed.  That's why the Rays have been looking to build a retractable roof stadium for years now.  Unfortunately, they signed a 30-year lease with the City of St. Petersburg prior to their expansion season, so they're stuck at Tropicana Field until 2027.

Major League Baseball is also well aware of the Rays' stadium situation.  Attendance isn't going to get any better until they get a new stadium, but a new stadium requires the land, the permits and everything else that goes with it.  Not to mention at least two years for the construction once all that is settled.  So, basically, nothing can be done about Tropicana Field for a while.

Which brings me to a similar situation in the late 90/early 2000s regarding the Montreal Expos.  The Expos had attendance problems at the cavernous Olympic Stadium (having been there twice, I love Montreal's Olympic Stadium, even though I know it's just as much of a dump as Tropicana Field).  To survive in Montreal, they needed a new (smaller) stadium, among other issues.  MLB knew that wasn't likely and wanted a team in Washington, so they pushed for relocation.  Which was easy since the Expos were owned by the league at the time.

In the 15 years since the Expos became the Nationals, there have definitely been nostalgic feelings about MLB's first Canadian franchise.  Expos merchandise is everywhere, and the Blue Jays have been playing their last couple Spring Training games in Montreal for a few seasons now, which have all been sellouts (even before Vlad Jr. showed up).

Naturally it's gotten people thinking that a return to Montreal seems inevitable when/if Major League Baseball expands again.  Except MLB has no current plans of expanding.  Rob Mafred has even flat out said that expansion won't even be considered until they figure out the "stadium situations" in Oakland and Tampa Bay, neither of which seems close to being resolved.

To solve one of those "stadium situations," MLB has come up with a solution similar to one they once used with the Expos.  In 2003 and 2004, their final two years before moving to Washington, the Expos split their home games between Montreal and San Juan, playing 22 games each season in Puerto Rico.

This proposal would do the exact same thing, except it would be splitting Rays games between Tampa Bay and Montreal.  The number of games in each city is unclear, but I did see one suggestion that they would play the early season games in Tampa before heading to Montreal once the weather got warmer.  I've also seen the idea of a split season, with half the games in each city, floated around.

Now, there are a lot of hurdles that make this seem unlikely.  For starters, the Blue Jays enjoy being the only team in Canada, so I'm sure they'd have some objections.  Likewise, the Rays having two "home" markets probably wouldn't go over well with the other 29 teams.

But here's the issue that makes this plan really stupid: it's predicated on the construction of a new stadium in BOTH cities!  That makes absolutely no sense!  Why would Montreal build a new ballpark if they're not getting their own team?  And why would they build one to host less than a full season's worth of games? 

Likewise, if the Rays finally got their new ballpark in the Tampa area, why wouldn't they just play all 81 games there?  Their attendance is an issue.  That's obvious.  But it might be stadium.  At least give them a chance to see if that's the case.  If they build a brand new 30,000-seat retractable roof park and people still don't show up, then maybe you can write off Tampa as a market.

I kinda get what MLB is trying to do here.  They want to address the Rays' attendance issues while also seeing if a return to Montreal would indeed make sense, either with an expansion team or a relocated franchise (probably the one that would be playing some of its home games there).  I simply don't see how playing some (half?) of their home games in a different city would solve the Rays' attendance woes in Tampa, though.  I didn't understand it 15 years ago, either.

One thing appears certain, though.  As desperate as MLB was to get out of Montreal back then, they seem just as eager to get back there now.  Are they just as eager to move the Rays out of Tampa?  That's less clear.  I don't think they're ready to give up on Tampa yet, but they're getting close.  Hence this ridiculous proposal.  Which, if enacted, would only serve to hasten the Rays' departure.  Just like 15 years ago, when Montreal was on the other end of it all.

Winter Olympics Back to Europe

The IOC has announced several changes to the Olympic bid process.  First, they're giving the Executive Board a lot more latitude for making recommendations of areas/cities/countries that could/should be potential hosts.  They're also adjusting the bid timeline.  It won't necessarily be the standard seven years (there's already precedent for this after LA was awarded the 2028 Games 11 years in advance). 

And, perhaps most importantly, they're tired of Olympic bids being shot down by referendums.  It's embarrassing for the cities, and it's embarrassing for the IOC.  So, they're telling cities to have their referendums ahead of time.  Don't waste all that time and money on a bid that the people don't want.  Get the support first, then move ahead with your bid instead of the other way around.  A lot of what the IOC has done in recent years regarding the bid process is pretty dumb (which is what has led to their current predicament), but changing that requirement was very smart.

One last change that they've made, and this one applies particularly to the Winter Olympics, is that bids are no longer required to be based in one host "city."  If it means making use of existing facilities, regional and even multi-national bids will be considered.  This is the case for both finalists for the 2026 Winter Games, which will mark the Winter Olympics' long-awaited return to a traditional European location after two straight trips to East Asia.

This could also be the last Olympic bid of its kind, as the IOC's reforms will have taken effect by the time the bid process for 2030 (the next Olympics to be awarded) begins.  And, hopefully that means this'll be the final Olympic bid race that was reduced to a head to head.

But at least we've got a race, and both contenders are viable options.  It took a little while to get the required government guarantees, and for a time it looked like we might be down to zero bid cities on announcement day.  But the local and national governments eventually signed on, and it looks like the people are excited, too. 

So, even though it's just a two-horse race, the IOC got exactly what it wanted.  Either way, we'll have a Winter Olympics in a traditional European winter sports nation.  Either Sweden will host the Winter Games for the first time (which is so ridiculously hard to believe) or the Winter Olympics will return to Italy for the second time in 20 years.

Let's start with Stockholm Are.  You've gotta love the Swedes' perseverance.  They had no support from the government, but went ahead with the bid anyway and eventually got that backing.  Which has Stockholm, the 1912 Summer host, in position to join Beijing as the second straight city to have hosted both the Summer and Winter Games.  The mountain city of Are was always a part of the bid, and had its name officially added alongside Stockholm's shortly after hosting the alpine skiing World Championships in January.

Events will be spread out between an area of nearly 750 miles between Are and Sigulda, Latvia, which would host the sliding events.  There's no bobsled track in Sweden, so the IOC has signed off on having the sliding events across the Baltic Sea in Sigulda, making this the first Olympics to hold medal events in two nations (not counting the 1956 equestrian events, which, conicidentally, were in Stockholm while the rest of the Olympics were in Melbourne).

