When the NCAA cancelled all of its remaining championships for the 2019-20 school year, and the conferences/schools followed up by cancelling the entire season for those sports, it became pretty apparent right away that those student-athletes would get their year of eligibility back. It was the only thing fair to do. After all, a global pandemic certainly wasn't their fault.
In Division III, that was easy. It was announced almost immediately that student-athletes would retain their year of eligibility and this semester wouldn't count towards attendance requirements. But Division III, of course, doesn't have scholarships. Which means it was easier said than done in Division I and Division II. In Divisions I and II, two very important questions had to be answered first: "What are we doing about seniors' scholarships?" and "Who's paying for them?"
Those issues have been worked out, and the NCAA did the right thing, extending the eligibility of those student-athletes who saw their seasons cut short. This only applies to spring sports. Winter sports were not included. Which they shouldn't have been.
Frankly, it was ridiculous that some winter coaches (basketball coaches mainly) actually wanted their players to get their year back. I don't know if it was just a pipe dream, but it was completely unrealistic and totally selfish! Every basketball team's regular season was over, and for many the season totally done. Yes, it sucks that the NCAA Tournament was cancelled. But that's vastly different than your entire season being cancelled!
Besides, the biggest issue that the NCAA had to figure out regarding eligibility was two-fold. Because those graduating seniors were supposed to be replaced by incoming freshmen. The scholarships were already promised. So, how was it going to work? It would be unfair to take the scholarship away from a senior who decided to return, but it would be equally unfair to renege on a commitment that had been promised to an incoming freshman (I also think that would technically be breach-of-contract). And to those incoming freshmen, it would've been a double whammy since their high school senior season was likely cancelled, too.
There was also the issue with scholarship limits. Unlike basketball, spring teams get a certain amount of scholarships that they can divide among the members of the team anyway they choose. But having both this year's seniors and next year's freshmen on the roster meant that was also gonna need to be adjusted. Likewise, baseball has a maximum roster size which will need to be relaxed if you're essentially gonna have five classes' worth of student-athletes.
Figuring out those logistics wasn't the hard part. Figuring out the money was. March Madness is the NCAA's biggest money-maker. That money isn't coming in this year. Likewise, most Division I schools rely on their NCAA Tournament share to fund a good portion of their athletic budget. Those shares are going to be significantly smaller this year. And some of these schools could be facing financial shortfalls anyway because of having to close their campuses and issue room & board refunds to students.
So the question of where the money would come from was a legitimate one. Even though they've been given the extra year, some of the seniors may not come back...for a variety of reasons. But a good number of them will utilize that extra year, and those scholarships will need to be honored. For a Power 5 school, that extra cost is not a problem. But for a mid-major, it could be cost-prohibitive. Especially since that March Madness money isn't coming in. (And the amount they're saving by not traveling, etc., during the spring won't make up the difference.)
The final decision seems to be a bit of a compromise taking those different challenges into account. Scholarship limits were adjusted, accounting for both seniors who stay and the new freshmen. They also gave schools the flexibility to offer the returning seniors less athletic aid in 2020-21 than they were given in 2019-20. (My guess is because scholarship budgets for next year were already made and spent without accounting for this extraordinary turn of events.) And schools will be able to use the NCAA's Student Assistance Fund to pay for those additional scholarships.
While I'm sure there are some who are upset by it, this does seem to be a fair compromise. Some seniors might still have a tough decision to make. Is it still worth it to return on a reduced scholarship? Maybe, maybe not. But either way, they'll have the opportunity to end their careers the right way, which is the important thing.
And it seemed fairly obvious that the NCAA would pass the cost of the extra scholarships on to the schools. After all, it's the school that's offering the scholarship to the student-athlete, not the NCAA. Yes, it's a financial burden that some of these schools and programs may not be able to take on. But the NCAA isn't made of money, either (even though it may seem like it), and it's unreasonable to expect them to pay for extra spring sports scholarships at every school. Especially when they don't pay for any others!
Although, from what I gathered by reading the report, these adjustments only apply to the 2021 spring season. Come 2022, everything will go back to normal scholarship-wise. Which unfairly impacts those who will be high school seniors next year. The roster and scholarship adjustments should apply for the next four years. Not just one. Because the first class not getting an extra year because of this won't graduate until 2024!
Will teams make adjustments knowing that they only have the additional roster spots next year? Of course! But it doesn't change the fact that everybody's maintaining their year of eligibility. Not just the seniors. And the underclassmen are probably more likely to use that fifth year than the seniors are. (They normally get five years to complete their four. Now that becomes six, which is enough to finish grad school). So, in many ways, this year's freshmen and next year's freshmen are now effectively the same recruiting class!
Yes, I understand that's nitpicking and that these things will work themselves out. What matters is that seniors didn't have their careers abruptly ended by the coronavirus. Those on winter teams that were still competing did, and you've gotta feel for them. But that doesn't mean they deserved an extra year. Spring seniors, whose seasons were just getting started, did. And I'm glad they will.
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Sunday, March 29, 2020
When Hockey Comes Back
I understand we're no closer to figuring out whether the NHL can try to resume its season or not as we were when the league first suspended play, but Gary Bettman seems committed to having a legitimate finish to the 2019-20 season that ends with the awarding of the Stanley Cup. Even if that means coming back in mid-June (which is usually right around when the Stanley Cup Final ends) and playing throughout the summer, which brings about plenty of its own issues.
Since the league office is committed to finishing the season, you'd have to believe they'll do everything they can to make sure that happens...within reason. Next season will almost certainly be affected, as well, so they can't wait too long. But, assuming the NHL is able to take the ice again this season (even if it's in empty arenas), what will that look like?
One idea being floated about (and seriously considered) for the NBA is getting a bunch of teams together in one or two central locations (Las Vegas has been mentioned) and playing as many games as possible behind closed doors in that controlled environment. That's a great idea, but one that I'm not sure would work for hockey.
For starters, hockey games take longer. Not just the game itself, but between resurfacing the ice and letting it set and allowing the appropriate warmup time, you're talking at least four hours. So, the most games you could play in one day at a given arena is maybe three. A basketball court is pretty much ready to go as soon as the previous game is over, so the NBA could crank out five (or six) games in one day at a neutral location no problem.
And, the NBA only has one Canadian team to deal with. The NHL has seven. And a majority of the players are Canadian, whereas the NBA is comprised mostly of Americans. So they need unrestricted travel between the two countries. (And they told all the European players they can go home, which creates a whole different set of travel issues.) Could they get special visas for the Canadian teams to enter the U.S. in order to have neutral-site games? Probably. But that wouldn't solve the larger issue of arena availability.
The NHL has told teams to look for arena dates into August, and the Olympic postponement certainly helps them in that it opened up broadcast windows on NBC/NBCSN that need to be filled in July and August. But the NBA has told its teams the same thing, so both leagues are looking at the same dates for their rescheduled games. And that's not even taking into account the concerts and other events at arenas that will have been dark for months and eager to recoup as much money as they can.
So, either way, it doesn't look possible for the NHL to have every team complete its regular season, then move on to the traditional four best-of-seven series for the playoffs. The Stanley Cup Playoffs take two months! Assuming they get the all-clear to start playing games again in mid-June, that would push the Stanley Cup Final into mid-August before you even factor in any regular season games.
Yes, they could condense that timeline by eliminating travel days or playing Games 1 & 2 or 3 & 4 back-to-back. But even that only buys maybe a week or two. So, either way, we're looking at, best case, an August finish one way or the other. Without even taking the regular season into account. Which is why it's impractical to think completing the regular season is possible.
However, cancelling the rest of the regular season outright doesn't seem like the fairest outcome either. Not with the playoff races being as tight as they are. Three teams are within two points of the wild cards in the East, and you've got teams on the outside-looking in out West who are close enough to second place in their division that they could end up with home ice in the first round! (Insert snarky comment here about how dumb the NHL's playoff format is.) Those teams deserve a chance to play their way in (or out).
Among the many theories/suggestions that have been thrown out there by journalists is to just cancel the remaining regular season games and, since not every team has played the same number of games, determine the playoff teams by points percentage (which would be incredibly unfair to the teams currently holding playoff berths based on total points). Another popular one is going by the current standings and having a "play-in" tournament for the two wild cards in each conference, which would still give those teams currently in ninth and 10th place a chance to make the playoffs proper.
While both of those proposals have their own merits, I'm not a fan of either. It's really the idea of simply abandoning the rest of the regular season that I don't like. Not just for the teams that are close to the playoffs and would be out. But the teams that are towards the bottom shouldn't be told "that's it, you're done" because of a global pandemic! When the NHL comes back, every team should get a chance to finish their season. Not just the playoff teams.
Although, like I said earlier, everybody finishing their season (meaning, playing a full 82 games) wouldn't be practical. Every team is has between 68 and 71 games played, so, even if they played every other night, that's still three weeks! Add that to two months of playoffs, and you're talking about three months once they finally start up again! That's simply too long, especially if you want next season to be as normal as possible. (And I'm sure they'll want to be done by Labor Day so they're finished before football starts.)
My proposal is to have one or two weeks of regular season games, then start the playoffs. And don't just pick up the schedule where you left off. Get everyone to the same number of games played--either 72 or 74 (74 would probably be better since some are at 71 right now). Yes, that would require some reconfiguring the schedule, but that, to me, is the fairest way to give the teams on the outside a chance to get into the playoffs, those who are in currently in the chance to defend their spot, and those who are out a chance to properly finish their season.
That way, you can have a normal 16-team playoffs without any controversy regarding who got in and who didn't. It also would give those teams that have already clinched playoff berths the chance to get some games in their legs before the intensity of the playoffs, which is something that'll be incredibly important after sitting around for two months!
Under the circumstances, there's no reason to play best-of-seven in every round of the playoffs, either. The Stanley Cup Final has to remain best-of-seven. So do the conference finals, I'd argue. But the first two rounds can easily be shortened to best-of-five. I understand that's not ideal, but in this situation, it's worth the one-year change in order to preserve as regular a playoff schedule as possible.
Whether or not there are fans in the arenas for these games is irrelevant. The NHL would obviously prefer that, but getting back on the ice is the priority. And, once they do get back on the ice, playing as many games as possible while still crowning a legitimate champion. My way lets them do both. But, as long as hockey comes back relatively soon, I don't really care what they decide to do!
Since the league office is committed to finishing the season, you'd have to believe they'll do everything they can to make sure that happens...within reason. Next season will almost certainly be affected, as well, so they can't wait too long. But, assuming the NHL is able to take the ice again this season (even if it's in empty arenas), what will that look like?
One idea being floated about (and seriously considered) for the NBA is getting a bunch of teams together in one or two central locations (Las Vegas has been mentioned) and playing as many games as possible behind closed doors in that controlled environment. That's a great idea, but one that I'm not sure would work for hockey.
For starters, hockey games take longer. Not just the game itself, but between resurfacing the ice and letting it set and allowing the appropriate warmup time, you're talking at least four hours. So, the most games you could play in one day at a given arena is maybe three. A basketball court is pretty much ready to go as soon as the previous game is over, so the NBA could crank out five (or six) games in one day at a neutral location no problem.
And, the NBA only has one Canadian team to deal with. The NHL has seven. And a majority of the players are Canadian, whereas the NBA is comprised mostly of Americans. So they need unrestricted travel between the two countries. (And they told all the European players they can go home, which creates a whole different set of travel issues.) Could they get special visas for the Canadian teams to enter the U.S. in order to have neutral-site games? Probably. But that wouldn't solve the larger issue of arena availability.
The NHL has told teams to look for arena dates into August, and the Olympic postponement certainly helps them in that it opened up broadcast windows on NBC/NBCSN that need to be filled in July and August. But the NBA has told its teams the same thing, so both leagues are looking at the same dates for their rescheduled games. And that's not even taking into account the concerts and other events at arenas that will have been dark for months and eager to recoup as much money as they can.
So, either way, it doesn't look possible for the NHL to have every team complete its regular season, then move on to the traditional four best-of-seven series for the playoffs. The Stanley Cup Playoffs take two months! Assuming they get the all-clear to start playing games again in mid-June, that would push the Stanley Cup Final into mid-August before you even factor in any regular season games.
Yes, they could condense that timeline by eliminating travel days or playing Games 1 & 2 or 3 & 4 back-to-back. But even that only buys maybe a week or two. So, either way, we're looking at, best case, an August finish one way or the other. Without even taking the regular season into account. Which is why it's impractical to think completing the regular season is possible.
However, cancelling the rest of the regular season outright doesn't seem like the fairest outcome either. Not with the playoff races being as tight as they are. Three teams are within two points of the wild cards in the East, and you've got teams on the outside-looking in out West who are close enough to second place in their division that they could end up with home ice in the first round! (Insert snarky comment here about how dumb the NHL's playoff format is.) Those teams deserve a chance to play their way in (or out).
Among the many theories/suggestions that have been thrown out there by journalists is to just cancel the remaining regular season games and, since not every team has played the same number of games, determine the playoff teams by points percentage (which would be incredibly unfair to the teams currently holding playoff berths based on total points). Another popular one is going by the current standings and having a "play-in" tournament for the two wild cards in each conference, which would still give those teams currently in ninth and 10th place a chance to make the playoffs proper.
While both of those proposals have their own merits, I'm not a fan of either. It's really the idea of simply abandoning the rest of the regular season that I don't like. Not just for the teams that are close to the playoffs and would be out. But the teams that are towards the bottom shouldn't be told "that's it, you're done" because of a global pandemic! When the NHL comes back, every team should get a chance to finish their season. Not just the playoff teams.
Although, like I said earlier, everybody finishing their season (meaning, playing a full 82 games) wouldn't be practical. Every team is has between 68 and 71 games played, so, even if they played every other night, that's still three weeks! Add that to two months of playoffs, and you're talking about three months once they finally start up again! That's simply too long, especially if you want next season to be as normal as possible. (And I'm sure they'll want to be done by Labor Day so they're finished before football starts.)
My proposal is to have one or two weeks of regular season games, then start the playoffs. And don't just pick up the schedule where you left off. Get everyone to the same number of games played--either 72 or 74 (74 would probably be better since some are at 71 right now). Yes, that would require some reconfiguring the schedule, but that, to me, is the fairest way to give the teams on the outside a chance to get into the playoffs, those who are in currently in the chance to defend their spot, and those who are out a chance to properly finish their season.
That way, you can have a normal 16-team playoffs without any controversy regarding who got in and who didn't. It also would give those teams that have already clinched playoff berths the chance to get some games in their legs before the intensity of the playoffs, which is something that'll be incredibly important after sitting around for two months!
Under the circumstances, there's no reason to play best-of-seven in every round of the playoffs, either. The Stanley Cup Final has to remain best-of-seven. So do the conference finals, I'd argue. But the first two rounds can easily be shortened to best-of-five. I understand that's not ideal, but in this situation, it's worth the one-year change in order to preserve as regular a playoff schedule as possible.
Whether or not there are fans in the arenas for these games is irrelevant. The NHL would obviously prefer that, but getting back on the ice is the priority. And, once they do get back on the ice, playing as many games as possible while still crowning a legitimate champion. My way lets them do both. But, as long as hockey comes back relatively soon, I don't really care what they decide to do!
Thursday, March 26, 2020
Happy Opening Day
Today was supposed to Opening Day, one of the greatest days in all of sports! Instead, it wasn't. In fact, we have no idea when it's going to be. Hopefully, it'll be June. But it might be July...or later. And all we can do about it is sit there and wait.
That wait's going to be torturous. MLB Network tried to help, playing a marathon of great Opening Day games from the past, including Derek Jeter's home run on his first Opening Day and the Tuffy Rhodes Game. FS1 had great World Series games and ESPN showed old Home Run Derbys. But it's not the same. We should be seeing players in new uniforms, both teams lined up along the baselines while everyone is introduced, dueling aces. There should've been a parade in Cincinnati!