While it may seem like the venues are spread very far apart, in reality this is a Stockholm-centered bid.  The only events outside of Stockholm will be at existing facilities in Are (alpine skiing, snowboarding/freestyle skiing), Falun (ski jumping, Nordic combined) and Sigulda (bobsled, luge, skeleton).  Everything else will be in the capital, which would also include the use of the 1912 Olympic Stadium for big air snowboarding.

Italy's bid originally included three cities, but 2006 host Torino backed out, leaving Milan and Cortina to go it alone, with a whole bunch of local areas in between.  It's only 255 miles between the cities, but there isn't one centralized location, so it feels much more spread out than the Swedish bid.

If I had to choose a "main" host, it would probably be Cortina, which hosted the 1956 Winter Games and would be utilizing a lot of the same venues again 70 years later.  That includes reopening the bobsled track that has been closed since 2008 (they originally suggested using a track in Switzerland even though Cortina already has one and just needs to renovate it). 

Milan would only host the Opening and Closing Ceremonies (at San Siro, the beautiful home stadium of both AC and Inter Milan), figure skating, short track and hockey.  That's it.  Everything else would be scattered among alpine resort towns west of Cortina, all of which currently host World Cup and World Championship events in the various winter sports.

They were originally going to announce the host city in Milan in September, but the vote was moved up to June at the IOC headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland because IOC rules prohibit a vote taking place in a country that's bidding for the Games in question.  The fact that the decision's being made a few months earlier shouldn't make that much of a difference, though.  Because the voters definitely seem to be leaning one way.

While Milan Cortina rated slightly higher in the IOC Evaluation Commission's report, they also gave Stockholm Are a favorable review.  What's more, Sweden's passion for winter sports is so well known that it's inconceivable they've never hosted the Winter Games.  It's time to rectify that.  Sweden has bid and failed for the Winter Olympics so many times before.  Not this time.  The 2026 Winter Olympics will take place in Stockholm and Are, Sweden.

VAR Not Doing Its Job

We're halfway thru the Women's World Cup, as the field of 24 has been cut to 16 and the knockout round is set to begin.  The group stage brought few surprises and certainly didn't change my opinion on who the team to beat is.  So, instead of talking about the round of 16, I've gotta address the elephant in the room.

VAR is a great idea in theory.  And it was 100 percent the right decision to use it at this World Cup.  But VAR has definitely reared its ugly head in the form of some questionable penalty calls that decided games.

In particular, I'm talking about the VAR enforcement of new rules regarding penalty kicks.  On a penalty kick, the goalkeeper is required to have at least one foot on the line when the kick taker makes contact with the ball.  There have been at least three instances in this Women's World Cup where the keeper made a save, only to have VAR overturn it because she was off her line, resulting in a rekick and a yellow card for the keeper.  And the rekick ended up being successful.

How important was that?  Well, in the Scotland-Argentina game, Scotland was leading 3-2 when Argentina, after missing a penalty kick in stoppage time, was given a retake and converted it.  Had Scotland won that game, they would've advanced to the round of 16.  Instead, they were the only European team to go home.

One of the articles I was reading after that game hit the nail right on the head.  It's like when the second baseman holds the tag on the baserunner who's trying to steal and the other team thought he came off the base for a nanosecond so they challenged the call.  After zooming in and looking at it in slow-mo, they determine that he did indeed come off the base and call the runner out.

That's not what instant replay is for.  Is it technically the correct call by the rules of the game?  Yes.  But if you need to go to the slow-mo, zoomed in replay, that's not a "clear and obvious error."  And the purpose of replay is to correct "clear and obvious errors."

Same thing in soccer.  VAR is supposed to be used at normal speed.  Not slow-mo.  Not zoomed in.  Not freeze-framed.  We've seen plenty of times in NFL replay challenges over the years that you can see pretty much anything you want when you zoom in and freeze frame the video.  Anyway, the point is, if you need to go to VAR to determine that the goalie left her line a split second too early, that's not a "clear and obvious error."  And it certainly shouldn't result in a yellow card, which seems doubly harsh.  Even if it is technically the letter of the law.

There have been plenty of penalties controversially awarded by VAR, too.  France-Norway is the best example of that.  A 50-50 ball that wasn't a shot somehow resulted in France being awarded a penalty kick by VAR.  And I'm still convinced that call wouldn't have been made if it was any team other than France.

Most of these calls have been made because, after the VAR check, they determined that there was a handball or contact in the box, resulting in the penalty and a yellow card.  And some of those handballs have been dubious calls at best.  If the ball hits the hand and it's in a natural position, that's supposed to be nothing.  Likewise, if they're both making a play on the ball and there's contact, that's supposed to be nothing as long as it isn't excessive (when the South African girl left her foot up and kicked the Spanish player in the chest, THAT was excessive and the red card was warranted).

Defenders are in a no-win situation here.  Because of VAR, they feel like they essentially aren't allowed to play defense anywhere in the box.  And I've gotta say, I'm siding with the defenders on this one.  Because the way they've been taught to play their whole lives is suddenly a yellow card and penalty kick.  So how exactly are they supposed to defend then?

They've also instructed the two assistant referees not to raise their offside flags right away so that the play can continue.  The theory behind that makes sense.  If a goal is scored, they can catch the offside on VAR.  I have no problem with that directive.  Except we've seen some goals taken away for offside when it wasn't "clear and obvious" that the player was behind the last defender.  And sometimes it looks like it's definitely offside, but they let the goal stand.

Don't get me wrong.  When used correctly, VAR is a good thing and I'm glad they're using it at the Women's World Cup.  And there's always going to be controversy surrounding those three letters.  But the conversation shouldn't be about the calls VAR has gotten "wrong" or, at the very least, hasn't clarified one way or the other.  Again, I'm a big fan of VAR and it absolutely should be used in this tournament.  Now they just need to start using it right.

Individual Hockey Hardware

Now that the Blues have had time to let their Stanley Cup victory sink in and St. Louis radio stations have transitioned away from 24 hours of "Gloria!" (that song randomly came on the radio the day after the game and it was one of the most exciting moments of my life, and, yes, I do realize how sad that is), it's time to start thinking about the NHL Awards and Draft.  I've already got my Kaapo Kakko jersey on back order, so the Devils better take Jack Hughes with the No. 1 pick.  But that's not until Friday night.  First, we've got the NHL Awards.

The Stanley Cup is the best championship trophy, and the NHL carries that over into its individual awards.  Because they're all cool trophies with awesome names.  Yes, the NHL has a lot of individual awards.  But it's OK.  Because every one has a cool trophy associated with it.  And all of those trophies are really old with rich histories.

Hart: Nikita Kucherov, Lightning-Personally, I don't think there's much of a question who the NHL's MVP is.  Kucherov had 128 points, including a ridiculous 87 assists for a team that tied the NHL record for wins (unfortunately, they forgot to save some for the playoffs).  Tampa Bay was the best team in the league by a wide margin during the regular season, and Kucherov was their best player.  The Lightning went 54-5-3 when he had a point and 8-11-1 when he didn't.  Sounds like an MVP to me.

Vezina: Andrei Vasilevskiy, Lightning-Take everything I just said about Nikita Kucherov and apply it to Andrei Vasilevskiy.  He's a big reason why Tampa Bay set that wins record, earning 39 of the Lightning's 62 victories himself.  Yes, Bishop and Lehner both finished ahead of him in both GAA and save percentage.  Tampa Bay doesn't win that many games without Vasilevskiy, though.

Norris: Brent Burns, Sharks-Before I continue, shout out to my man Jeremiah McCallie, who works for the NHL and created all of these graphics.  Anyway, the only man whose beard is comparable to Jeremiah's is Brent Burns.  And, no, that isn't the reason why I think Burns should win his second Norris Trophy in three years.  It's because he had a point per game (as a defenseman!), including 67 freakin' assists!, and scored six game-winners.

Calder: Jordan Binnington, Blues-If the Stanley Cup Playoffs were included, Binnington (who nearly won the Conn Smythe) would be the runaway winner.  As it is, I think it'll be a close vote between him and Pettersson.  I do think Binnington will win it, though.  The Blues' turnaround from last place in the league to Stanley Cup champions started when they put him in net.  He went 24-5-1 with a 1.89 GAA after his debut.  If he'd play a whole season with those kind of numbers, we'd be talking about the Vezina.

Selke: Patrice Bergeron, Bruins-They might as well just rename this award the "Patrice Bergeron Trophy."  He's won it four times and is a finalist for the eighth straight year.  He had four short-handed goals and a +23 rating.  In other words, Bergeron did what he normally does.  Which, quite simply, is play the best defense among forwards in the NHL.

Lady Byng: Aleksander Barkov, Panthers-As great as it would be to see Ryan O'Reilly win a season-long award to go along with the Conn Smythe, how can the Lady Byng go to anybody but Barkov?  He set a team record for points (96) and had 100 takeaways, but neither of those is the most ridiculous stat associated with Barkov's 2018-19 season.  He played every game and was assessed just four penalties.  That's insane!

Masterson: Joe Thornton, Sharks-Not surprisingly, this is a tough one.  Because all three finalists have great stories that would make them a worthy winner.  Thornton's comeback season is simply too much to ignore, however.  He blew out his left knee in 2017, then blew out his right knee in 2018.  But he came back in 2019, as a 39-year-old, played 73 games and contributed to a good Sharks team.

King Clancy: Henrik Lundqvist, Rangers-Remember the episode of How I Met Your Mother where Robin brags about having done the "Old King Clancy" and no one knows what she's talking about?  That has nothing to do with anything.  It's just the first thing I thought of when I got to this award.  In reality, this is the closest thing the NHL has to the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year.  Which means we have three worthy finalists.  I can't believe Hank hasn't won it yet.  His foundation has raised more than $2.5 million for children's health charities since its creation.

Messier: Wayne Simmonds, Predators-I almost wrote "Wayne Simmonds, Flyers."  Still not used to him in Nashville.  Anyway, the NHL's leadership award is 100 percent Mark Messier.  He picked the finalists and he'll pick the winner.  If it were up to me, that winner would be Simmonds.  He was such a part of the Philadelphia community before the trade, taking part in so many different initiatives.  My favorite thing, though, was getting a suite for a different military unit and meeting with them after every other game.

Adams: Jon Cooper, Lightning-Can the Blues just remove "interim" from Craig Berube's title already?!  I think he's done enough to warrant keeping the job permanently.  As great as he was after taking over in St. Louis, though, the job Jon Cooper did in Tampa Bay all (regular season) can't be overlooked.  They tied for the league record in wins and had the fourth-most points in NHL history.  They won 30 games at home and 30 games on the road!  And they didn't lose more than two games in a row at any point (until it mattered most, when they lost four straight).  I'm not at all discounting what Barry Trotz did with the Islanders, either.  Any other year, he'd be a slam dunk winner.

GM: Doug Armstrong, Blues-There are a lot of people who deserve credit for the Blues' run from 31st place in the NHL to 1st.  None more so than GM Doug Armstrong.  He promoted Berube to head coach, but, more importantly, he decided to stand pat when he easily could've been a seller at the trade deadline.  And his faith in the roster that he had was certainly rewarded.  Even if St. Louis hadn't won the Cup, that decision would've been the right one.

So there you have it.  Those are the 2018-19 Joe Brackets NHL Award winners.  This isn't baseball, where they're far more obvious and I'm generally pretty accurate.  So, we'll see how I did.

If You Build It, He Will Come

Ready to feel old?  Field of Dreams turns 30 this year!  One of the all-time great baseball movies, its message still resonates today.  It's why people flock to a cornfield in Iowa by the thousands, just as they have every year since its release.

This movie is one of the reasons why I fell in love with baseball.  I'm fairly certain I wore out the VHS tape when I was a kid, and it's still one of my favorites.  Back then, it was just because I really liked the movie.  But as I grew up, I got it more and more.  And I began to love it on a different level.  I think that's probably true for a lot of people, which is why it's still so relevant.

It's damn near impossible for me to not cry at the final scene in Field of Dreams.  I think I've managed not to once or twice, but the ending gets me pretty much every time.  Because ultimately, at its core, that's what Field of Dreams is about.  It's a story about fathers and sons.  

Ray Kinsella got to play catch, as an adult, with his father as a young man.  That's every boy's dream.  But beyond that, it mended a broken relationship.  So what if it was from beyond the grave?  Ray needed to forgive his father and he needed his father to forgive him.  That final scene represented that in such a beautiful way.  Because baseball was that one thing they had in common.  