It's supposed to be baseball season! So, let's pretend it still is. Every team in the Majors was scheduled to play it's opener today, so let's, for a minute, act like those games went ahead as scheduled. What would've happened? Let's find out.
Yankees 6, Orioles 2: Gerrit Cole's Yankee debut goes about as well as anyone could've expected. He strikes out 11 while allowing just one run over six innings. Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andjuar homer, as the Yankees continue their dominance of the Orioles at Camden Yards.
Rays 4, Pirates 1: Tampa Bay's excellent pitching is on full display. The Pirates are held to just three hits, and Pittsburgh's only run comes on a Josh Bell solo homer in the fourth. The Rays lead 2-1 in the eighth when Austin Meadows rips a two-run double to make it comfortable.
Blue Jays 9, Red Sox 5: Toronto's "Baby Birds" have all kinds of fun against Eduardo Rodriguez, who you never would've figured would be Boston's Opening Day starter. Vladito goes yard. So does Cavan Biggio, who finishes a double short of the cycle. The Red Sox only score one run off Hyun-Jin Ryu before making it respectable against the Toronto bullpen.
Twins 7, Athletics 4: The Twins pick up right where they left off last season, belting three home runs on Opening Day. One comes from former A Josh Donaldson, while Oakland's current third baseman, Matt Chapman, hits a two-run bomb of his own. Jose Berrios, meanwhile, looks strong over six innings for Minnesota.
White Sox 8, Royals 1: Opening Day for the new-look White Sox goes just about as well as anyone could've hoped. Mark Buehrle throws out the ceremonial first pitch to begin the 15th-anniversary celebration of the 2005 World Series champions, then Lucas Giolito proceeds to pitch like Buerhle. He allows just three hits, and Kansas City's run is unearned. The newcomers in Chicago's lineup give him plenty of run support. The White Sox have a 4-0 lead after two and Giolito cruises from there.
Indians 4, Tigers 3 (10 innings): In one of the more surprising Opening Day results, Detroit takes a 3-1 lead into the bottom of the eighth before Carlos Santana's two-out, two-run homer ties it. Cleveland then walks it off in the 10th when Francisco Lindor doubles home Jordan Luplow.
Astros 5, Angels 3: They open at home, so the Astros don't have to deal with the boos in their first game post-scandal. They get their AL championship rings, then promptly put up a three-spot on Yuli Gurriel's bases-clearing double in the bottom of the first. Verlander isn't vintage Verlander, but he's good enough over seven innings. And, yes, Mike Trout of course homers.
Rangers 11, Mariners 3: Joey Gallo has himself a day! Two homers, a double, and five RBIs, as Texas cruises. Corey Kluber labors through five innings, but it's enough to get the win in his Rangers debut. Seattle starter Marco Gonzales has issues, though. He's unable to get through three.
Nationals 2, Mets 1: Last year, we were treated to a Scherzer vs. de Grom opener in DC. This year we get it again at Citi Field. And it's a vintage Scherzer vs. de Grom matchup. Scherzer gives up one run over seven, a Pete Alonso homer in the third, while de Grom holds the champs to just three singles over six shutout innings. The Mets bullpen blows it, though, and Washington scores two in the top of the ninth to win it.
Braves 5, Diamondbacks 3: Madison Bumgarner's first inning as a Diamondback is shaky. Atlanta puts up a four-spot, including homers by Ronald Acuna Jr. and Freddie Freeman. He settles down after that, but Arizona's offense is unable to get going. Mike Soroka goes 5 2/3, then the Braves bullpen shuts the door, not allowing a hit over the final 3 1/3 innings.
Phillies 10, Marlins 2: In a matchup pitting Joe Girardi's team vs. Derek Jeter's team, Girardi's squad shows that it's significantly better than Jeter's. New Phillie Didi Gregorius has three hits, but it's Philadelphia's big free agent signing from a year ago who has the big day. Bryce Harper drives in four, including a two-run homer, to make Girardi a winner in his return to the dugout.
Reds 3, Cardinals 1: This one is all about Luis Castillo. Cincinnati's ace is perfect through five, and his no-hitter is broken up on Paul Goldschmidt's homer in the seventh. That ties the game at 1-1, but the Reds respond in the bottom of the seventh. Longtime Reds Joey Votto and Eugenio Suarez start the rally before newcomers Mike Moustakas and Nicholas Castellanos finish it. Raisel Iglesias then pitches a perfect ninth for the save.
Cubs 9, Brewers 7: Homers aplenty in Milwaukee! Six in total, three by each team. The Brewers have a 7-6 lead in the top of the eighth when Anthony Rizzo takes Corey Knebel deep to put the Cubs in front. Milwaukee puts the tying run on second in the bottom of the ninth, but Craig Kimbrel strikes out Avisail Garcia to end the game.
Padres 8, Rockies 7: A back-and-forth affair that might've been the most entertaining game of the day. San Diego takes a 2-0 lead in the first before Colorado puts up a four-spot in the fourth. The Padres tie it in the bottom of the fourth, but the Rockies respond with three in the sixth. Manny Machado and Wil Myers both homer in the seventh to make it 7-6, then San Diego walks off with a victory on Brian Dozier's two-run, pinch-hit single in the bottom of the ninth.
Dodgers 2, Giants 0: Vintage Clayton Kershaw, as the Dodgers' ace throws a three-hit, Opening Day shutout. (The weird part is seeing Johnny Cueto, not Madison Bumgarner take the ball for San Francisco in the bottom of the first.) The Dodgers get all the offense they need on Justin Turner's RBI single in the fifth, and Max Muncy adds an insurance tally with a solo homer in the seventh. As for Mookie Betts, he goes 0-for-4 with a walk in his Dodgers debut.
That wait's going to be torturous. MLB Network tried to help, playing a marathon of great Opening Day games from the past, including Derek Jeter's home run on his first Opening Day and the Tuffy Rhodes Game. FS1 had great World Series games and ESPN showed old Home Run Derbys. But it's not the same. We should be seeing players in new uniforms, both teams lined up along the baselines while everyone is introduced, dueling aces. There should've been a parade in Cincinnati!
It's supposed to be baseball season! So, let's pretend it still is. Every team in the Majors was scheduled to play it's opener today, so let's, for a minute, act like those games went ahead as scheduled. What would've happened? Let's find out.
Yankees 6, Orioles 2: Gerrit Cole's Yankee debut goes about as well as anyone could've expected. He strikes out 11 while allowing just one run over six innings. Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andjuar homer, as the Yankees continue their dominance of the Orioles at Camden Yards.
Rays 4, Pirates 1: Tampa Bay's excellent pitching is on full display. The Pirates are held to just three hits, and Pittsburgh's only run comes on a Josh Bell solo homer in the fourth. The Rays lead 2-1 in the eighth when Austin Meadows rips a two-run double to make it comfortable.
Blue Jays 9, Red Sox 5: Toronto's "Baby Birds" have all kinds of fun against Eduardo Rodriguez, who you never would've figured would be Boston's Opening Day starter. Vladito goes yard. So does Cavan Biggio, who finishes a double short of the cycle. The Red Sox only score one run off Hyun-Jin Ryu before making it respectable against the Toronto bullpen.
Twins 7, Athletics 4: The Twins pick up right where they left off last season, belting three home runs on Opening Day. One comes from former A Josh Donaldson, while Oakland's current third baseman, Matt Chapman, hits a two-run bomb of his own. Jose Berrios, meanwhile, looks strong over six innings for Minnesota.
White Sox 8, Royals 1: Opening Day for the new-look White Sox goes just about as well as anyone could've hoped. Mark Buehrle throws out the ceremonial first pitch to begin the 15th-anniversary celebration of the 2005 World Series champions, then Lucas Giolito proceeds to pitch like Buerhle. He allows just three hits, and Kansas City's run is unearned. The newcomers in Chicago's lineup give him plenty of run support. The White Sox have a 4-0 lead after two and Giolito cruises from there.
Indians 4, Tigers 3 (10 innings): In one of the more surprising Opening Day results, Detroit takes a 3-1 lead into the bottom of the eighth before Carlos Santana's two-out, two-run homer ties it. Cleveland then walks it off in the 10th when Francisco Lindor doubles home Jordan Luplow.
Astros 5, Angels 3: They open at home, so the Astros don't have to deal with the boos in their first game post-scandal. They get their AL championship rings, then promptly put up a three-spot on Yuli Gurriel's bases-clearing double in the bottom of the first. Verlander isn't vintage Verlander, but he's good enough over seven innings. And, yes, Mike Trout of course homers.
Rangers 11, Mariners 3: Joey Gallo has himself a day! Two homers, a double, and five RBIs, as Texas cruises. Corey Kluber labors through five innings, but it's enough to get the win in his Rangers debut. Seattle starter Marco Gonzales has issues, though. He's unable to get through three.
Nationals 2, Mets 1: Last year, we were treated to a Scherzer vs. de Grom opener in DC. This year we get it again at Citi Field. And it's a vintage Scherzer vs. de Grom matchup. Scherzer gives up one run over seven, a Pete Alonso homer in the third, while de Grom holds the champs to just three singles over six shutout innings. The Mets bullpen blows it, though, and Washington scores two in the top of the ninth to win it.
Braves 5, Diamondbacks 3: Madison Bumgarner's first inning as a Diamondback is shaky. Atlanta puts up a four-spot, including homers by Ronald Acuna Jr. and Freddie Freeman. He settles down after that, but Arizona's offense is unable to get going. Mike Soroka goes 5 2/3, then the Braves bullpen shuts the door, not allowing a hit over the final 3 1/3 innings.
Phillies 10, Marlins 2: In a matchup pitting Joe Girardi's team vs. Derek Jeter's team, Girardi's squad shows that it's significantly better than Jeter's. New Phillie Didi Gregorius has three hits, but it's Philadelphia's big free agent signing from a year ago who has the big day. Bryce Harper drives in four, including a two-run homer, to make Girardi a winner in his return to the dugout.
Reds 3, Cardinals 1: This one is all about Luis Castillo. Cincinnati's ace is perfect through five, and his no-hitter is broken up on Paul Goldschmidt's homer in the seventh. That ties the game at 1-1, but the Reds respond in the bottom of the seventh. Longtime Reds Joey Votto and Eugenio Suarez start the rally before newcomers Mike Moustakas and Nicholas Castellanos finish it. Raisel Iglesias then pitches a perfect ninth for the save.
Cubs 9, Brewers 7: Homers aplenty in Milwaukee! Six in total, three by each team. The Brewers have a 7-6 lead in the top of the eighth when Anthony Rizzo takes Corey Knebel deep to put the Cubs in front. Milwaukee puts the tying run on second in the bottom of the ninth, but Craig Kimbrel strikes out Avisail Garcia to end the game.
Padres 8, Rockies 7: A back-and-forth affair that might've been the most entertaining game of the day. San Diego takes a 2-0 lead in the first before Colorado puts up a four-spot in the fourth. The Padres tie it in the bottom of the fourth, but the Rockies respond with three in the sixth. Manny Machado and Wil Myers both homer in the seventh to make it 7-6, then San Diego walks off with a victory on Brian Dozier's two-run, pinch-hit single in the bottom of the ninth.
Dodgers 2, Giants 0: Vintage Clayton Kershaw, as the Dodgers' ace throws a three-hit, Opening Day shutout. (The weird part is seeing Johnny Cueto, not Madison Bumgarner take the ball for San Francisco in the bottom of the first.) The Dodgers get all the offense they need on Justin Turner's RBI single in the fifth, and Max Muncy adds an insurance tally with a solo homer in the seventh. As for Mookie Betts, he goes 0-for-4 with a walk in his Dodgers debut.
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
No Other Choice
In the end, they gave in to the inevitable and made the only decision they could. So, for the first time in history, the Olympics have been postponed. The 2020 Tokyo Games will instead take place sometime in 2021, the latest and most significant victim of the virus that has upended the sporting calendar all over the world.
As you know, I was completely on board with the IOC's wait-and-see approach. After all, July IS four months from now. And, let's not forget, March started off normally for a lot of us. While it seems like it's been forever, for those of us who are on lockdown, it's only been that way for a few weeks (with many more to go). So, making a decision about July in mid-March did seem a bit premature. Until it didn't.
It got to the point when they couldn't wait-and-see anymore. Even Sunday's announcement that they would make a decision in four weeks wasn't enough. The pressure from athletes (who understandably wanted a resolution) and international federations and the media became too much. And when they started losing countries, you knew they had no other choice.
First it was Canada that pulled out. Then Australia. Then Germany. Then Great Britain. When four marquee countries are flat out saying they're not going to send a team, you're backed into a corner. So, they made the decision they were eventually going to make anyway much earlier than they had planned. The 2020 Olympics have officially been postponed up to one year, with the exact date when they actually will be held among the many logistical issues that need to be resolved over the next four weeks.
Those logistical issues are numerous. The Olympic Village was supposed to turn into apartments after the Games. Those apartment leases will now have to wait until 2022. Millions of flights and hotel rooms will have to be re-booked. Members of the organizing committee will all need to receive an extra year's salary. And any events that were scheduled to take place in the Olympic venues will have to be cancelled or rescheduled.
You're also dealing with 33 international federations, all of which will have to juggle their calendars for next year. Any World Championships scheduled for 2021 you would figure will now be moved to 2022 (especially since the summer of 2022 is mostly empty with the World Cup not until the fall). Although, 2022 is the off-year in the cycle for many summer-sport athletes (the only major events are the Commonwealth Games and Asian Games). That does beat the alternative of no Olympics, though!
The postponement actually makes rescheduling all of this spring's postponed events a lot easier, too. They don't need to worry about getting qualifiers played before July. Likewise, this gives international federations and professional leagues three additional open weeks that are now available. Once everything starts back up again (whenever that is), it's going to be tight regardless. Now it doesn't need to be as condensed as it would've been if the Olympics remained on schedule.
And it's obviously a relief for the athletes to have some clarity, too. That was their biggest concern, and the biggest reason why postponement was the right call. With so many pools and gyms and tracks all over the world closed, they have no place to train. Yet they were expected to be ready for an Olympics in July, which would've put them at a huge injury risk. Now they can heed the advice of public health officials, weather the current crisis, then resume their training knowing that the Olympics will be at their normal time--just next year instead.
One of the biggest issues with all of the cancellations and postponements was the effect it was going to have on qualifying. So many of the cancelled events were either outright qualifiers or contributed key world ranking points that had a direct bearing on qualifying. The updated processes in those sports were due to be released in early April, but now that the Games are being delayed, the qualifying process shouldn't look too much different, assuming the same events assume the same place on the calendar next season.
However, that revised qualifying process should have no bearing on the 57 percent of athletes that have already booked their tickets to Tokyo. Those athletes qualified to compete in the Tokyo Olympics. The fact that those Olympics are taking place in 2021 instead of 2020 is irrelevant. They earned their place. That hasn't changed.
Of course, the biggest question that remains unanswered is exactly when in 2021 the Games will happen. I think that was left intentionally ambiguous, in part because of all the logistics they need to figure out, but also because they need to see what their worldwide broadcast partners (who, bear in mind, will also be broadcasting an Olympics in February 2022) think.
Logic would dictate that a one-year delay means exactly that. The most likely dates would seem to be July 23-August 8, 2021 (which is exactly one year later than the original dates). Although, since there were already concerns about the Japanese summer heat, would they consider a May or June start date? May might be tough because it's so early in the season, but I think late June could work. They'd have to work around the rescheduled Euro, though. And that's set for June/July, so keeping the same dates for the Olympics appears to be the most likely scenario.
Regardless of when they happen, the Tokyo Olympics will be the celebration of humanity that the organizers and the IOC have been hoping they would be all along. They were hopeful that this would all be over and we'd be ready to celebrate by July. However, things have progressed so rapidly that it was clear that was no longer possible.