Everything that Ray did led up to that point.  He just didn't realize it.  Until John took his mask off and everything clicked.  "Oh my God, it's my father."  Suddenly it all made sense.  Even though they didn't say it, they both knew who the other was.  It didn't need to be spoken.  Just like their mutual forgiveness didn't need to be spoken.  They just needed to do something that fathers do with their sons all across America everyday.

In that moment, it brings everyone back their own childhood and the memories of playing catch with their dad.  It doesn't have to be baseball.  It could just as easily be another sport.  Or musicians.  Or artists.  Or...I think you get my point.  For an instant, Ray wasn't a man with a world of problems.  He was a carefree boy spending time with his dad.  Which was exactly what he needed.

Yet it's a story of redemption and forgiveness for the other characters, too.  Terence Mann, played marvelously by James Earl Jones, was lost until Ray found him and suddenly gave him purpose.  Shoeless Joe and the rest of the Black Sox (this year is also the 100th anniversary of that infamous World Series) sure needed it.  (Eight Men Out is also one of my all-time favorite movies.)  And Archie finally got the chance to bat, correcting the one regret he had in his life.

And, as Terence reminds us in the most James Earl Jones scene of the movie, it's baseball that binds the generations.  Baseball has endured so much, yet it's still here.  And it will continue to be here.  Just like it was for our parents and grandparents.  Just like it will be for our children and grandchildren.

Ultimately, I think that's the thing about Field of Dreams that speaks the most to people.  Life is full of ups and downs with very few constants.  Baseball is one of those constants.  And it's fundamentally unchanged.  You can close your eyes, go back to your childhood, and baseball will be there.  And it'll be exactly the same.

Maybe that's why so many people have made the pilgrimage to Iowa every year since the movie's release.  As Gabby Hoffman's Karin correctly predicted: "People will come."  Maybe they love the movie and/or baseball.  Maybe they just want to see a real-life movie set.  But, more likely, they're looking for something else.  Maybe they're trying to find some of that childhood innocence for themselves.  Or maybe it's something more.

Either way, "Field of Dreams" is the perfect title.  When Ray asks his father if there's a heaven, he responds: "Oh yeah.  It's the place dreams come true."  The movie tells us that it's OK to dream.  The entire story is a fantasy, which is completely irrelevant but also the entire point.  It doesn't matter that it can't actually happen.  Because in dreams, nothing is impossible.

At its heart, though, Field of Dreams tells the story of a son's relationship with his father.  Theirs wasn't perfect.  Nobody's is.  That doesn't mean you don't love each other, even if you don't always show it.  And on Father's Day, that's something worth remembering.  Don't you think?

What a Year For Two Schools

As we hit mid-June, the college athletic season is all but over.  The College World Series is all that's left, the NCAA's 90th and final championship of 2018-19.  However it turns out, two of the teams that made it to Omaha are wrapping up perhaps the best athletic year across the board in school history.  Both of them.

Entering this year, Texas Tech had only won one National Championship in school history--the Sheryl Swoopes-led women's basketball team in 1993.  The Red Raider men's teams had not only never won a title, they'd never even reached a National Championship Game.  Their men's basketball team, outside of that brief period when Bobby Knight was the coach, had been virtually irrelevant on the national scene until reaching the Elite Eight last year.

This season they really broke through, winning their first-ever Big 12 regular season title and making it to the Final Four for the first time.  Then they beat Michigan State in the Final Four to advance to their first-ever National Championship Game in any sport.  And they came thisclose to winning the title, falling to Virginia in overtime.

Two months later, that National Championship would come.  Texas Tech was the dominant team at the NCAA Outdoor Track & Field Championships.  The brilliant Divine Oduduru won the 100 and 200, and Eric Kicinski won the discus.  They also got a second-place finish in the 400 hurdles and took third in the 4x100 relay.  Throw in six other scoring performances and Texas Tech finished with 60 points, 10 more than Florida, to win the school's first-ever men's National Championship.

And now their baseball team is in the College World Series for the second straight season and the fourth time in six years.  Texas Tech's previous three trips to Omaha only yielded a total of two wins.  But this is a new Texas Tech University athletic program, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them go on a run.  Maybe even one that ends with their second National title in a few weeks.

Another school whose baseball team will be playing in Omaha is Auburn.  They blew out North Carolina in Game 3 of the Super Regional to reach their first College World Series since 1997.  That was so long ago, the NCAA Tournament only had 48 teams then, and there was no Super Regional.  Yet here they are, back at the college baseball summit, capping what's really been a phenomenal year for Auburn across the board.

Auburn, of course, has won National Championships before.  They've won eight in men's swimming, five (in six years) in women's swimming, and one in women's outdoor track.  And there's also the five football National Championships, most recently that brilliant run in 2010, when they went undefeated and Cam Newton won the Heisman.

But that doesn't make the Tigers' 2018-19 any less impressive.  And the most impressive part of their 2018-19 athletic year also has to be men's basketball.  A program that, like the Texas Tech men's basketball program, didn't really have much history to speak of other than a run to the Elite Eight in the mid-80s when Charles Barkley and Chuck Person were on the team.

Sir Charles is usually a highlight of the NCAA Tournament with his unintelligible analysis that makes sense to only him.  This year, he was on a completely different level of awesomeness, though.  He was rooting for his alma mater and made no qualms about it.  He had an Auburn banner and a stuffed tiger that he kept hugging.  It was incredible in so many ways!

Speaking of incredible, the same could be said about the Auburn men's basketball team's season as a whole.  All they did during the regular season was nearly beat Kentucky when they were No. 1 and beat Tennessee when they were.  Then they beat Tennessee again, in Nashville, by 20, to win their first SEC Tournament title since 1985.

So how does the NCAA Tournament committee reward them?  They give them the 5-seed in a region with North Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas.  No problem.  Auburn beat them all, including an incredible overtime victory over Kentucky in the Elite Eight, which got the Tigers to their first Final Four.

Their Final Four game was even more incredible than the Elite Eight game.  Auburn led the entire way and would've advanced to the National Championship Game if not for that foul on the Virginia three-pointer in the waning seconds.  Still, it was an incredible run for Bruce Pearl's team, and I don't think it'll be their last.

Neither school is in the Top 10 for the Capital One Cup, which measures overall success for collegiate athletic programs.  Virginia, which won the national title in lacrosse to go along with their basketball championship, has the men's cup locked up.  But I don't think Texas Tech and Auburn would trade their 2018-19 seasons for anything.  And one of them could end it with a College World Series crown.

Brave Like Gabe

Cancer is the most formidable of foes.  It doesn't fight fair.  The harder you fight, the more pain you endure.  Just when you think you've beaten it, it comes back even harsher.  And, more often than not, it ends up winning.

This week marks two years since cancer took my mom, and I still think about her all the time.  I've especially been thinking about her a lot lately, and not just because of the anniversary.  It's because over the last few days, I was reminded again of the cruelty of the disease and the absolute grace those who fight it show.  When faced with her impeding death, Gracie wasn't afraid.  She accepted it and spent her last few days saying goodbye to her family and friends.  She was completely at peace.  As was Gabe Grunewald.

Grunewald, a professional runner who battled cancer for nearly a decade, succumbed to the disease on Tuesday night at the age of 32.  She was incredibly open about her fight, regularly posting updates about her health on her social media pages, and her courage and bravery throughout it all made her an inspiration to so many.  The hashtag #bravelikegabe has been trending for the past few days, as fans, cancer survivors, other pro runners and so many others have posted messages and stories during Gabe's final days.

That was actually a special request by her husband, Justin.  Over the weekend, when Gabe took a turn for the worse and she was moved to comfort care, he posted a message on his Instagram page telling everyone "I wanted to let you all know while she is still alive so you can send her one last message here or on her wall or on her phone before she heads up to heaven."  Yesterday he posted a heartbreaking picture of Gabe surrounded by her family and friends.  Then he broke the sad news that she had passed.  And the outpouring of love and support has been just as inspiring as her fight.

I never met Gabe Grunewald, but as a fan of track & field, I was familiar with her story.  And how could you not be inspired by her?  She first found out she had cancer while she was a junior at Minnesota.  The next year, she finished second in the 1500 meters at the NCAA Outdoor Championships.  Then she started a pro career and emerged as one of the best female middle-distance runners in the country.

At the 2012 Olympic Trials, she finished fourth, one spot away from a place in the London Games.  In 2014, she won the indoor national title in the 3000 meters and represented the U.S. at the World Indoor Championships, where she made the final and placed ninth.

But her most memorable race isn't one that she won.  In fact, it's one where she finished in last place.  Grunewald's cancer returned in 2016, forcing doctors to remove a four-pound tumor from her liver that left her with a large scar on her abdomen.  It returned again in early 2017, but she was determined to race at USA Outdoors that year.

And she did just that.  Despite working her training schedule around chemotherapy treatments, despite being hospitalized the week before the race, she made it to the starting line.  The fact that she finished last in an opening round heat (after making the final every year from 2010-16) was completely beside the point.  Gabe was there.  Just like she knew she would be.  Running with that 13-inch battle scar right there for all to see.

After the race, she received a standing ovation.  Then all of the runners gathered together to pray.  That doesn't happen in track.  And it was a beautiful thing to see.  Because Gabe Grunewald being there and running in that race was bigger than any of them.  It would turn out to be the last competitive race of her life, but not the end of her story.  Not by a long shot.

Her battle wasn't hers alone, and she set up the Brave Like Gabe Foundation to help others in their fight.  She was a runner, so, naturally, the foundation's biggest fundraiser is the Brave Like Gabe 5K.  A race that Gabe unfortunately had to miss this year because she was in the hospital.  There's also a marathon in Waco, TX, started by her friends Chip & Joanna Gaines from HGTV's "Fixer Upper" that raised more than $300,000 for the foundation this year.

Through it all, Gabe Grunewald never lost her fighting spirit.  Last weekend, there was some confusion over whether or not she had already passed.  The way her husband described it, he was trying to prepare her for death when Gabe took a deep breath and yelled "NOT TODAY!"  She wanted a little more time to say goodbye and let others say goodbye to her.  A few days later, she told him she was ready.  In his Instagram post announcing her death, Justin said that the final words he said to her were "I can't wait until I get to see you again."

So, even though she has passed, Gabe Grunewald will live on.  She inspired so many beyond just the running community.  She was dealt a rotten hand, yet never complained.  Instead, she took it like a champion and battled like a warrior.  Brave Like Gabe indeed.

How Close Is Too Close?

Fans want to be close to the action.  People pay a lot of money to go to professional sporting events, and the more you pay, the better you expect your seat to be.  Some people think that paying for that expensive seat also entitles them to something (which it does not).  While others talk about having concerns about for their safety, while still wanting to sit as close to the action as possible (the solution, of course, is don't sit there!).  Which begs the question: How close is too close?

Recent incidents in the NBA and MLB have brought this question to the forefront.  In one, fan safety took center stage.  In the others, it was the other way around.  Those were about fan behavior, specifically about what's appropriate and what crosses the line.  There isn't an easy answer to either one.

The baseball incident took place last week, when a little girl in the stands was hit in the face by a line drive during the Cubs-Astros game in Houston.  Albert Almora, the Cubs batter who hit the ball, was mortified, as were a number of other players on the field.

This, of course, renewed the debate about ballpark netting and what measures MLB needs to take in order to protect its fans.  Countless examples were cited as proof that this happens "all the time" (put in quotes deliberately because it's not nearly as frequent as some would like you to believe).  Kris Bryant went so far as to say that MLB should immediately require every ballpark to extend its netting from foul pole to foul pole.  Which is both impractical and ridiculous.

I won't even get into the cost factor as a reason why Bryant's suggestion is ridiculous.  Instead I'll offer some photos as my proof.  Specifically pictures of the stadiums in Tampa Bay, Toronto and Oakland.  Do you see the amount of foul territory?!  Is there really a need for netting going all the way to the foul pole when the fans are that far away from the field?  Can a line drive even make it into the stands there?  (There's a reason those three teams have won a combined one AL batting title.)

So, that's one argument against requiring the netting to cover all of foul territory.  Another is that a good number of people simply don't want it.  That goes back to my earlier point about the amount of money fans spend for field level seats.  And those fans aren't paying that money to sit behind netting!  A lot of them sit there specifically BECAUSE of the opportunity to catch a foul ball.