So instead we'll have to wait another year. But that'll only make the celebration that much more special. The Olympic flame will remain in Japan that entire time. Because Tokyo is ready. Come July 2021, the rest of the world will be too.
As you know, I was completely on board with the IOC's wait-and-see approach. After all, July IS four months from now. And, let's not forget, March started off normally for a lot of us. While it seems like it's been forever, for those of us who are on lockdown, it's only been that way for a few weeks (with many more to go). So, making a decision about July in mid-March did seem a bit premature. Until it didn't.
It got to the point when they couldn't wait-and-see anymore. Even Sunday's announcement that they would make a decision in four weeks wasn't enough. The pressure from athletes (who understandably wanted a resolution) and international federations and the media became too much. And when they started losing countries, you knew they had no other choice.
First it was Canada that pulled out. Then Australia. Then Germany. Then Great Britain. When four marquee countries are flat out saying they're not going to send a team, you're backed into a corner. So, they made the decision they were eventually going to make anyway much earlier than they had planned. The 2020 Olympics have officially been postponed up to one year, with the exact date when they actually will be held among the many logistical issues that need to be resolved over the next four weeks.
Those logistical issues are numerous. The Olympic Village was supposed to turn into apartments after the Games. Those apartment leases will now have to wait until 2022. Millions of flights and hotel rooms will have to be re-booked. Members of the organizing committee will all need to receive an extra year's salary. And any events that were scheduled to take place in the Olympic venues will have to be cancelled or rescheduled.
You're also dealing with 33 international federations, all of which will have to juggle their calendars for next year. Any World Championships scheduled for 2021 you would figure will now be moved to 2022 (especially since the summer of 2022 is mostly empty with the World Cup not until the fall). Although, 2022 is the off-year in the cycle for many summer-sport athletes (the only major events are the Commonwealth Games and Asian Games). That does beat the alternative of no Olympics, though!
The postponement actually makes rescheduling all of this spring's postponed events a lot easier, too. They don't need to worry about getting qualifiers played before July. Likewise, this gives international federations and professional leagues three additional open weeks that are now available. Once everything starts back up again (whenever that is), it's going to be tight regardless. Now it doesn't need to be as condensed as it would've been if the Olympics remained on schedule.
And it's obviously a relief for the athletes to have some clarity, too. That was their biggest concern, and the biggest reason why postponement was the right call. With so many pools and gyms and tracks all over the world closed, they have no place to train. Yet they were expected to be ready for an Olympics in July, which would've put them at a huge injury risk. Now they can heed the advice of public health officials, weather the current crisis, then resume their training knowing that the Olympics will be at their normal time--just next year instead.
One of the biggest issues with all of the cancellations and postponements was the effect it was going to have on qualifying. So many of the cancelled events were either outright qualifiers or contributed key world ranking points that had a direct bearing on qualifying. The updated processes in those sports were due to be released in early April, but now that the Games are being delayed, the qualifying process shouldn't look too much different, assuming the same events assume the same place on the calendar next season.
However, that revised qualifying process should have no bearing on the 57 percent of athletes that have already booked their tickets to Tokyo. Those athletes qualified to compete in the Tokyo Olympics. The fact that those Olympics are taking place in 2021 instead of 2020 is irrelevant. They earned their place. That hasn't changed.
Of course, the biggest question that remains unanswered is exactly when in 2021 the Games will happen. I think that was left intentionally ambiguous, in part because of all the logistics they need to figure out, but also because they need to see what their worldwide broadcast partners (who, bear in mind, will also be broadcasting an Olympics in February 2022) think.
Logic would dictate that a one-year delay means exactly that. The most likely dates would seem to be July 23-August 8, 2021 (which is exactly one year later than the original dates). Although, since there were already concerns about the Japanese summer heat, would they consider a May or June start date? May might be tough because it's so early in the season, but I think late June could work. They'd have to work around the rescheduled Euro, though. And that's set for June/July, so keeping the same dates for the Olympics appears to be the most likely scenario.
Regardless of when they happen, the Tokyo Olympics will be the celebration of humanity that the organizers and the IOC have been hoping they would be all along. They were hopeful that this would all be over and we'd be ready to celebrate by July. However, things have progressed so rapidly that it was clear that was no longer possible.
So instead we'll have to wait another year. But that'll only make the celebration that much more special. The Olympic flame will remain in Japan that entire time. Because Tokyo is ready. Come July 2021, the rest of the world will be too.
Sunday, March 22, 2020
It's Tokyo 2020, Not Tokyo 2021
As the world continues to deal with a global pandemic that has driven the ability for anybody to do anything to a halt, the calls have gotten louder and louder for the IOC to cancel or postpone the Tokyo Olympics. Meanwhile, they continue to press on with the preparations, arguing (correctly) that the Olympics are four months away, and a lot can change in those four months. A response that has been criticized as "tone-deaf," "irresponsible," "out of touch" and a bunch of other choice adjectives.
Frankly, the IOC has been put into a no-win situation here. Cancellation or postponement may very well be inevitable, but it would be premature to make that decision right now. They aren't "procrastinating" (which they've been accused of by some). They're simply waiting to see if it is indeed safe to hold the Games in July as scheduled. If it's not, they've still got time to make that decision. That's why an unofficial deadline of May has been suggested, which I think the IOC will stick to.
Cancelling or postponing is a last resort. That's the stance IOC President Thomas Bach has reiterated time and again. "Tone deaf" or not, it's the stance he should be taking. Because Tokyo deserves every opportunity to stage a successful Games. And that should be the goal until it's no longer possible. We're not at that point yet. (I, for one, don't want to envision another four months of this.)
Yet, the athletes have legitimate concerns, and they deserve to be listened to. After all, you can't have an Olympics without the athletes. They've all had to dramatically alter their training regimens (that is, if they're even able to train at all). And with qualifiers being cancelled left and right, they don't even know when or if they'll get an opportunity to reach the standard necessary to compete in Tokyo. The IOC has acknowledged this problem and has agreed to adjust the qualifying procedures in the affected sports.
One of the main arguments in the calls for rescheduling is that it wouldn't be a "level playing field." I'm not sure I completely agree with that claim. Yes, depending on where they live, some athletes are able to train right now and others aren't (and even those who can train have had their training limited). But they're all in the same boat when it comes to competition. The entire world's in an indefinite holding pattern.
Should we hit June and events are still being cancelled all over the world, then it would be unfair to ask the athletes to go to Tokyo and expect them to be at their best. But they've also been told that the Games are on, so they're all working towards that date. Although, they're also looking for some clarity. If the Games are going to be cancelled or postponed, they want to know. And you can understand why.
So, like I said, it's a catch-22. Athlete safety is paramount. That's why so many national federations and National Olympic Committees are speaking out. They don't think the IOC and the Tokyo 2020 organizers are taking it into account as much as they should be.
Except they are. Just in a different way. The Olympics only come around once every four years (not every five years, more on that in a minute). For some athletes, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And they're doing everything they can to preserve that opportunity for those athletes who've already qualified. Some of whom might never get the chance to be an Olympian again.
And the IOC isn't living in a bubble. It's not like coronavirus hasn't impacted the preparations. They had to cancel the Greek leg of the torch relay because of the large crowds that were gathering, and they had to do the test events with officials instead of athletes. They're also in constant contact with the World Health Organization. Do you really think they'll still hold the Olympics if they don't get the OK from the WHO? I don't.
Of course, one of the many criticisms being directed at the IOC these days is that some feel it seems like they want the WHO to make the decision for them. I can see where people have that impression, but I wouldn't expect them to act without consulting the WHO. And they already have made the decision. It's full steam ahead unless the WHO tells them no. Is that taking the easy way out? Maybe. Is it the smart thing to do? Yes.
It's also worth noting that the IOC--and the IOC alone--has the authority to cancel or postpone the Games. So stop suggesting it to the Japanese government or the Tokyo organizing committee! Because it's not their call! Will their input have some bearing? Absolutely! But, ultimately, it's up to the IOC whether the Tokyo Olympics take place on schedule or not.
Do I think the Tokyo Games actually will start as scheduled on July 24? Unfortunately, I do not. The voices are too loud and there are too many of them for the IOC to just ignore. And, for the sake of everyone, it probably is the right decision.
Even though Thomas Bach has been reluctant to use the word "cancel," I don't think there's any other option if the Games can't be held this year. Because it's not as simple as just moving them to the same time next year, which seems to be the popular alternative being proposed. There are so many logistical reasons that make that impractical, if not impossible, so I don't see that as a realistic option. Does it beat an outright cancellation? Of course! I just don't think it would work, though.
Instead, I'd like to propose an alternative. The 1964 Tokyo Olympics were held in October. This year's Games are scheduled for July-August because that's what works best for international TV. But if the options are a delay or no Olympics at all, I think they'd take a delay. So, if the situation is such that the Olympics can safely take place later in August or September or even October, I think that's the way to go.
Every effort should be made to hold the Olympics this year. It's Tokyo 2020, not Tokyo 2021. The Olympics have been held every four years since 1896. That cycle has never been altered. Every four years. Not five. Not three. So, if the Games can't take place in 2020, they should be cancelled outright. That would obviously be a drastic move. Which is why the IOC is so reluctant to make it. After all, the only times the Olympics have ever been cancelled it was because of World War (which some world leaders have suggested this pandemic is).
If that's the decision that needs to be made, so be it. The IOC shouldn't rush to make it, though. Because they may be right. This might be under control in four months. And the world might be ready to celebrate in Tokyo.
Frankly, the IOC has been put into a no-win situation here. Cancellation or postponement may very well be inevitable, but it would be premature to make that decision right now. They aren't "procrastinating" (which they've been accused of by some). They're simply waiting to see if it is indeed safe to hold the Games in July as scheduled. If it's not, they've still got time to make that decision. That's why an unofficial deadline of May has been suggested, which I think the IOC will stick to.
Cancelling or postponing is a last resort. That's the stance IOC President Thomas Bach has reiterated time and again. "Tone deaf" or not, it's the stance he should be taking. Because Tokyo deserves every opportunity to stage a successful Games. And that should be the goal until it's no longer possible. We're not at that point yet. (I, for one, don't want to envision another four months of this.)
Yet, the athletes have legitimate concerns, and they deserve to be listened to. After all, you can't have an Olympics without the athletes. They've all had to dramatically alter their training regimens (that is, if they're even able to train at all). And with qualifiers being cancelled left and right, they don't even know when or if they'll get an opportunity to reach the standard necessary to compete in Tokyo. The IOC has acknowledged this problem and has agreed to adjust the qualifying procedures in the affected sports.
One of the main arguments in the calls for rescheduling is that it wouldn't be a "level playing field." I'm not sure I completely agree with that claim. Yes, depending on where they live, some athletes are able to train right now and others aren't (and even those who can train have had their training limited). But they're all in the same boat when it comes to competition. The entire world's in an indefinite holding pattern.
Should we hit June and events are still being cancelled all over the world, then it would be unfair to ask the athletes to go to Tokyo and expect them to be at their best. But they've also been told that the Games are on, so they're all working towards that date. Although, they're also looking for some clarity. If the Games are going to be cancelled or postponed, they want to know. And you can understand why.
So, like I said, it's a catch-22. Athlete safety is paramount. That's why so many national federations and National Olympic Committees are speaking out. They don't think the IOC and the Tokyo 2020 organizers are taking it into account as much as they should be.
Except they are. Just in a different way. The Olympics only come around once every four years (not every five years, more on that in a minute). For some athletes, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And they're doing everything they can to preserve that opportunity for those athletes who've already qualified. Some of whom might never get the chance to be an Olympian again.
And the IOC isn't living in a bubble. It's not like coronavirus hasn't impacted the preparations. They had to cancel the Greek leg of the torch relay because of the large crowds that were gathering, and they had to do the test events with officials instead of athletes. They're also in constant contact with the World Health Organization. Do you really think they'll still hold the Olympics if they don't get the OK from the WHO? I don't.
Of course, one of the many criticisms being directed at the IOC these days is that some feel it seems like they want the WHO to make the decision for them. I can see where people have that impression, but I wouldn't expect them to act without consulting the WHO. And they already have made the decision. It's full steam ahead unless the WHO tells them no. Is that taking the easy way out? Maybe. Is it the smart thing to do? Yes.
It's also worth noting that the IOC--and the IOC alone--has the authority to cancel or postpone the Games. So stop suggesting it to the Japanese government or the Tokyo organizing committee! Because it's not their call! Will their input have some bearing? Absolutely! But, ultimately, it's up to the IOC whether the Tokyo Olympics take place on schedule or not.
Do I think the Tokyo Games actually will start as scheduled on July 24? Unfortunately, I do not. The voices are too loud and there are too many of them for the IOC to just ignore. And, for the sake of everyone, it probably is the right decision.
Even though Thomas Bach has been reluctant to use the word "cancel," I don't think there's any other option if the Games can't be held this year. Because it's not as simple as just moving them to the same time next year, which seems to be the popular alternative being proposed. There are so many logistical reasons that make that impractical, if not impossible, so I don't see that as a realistic option. Does it beat an outright cancellation? Of course! I just don't think it would work, though.
Instead, I'd like to propose an alternative. The 1964 Tokyo Olympics were held in October. This year's Games are scheduled for July-August because that's what works best for international TV. But if the options are a delay or no Olympics at all, I think they'd take a delay. So, if the situation is such that the Olympics can safely take place later in August or September or even October, I think that's the way to go.
Every effort should be made to hold the Olympics this year. It's Tokyo 2020, not Tokyo 2021. The Olympics have been held every four years since 1896. That cycle has never been altered. Every four years. Not five. Not three. So, if the Games can't take place in 2020, they should be cancelled outright. That would obviously be a drastic move. Which is why the IOC is so reluctant to make it. After all, the only times the Olympics have ever been cancelled it was because of World War (which some world leaders have suggested this pandemic is).
If that's the decision that needs to be made, so be it. The IOC shouldn't rush to make it, though. Because they may be right. This might be under control in four months. And the world might be ready to celebrate in Tokyo.
Friday, March 20, 2020
A 110-Game Season
We have no idea when this thing's going to end, so it's difficult to speculate when baseball season is finally going to start. But we know it won't be for a while. It's looking like Memorial Day at the earliest, probably more like June. Either way, everyone knows that 162 games will be next to impossible. So what will the baseball schedule look like when they actually do start? Well, they're probably going to spend a good portion of this hiatus trying to figure that out.
For argument's sake, let's say Opening Day is June 1 (even that date, unfortunately, looks highly optimistic). Since the original schedule has already been out for several months, MLB could try and preserve it by simply starting from that point and cancelling all of the games that were missed. That scenario seems unlikely, though. Because it's not as simple as it sounds.
It would be inherently unfair to just wipe the first two months off the schedule, for several reasons. First, while everybody has the same number of off days during the season, they're spread out differently. So, some teams would play more games and have fewer off days than others and vice versa. Likewise, if you were supposed to play a lot of home games in April and May, that would mean most of the games you do actually end up playing will be on the road, while some teams would have the opposite home/road split.
You also severely impact division races by simply picking up where the schedule left off. The Yankees, for example, were supposed to play two series in Tampa Bay in April and May, yet don't go to Fenway Park until mid-June. In fact, there was only one Yankees-Red Sox series scheduled in the first two months. So, picking up where the schedule left off would mean that they play 10 games in Boston and nine total against Tampa Bay. In a schedule that's already going to be condensed, you don't want division races, which already figure to be tighter than they normally would, to be decided by the number of games you play against a given opponent (and where).
Same thing with travel. The Nationals would have virtually all of their West Coast trips wiped out. They'd only have a three-game series in San Diego. The Mets, meanwhile, would have three separate West Coast trips and the Phillies would have two. In an NL East that figures to be decided by only one or two games, Washington not having to do nearly as much travel as their division rivals could make a big difference.