Yes, there's a difference between a popup that you can see coming and prepare for and a line drive that comes quickly and leaves you little to no time to react.  But, you assume that risk when you sit there.  They print warnings on the ticket and announce it repeatedly during the game.  Teams are doing their job in that regard.  (And you can't compare it to the net behind the goal in hockey, because in hockey you're not looking thru the net, you're looking thru the glass.)

What happened in Houston was horrible.  Just like what happened with Todd Frazier and the little girl at Yankee Stadium was horrible and what happened last year at Dodger Stadium was horrible.  But that doesn't mean MLB should take a page out of Japan's book and have the ballpark netting go across the entire stadium.  You want to require to go from dugout to dugout, fine.  But anything beyond that should be up to the teams.  Because in some places, they simply don't need it.

Meanwhile, in the NBA playoffs, there have been two separate interactions involving game personnel and spectators who might've been a little too close to the court.  The first is Raptors superfan (and, apparently, team ambassador) Drake giving Toronto's head coach a shoulder rub during the Eastern Conference Finals.  The other took place just a few days ago when one of the Warriors "owners" pushed a Raptors player who went into the stands going for a loose ball.

First, let's talk about Drake, who makes it a point to make sure his presence is very obvious.  Now, I don't get the obsession with Drake and his "music" (which all sounds the same), but that has nothing to do with why I find this situation completely unacceptable.  He literally walked onto the freakin' court and rubbed the coach's shoulders!  (It's a good thing his intent wasn't malicious, but imagine if it was!)

In what universe is that considered OK?!  Just because he's a celebrity that makes it alright?  If it was any other random fan, they would've been cuffed and escorted out of the arena by security.  And rightfully so!  That same standard should apply to everybody.

Then there's the situation with the Warriors' "owner."  He's an investor, not the principal owner, but as a member of the ownership team, the term should still apply.  For some reason, he felt the need to push the Raptors player who was simply chasing after a loose ball.  That situation was handled promptly.  He was immediately ejected from the game, then banned from all Warriors team activities and fined.  The team also issued a statement apologizing for the incident.  Although, his suspension is only for a year, which doesn't seem nearly long enough.

There's only so much the NBA can do about this.  They're not going to get rid of courtside seats entirely.  They generate too much money.  But how about getting rid of those ridiculous seats between the benches and the scorer's table?  The ones where the players literally have to run by fans just to check into the game.  The ones where you're blocked by the coach half the time.  (I've never understood those seats or the ones behind the benches at football stadiums, the ones where you're literally looking at the backsides of offensive linemen the entire game.)

Or maybe they can increase the distance between the courtside seats and the actual playing surface.  After all, it's only in the NBA where fans can reach out and touch the players.  Hockey has glass, while baseball and football have walls.  But just because you can get close doesn't mean you should.  The players and coaches still need room to do their jobs.

Buying a ticket grants you admission to the game.  Nothing more.  It doesn't give you the right to walk out on the court or anything else.  And a person's status, whether it be a celebrity or a team representative or a regular fan, should make absolutely no difference.  Everyone should be expected to behave the same way.

While the situations in Houston, Toronto and Golden State were unrelated and completely different, they all bring the bigger issue to light.  Because there wouldn't be a game without the fans.  Fans want the world, but you also want everyone to have a safe, enjoyable time.  And finding that balance can sometimes be difficult.  Can something be done?  Probably.  What's that solution?  I have no idea!

Women's World Cup France

Four years ago, the U.S. Women's National Team won its third World Cup.  Now they try to do two things they've never done--win it in Europe, and win it twice in a row.  Although, Carli Lloyd insists they don't look at it as "defending their title."  They look at it as winning another one.

A lot of people think this year's team might be better than the one that took the field in Canada, so the Americans have been installed in their usual position as favorites.  It's by no means a guarantee, though.  Because the women's game is much better than it was in 2015, and the World Cup field is much deeper.  There are about four or five other countries that legitimately feel like they have a shot, which should make this the best, most competitive Women's World Cup ever.

There's still quite a gap between the top teams and the lower-ranked squads that will finish at the bottom of their groups.  But the gap between the top teams is much smaller.  And the mid-level teams are capable of an upset, which wasn't always the case in World Cups past.

Group A: France, South Korea, Norway, Nigeria-France has a very good chance of becoming just the second country to win a Women's World Cup on home soil.  And they're not going to face much of a challenge in Group A.  The real battle will be for the second spot between Norway and South Korea.  Either way, both of them should advance.  Nigeria is the strongest of the three African teams and would have a reasonable chance of advancing out of another group.  The other three in this group are better, though.

Group B: Germany, Spain, China, South Africa-Nobody's talking about Germany, but they should be.  They're the Olympic champions and ranked No. 2 in the world.  They're as much of a threat to win this tournament as anybody (I'd say they're the third favorite behind the U.S. and France).  In group play, they've got Spain, China and South Africa, so they should be able to avoid the same fate as the German men last year.  Spain is a team on the rise and should finish second in the group, and China will be a dangerous third-place team for whatever group winner ends up getting them in the round of 16.

Group C: Australia, Brazil, Italy, Jamaica-What a story Jamaica is!  The team has been disbanded because of lack of funding like three times, and they're really only still playing because of Bob Marley's daughter.  Now they're the first team from the Caribbean to make the Women's World Cup.  Unfortunately, their debut won't be a long one in the Green & Gold Group.  Italy is probably the best of the likely third-place teams, while the Australia-Brazil game will likely determine first and second in the group.  Australia is a popular sleeper pick to make a deep run, and you can never count out Marta.  

Group D: Japan, England, Scotland, Argentina-Somehow Japan wasn't ranked high enough to be seeded (neither was Brazil, for that matter).  But they still ended up getting a pretty good draw.  This group includes the second (Japan) and third-place (England) finishers at the last Women's World Cup, and they should easily go 1-2 in this group.  I can't wait for the game between them, which should be the best of the opening round.  The Scotland-Argentina game should be good, too.  And it'll probably determine which of them joins England and Japan in the knockout stage.

Group E: Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, Cameroon-Canada and the Netherlands are very evenly matched, and the group could go either way.  The Canadians are the seed, but they won't have home field advantage this time, while the Dutch almost certainly will.  They'll both advance easily, but second place in the group gets the USA or Sweden in the round of 16, so you know they'll both want to finish first.  New Zealand will hope to get a point off one of them.  Otherwise, they'll need to beat Cameroon badly to advance.