Likewise, you've gotta consider the interleague games. Some people (who don't like interleague play) have argued that the circumstances surrounding this season give MLB a perfect excuse to drop all interleague games from this year's schedule. That scenario is impossible, though, since there are 15 teams in each league, so there has to be an interleague game virtually every day.
The interleague games are staggered, too. So, much like the travel situation, you could have a team playing the bulk of their interleague games after the schedule picks up and others playing few to none since all theirs were supposed to be in April and May. Even within a division, that could make a huge difference. The Reds would lose their trip to Yankee Stadium. The Cubs wouldn't. Advantage Cincinnati.
Then there's the All*Star Game, which makes absolutely no sense to keep on its scheduled date. If they start in June, the All*Star break would be just six weeks later (with 11 weeks after it). Do you really want to take four days off that early in the season, especially when you need as many days as you can get just to get games in? And how are you picking a team? Based off of a month's worth of stats?
I saw an article by Tom Verducci saying they were hoping to play a 120-game season, but I think even that number seems optimistic. Teams play roughly 25 games a month, so let's assume that, on average, they'll all lose 50 games. That means everybody will have roughly 110-112 games left. Even pushing the regular season into the first week in October (which they'll almost certainly have to), I'm not sure where you squeeze in those additional eight games. You can only schedule so many doubleheaders and take away so many off days.
So, I'm rewriting the whole thing. I don't think there's any other way. And, unfortunately, all of the special events have gotta go. The Puerto Rico and Mexico Series have already been cancelled, but it doesn't seem practical to play the London Series, either. And the Yankees-White Sox game at the Field of Dreams, while not scheduled until August, can wait until 2021. The only special event game I'd consider keeping is the Little League Classic between the Red Sox and Orioles, but it's easy enough to just call it and make that the 2021 matchup like the NHL did with the Red Wings-Maple Leafs Winter Classic.
My proposal calls for a 110-game schedule beginning June 1 and ending October 4. I'm actually keeping the All*Star Game, but I'm moving it back to August 11. That way it's after the Olympics (assuming those take place...and on time) and, more importantly, almost exactly at the midpoint. It would be 10 weeks in, and there would be eight weeks left.
As for how the schedule breaks down, it would be 10 games per division opponent, six games against each of the other 10 teams in your league, and 10 total interleague games. The division games would be broken down 6/4, with two three-game series in one city and one four-game series in the other. Interleague would be one home series, one away series against the division you were supposed to play this season (AL East/NL Central, AL Central/NL West, AL West/NL East) and a two-and-two home-and-home with your natural rival (played back-to-back as a split four-game series).
Those natural rival home-and-homes are the same ones as usual: Orioles-Nationals, Red Sox-Braves, Yankees-Mets, Rays-Marlins, Blue Jays-Phillies, White Sox-Cubs, Indians-Reds, Tigers-Pirates, Royals-Cardinals, Twins-Brewers, Astros-Diamondbacks, Angels-Dodgers, A's-Giants, Mariners-Padres, Rangers-Rockies.
Here are the other interleague series that I would keep, all of which were on the original schedule: Pirates at Orioles, Brewers at Red Sox, Cubs at Yankees, Cardinals at Rays, Reds at Blue Jays, Diamondbacks at White Sox, Giants at Indians, Padres at Tigers, Dodgers at Royals, Rockies at Twins, Phillies at Astros, Mets at Angels, Marlins at A's, Braves at Mariners, Nationals at Rangers, Angels at Braves, Rangers at Marlins, Mariners at Mets, A's at Phillies, Astros at Nationals, Red Sox at Cubs, Rays at Reds, Blue Jays at Pirates, Orioles at Brewers, Yankees at Cardinals, Twins at Diamondbacks, Indians at Rockies, Tigers at Dodgers, White Sox at Padres, Royals at Giants.
They're talking about doing expanded playoffs in the NBA and NHL when those leagues resume, but there would be no need to do that in baseball. A 110-game schedule is enough to eliminate the randomness that would inevitably result from a season that was any shorter. I'm not saying you'd get the same 10 teams you'd get in a full 162-game season. But you'd get 10 good teams. Not 10 teams that had a good couple of weeks.
And, since they'd already be pushing into November, there's no need to add teams, which adds more games and more days to the playoffs. With this schedule, I've got the wild card games on Oct. 6-7, the Division Series running from Oct. 8-15, the LCSes running from Oct. 16-25, and the World Series starting on Oct. 28. They don't want a World Series game on Election Day (for obvious reasons), which is why the season was supposed to start next week, so I've got a potential Game 7 on a Thursday night instead. November 5 to be exact. It would be the latest end to a baseball season ever. But coronavirus is going to give us our latest start ever, so that's a trade-off I'm definitely willing to make.
For argument's sake, let's say Opening Day is June 1 (even that date, unfortunately, looks highly optimistic). Since the original schedule has already been out for several months, MLB could try and preserve it by simply starting from that point and cancelling all of the games that were missed. That scenario seems unlikely, though. Because it's not as simple as it sounds.
It would be inherently unfair to just wipe the first two months off the schedule, for several reasons. First, while everybody has the same number of off days during the season, they're spread out differently. So, some teams would play more games and have fewer off days than others and vice versa. Likewise, if you were supposed to play a lot of home games in April and May, that would mean most of the games you do actually end up playing will be on the road, while some teams would have the opposite home/road split.
You also severely impact division races by simply picking up where the schedule left off. The Yankees, for example, were supposed to play two series in Tampa Bay in April and May, yet don't go to Fenway Park until mid-June. In fact, there was only one Yankees-Red Sox series scheduled in the first two months. So, picking up where the schedule left off would mean that they play 10 games in Boston and nine total against Tampa Bay. In a schedule that's already going to be condensed, you don't want division races, which already figure to be tighter than they normally would, to be decided by the number of games you play against a given opponent (and where).
Same thing with travel. The Nationals would have virtually all of their West Coast trips wiped out. They'd only have a three-game series in San Diego. The Mets, meanwhile, would have three separate West Coast trips and the Phillies would have two. In an NL East that figures to be decided by only one or two games, Washington not having to do nearly as much travel as their division rivals could make a big difference.
Likewise, you've gotta consider the interleague games. Some people (who don't like interleague play) have argued that the circumstances surrounding this season give MLB a perfect excuse to drop all interleague games from this year's schedule. That scenario is impossible, though, since there are 15 teams in each league, so there has to be an interleague game virtually every day.
The interleague games are staggered, too. So, much like the travel situation, you could have a team playing the bulk of their interleague games after the schedule picks up and others playing few to none since all theirs were supposed to be in April and May. Even within a division, that could make a huge difference. The Reds would lose their trip to Yankee Stadium. The Cubs wouldn't. Advantage Cincinnati.
Then there's the All*Star Game, which makes absolutely no sense to keep on its scheduled date. If they start in June, the All*Star break would be just six weeks later (with 11 weeks after it). Do you really want to take four days off that early in the season, especially when you need as many days as you can get just to get games in? And how are you picking a team? Based off of a month's worth of stats?
I saw an article by Tom Verducci saying they were hoping to play a 120-game season, but I think even that number seems optimistic. Teams play roughly 25 games a month, so let's assume that, on average, they'll all lose 50 games. That means everybody will have roughly 110-112 games left. Even pushing the regular season into the first week in October (which they'll almost certainly have to), I'm not sure where you squeeze in those additional eight games. You can only schedule so many doubleheaders and take away so many off days.
So, I'm rewriting the whole thing. I don't think there's any other way. And, unfortunately, all of the special events have gotta go. The Puerto Rico and Mexico Series have already been cancelled, but it doesn't seem practical to play the London Series, either. And the Yankees-White Sox game at the Field of Dreams, while not scheduled until August, can wait until 2021. The only special event game I'd consider keeping is the Little League Classic between the Red Sox and Orioles, but it's easy enough to just call it and make that the 2021 matchup like the NHL did with the Red Wings-Maple Leafs Winter Classic.
My proposal calls for a 110-game schedule beginning June 1 and ending October 4. I'm actually keeping the All*Star Game, but I'm moving it back to August 11. That way it's after the Olympics (assuming those take place...and on time) and, more importantly, almost exactly at the midpoint. It would be 10 weeks in, and there would be eight weeks left.
As for how the schedule breaks down, it would be 10 games per division opponent, six games against each of the other 10 teams in your league, and 10 total interleague games. The division games would be broken down 6/4, with two three-game series in one city and one four-game series in the other. Interleague would be one home series, one away series against the division you were supposed to play this season (AL East/NL Central, AL Central/NL West, AL West/NL East) and a two-and-two home-and-home with your natural rival (played back-to-back as a split four-game series).
Those natural rival home-and-homes are the same ones as usual: Orioles-Nationals, Red Sox-Braves, Yankees-Mets, Rays-Marlins, Blue Jays-Phillies, White Sox-Cubs, Indians-Reds, Tigers-Pirates, Royals-Cardinals, Twins-Brewers, Astros-Diamondbacks, Angels-Dodgers, A's-Giants, Mariners-Padres, Rangers-Rockies.
Here are the other interleague series that I would keep, all of which were on the original schedule: Pirates at Orioles, Brewers at Red Sox, Cubs at Yankees, Cardinals at Rays, Reds at Blue Jays, Diamondbacks at White Sox, Giants at Indians, Padres at Tigers, Dodgers at Royals, Rockies at Twins, Phillies at Astros, Mets at Angels, Marlins at A's, Braves at Mariners, Nationals at Rangers, Angels at Braves, Rangers at Marlins, Mariners at Mets, A's at Phillies, Astros at Nationals, Red Sox at Cubs, Rays at Reds, Blue Jays at Pirates, Orioles at Brewers, Yankees at Cardinals, Twins at Diamondbacks, Indians at Rockies, Tigers at Dodgers, White Sox at Padres, Royals at Giants.
They're talking about doing expanded playoffs in the NBA and NHL when those leagues resume, but there would be no need to do that in baseball. A 110-game schedule is enough to eliminate the randomness that would inevitably result from a season that was any shorter. I'm not saying you'd get the same 10 teams you'd get in a full 162-game season. But you'd get 10 good teams. Not 10 teams that had a good couple of weeks.
And, since they'd already be pushing into November, there's no need to add teams, which adds more games and more days to the playoffs. With this schedule, I've got the wild card games on Oct. 6-7, the Division Series running from Oct. 8-15, the LCSes running from Oct. 16-25, and the World Series starting on Oct. 28. They don't want a World Series game on Election Day (for obvious reasons), which is why the season was supposed to start next week, so I've got a potential Game 7 on a Thursday night instead. November 5 to be exact. It would be the latest end to a baseball season ever. But coronavirus is going to give us our latest start ever, so that's a trade-off I'm definitely willing to make.
Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Bradicheck Divorcing
As the coronavirus continues to wreak havoc on our daily lives and more and more events are cancelled as a result, you can't help but wonder when we're ever going to see a live sporting event again. Right now, my best guess is the first one that'll actually take place as scheduled will be the Indy 500...on Memorial Day weekend...which is at the end of May!
Fortunately, the NFL offseason is corona-proof, which gives us something we can actually talk about that doesn't involve some sort of postponement or cancellation (or speculation about a postponement or cancellation). And it sure gave us plenty to talk about on Tuesday! The free agent wheels started turning, and they were going at a frenetic pace (not unlike everybody's new favorite virus).
The biggest news, of course, is the one that sent shock waves throughout the NFL. After a 20-year marriage that resulted in nine Super Bowl appearances and six championships, Bradicheck is getting divorced!
When Tom Brady first announced that he was going to become a free agent for the first time in his career, there weren't many people who thought he'd actually leave the Patriots. Most of assumed he'd spend his entire career in New England and that he was simply posturing to get a better deal. After all, Brady is on record saying he wants to play until he's 45, and a three-year deal would've gotten him there, after which he could retire and the Patriots could move on.
Even after the grumblings started that he might leave, I still don't think there are too many people who thought he actually would. Bradicheck has always been viewed as a package deal, and most assumed Robert Kraft would do everything in his power to keep that duo together. But, alas, we were wrong! Brady wasn't just posturing. He actually was thinking about New England. Then he confirmed that he was, in fact, leaving with an Instagram post thanking Patriots fans for 20 wonderful years.
Although, now that it's happened, I can see where Brady wanted to step out on his own. He and Belicheck have been intertwined for so long that it's hard to envision one without the other. But that's exactly what Brady wants to try and do. I liken it to LeBron signing with the Lakers. When LeBron went to the Heat, he was obviously chasing a championship. When he signed with the Lakers, that was for himself.
If Brady did leave New England, the most likely destination seemed to be the Chargers. It made sense. He's from California and the Chargers were moving on from Philip Rivers. That was the logical match, so if Brady was going to leave the Patriots, it naturally meant he was going to the Chargers. Right?
Wrong! Brady didn't sign with the Chargers. He signed with...Tampa Bay?! I must say, the Bucs were never on my radar as a potential Brady destination. But he obviously liked what they had to offer. And they have a coach, Bruce Arians, who will give Brady that same sort of autonomy that he enjoyed for so long in New England. He won't be there long enough to win six more Super Bowls. But if he can do what Peyton Manning did and win one last one after changing teams, that would cement his legacy even more.
So, Brady joins Manning, Joe Montana, Joe Namath, Brett Favre and Johnny Unitas on the list of Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks who'll end their Hall of Fame careers in a different uniform. The Jets, Bills and Dolphins, meanwhile, feel like they legitimately have a chance to win the division for the first time in two decades! I'm sure you won't see the rest of the AFC complaining, either!
I also have a feeling that Brady-Brees is going to become the new Brady-Manning rivarly. Because we're now going to be guaranteed two matchups between the two 40-something Canton-bound quarterbacks every season. That's because Brees, who was also a free agent, decided to stay put in New Orleans.
His backup, Teddy Bridgewater didn't, though. Bridgewater's staying in the division with the Panthers. That, obviously, can't make Cam Newton too happy, which is why Carolina has given Newton permission to seek a trade. (You'd have to think Jamies Winston will likely be on the move, as well.) I can think of at least two teams that are in the market for a quarterback! With some others to potentially follow. And you know Belicheck's going to look for his next late-round QB find in the draft (which is still on).
Like I said, there were a ton of quarterbacks on the move the day before free agency even officially got underway! The NFC South is taken care of with Brady in Tampa, Bridgewater in Carolina, Brees staying in New Orleans and, of course, Matt Ryan in Atlanta. Meanwhile, Marcus Mariota goes from backing up Ryan Tannehill in Tennessee to backing up Derek Carr in Las Vegas, where Jason Witten will be one of his targets. As for Rivers, he's headed to Indianapolis (so I guess the Jacoby Brissett Era is over?).
There have been a ton of NFL trades, too, including a pair of big ones involving top wide receivers. DeAndre Hopkins is headed to Arizona, where he'll team with Larry Fitzgerald to give Kyler Murray a pair of deep threats. And the Bills, who could very well be the AFC East favorites now, snagged Stefon Diggs from the Vikings for essentially nothing except for a handful of picks.
That's just the start. The NFL offseason hasn't even gotten into full swing yet. And, with nothing else going on, we'll be paying attention to all of it.
Monday, March 16, 2020
Who Would've Made the Women's Tournament
Just as I released my bracket for the men's non-tournament on what should've been Selection Sunday, it's time to do the same for the women on what should've been Selection Monday. Although, on the bright side, at least ESPN can't scoop themselves and spoil their own Selection Show by unveiling the bracket hours early like they did last year!
And top two lines on that bracket would've been very easy to fill out. Because the top teams definitely distinguished themselves. South Carolina was a clear No. 1 overall, Oregon and Baylor were Nos. 2 and 3 in either order (I had Oregon ranked higher, but the order doesn't really matter since the only difference would've been who wore the home jersey in the Final Four). And Maryland, as the best team in the strongest conference, should've been the No. 4 overall seed.