Group F: United States, Sweden, Thailand, Chile-Of course the USA and Sweden ended up together!  It's a Women's World Cup rule!  This is the fifth consecutive Women's World Cup where they'll meet in the group stage, but this one will have a little more intrigue after what happened in Rio (Sweden beating the U.S. in the quarterfinals).  They don't play until the last group game, by which point they'll have both clinched a spot in the knockout stage, so I'm curious to see how that one will play out.  The group winner could potentially face France in the quarters, but second place could play Canada or the Netherlands in the round of 16, then Germany.  So I'd go for the group win and take my chances with France.  I can almost guarantee that this group will NOT produce one of the top four third-place finishers.

Making picks for the latter stages of the tournament is tough because of the third-place teams.  Although, the four that do advance will all play first-place finishers, so that makes things a little bit easier.  And the knockout stage does present some intriguing possibilities, including quarterfinal matchups between tournament favorites.

Most experts like the United States and France.  However, if they both win their group, one of them won't even reach the semifinals.  That's because they'd meet in the quarterfinals.  It's worth noting here that the U.S. has never finished worse than third at the Women's World Cup, but that's a definite possibility should the France matchup happen.  There's also a 1E vs 2D round of 16 game, so either Japan or England will play Canada or the Netherlands in the first knockout game (and the other team in the Canada/Netherlands group has to play either the U.S. or Sweden).

So, the teams that really lucked out with their draw were Australia and Brazil.  It doesn't even matter which one finishes first and which one finishes second.  They'll both have a nice-looking path to the semifinals.

Based on the third-place teams that I have advancing, my round of 16 bracket looks like this: Norway-Brazil, Japan-China, France-Italy, Spain-United States, Australia-South Korea, Canada-England, Germany-Scotland, Sweden-Netherlands.  My quarterfinals are Brazil-Japan, France-United States, Australia-England and Germany-Sweden.  I have France vs. Japan and Australia vs. Germany in the semifinals, with France beating Germany in the final to become the first nation in 20 years to win the Women's World Cup at home (at the first to hold both the Men's and Women's World Cups at the same time).

Which isn't to say I don't think the USWNT can win.  Just the opposite.  And it really illustrates the competitive nature of this tournament.  The United States, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, England.  A legitimate case can be made for any of them winning.  Which is going to make for an exciting Women's World Cup.

Welcome to New York, Clint

Clint Frazier had a bad game on Sunday night.  He was the first one to admit it.  He "sucked" (his word, not mine, but accurate) and was embarrassed by it.  But instead of facing the music after the game, he hid in the restricted area of the clubhouse, leaving his teammates to answer questions about his terrible performance.

When he finally did speak to the media before tonight's game in Toronto, he was unapologetic.  He told the assembled media that he didn't owe any of them anything and pointed out that he isn't required to speak after the game (although, the CBA strongly encourages it and leaves the burden up to the player).  What I'm not sure he realizes is that all he did was make matters worse.

New York isn't the easiest city to play in.  The fans are into it every game.  If you screw up, you're going to hear about it.  Getting booed by the Bleacher Creatures is almost a right of passage when becoming a Yankee.  You're especially going to hear it if you screw up against the Red Sox!  On national TV!  And the media is just as relentless.  There's a reason why playing in New York isn't for everybody.

But Frazier isn't doing himself any favors with what he did on Sunday night.  Or his defiance on Tuesday.  This is New York.  You've got demanding fans and media.  They expect you to perform, and if you don't, they expect you to answer for it.  Not doing so won't exactly endear you to them.  In fact, it'll do just the opposite.

And, frankly, Fraizer has gotten off kinda easy about his shoddy defense this season.  He's made plenty of other mistakes in the outfield.  The only difference is that those miscues were overshadowed by Yankee wins, while Sunday night's contributed directly to a Yankees loss.

He isn't exactly Aaron Judge out there, which we all understand.  And if we were comparing Frazier's right field play to Judge's, it wouldn't be fair.  But we aren't.  He's bad compared to me (OK, that might be a stretch, but you get my point).  Yes, when you're spoiled by seeing Judge play an exceptional right field, Frazier's struggles are magnified.  The failure to make routine plays would stand out regardless, though.  Needless to say, he won't be winning any Gold Gloves anytime soon.

If it was just his poor defense that was the problem, it wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue.  After all, Frazier can still hit, which is the main reason the Yankees wanted him so badly and why Aaron Boone continues to write his name on the lineup card.  And it's not like Frazier doesn't know he's a work in progress in the outfield.  So just own it!

Frazier's problems with the media are nothing new.  He feels like he's been treated "unfairly" ever since he first arrived in New York two years ago.  He's had issues with stories about everything from the length of his hair to the amount of time it took him to come back after suffering a concussion in Spring Training last year.  And he also mentioned some weird thing about his number that I didn't remember at all or recall ever even being a story in the first place.

Because of all this, Frazier feels like he doesn't owe the media anything.  Which is why he doesn't regret his behavior on Sunday night.  Which is the absolute wrong way of going about it.

This is a direct quote from when Frazier finally broke his media silence on Tuesday afternoon: "Since I got traded over here, it's been some stories that came out that shouldn't have come out.  And it's difficult, because the way I'm perceived by people is not how I think I really am.  I don't feel like it's been fair at times, and I don't owe an apology for not talking."

Well, Clint, I hate to break it to you, but making an enemy of the media isn't going to help that perception.  One of my favorite sayings, one I say all the time, is "Your perception is your reality."  And if the media perceives you as standoffish and only willing to talk when things are going well, that's their reality.  And they'll treat you the same way you treat them.  Which is not good.

In their Hall of Fame careers, Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera stood in front of their lockers after every game.  Win or lose.  No matter how well they played.  After Game 7 of the 2001 World Series, Rivera answered every reporter's question.

They aren't beloved in New York because they had a good relationship with the media, but it didn't hurt.  What it did do, however, was give them the benefit of the doubt.  Clint Frazier hasn't earned that benefit of the doubt.  And if he continues to be so defiant towards the media, he likely never will.  Even (especially?) in the age of social media, the traditional media who cover the team every day help shape fans' perceptions.  And by blowing off the media, he was essentially blowing off the fans, too.