The NCAA must've had a feeling about those top three teams, too. Because they were all supposed to play Regionals effectively at home. And the year there was no site in the Northeast, meaning UConn was actually going to have to travel regardless, the Huskies had three regular-season losses (question: their streak of 11 consecutive Final Fours is technically still active, right?). Anyway, UConn, Stanford and Mississippi State were pretty locked into 2-seeds, with the choice between ACC teams (Louisville and NC State) the only real decision on the 1- and 2-lines.
Where the 2-seeds would've been sent was actually pretty easy, too. Louisville can bus to Fort Wayne, so that's done. Mississippi State is a little over 500 miles from Dallas, so that's also an easy trip. Stanford can't be with Oregon, so they have to go out East, which means UConn would've had to deal with Sabrina Ionescu essentially playing at home in Portland.
At the other end of the spectrum, it really was tight while trying to figure out who should get the final at-large bids. Tennessee and Central Florida were bubble teams, but I had them both safely in. For me, it came down to James Madison or Boston College. Boston College had some decent wins and played in a strong conference, but also had losses to Holy Cross, Providence and Charlotte. James Madison, meanwhile, was 25-4 overall, tied for its regular season conference title, and one of its losses was by two to Maryland. I think they're the better team, so they get the last spot and give the CAA a second team (which probably wouldn't have happened if James Madison had won the conference tournament).
One of the most ironic things about this unique and unprecedented situation is that so many of the Power 6 conferences have women's champions, but not men's champions. The Big 12 is the only major conference that holds its tournaments simultaneously. The others all hold their women's tournament the week before the men's. So, NC State (ACC), Maryland (Big Ten), Oregon (Pac-12) and South Carolina (SEC) had already clinched auto-bids, and so had UConn (American) and DePaul (Big East). UConn, by the way, never lost a game against a conference opponent during the entire seven years it was in the American.
In fact, a lot of conferences have opposite tournaments, so, for the most part, the leagues that didn't finish their men's tournament had a women's champion and vice versa. A total of 13 conferences had completed their tournaments and awarded their automatic bids, 14 if you include Princeton, which was given the Ivy's auto bid when that tournament was cancelled. My remaining 18 "auto bids" went to a combination of regular season champions and the highest seed remaining in the conference tournaments that were in progress.
As for the at-large bids, those skewed towards the power conferences, but not nearly as drastically as they do on the men's side. Gonzaga lost to Portland in the WCC Championship Game, but was such a tournament lock that I had them hosting the first two rounds as a 4-seed. Likewise, Missouri State lost in the MVC Tournament, but had built such a resume that I gave them a 5-seed. And I already mentioned James Madison.
Overall, I've got 11 different conferences landing multiple bids, led by the Big Ten's eight. The SEC is right behind with seven, followed by the Pac-12 with six. The crazy part about that is the Pac-12 was so top-heavy that they probably would've had five teams hosting first- and second-round games--Oregon and Stanford, obviously, but also UCLA, Arizona and Oregon State. The sixth Pac-12 team is Arizona State.
I've got five ACC teams, which doesn't include a Notre Dame squad that had a down year. Four from the Big 12, three from the Big East and Central Florida joining UConn to give the American two representatives. And, two bids from those mid-major conferences I already mentioned--the CAA, Missouri Valley and West Coast--as well as Conference USA. With that, it's on to the bracket...
GREENVILLE
Columbia: 16-Samford at 1-South Carolina (1), 8-Virginia Tech vs. 9-Florida Gulf Coast
Corvallis: 13-Portland at 4-Oregon State, 5-Indiana vs. 12-Drexel
Raleigh: 14-Bucknell at 3-NC State, 6-Ohio State vs. 11-Tennessee
Stanford: 15-Texas A&M-Corpus Christi at 2-Stanford, 7-TCU vs. 10-Rice
FORT WAYNE
College Park: 16-Jackson State at 1-Maryland (4), 8-LSU vs. 9-Texas
Chicago: 13-Southeast Missouri State at 4-DePaul, 5-Florida State vs. 12-Dayton
Tucson: 14-Stony Brook at 3-Arizona, 6-Arkansas vs. 11-Rutgers
Louisville: 15-Campbell at 2-Louisville, 7-Michigan vs. 10-Central Michigan
PORTLAND
Eugene: 16-UC Davis at 1-Oregon (2), 8-Iowa State vs. 9-Drake
Spokane: 13-Boise State at 4-Gonzaga, 5-Texas A&M vs. 12-Troy
Evanston: 14-Rider at 3-Northwestern, 6-Kentucky vs. 11-Old Dominion
Storrs: 15-Robert Morris at 2-Connecticut, 7-Princeton vs. 10-Creighton
DALLAS
Waco: 16-Bethune-Cookman at 1-Baylor (3), 8-Arizona State vs. 9-Marquette
Iowa City: 13-IUPUI at 4-Iowa, 5-Missouri State vs. 12-James Madison
Los Angeles: 14-Montana State at 3-UCLA, 6-South Dakota vs. 11-Central Florida
Starkville: 15-Kansas City at 2-Mississippi State, 7-Duke vs. 10-Purdue
And top two lines on that bracket would've been very easy to fill out. Because the top teams definitely distinguished themselves. South Carolina was a clear No. 1 overall, Oregon and Baylor were Nos. 2 and 3 in either order (I had Oregon ranked higher, but the order doesn't really matter since the only difference would've been who wore the home jersey in the Final Four). And Maryland, as the best team in the strongest conference, should've been the No. 4 overall seed.
The NCAA must've had a feeling about those top three teams, too. Because they were all supposed to play Regionals effectively at home. And the year there was no site in the Northeast, meaning UConn was actually going to have to travel regardless, the Huskies had three regular-season losses (question: their streak of 11 consecutive Final Fours is technically still active, right?). Anyway, UConn, Stanford and Mississippi State were pretty locked into 2-seeds, with the choice between ACC teams (Louisville and NC State) the only real decision on the 1- and 2-lines.
Where the 2-seeds would've been sent was actually pretty easy, too. Louisville can bus to Fort Wayne, so that's done. Mississippi State is a little over 500 miles from Dallas, so that's also an easy trip. Stanford can't be with Oregon, so they have to go out East, which means UConn would've had to deal with Sabrina Ionescu essentially playing at home in Portland.
At the other end of the spectrum, it really was tight while trying to figure out who should get the final at-large bids. Tennessee and Central Florida were bubble teams, but I had them both safely in. For me, it came down to James Madison or Boston College. Boston College had some decent wins and played in a strong conference, but also had losses to Holy Cross, Providence and Charlotte. James Madison, meanwhile, was 25-4 overall, tied for its regular season conference title, and one of its losses was by two to Maryland. I think they're the better team, so they get the last spot and give the CAA a second team (which probably wouldn't have happened if James Madison had won the conference tournament).
One of the most ironic things about this unique and unprecedented situation is that so many of the Power 6 conferences have women's champions, but not men's champions. The Big 12 is the only major conference that holds its tournaments simultaneously. The others all hold their women's tournament the week before the men's. So, NC State (ACC), Maryland (Big Ten), Oregon (Pac-12) and South Carolina (SEC) had already clinched auto-bids, and so had UConn (American) and DePaul (Big East). UConn, by the way, never lost a game against a conference opponent during the entire seven years it was in the American.
In fact, a lot of conferences have opposite tournaments, so, for the most part, the leagues that didn't finish their men's tournament had a women's champion and vice versa. A total of 13 conferences had completed their tournaments and awarded their automatic bids, 14 if you include Princeton, which was given the Ivy's auto bid when that tournament was cancelled. My remaining 18 "auto bids" went to a combination of regular season champions and the highest seed remaining in the conference tournaments that were in progress.
As for the at-large bids, those skewed towards the power conferences, but not nearly as drastically as they do on the men's side. Gonzaga lost to Portland in the WCC Championship Game, but was such a tournament lock that I had them hosting the first two rounds as a 4-seed. Likewise, Missouri State lost in the MVC Tournament, but had built such a resume that I gave them a 5-seed. And I already mentioned James Madison.
Overall, I've got 11 different conferences landing multiple bids, led by the Big Ten's eight. The SEC is right behind with seven, followed by the Pac-12 with six. The crazy part about that is the Pac-12 was so top-heavy that they probably would've had five teams hosting first- and second-round games--Oregon and Stanford, obviously, but also UCLA, Arizona and Oregon State. The sixth Pac-12 team is Arizona State.
I've got five ACC teams, which doesn't include a Notre Dame squad that had a down year. Four from the Big 12, three from the Big East and Central Florida joining UConn to give the American two representatives. And, two bids from those mid-major conferences I already mentioned--the CAA, Missouri Valley and West Coast--as well as Conference USA. With that, it's on to the bracket...
GREENVILLE
Columbia: 16-Samford at 1-South Carolina (1), 8-Virginia Tech vs. 9-Florida Gulf Coast
Corvallis: 13-Portland at 4-Oregon State, 5-Indiana vs. 12-Drexel
Raleigh: 14-Bucknell at 3-NC State, 6-Ohio State vs. 11-Tennessee
Stanford: 15-Texas A&M-Corpus Christi at 2-Stanford, 7-TCU vs. 10-Rice
FORT WAYNE
College Park: 16-Jackson State at 1-Maryland (4), 8-LSU vs. 9-Texas
Chicago: 13-Southeast Missouri State at 4-DePaul, 5-Florida State vs. 12-Dayton
Tucson: 14-Stony Brook at 3-Arizona, 6-Arkansas vs. 11-Rutgers
Louisville: 15-Campbell at 2-Louisville, 7-Michigan vs. 10-Central Michigan
PORTLAND
Eugene: 16-UC Davis at 1-Oregon (2), 8-Iowa State vs. 9-Drake
Spokane: 13-Boise State at 4-Gonzaga, 5-Texas A&M vs. 12-Troy
Evanston: 14-Rider at 3-Northwestern, 6-Kentucky vs. 11-Old Dominion
Storrs: 15-Robert Morris at 2-Connecticut, 7-Princeton vs. 10-Creighton
DALLAS
Waco: 16-Bethune-Cookman at 1-Baylor (3), 8-Arizona State vs. 9-Marquette
Iowa City: 13-IUPUI at 4-Iowa, 5-Missouri State vs. 12-James Madison
Los Angeles: 14-Montana State at 3-UCLA, 6-South Dakota vs. 11-Central Florida
Starkville: 15-Kansas City at 2-Mississippi State, 7-Duke vs. 10-Purdue
Sunday, March 15, 2020
Who Would've Made the Men's Tournament
The coronavirus has done the impossible. It has completely shut down the entire sports world for an indefinite amount of time. Not having sports is definitely weird, especially since we're supposed to be in basketball overload right now. But alas, there will be no March Madness this year, which is going to make next week even weirder.
Before the NCAA announced that the tournament was cancelled completely, they toyed with the idea of a scaled-down, 16-team event. I'm glad they decided not to do that, though. Because part of what makes March Madness so special is that every conference is involved. And if you're not going to include every conference, you might as well not even have the tournament.
And even though there won't be a tournament, that doesn't mean we couldn't have the fun of making a mock bracket. In fact, not having a real bracket made it a little easier to create one. No conference tournaments meant no bid thieves and no major conference teams moving up or down seed lines. Just pick 68 teams and put them in the bracket.
Although, the lack of conference tournaments did make it a little harder when it came to one-bid leagues. So, for those conferences, what I did was give the auto bid to either the highest remaining seed when the conference tournament ended or, if it hadn't started yet, the No. 1 seed. That includes the Ivy League, which was the first to cancel its conference tournament and declared that regular-season champion Yale would be the Ivy representative the NCAA.
In the 13 conferences that had completed their tournaments, I gave it to the team that had already clinched its place in the field by winning the tournament. Those teams were: Liberty (Atlantic Sun), Winthrop (Big South), Hofstra (CAA), Northern Kentucky (Horizon), Bradley (MVC), Utah State (Mountain West), Robert Morris (NEC), Belmont (OVC), Boston University (Patriot), East Tennessee State (Southern), Stephen F. Austin (Southland), North Dakota State (Summit) and Gonzaga (WCC).
Gonzaga was pretty secure as the No. 1 seed in the West. In fact, I think three of the 1-seeds were locked in. Because after all the back-and-forth at the top this season, Kansas and Baylor had established themselves as the top two teams in the nation. Whichever one ended up winning the Big 12 Tournament likely would've been No. 1 overall. But since there wasn't a Big 12 Tournament, I gave the nod to Kansas (which had said it wouldn't participate in the NCAA Tournament if it was held).
San Diego State had already played itself out of the fourth No. 1 seed by losing to Utah State in the Mountain West final. That probably would've helped them, though. Because as the fourth No. 1, they would've had to fly to New York for the Regional. As a No. 2, however, the NCAA would've been able to keep them in the West and play the Regional two hours up the 405 at Staples Center.
That left the decision for the final No. 1 seed between Dayton and Florida State. I went with Florida State not just because I think they're the better team, but because they were the best team in a much better conference. I had five tourney teams from the ACC, which included a 3-seed (Duke), a 4-seed (Louisville) and the defending National Champions (Virgina). The only other team from the A-10 I had in the field, meanwhile, was my last team in--Richmond.
OK, time for the conference breakdown. The Big Ten looked likely to get at least 10 teams, which is exactly where I had them. I've got 10 conferences with multiple bids, with the Big Ten leading the way. Here's the whole list: Big Ten (10), Big East (6), Big 12 (6), Pac-12 (6), ACC (5), SEC (4), West Coast (3), Atlantic 10 (2), American (2), Mountain West (2).
As for the Final Four matchups, I would've had the Midwest playing the East in Atlanta, with South vs. West in the other game. And with that, it's on to the bracket...
MIDWEST (Indianapolis)
Omaha: 1-Kansas (1) vs. 16-Robert Morris/North Carolina Central, 8-USC vs. 9-Utah State
Albany: 4-Seton Hall vs. 13-Yale, 5-Penn State vs. 12-New Mexico State
Greensboro: 3-Duke vs. 14-Belmont, 6-Arizona vs. 11-Indiana
Greensboro: 2-Maryland vs. 15-Little Rock, 7-Houston vs. 10-Marquette
EAST (New York)
Tampa: 1-Florida State (4) vs. 16-Siena/Boston University, 8-LSU vs. 9-Rutgers
Albany: 4-Villanova vs. 13-Hofstra, 5-West Virginia vs. 12-Liberty
Omaha: 3-Michigan State vs. 14-Northern Kentucky, 6-Auburn vs. 11-Cincinnati
Cleveland: 2-Dayton vs. 15-North Dakota State, 7-Providence vs. 10-Texas Tech
SOUTH (Houston)
St. Louis: 1-Baylor (2) vs. 16-Winthrop, 8-Illinois vs. 9-Saint Mary's
Tampa: 4-Louisville vs. 13-Akron, 5-Ohio State vs. 12-East Tennessee State
Sacramento: 3-Creighton vs. 14-Bradley, 6-Michigan vs. 11-Arizona State/Richmond
Cleveland: 2-Kentucky vs. 15-UC Irvine, 7-Virginia vs. 10-Colorado
WEST (Los Angeles)
Spokane: 1-Gonzaga (3) vs. 16-Prairie View A&M, 8-Florida vs. 9-Oklahoma
Spokane: 4-Oregon vs. 13-North Texas, 5-Butler vs. 12-Stephen F. Austin
St. Louis: 3-Wisconsin vs. 14-Vermont, 6-BYU vs. 11-NC State/Texas
Sacramento: 2-San Diego State vs. 15-Eastern Washington, 7-Iowa vs. 10-UCLA
Before the NCAA announced that the tournament was cancelled completely, they toyed with the idea of a scaled-down, 16-team event. I'm glad they decided not to do that, though. Because part of what makes March Madness so special is that every conference is involved. And if you're not going to include every conference, you might as well not even have the tournament.
And even though there won't be a tournament, that doesn't mean we couldn't have the fun of making a mock bracket. In fact, not having a real bracket made it a little easier to create one. No conference tournaments meant no bid thieves and no major conference teams moving up or down seed lines. Just pick 68 teams and put them in the bracket.
Although, the lack of conference tournaments did make it a little harder when it came to one-bid leagues. So, for those conferences, what I did was give the auto bid to either the highest remaining seed when the conference tournament ended or, if it hadn't started yet, the No. 1 seed. That includes the Ivy League, which was the first to cancel its conference tournament and declared that regular-season champion Yale would be the Ivy representative the NCAA.
In the 13 conferences that had completed their tournaments, I gave it to the team that had already clinched its place in the field by winning the tournament. Those teams were: Liberty (Atlantic Sun), Winthrop (Big South), Hofstra (CAA), Northern Kentucky (Horizon), Bradley (MVC), Utah State (Mountain West), Robert Morris (NEC), Belmont (OVC), Boston University (Patriot), East Tennessee State (Southern), Stephen F. Austin (Southland), North Dakota State (Summit) and Gonzaga (WCC).
Gonzaga was pretty secure as the No. 1 seed in the West. In fact, I think three of the 1-seeds were locked in. Because after all the back-and-forth at the top this season, Kansas and Baylor had established themselves as the top two teams in the nation. Whichever one ended up winning the Big 12 Tournament likely would've been No. 1 overall. But since there wasn't a Big 12 Tournament, I gave the nod to Kansas (which had said it wouldn't participate in the NCAA Tournament if it was held).
San Diego State had already played itself out of the fourth No. 1 seed by losing to Utah State in the Mountain West final. That probably would've helped them, though. Because as the fourth No. 1, they would've had to fly to New York for the Regional. As a No. 2, however, the NCAA would've been able to keep them in the West and play the Regional two hours up the 405 at Staples Center.
That left the decision for the final No. 1 seed between Dayton and Florida State. I went with Florida State not just because I think they're the better team, but because they were the best team in a much better conference. I had five tourney teams from the ACC, which included a 3-seed (Duke), a 4-seed (Louisville) and the defending National Champions (Virgina). The only other team from the A-10 I had in the field, meanwhile, was my last team in--Richmond.
OK, time for the conference breakdown. The Big Ten looked likely to get at least 10 teams, which is exactly where I had them. I've got 10 conferences with multiple bids, with the Big Ten leading the way. Here's the whole list: Big Ten (10), Big East (6), Big 12 (6), Pac-12 (6), ACC (5), SEC (4), West Coast (3), Atlantic 10 (2), American (2), Mountain West (2).
As for the Final Four matchups, I would've had the Midwest playing the East in Atlanta, with South vs. West in the other game. And with that, it's on to the bracket...
MIDWEST (Indianapolis)
Omaha: 1-Kansas (1) vs. 16-Robert Morris/North Carolina Central, 8-USC vs. 9-Utah State
Albany: 4-Seton Hall vs. 13-Yale, 5-Penn State vs. 12-New Mexico State
Greensboro: 3-Duke vs. 14-Belmont, 6-Arizona vs. 11-Indiana
Greensboro: 2-Maryland vs. 15-Little Rock, 7-Houston vs. 10-Marquette
EAST (New York)
Tampa: 1-Florida State (4) vs. 16-Siena/Boston University, 8-LSU vs. 9-Rutgers
Albany: 4-Villanova vs. 13-Hofstra, 5-West Virginia vs. 12-Liberty
Omaha: 3-Michigan State vs. 14-Northern Kentucky, 6-Auburn vs. 11-Cincinnati
Cleveland: 2-Dayton vs. 15-North Dakota State, 7-Providence vs. 10-Texas Tech
SOUTH (Houston)
St. Louis: 1-Baylor (2) vs. 16-Winthrop, 8-Illinois vs. 9-Saint Mary's
Tampa: 4-Louisville vs. 13-Akron, 5-Ohio State vs. 12-East Tennessee State
Sacramento: 3-Creighton vs. 14-Bradley, 6-Michigan vs. 11-Arizona State/Richmond
Cleveland: 2-Kentucky vs. 15-UC Irvine, 7-Virginia vs. 10-Colorado
WEST (Los Angeles)
Spokane: 1-Gonzaga (3) vs. 16-Prairie View A&M, 8-Florida vs. 9-Oklahoma
Spokane: 4-Oregon vs. 13-North Texas, 5-Butler vs. 12-Stephen F. Austin
St. Louis: 3-Wisconsin vs. 14-Vermont, 6-BYU vs. 11-NC State/Texas
Sacramento: 2-San Diego State vs. 15-Eastern Washington, 7-Iowa vs. 10-UCLA
Thursday, March 12, 2020
Sports World On Hiatus
Well, that sure escalated quickly. I'm not talking about coronavirus itself. I'm talking about the sports world's reaction to it. It went from wait-and-see to games with no fans to no games at all within a matter of days. And now we're all stuck in a holding pattern...and we won't even sports to keep us occupied.
When Jazz center Rudy Gobert tested positive and the NBA immediately suspended its season, you knew it was only a matter of time before the inevitable happened. And sure enough, all of the other dominoes started falling. Every major conference ended its men's basketball tournament. The NHL decided that since they share so many arenas with NBA teams, it would be irresponsible not to suspend their season, as well. Even MLB announced that it's going to temporarily shut down, ending Spring Training and delaying Opening Day.
Perhaps the most shocking development, though, was that the coronavirus successfully did something that even a World War couldn't. For the first time in its 82-year history, there will be no NCAA Tournament. Their initial plan was to play the games as scheduled with limited attendance. Then, when the conference tournaments began dropping like flies, the thought turned to a delay. But instead the NCAA went with the nuclear option--calling off both the men's and women's basketball tournaments entirely.
In fairness, their hand was essentially forced into making that decision. Duke announced that they were withdrawing from the ACC Tournament if it wasn't cancelled, as well as the NCAA Tournament. Then Kansas, the likely No. 1 overall seed, banned all athletic travel, effective immediately. At that point, they had no choice but to cancel. They couldn't hold a tournament with any shred of credibility without two of the top programs, including the favorite for the title.
The NCAA went even further than that, though. They cancelled all remaining NCAA Championships for the 2019-20 school year. That includes the championships that were already in progress or set to begin this weekend. As well as every spring championship. Just like that, the college sports season is effectively over.
And that's the biggest blow of all. All those student-athletes who saw their seasons come to an abrupt end. It's even worse for the seniors, whose careers have come to an end in a most unceremonious, heartbreaking fashion. I'm sure the NCAA will grant blanket waivers and everyone will keep their both their year of eligibility and scholarship, but I have no doubt that there are a number of seniors who've played their final collegiate game. And had it all end in the cruelest way possible.
Fortunately, it's an Olympic year, so some of them will still have something to keep training for. But only the best of the best will qualify for Trials, and even fewer will make the team that goes to Tokyo. The vast majority will not, however. Their primary goal for this season was winning an NCAA title. That's gone now.
I'm not going to say whether I think the decision to unilaterally cancel everything was right or wrong. And there are a lot of logistics that the NCAA, its schools and its conferences will have to work out. All I'm saying is that I feel for the student-athletes. Because even if they do decide to return next year, it won't be the same. It'll be a sad anticlimax after having their real senior season stolen from them. Plenty of others will graduate and begin the rest of their lives knowing they'll never play the sport they love again. Not competitively anyway.
Likewise, you've gotta feel for those athletes who worked so hard to qualify for NCAA Championships, only to have that opportunity taken away from them. Who knows when or if they'll ever get back? They won't have their "One Shining Moment." Instead, they can only sit there and wonder, "What if."
Pro sports will return eventually, of course. The NBA is going to take 30 days then reassess, while the NHL left it a little more open-ended. If I had to guess, I'd say the NHL regular season, which only has 2 1/2 weeks left, is over. When they return, they'll go directly into the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Which would be unfortunate for those currently just on the outside looking in. They'll probably do something similar in the NBA, which might end up extending its season into July (they can't go too deep into the summer, though, with the Olympics starting on July 24).
Things are a little easier in baseball and MLS. The MLS season just started, so it'll be much easier for them to reschedule the games that they'll be missing over the next month. As for Major League Baseball, they'll figure out what they're going to do based on when they actually get up and running again. But it seems unlikely every team will get a full 162 games in. They can finish the regular season one week later than planned and still have World Series Game 7 be on Nov. 4, which isn't too bad (and what I would've preferred on the original schedule). They can't go any later than that, though, and even to finish the regular season one week later on Oct. 4 would mean reducing the number of games each team plays.
It's not just the U.S. that has been affected, either. This is a global pandemic, and it's impacting events worldwide. All sports in Italy are shut down for a month, with La Liga and the Premier League also likely to suspend their seasons. The ATP, meanwhile, announced that all tournaments for the next six weeks are cancelled.
World Championships and Olympic qualifiers have been either cancelled or postponed, too. The World Indoor Athletics Championships were the first casualty way back in January, and they've been joined by a rash of other international events that won't take place as scheduled. The World Figure Skating Championships, World Women's Curling Championships and World Women's Hockey Championships were all supposed to take place in Canada this month. None will happen. Marathons all over the world have been postponed, cancelled or limited, too, and I'm sure others will follow (it seems highly unlikely Boston will be on its traditional April date).
This really is unprecedented. In serious situations like this, we normally have sports to distract us. But now we don't. And we have no idea when we will again. All we can do is wait for things to return to normal. Hopefully it won't be too long. Because pretty soon, we'll need our sports back.
When Jazz center Rudy Gobert tested positive and the NBA immediately suspended its season, you knew it was only a matter of time before the inevitable happened. And sure enough, all of the other dominoes started falling. Every major conference ended its men's basketball tournament. The NHL decided that since they share so many arenas with NBA teams, it would be irresponsible not to suspend their season, as well. Even MLB announced that it's going to temporarily shut down, ending Spring Training and delaying Opening Day.
Perhaps the most shocking development, though, was that the coronavirus successfully did something that even a World War couldn't. For the first time in its 82-year history, there will be no NCAA Tournament. Their initial plan was to play the games as scheduled with limited attendance. Then, when the conference tournaments began dropping like flies, the thought turned to a delay. But instead the NCAA went with the nuclear option--calling off both the men's and women's basketball tournaments entirely.
In fairness, their hand was essentially forced into making that decision. Duke announced that they were withdrawing from the ACC Tournament if it wasn't cancelled, as well as the NCAA Tournament. Then Kansas, the likely No. 1 overall seed, banned all athletic travel, effective immediately. At that point, they had no choice but to cancel. They couldn't hold a tournament with any shred of credibility without two of the top programs, including the favorite for the title.
The NCAA went even further than that, though. They cancelled all remaining NCAA Championships for the 2019-20 school year. That includes the championships that were already in progress or set to begin this weekend. As well as every spring championship. Just like that, the college sports season is effectively over.
And that's the biggest blow of all. All those student-athletes who saw their seasons come to an abrupt end. It's even worse for the seniors, whose careers have come to an end in a most unceremonious, heartbreaking fashion. I'm sure the NCAA will grant blanket waivers and everyone will keep their both their year of eligibility and scholarship, but I have no doubt that there are a number of seniors who've played their final collegiate game. And had it all end in the cruelest way possible.
Fortunately, it's an Olympic year, so some of them will still have something to keep training for. But only the best of the best will qualify for Trials, and even fewer will make the team that goes to Tokyo. The vast majority will not, however. Their primary goal for this season was winning an NCAA title. That's gone now.
I'm not going to say whether I think the decision to unilaterally cancel everything was right or wrong. And there are a lot of logistics that the NCAA, its schools and its conferences will have to work out. All I'm saying is that I feel for the student-athletes. Because even if they do decide to return next year, it won't be the same. It'll be a sad anticlimax after having their real senior season stolen from them. Plenty of others will graduate and begin the rest of their lives knowing they'll never play the sport they love again. Not competitively anyway.
Likewise, you've gotta feel for those athletes who worked so hard to qualify for NCAA Championships, only to have that opportunity taken away from them. Who knows when or if they'll ever get back? They won't have their "One Shining Moment." Instead, they can only sit there and wonder, "What if."
Pro sports will return eventually, of course. The NBA is going to take 30 days then reassess, while the NHL left it a little more open-ended. If I had to guess, I'd say the NHL regular season, which only has 2 1/2 weeks left, is over. When they return, they'll go directly into the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Which would be unfortunate for those currently just on the outside looking in. They'll probably do something similar in the NBA, which might end up extending its season into July (they can't go too deep into the summer, though, with the Olympics starting on July 24).
Things are a little easier in baseball and MLS. The MLS season just started, so it'll be much easier for them to reschedule the games that they'll be missing over the next month. As for Major League Baseball, they'll figure out what they're going to do based on when they actually get up and running again. But it seems unlikely every team will get a full 162 games in. They can finish the regular season one week later than planned and still have World Series Game 7 be on Nov. 4, which isn't too bad (and what I would've preferred on the original schedule). They can't go any later than that, though, and even to finish the regular season one week later on Oct. 4 would mean reducing the number of games each team plays.
It's not just the U.S. that has been affected, either. This is a global pandemic, and it's impacting events worldwide. All sports in Italy are shut down for a month, with La Liga and the Premier League also likely to suspend their seasons. The ATP, meanwhile, announced that all tournaments for the next six weeks are cancelled.
World Championships and Olympic qualifiers have been either cancelled or postponed, too. The World Indoor Athletics Championships were the first casualty way back in January, and they've been joined by a rash of other international events that won't take place as scheduled. The World Figure Skating Championships, World Women's Curling Championships and World Women's Hockey Championships were all supposed to take place in Canada this month. None will happen. Marathons all over the world have been postponed, cancelled or limited, too, and I'm sure others will follow (it seems highly unlikely Boston will be on its traditional April date).
This really is unprecedented. In serious situations like this, we normally have sports to distract us. But now we don't. And we have no idea when we will again. All we can do is wait for things to return to normal. Hopefully it won't be too long. Because pretty soon, we'll need our sports back.
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Magic Number: 20
Almost immediately after the College Football Playoff was introduced, all of the Power 5 conferences except for the SEC announced that they would be adding a ninth conference game to their schedules. By eliminating one guarantee game against an inferior opponent, they boosted their individual strength of schedule, which, in turn, raised the conference's strength of schedule. Both of which are key factors in determining who ends up in the College Football Playoff.
College basketball has found its own version of the nine-game football schedule. This year, the ACC and Big Ten began playing 20-game conference schedules. The Pac-12 and Big East are set to add a 20th game next season, leaving the SEC as the only outlier (the Big 12 can't go beyond 18 unless they expand by at least one member).
While the idea of 20 conference games seems like a lot, it's actually a smart move. Because it has helped the power conferences consolidate their power. And, as a result, they're going to continue dominating the NCAA Tournament at-large selections, leaving few, if any bids available for the mid-majors (San Diego State, the Gonzaga-BYU loser and either Cincinnati or Houston might be it). Which, I think, is the entire point.
Take the Big Ten. They're likely going to get at least 10 teams into the Tournament this year, with Indiana having a shot at making it 11. If they do get 11, it'll tie the record set by the then-16-team Big East in 2011. Purdue is probably NIT-bound, but if the Boilermakers make a run in the Big Ten Tournament, they could conceivably make it a record-setting 12. Which is made even more absurd when you consider there are 14 teams in the Big Ten, meaning 85.7 percent of the conference would have made the NCAA Tournament.
The Big Ten put eight teams in the Tournament last year, which was its first with the 20-game conference schedule. So, of the 28 individual seasons for Big Ten teams over the past two years, 20 have resulted in an NCAA Tournament berth. I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. And the 20-game conference schedule is a big reason why.