During the game on Tuesday night, they talked about it at length on YES.  David Cone made perhaps the best point.  By not talking, Frazier's letting the media control the narrative.  If he thinks he's getting a raw deal, that's even more reason for him to talk.  It's his opportunity to set the record straight and tell the story he wants told.  Instead, Frazier is leaving it up to them to write the story as they see it...whether that's the "right" perception or not.

Aaron Boone (who was a member of the media before becoming Yankees manager) clearly wasn't happy about Frazier's blow off after the Red Sox game, and he made sure to let him know that.  He didn't address specifics, but made sure to use the word "expectations" when relaying the details of that private talk.  Boone also stressed the importance of being a pro, and facing reporters is a part of that.

Unfortunately, Clint Frazier hasn't yet learned that lesson.  Either that or he simply doesn't care.  Either way, it's not a good look.  And it isn't helping Clint Frazier's cause.  Because somebody's gotta go when Judge and Stanton come back, and Frazier's bat may not be enough to keep him from earning a ticket to Scranton.  At least there he won't have to deal with the New York media.  (And maybe he can learn how to play right field while he's there, too.)

FIFA's Scheduling Screw Up

The Women's World Cup starts on Friday.  You can look out for my preview later in the week.  But with the Women's World Cup about to start, it's a good time to think about an issue that has the women's teams rightfully ticked off.  Megan Rapinoe even called it "ricidulous."  There are three major FIFA tournaments this summer--and the finals of all three are on the same day!

This is a problem that's 100 percent of FIFA's own making.  And it was 100 percent avoidable.  Yet, for some reason, they allowed the finals of both the CONCACAF Gold Cup and Copa America to be scheduled on the same day as the Women's World Cup final!  (FIFA doesn't organize the two men's regional tournaments, but does have final say over the schedule.)  The games are all at different times, but that's not even the point.  The women already felt like they get the short end of the stick.  And, really, after seeing this scheduling, who can blame them? 

Regarding the Women's World Cup, I get the timing.  In fact, this is the exact same timing as four years ago in Canada.  Meanwhile, Copa America and the Gold Cup are both earlier than usual.  And, frankly, it doesn't make much sense for those two tournaments to be at the same time anyway, since that made it impossible for Mexico to participate in both (this is the first Copa America Mexico has missed since they expanded the tournament beyond just the 10 South American teams in 1993).

There are some logical reasons for scheduling the Women's World Cup for now, and they all make sense.  The tournament's in France, and the organizers wanted to make sure it was done early enough so that it wouldn't conflict with the Tour de France (the Tour starts on July 6, the day before the final, but the first two stages are in Belgium).  Totally reasonable.  (In 2024, it'll actually be the opposite, and the Tour will have to start earlier than usual because of the Paris Olympics, which start on July 26.)

At first I found it odd that they didn't set it up so that the final would be on Bastille Day (especially since the French women's team is very good and is definitely considered one of the favorites).  Although, the Tour de France conflict aside, moving the tournament back a week would've been the same schedule as the men last year, when the final was on the same day as the Wimbledon final.  And the international TV broadcasters (who pay a lot for rights to both events) weren't happy about the World Cup Final and Wimbledon final taking place simultaneously!  So it was wise to avoid that conflict, as well.

With all that in mind, the June 7-July 7 dates for the Women's World Cup aren't the issue.  And once those dates were set, FIFA should've made sure to avoid any major conflicts.  After all, the Women's World Cup is the premier FIFA tournament this year, so you'd figure they'd want to protect their own product.  Instead, they allow not one, but two, regional men's tournaments to not just be played at the same time, but have their finals on the same day!

To be fair, because of the time difference, the men and women won't have any conflicting game times.  Since the Women's World Cup is in France, all of the games will be in the morning and early afternoon here, while the men's games will be at night (and there's overlap between Copa America and the Gold Cup almost every night).  And on the day of the three finals, they're all staggered (Women's World Cup at 11, Copa America at 4, Gold Cup at 8:30).  But the fact that we're even talking about this is, as Megan Rapione said, "ridiculous."

After this year, there won't be any more conflicts with Copa America, which is moving permanently to Olympic years in 2020 so it corresponds with the Euro.  I didn't realize this at first, but Copa America and the Women's World Cup also took place at the same time in 2015...when the Women's World Cup was in Canada!  Although, the Copa America final was on Saturday and the Women's World Cup final was on Sunday, so at least that wasn't a conflict.

So, it's the Gold Cup that's the real problem here.  The Gold Cup is typically held entirely within the month of July.  This year, the final is on July 7.  I have no idea why it was moved earlier.  Perhaps to coordinate with Copa America (which, again, makes it so that Mexico and the United States can't play in both).  It was also expanded from 12 teams to 16, but that didn't make the tournament any longer.  Now, I think the Gold Cup and Copa America should be combined like they were in 2016, but I digress.

I'm sure FIFA's international window came into play here, too.  Although, with all the European and South American leagues in their offseason, MLS teams are really the only ones that would be affected by the requirement to release their players for National Team duty.  And MLS, outside of the dates when FIFA says they're absolutely not allowed to play, continues its season without those players (many of whom would only be on Gold Cup countries) anyway.

And, really, it wouldn't have been that hard to make the adjustment.  I don't even think it would be as big of a problem if one of the men's tournaments was at the same time as the Women's World Cup.  But even that doesn't seem necessary.  Copa America could easily start a week later and have a July 14 final, and the Gold Cup could've stayed in its usual July timeframe.

Also, the Champions League final just happened.  So, the South American players on Liverpool and Tottenham (as well as Chelsea and Arsenal, who played in the Europa League final) are going directly from their clubs to their National Teams for the major tournament of the year.  Yes, I understand they do this all the time throughout the year, but would an extra week of rest or two really be a bad thing?  (I do remember seeing somewhere that part of the rationale for having the men's tournaments so early was so they could get more time on the back end before next season starts in August.)

We don't even know where the 2023 Women's World Cup's going to be yet (that's another equity issue that needs to be addressed).  Australia's currently the favorite, which would put games in the middle of the night/early morning.  And with the reverse seasons, I'd imagine the tournament would be later in the North American summer (or in March/April).

Either way, let's hope we're not dealing with the same scheduling problems in 2023.  Because the women deserve better than that.  They deserve to have their World Cup be the focus without sharing the spotlight.  Because "sharing the spotlight" means they'll get overshadowed.  And that simply isn't right.  In fact, in the words of Megan Rapinoe, "it's ridiculous."