By adding two conference games, it meant each team had to drop two non-conference games. Which, more likely than not, means they had to drop at least one guarantee game. The trade-off is that those guaranteed wins against lesser opponents were replaced by two games against quality teams, with one of those games on the road. And, no offense to Youngstown State, but losing by four at Iowa looks a hell of a lot better than beating Youngstown State by 25 at home.
What we've seen from the Selection Committee in recent years is that they value road wins. Coaches know this, so the opportunity to add a quality road win to your tournament resume seems far preferable to a guaranteed blowout win that they won't view very favorably. Likewise, they're big on strength of schedule. And two games against stronger opponents, one of which is on the road, will only help your strength of schedule.
I lamented about this a few years ago when Syracuse got an at-large bid over Monmouth and strength of schedule was a big reason why (of course, Syracuse had to make the committee look smart and me look dumb by going all the way to the Final Four). Monmouth had two bottom-200 losses in conference games, while Syracuse finished ninth in the ACC that season.
You can't have it both ways, I argued. You can't control who's in your conference, and teams in major conferences have a built-in strength of schedule advantage. So, you can't hold losses in conference games against mid-majors while at the same time rewarding major-conference teams for simply playing them. Yet that's exactly what the committee has shown a propensity to do over the past several years, so why not take advantage of it if you're a power conference?
And those two extra conference games have proven to be a boon in more ways than one. For starters, a .500 or even a losing conference record are no longer the kiss of death when it comes to the Tournament. Again, there are 10 likely Tournament teams in the Big Ten, including six that are ranked! If you go .500 (or one game under) against so many quality teams, you're probably a pretty good team yourself! (And if they went undefeated in non-conference, you're still talking about a 19- or 20-win team.)
It also makes the entire conference better. Rutgers and Penn State are perfect examples. They were completely irrelevant for years. This season, they're both tournament locks. Why? Because if you can't compete in your conference, the NCAA Tournament's out of the question. And if two-thirds of your schedule is conference games, you'd better be competitive in your conference!
Then there's the rivalry element. That's the number one reason UConn is going back to the Big East next year. Their fans want to see them play their familiar opponents that the know and love to hate. You can only get so amped up for a game against Tennessee-Martin on a Tuesday night in December. You replace them on the schedule with Michigan State, though...that's a different story!
Every conference having its own TV network likely had some impact on the decision to go to 20 games, too. After all, they need content, and people are more likely to watch a conference game than some random non-conference matchup.
Likewise, there are two fewer opportunities for marquee non-conference games between two teams from power conferences. So, almost out of necessity, the other leagues have had to follow suit to make up for those two lost non-conference games. And the options are the guaranteed home blowout (which they know the committee doesn't like) or replacing them with two conference games. Seems like an easy decision to me!
Granted two years in the Big Ten and one in the ACC is a small sample size. But so far, the 20-game conference schedule seems to have accomplished all of its goals. If not, we wouldn't see the other major conferences adopting it. So, I think it's safe to say this isn't a trend. It will soon become the norm. Especially if it results in more NCAA Tournament bids.
Is that good for college basketball? That's debatable. Certainly it isn't good for the mid-majors, who'll find at-large bids that much harder to come by. But it's also going to make the better teams better, and it will result in those tournament bids going to them instead. And I don't think you'll find too many people complaining about that.
College basketball has found its own version of the nine-game football schedule. This year, the ACC and Big Ten began playing 20-game conference schedules. The Pac-12 and Big East are set to add a 20th game next season, leaving the SEC as the only outlier (the Big 12 can't go beyond 18 unless they expand by at least one member).
While the idea of 20 conference games seems like a lot, it's actually a smart move. Because it has helped the power conferences consolidate their power. And, as a result, they're going to continue dominating the NCAA Tournament at-large selections, leaving few, if any bids available for the mid-majors (San Diego State, the Gonzaga-BYU loser and either Cincinnati or Houston might be it). Which, I think, is the entire point.
Take the Big Ten. They're likely going to get at least 10 teams into the Tournament this year, with Indiana having a shot at making it 11. If they do get 11, it'll tie the record set by the then-16-team Big East in 2011. Purdue is probably NIT-bound, but if the Boilermakers make a run in the Big Ten Tournament, they could conceivably make it a record-setting 12. Which is made even more absurd when you consider there are 14 teams in the Big Ten, meaning 85.7 percent of the conference would have made the NCAA Tournament.
The Big Ten put eight teams in the Tournament last year, which was its first with the 20-game conference schedule. So, of the 28 individual seasons for Big Ten teams over the past two years, 20 have resulted in an NCAA Tournament berth. I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. And the 20-game conference schedule is a big reason why.
By adding two conference games, it meant each team had to drop two non-conference games. Which, more likely than not, means they had to drop at least one guarantee game. The trade-off is that those guaranteed wins against lesser opponents were replaced by two games against quality teams, with one of those games on the road. And, no offense to Youngstown State, but losing by four at Iowa looks a hell of a lot better than beating Youngstown State by 25 at home.
What we've seen from the Selection Committee in recent years is that they value road wins. Coaches know this, so the opportunity to add a quality road win to your tournament resume seems far preferable to a guaranteed blowout win that they won't view very favorably. Likewise, they're big on strength of schedule. And two games against stronger opponents, one of which is on the road, will only help your strength of schedule.
I lamented about this a few years ago when Syracuse got an at-large bid over Monmouth and strength of schedule was a big reason why (of course, Syracuse had to make the committee look smart and me look dumb by going all the way to the Final Four). Monmouth had two bottom-200 losses in conference games, while Syracuse finished ninth in the ACC that season.
You can't have it both ways, I argued. You can't control who's in your conference, and teams in major conferences have a built-in strength of schedule advantage. So, you can't hold losses in conference games against mid-majors while at the same time rewarding major-conference teams for simply playing them. Yet that's exactly what the committee has shown a propensity to do over the past several years, so why not take advantage of it if you're a power conference?
And those two extra conference games have proven to be a boon in more ways than one. For starters, a .500 or even a losing conference record are no longer the kiss of death when it comes to the Tournament. Again, there are 10 likely Tournament teams in the Big Ten, including six that are ranked! If you go .500 (or one game under) against so many quality teams, you're probably a pretty good team yourself! (And if they went undefeated in non-conference, you're still talking about a 19- or 20-win team.)
It also makes the entire conference better. Rutgers and Penn State are perfect examples. They were completely irrelevant for years. This season, they're both tournament locks. Why? Because if you can't compete in your conference, the NCAA Tournament's out of the question. And if two-thirds of your schedule is conference games, you'd better be competitive in your conference!
Then there's the rivalry element. That's the number one reason UConn is going back to the Big East next year. Their fans want to see them play their familiar opponents that the know and love to hate. You can only get so amped up for a game against Tennessee-Martin on a Tuesday night in December. You replace them on the schedule with Michigan State, though...that's a different story!
Every conference having its own TV network likely had some impact on the decision to go to 20 games, too. After all, they need content, and people are more likely to watch a conference game than some random non-conference matchup.
Likewise, there are two fewer opportunities for marquee non-conference games between two teams from power conferences. So, almost out of necessity, the other leagues have had to follow suit to make up for those two lost non-conference games. And the options are the guaranteed home blowout (which they know the committee doesn't like) or replacing them with two conference games. Seems like an easy decision to me!
Granted two years in the Big Ten and one in the ACC is a small sample size. But so far, the 20-game conference schedule seems to have accomplished all of its goals. If not, we wouldn't see the other major conferences adopting it. So, I think it's safe to say this isn't a trend. It will soon become the norm. Especially if it results in more NCAA Tournament bids.
Is that good for college basketball? That's debatable. Certainly it isn't good for the mid-majors, who'll find at-large bids that much harder to come by. But it's also going to make the better teams better, and it will result in those tournament bids going to them instead. And I don't think you'll find too many people complaining about that.
Sunday, March 8, 2020
Time to Wave the Transfer Waiver Bye-Bye
Now that the calendar has shifted to March, college basketball is about to take center stage. The first bids have been awarded, and the major conference tournaments are next weekend. Then, of course, the big showcase of March Madness, where star players at mid-majors will suddenly become household names (and announcers will act like they knew who these guys were more than a few days before).
Undoubtedly, some of those mid-major stars will use their NCAA Tournament success as a springboard that will lead to their transferring to a high-major program. Especially if the proposed new NCAA legislation is passed that will lead to changes in the transfer process and allow them to play immediately at their new school, provided they qualify academically. If passed, this change could go into effect next season, dramatically changing the transfer landscape in both men's basketball and football.
This is already the transfer rule in 85 of the 90 NCAA sports. The only five where they're required to sit out a year after transferring are Division I men's and women's basketball, football, baseball and men's hockey (aka the five sports where the NCAA actually makes money). In order to transfer and be immediately eligible in one of those sports, they either need have graduated from their original school and still have eligibility remaining (the "graduate transfer") or obtain a waiver from the NCAA.
And that's where the problems have come in. There's no rhyme or reason when it comes to waiver approvals. There could be two incredibly similar, virtually identical cases, yet one gets approved and the other doesn't. And some of the ones with flimsy reasons for the request get approved while legitimate ones don't. Then, if you don't get approved, you can appeal, give them "new" evidence, and sometimes they change their minds! It really is a crap shoot.
The transfer protocol is set up this way so that players can't just up and leave if they're unhappy at their current school. They want you to be sure about your decision and get acclimated to your new school, which is why student-athletes are required to sit out a year.
But that hasn't stopped them from wanting to transfer. More than one-third of college students transfer at least once, and the requirement to sit out a year doesn't discourage student-athletes in those five sports. And since they want to play immediately, the number of waiver requests the NCAA gets is astronomical. They spend more time dealing with requests in those five sports than anything else.
So, perhaps not surprisingly, it's the committee that reviews those waiver requests that's pushing for this legislation change. Not only is the waiver process tedious, it doesn't make sense that the rule only applies to those five sports while athletes in every other sport are free to transfer with no such restriction. This rule change would put an end to those exceptions and bring those five Division I sports in line with everybody else.
Reaction to this potential rule change was mixed, which surprised me a little. BCS football coaches, in particular, aren't fans of it (I think mainly because they're worried guys who don't play one year will leave the next and need to be replaced). Men's basketball coaches, meanwhile, are concerned about the potential increase in the number of transfers, particularly those leaving mid-majors for Power 5 schools (although, there would be nearly as many doing the reverse, as well).
Coaches don't look at it from the student-athlete's perspective, though. From the comments I've seen, the main reason they don't like it is because they think the rule change would somehow turn major college football and basketball into an endless cycle of recruiting (isn't it that already?) and they want to have some sort of roster certainty heading into the season.
That concern seems unwarranted to me. Because it's not like transferring will become college sports' version of free agency. I'm sure there would still be some restrictions where players can't transfer mid-semester or mid-season. It's not like you can decide that you don't want to play at Oklahoma anymore in October, then sign with Michigan in November and immediately be added to the roster!
There's also an inherent unfairness that this rule change seeks to fix. Coaches are free to leave one job for another, but the players they recruited to the previous school are stuck there. If they want to follow the coach to the new school, they'll likely get their release, but they'll have to sit out a year even if they're otherwise eligible. This even applies to incoming freshmen, who are bound to a school once they sign an NLI, yet would have sit out a year before ever playing a game.
Another potential "problem" coaches foresee is big programs actively trying to poach players. Well, I've got news for you, this happens already, even though it's against NCAA rules! And it still would be prohibited even if the transfer rule is changed.
Would it adversely impact smaller programs? Potentially. But, frankly, I don't think it'll change things that much. It certainly won't create the Doomsday scenario that some people are envisioning where the mid-major programs turn into a feeder system for the Power 5. And, again, it's not like they'll be free agents. They won't be able to change teams midseason, and they'll need to be academically eligible. The only difference is that the year-in-residence requirement would no longer exist.
Student-athletes, naturally, are more excited than coaches about potentially being able to transfer and be eligible immediately. Those who seek transfers have all different reasons for wanting to. And it's not like those reasons are suddenly going to change just because the NCAA changed the rules. After all, student-athletes are free to transfer and play right away in 85 other NCAA sports, including every other Division I sport, so it's not like transfer rates will suddenly skyrocket.
Beyond that, it's incumbent on the coaches to follow the rules. Because they're the ones ultimately responsible for what happens in a program. And literally the only thing that would be different if this rule change is enacted is that transfers would be available right away, which can only benefit the coaches.
We're not talking about free agency here. We're talking about a system that already works pretty well in every other NCAA sport. It's time to drop the waivers. Either make them all eligible right away or none of them. It's time to stop having two different sets of rules!
Friday, March 6, 2020
Time to Fix the Knicks
Just when you think the Knicks have hit rock bottom, they find a new way to dig themselves a little bit lower. The latest track off the "Jim Dolan's Greatest Hits" album was his argument with Spike Lee the other day, which prompted the Oscar-winning director to announce he's boycotting Madison Square Garden for the rest of the season. Spike Lee. The most famous Knicks fan there is. Who's been a season ticket holder for 30 years despite the team's ineptitude. Not the best look.
But, then again, this is the Knicks we're talking about, so them doing something like this shouldn't be too surprising. Because the next time this franchise does something right will be the first time in about 10 years. They do know how to make headlines. I'll give them that. But when every one of those headlines is about another scandal or another player that didn't pan out or another executive doing something stupid, you've gotta know there's a problem. And we all know who that problem is.
It's not hard to find the common thread linking all of those headlines. And it's been that way for years. Jim Dolan has been one of the worst owners in sports for a long time. He either just can't see it or simply doesn't care. My guess is the latter.
From what I know about Jim Dolan, he has an ego that's both very big and very fragile. And it seems to be the thing that drives his decision-making process most of the time. That's why he picks fights with Knicks legends (Charles Oakley) and celebrity fans (Spike Lee), among others. And alienates their non-famous fans on a pretty regular basis for having the gall to be critical of the team (and Dolan himself).
That's also why he keeps himself surrounded by Yes Men. He also doesn't seem to like to admit when he's wrong, which is how Phil Jackson remained the Knicks' President for so long even though that relationship clearly wasn't working and, worst of all, how Isiah Thomas managed to keep his job despite committing multiple fireable offenses.
Yet people are still stupid enough to pay ridiculous ticket prices to go watch a horrible team. Or, if they don't go to the games, they watch them on the TV network that Dolan also just happens to run. Which means he still makes plenty of money no matter how well the team does. And he takes full advantage of that fact. Which explains why he runs the Knicks the way he wants, to Hell with everyone else!
Donald Sterling made that tactic famous during his time as owner of the Clippers. Sterling realized that the less money he spent, the more he made, so he really didn't care if the Clippers won or lost. And the Clippers lost more than they won, which, again, didn't matter to him at all. If Sterling hadn't been banned by Commissioner Adam Silver in 2014 (for a different reason entirely), the Clippers would likely still be the NBA's biggest laughingstock. Instead, that "honor" belongs to Jim Dolan's New York Knicks.
The Knicks were one of the best teams in the NBA until Dolan showed up. They made the playoffs 14 straight times from 1987-88 to 2000-01, reaching the Finals in 1994 and 1999. Their rivalries with the Bulls, Heat and Pacers in the 90s were legendary and the Garden was rocking in support of the home team during those days!
Dolan was the Knicks' part owner during those glory days. He's been the majority owner since 1997, it's not hard to put two and two together and see when the decline started. In the 19 seasons since the playoff streak ended, they've only reached the postseason four times (three of which were consecutive). Instead, 50- and even 60-loss seasons have become the norm. Regardless of who the head coach is and the players are, the team can't win. It's not hard to see who's responsible for that.
His ineptitude isn't limited to the Knicks, either. Dolan also owns the New York Rangers, and he used to be involved in their day-to-day operations, as well. And the Rangers were just as bad as the Knicks in the early 2000s. Dolan eventually took a step back from the Rangers, letting competent people who actually know how to run a hockey team take over. Once that happened, the Rangers went from laughingstock to competitive to one of the best teams in the NHL, winning the President's Trophy in 2011-12 and reaching the Stanley Cup Final in 2013-14. And the fact that they took a step back and started a rebuild over the past several seasons has nothing to do with Dolan.
I can't be the only person who has a feeling that the same thing would happen to the Knicks if Dolan ever gave up control. Except that seems unlikely to happen. Because the Knicks are his baby. It feeds his ego to be the big, powerful boss man for an NBA team, even he's woefully underqualified for the role and his active day-to-day presence is the biggest thing holding the franchise back.
While the NBA can't take an official position for obvious reasons, it's not exactly a secret what their feelings on the Knicks situation are. They can't be happy about one of the league's marquee teams constantly tripping over itself and getting in its own way. They'd love for the Knicks to be relevant and having big, nationally-televised games at Madison Square Garden, which is really the only thing the Knicks have going for them at the moment.
What can be done about it, though? The NBA made Donald Sterling sell the Clippers, and Steve Ballmer has been a great owner for them. Can they do the same thing with Dolan? He has a history of poor management with so many missteps along the way that they'd be justified in taking a stand of some sort. Although, you can bet Dolan would mount a legal challenge if they ever tried to take his beloved Knicks away from him. Therein lies the problem. The league would love to do something, but their hands are pretty much tied.
So, it really lies on Dolan. He really has three choices: 1. maintaining the status quo; 2. remaining the owner, but removing himself from the day-to-day operations; 3. selling the team. We know No. 3 ain't happening unless he's forced to. I think most fans would accept No. 2, especially if it meant the Knicks would stop being a joke and actually become relevant again.
Knowing Jim Dolan, though, he'll choose No. 1. Because he doesn't care about Knicks fans. He just wants to keep showing everyone who's boss. I do think he genuinely loves the team and wants desperately to see it win. But ultimately, that would only serve to stroke his ego even more. Since you know he'd be in everyone's face about it. Unfortunately for Knicks fans, that day seems a long way off. Because, while Dolan might be their biggest problem, he's far from the only one.
Not that any of this seems to matter, though. There's still 15,000 people in the Garden every night. Which means Dolan still makes money. So, if you really want to send him a message, don't show up with signs and chant "Fire Dolan." Do the opposite. Don't show up at all. Because once it starts to hit him in the wallet, Jim Dolan may actually start listening.
But, then again, this is the Knicks we're talking about, so them doing something like this shouldn't be too surprising. Because the next time this franchise does something right will be the first time in about 10 years. They do know how to make headlines. I'll give them that. But when every one of those headlines is about another scandal or another player that didn't pan out or another executive doing something stupid, you've gotta know there's a problem. And we all know who that problem is.
It's not hard to find the common thread linking all of those headlines. And it's been that way for years. Jim Dolan has been one of the worst owners in sports for a long time. He either just can't see it or simply doesn't care. My guess is the latter.
From what I know about Jim Dolan, he has an ego that's both very big and very fragile. And it seems to be the thing that drives his decision-making process most of the time. That's why he picks fights with Knicks legends (Charles Oakley) and celebrity fans (Spike Lee), among others. And alienates their non-famous fans on a pretty regular basis for having the gall to be critical of the team (and Dolan himself).
That's also why he keeps himself surrounded by Yes Men. He also doesn't seem to like to admit when he's wrong, which is how Phil Jackson remained the Knicks' President for so long even though that relationship clearly wasn't working and, worst of all, how Isiah Thomas managed to keep his job despite committing multiple fireable offenses.
Yet people are still stupid enough to pay ridiculous ticket prices to go watch a horrible team. Or, if they don't go to the games, they watch them on the TV network that Dolan also just happens to run. Which means he still makes plenty of money no matter how well the team does. And he takes full advantage of that fact. Which explains why he runs the Knicks the way he wants, to Hell with everyone else!
Donald Sterling made that tactic famous during his time as owner of the Clippers. Sterling realized that the less money he spent, the more he made, so he really didn't care if the Clippers won or lost. And the Clippers lost more than they won, which, again, didn't matter to him at all. If Sterling hadn't been banned by Commissioner Adam Silver in 2014 (for a different reason entirely), the Clippers would likely still be the NBA's biggest laughingstock. Instead, that "honor" belongs to Jim Dolan's New York Knicks.
The Knicks were one of the best teams in the NBA until Dolan showed up. They made the playoffs 14 straight times from 1987-88 to 2000-01, reaching the Finals in 1994 and 1999. Their rivalries with the Bulls, Heat and Pacers in the 90s were legendary and the Garden was rocking in support of the home team during those days!
Dolan was the Knicks' part owner during those glory days. He's been the majority owner since 1997, it's not hard to put two and two together and see when the decline started. In the 19 seasons since the playoff streak ended, they've only reached the postseason four times (three of which were consecutive). Instead, 50- and even 60-loss seasons have become the norm. Regardless of who the head coach is and the players are, the team can't win. It's not hard to see who's responsible for that.
His ineptitude isn't limited to the Knicks, either. Dolan also owns the New York Rangers, and he used to be involved in their day-to-day operations, as well. And the Rangers were just as bad as the Knicks in the early 2000s. Dolan eventually took a step back from the Rangers, letting competent people who actually know how to run a hockey team take over. Once that happened, the Rangers went from laughingstock to competitive to one of the best teams in the NHL, winning the President's Trophy in 2011-12 and reaching the Stanley Cup Final in 2013-14. And the fact that they took a step back and started a rebuild over the past several seasons has nothing to do with Dolan.
I can't be the only person who has a feeling that the same thing would happen to the Knicks if Dolan ever gave up control. Except that seems unlikely to happen. Because the Knicks are his baby. It feeds his ego to be the big, powerful boss man for an NBA team, even he's woefully underqualified for the role and his active day-to-day presence is the biggest thing holding the franchise back.
While the NBA can't take an official position for obvious reasons, it's not exactly a secret what their feelings on the Knicks situation are. They can't be happy about one of the league's marquee teams constantly tripping over itself and getting in its own way. They'd love for the Knicks to be relevant and having big, nationally-televised games at Madison Square Garden, which is really the only thing the Knicks have going for them at the moment.
What can be done about it, though? The NBA made Donald Sterling sell the Clippers, and Steve Ballmer has been a great owner for them. Can they do the same thing with Dolan? He has a history of poor management with so many missteps along the way that they'd be justified in taking a stand of some sort. Although, you can bet Dolan would mount a legal challenge if they ever tried to take his beloved Knicks away from him. Therein lies the problem. The league would love to do something, but their hands are pretty much tied.
So, it really lies on Dolan. He really has three choices: 1. maintaining the status quo; 2. remaining the owner, but removing himself from the day-to-day operations; 3. selling the team. We know No. 3 ain't happening unless he's forced to. I think most fans would accept No. 2, especially if it meant the Knicks would stop being a joke and actually become relevant again.
Knowing Jim Dolan, though, he'll choose No. 1. Because he doesn't care about Knicks fans. He just wants to keep showing everyone who's boss. I do think he genuinely loves the team and wants desperately to see it win. But ultimately, that would only serve to stroke his ego even more. Since you know he'd be in everyone's face about it. Unfortunately for Knicks fans, that day seems a long way off. Because, while Dolan might be their biggest problem, he's far from the only one.
Not that any of this seems to matter, though. There's still 15,000 people in the Garden every night. Which means Dolan still makes money. So, if you really want to send him a message, don't show up with signs and chant "Fire Dolan." Do the opposite. Don't show up at all. Because once it starts to hit him in the wallet, Jim Dolan may actually start listening.
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
David Ayres Mania
I was originally thinking of doing a countdown of the best NHL goal songs tonight. Then I found a YouTube channel that has all 31 of them and I couldn't decide which ones would make the cut. There are too many good ones (the Blackhawks, the Flames, the Predators, the Blue Jackets, the Maple Leafs) that I was bound to either forget one or have a list that was ridiculously too long. So, I decided to pivot and do another NHL topic instead.
A guy named David Ayres was the toast of the league a few weeks ago when he stepped in as an emergency goaltender for the Hurricanes and earned a win over the Maple Leafs (in Toronto...on Hockey Night In Canada). The 42-year-old Ayres, who's normally a Zamboni driver for the Maple Leafs' AHL affiliate, made the talk show rounds and was even flown down to Raleigh so that he could be honored at Carolina's next home game. It really was a feel-good story all around.
Ayres was only in the game because the Hurricanes' starter and backup both got hurt and he was the designated on-call emergency goalie for both teams. The EBUG (which is the NHL's answer to baseball's now-extinct LOOGY) is required at every NHL game so that both teams will still have a goaltender available should both of theirs become injured.
Team employees are not allowed to serve as emergency goalies, so they're primarily local amateur goalies. There are 136 such goalies on file with the NHL who are eligible to serve as an EBUG. They participate in practices (sometimes for visiting teams, as well) and know that they have little to no chance of seeing any game action. And some may only dress for a period until the Minor League goalie arrives. But if they do, they get to keep their jersey!
In fact, in the nearly 50,000 NHL games since backup goalies were mandated in 1965-66 (before then, some teams only had one goalie on the entire roster), Ayres is just the second EBUG to see significant playing time. The other was accountant Scott Foster, who made a save for the Blackhawks in a 2018 win over the Jets. That's two guys in 55 years. And they both became cult heroes!
That's what makes the EBUG so great. Now, these aren't random guys off the street. They're experienced goalies who still play the position, even if they have other full-time 9-to-5 jobs. But it's that idea of some working stiff living every boy's dream of being a professional athlete, even if it's just for a day.
So, of course, the EBUG was a topic of conversation at the NHL's general manager meetings. There was some fear that the GM's would have a knee-jerk overreaction to Ayers' new cult hero status and make changes to the status-quo regarding the EBUGs...even though there's nothing wrong with the system.
Fortunately, rational thinking prevailed and they decided to leave it as-is. Because, seriously, what harm is David Ayres doing? The NHL is getting mainstream press--from places that never cover the NHL--because of this story. I even saw it mentioned on ESPN, which took a break from its 24-7 NBA coverage to actually acknowledge that the NHL exists! And all of the coverage has been positive! Everyone's saying what a great story it is, which is why they're covering it.
It would've been a mistake to make any changes to the EBUG. Especially since it's so rare that they're actually pressed into game action, and very little is expected when they do. These aren't NHL goalies. They're not supposed to stop shots from Alex Ovechkin or Connor McDavid, so if they get lit up, is anyone going to be surprised? Which is why it becomes a story when they do.
And, again, it's not like EBUGs are becoming so rampant that the league needs to call an exterminator. The NHL can afford to have a feel-good story every once in a while. If it takes a successful EBUG to do it, so be it! I'd even argue that the problem worth looking at is less David Ayres and more figuring out a way to keep the NHL in the news once David Ayres Mania dies out.
Some pundits want to view this as some sort of joke--for whatever reason (I think their biggest issue is the fact that Ayres is 42, which happens to be the same age as Tom Brady). That might be why they want to squash the EBUG once and for all (no more bug puns, I promise!). In response to that, I suggest they ask the EBUGs if they think it's a joke. Because not only are they not laughing, they take their role very seriously.
These guys know their purpose. They know that they're only there in case something happens. (The word "emergency" is in the freakin' title after all!) They know they're most likely not going to play. Most likely, all they'll get out of it is a free jersey, a chance to feel like one of the guys for a night, and a bunch of memories.
If the situation arises where they actually get into a game and play well, so what? It's not going to suddenly turn into an NHL career. Everyone knows that. So let them have their 15 minutes of fame. And if the league can get some good publicity out of it, all the better!
The David Ayres story is something the NHL should be embracing, not running away from. That old adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity" really rings true here. It's got people talking, even those who don't care or know nothing about the NHL. And it took an EBUG named David Ayres for that to happen.
A guy named David Ayres was the toast of the league a few weeks ago when he stepped in as an emergency goaltender for the Hurricanes and earned a win over the Maple Leafs (in Toronto...on Hockey Night In Canada). The 42-year-old Ayres, who's normally a Zamboni driver for the Maple Leafs' AHL affiliate, made the talk show rounds and was even flown down to Raleigh so that he could be honored at Carolina's next home game. It really was a feel-good story all around.
Ayres was only in the game because the Hurricanes' starter and backup both got hurt and he was the designated on-call emergency goalie for both teams. The EBUG (which is the NHL's answer to baseball's now-extinct LOOGY) is required at every NHL game so that both teams will still have a goaltender available should both of theirs become injured.
Team employees are not allowed to serve as emergency goalies, so they're primarily local amateur goalies. There are 136 such goalies on file with the NHL who are eligible to serve as an EBUG. They participate in practices (sometimes for visiting teams, as well) and know that they have little to no chance of seeing any game action. And some may only dress for a period until the Minor League goalie arrives. But if they do, they get to keep their jersey!
In fact, in the nearly 50,000 NHL games since backup goalies were mandated in 1965-66 (before then, some teams only had one goalie on the entire roster), Ayres is just the second EBUG to see significant playing time. The other was accountant Scott Foster, who made a save for the Blackhawks in a 2018 win over the Jets. That's two guys in 55 years. And they both became cult heroes!
That's what makes the EBUG so great. Now, these aren't random guys off the street. They're experienced goalies who still play the position, even if they have other full-time 9-to-5 jobs. But it's that idea of some working stiff living every boy's dream of being a professional athlete, even if it's just for a day.
So, of course, the EBUG was a topic of conversation at the NHL's general manager meetings. There was some fear that the GM's would have a knee-jerk overreaction to Ayers' new cult hero status and make changes to the status-quo regarding the EBUGs...even though there's nothing wrong with the system.
Fortunately, rational thinking prevailed and they decided to leave it as-is. Because, seriously, what harm is David Ayres doing? The NHL is getting mainstream press--from places that never cover the NHL--because of this story. I even saw it mentioned on ESPN, which took a break from its 24-7 NBA coverage to actually acknowledge that the NHL exists! And all of the coverage has been positive! Everyone's saying what a great story it is, which is why they're covering it.
It would've been a mistake to make any changes to the EBUG. Especially since it's so rare that they're actually pressed into game action, and very little is expected when they do. These aren't NHL goalies. They're not supposed to stop shots from Alex Ovechkin or Connor McDavid, so if they get lit up, is anyone going to be surprised? Which is why it becomes a story when they do.
And, again, it's not like EBUGs are becoming so rampant that the league needs to call an exterminator. The NHL can afford to have a feel-good story every once in a while. If it takes a successful EBUG to do it, so be it! I'd even argue that the problem worth looking at is less David Ayres and more figuring out a way to keep the NHL in the news once David Ayres Mania dies out.
Some pundits want to view this as some sort of joke--for whatever reason (I think their biggest issue is the fact that Ayres is 42, which happens to be the same age as Tom Brady). That might be why they want to squash the EBUG once and for all (no more bug puns, I promise!). In response to that, I suggest they ask the EBUGs if they think it's a joke. Because not only are they not laughing, they take their role very seriously.
These guys know their purpose. They know that they're only there in case something happens. (The word "emergency" is in the freakin' title after all!) They know they're most likely not going to play. Most likely, all they'll get out of it is a free jersey, a chance to feel like one of the guys for a night, and a bunch of memories.
If the situation arises where they actually get into a game and play well, so what? It's not going to suddenly turn into an NHL career. Everyone knows that. So let them have their 15 minutes of fame. And if the league can get some good publicity out of it, all the better!
The David Ayres story is something the NHL should be embracing, not running away from. That old adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity" really rings true here. It's got people talking, even those who don't care or know nothing about the NHL. And it took an EBUG named David Ayres for that to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)