Things WILL Be the Same Again (Eventually)

I respect NBC's Tim Layden, who used to write for Sports Illustrated.  I think he's a very good journalist, and I generally enjoy his content.  However, I completely disagree with most of the points he made in his latest article.  I don't dispute his main argument that when sports come back, they won't look the same.  Unlike Layden, I don't think those changes will be permanent.

In the article, Layden contends that many of the beloved rituals that bring athletes closer to the fans will become things of the past.  It's "too dangerous" to have that close contact, so it "can't" happen.  Well, seeing as there won't be fans at games until the governmental all-clear is given, it's pretty obvious that there won't be any interaction right away.  But to think that'll still be the case five years from now when this whole pandemic is in our rear-view mirror is just silly.

Fans are an integral part of the athletic experience.  Just ask players in the Bundesliga or Korean Baseball Organization what it's like to play in front of nobody.  LeBron is vehemently against it, even though he knows that it'll be a necessity for a little while.  The athletes know they're entertainers and they get a thrill out of BEING the entertainment.  Having the fans there is the difference between practice and actual games that count.  Yes, the fans can still watch on TV, but it's not the same.  Every winner of a NASCAR race over the past three weeks has said as much.

Among his other outrageous claims were that the high-fives and selfies with fans will no longer be a thing moving forward.  Again, the players enjoy those as much as the fans.  And, if public health officials deem it safe enough for thousands of people to get together in the same place at the same time, why would those suddenly be any more dangerous than they were previously?

Likewise, the autograph line's future isn't endangered, either.  That's a time-honored ritual of Spring Training or NFL training camps or postgame on Kid's Day.  That's how you give a kid the thrill of a lifetime and make a fan for life.  That's also where athletes can actually go out and interact with the people who cheer for them.  It makes them real.

Then there's the idea that people will sit in those $1,000 courtside seats at NBA games wearing masks.  Now, I personally wouldn't mind seeing those courtside seats disappear entirely (at least the ones between the bench and scorer's table that make absolutely no sense).  But that doesn't seem likely, considering the massive amount of revenue they generate! 

More than that, though, do you really think people are going to keep wearing masks one second longer than they're required?  It's not exactly as if Americans suddenly decided they were fashionable and all wanted to make a statement.  And when we get to the point where it's no longer necessary to wear them in everyday life, why would they still be required to attend an NBA game?

Perhaps the most outrageous claim was that the handshake, and by extension the Stanley Cup Playoff handshake line, will go away.  I can't blame this one entirely on Layden.  Dr. Fauci's been saying it from the beginning, and I think it's ridiculous when he says it, too.  Because, as soon as society allows it, the handshake will return almost immediately.

Just think about how often the handshake is used in everyday life.  It's the most common form of greeting we have.  It's used to say "hello, goodbye, nice to meet you, good game, thank you, congratulations, I'm sorry," and so many other reasons.  At the start of a baseball game, the umpires and managers get together at home plate, and the meeting begins and ends with handshakes all around.  Ditto at the coin toss for a football game.  And every trophy presentation in any sporting event anywhere.  As you can see, it goes way beyond its most famous usage--the Stanley Cup Playoff postgame handshake line.

Of course, the main reason this is even a topic of discussion is because of fear.  Epidemiologists aren't exactly helping here, either.  Because they're the ones spreading a lot of that fear.  They want you to think that you can catch coronavirus simply by having physical contact with anyone--or even touching the same surface as someone who's infected.  I understand that they have to be cautious and want people to be cautious, too.  But the mixed messaging about how you can even get it has caused nothing but panic.

And they're forgetting one key aspect of human society.  People are a physical species.  We need human contact.  How many people are desperate not just to see loved ones, but to give them a hug?  That's what has made social distancing so hard.  As a society, we want to be together.  It's a case of you don't know what you've got til it's gone.  We crave basic human interaction.  You don't think a good number of us will immediately jump at the opportunity to have it again as soon as we're able?

Likewise, sports are a communal experience.  That's always been a part of their appeal.  They bring people together.  Total strangers are bonded their common love of a team.  The electricity of a full stadium or arena is something that can't be replicated.  Where else can you be so overcome by excitement that you're giving high-fives and hugs to everyone and anyone simply because they're sitting near you?

It also seems a little too obvious, but the economics of sports are kinda dependent on people being in close proximity to each other, too.  They buy tickets.  And food.  And merchandise.  And park.  That's an experience millions of fans greatly miss right now.  Teams and venues will adapt to whatever social distancing measures they have to because some fans are better than no fans, but there's no way those changes will be permanent.  Because those random conversations and moments of exhilaration are part of the joy of it.

Will things be different in the short term?  Yes.  Because they'll have to be.  But to think that whatever they look like when they do come back will still be the same in the future is just silly.  A year from now?  Maybe.  But five years from now, when this is all a distant memory?  Highly unlikely.  There may be some changes.  But I don't think the fan experience will actually end up looking too much different in the "new normal."

What is the "new normal" anyway?  Everyone keeps talking about it, but nobody has been able to define what the "new normal" will be.  The panic and uncertainty of the past few months has led people to act like things will be this way forever, though.  And that certainly will NOT be the case! 

We may not get back to "normal" as we used to know it.  But people will eventually be allowed to travel and go near each other again.  And when that happens, sports will find its way back to a place where fans and athletes can be a part of each other's experience.  Which is what we all want.

Rescheduling Roland Garros, Part Deux

Ordinarily, this would be the middle weekend of the Rafa Nadal Invitational (aka the only Grand Slam tournament where players actually want to be in Djokovic's half of the draw).  That, of course, is not the case this year, as the French Open was one of the first major events postponed because of the pandemic.  The French Tennis Federation hasn't exactly handled the rescheduling well, however.

When France first went into a nationwide lockdown and it became obvious the French Open wouldn't be able to take place at its normal time, the FFT made it clear that the event would be postponed, not cancelled.  All the other European clay-court events that serve as French Open warmups were also called off, and they wanted to "preserve the clay court season."  I get their sentiment, which is somewhat noble, but, again, their timing was off.

The biggest problem was that the FFT unilaterally chose the new dates of the tournament.  They didn't consult with the ATP, the WTA or the ITF (which runs the Grand Slams).  (Although, they did call Nadal to let him know.)  The dates they chose?  September 20-October 4.  That's one week after the US Open ends!

So, because they made the decision entirely on their own and just went with it, the FFT is expecting men's players to play seven best-of-five matches on hard courts in New York, then fly to Europe and play seven more best-of-five matches on a completely different surface (that punishes your body) a week later.  That's 14 best-of-five matches on different continents in five weeks!  And, if the US Open is moved to Indian Wells in California, as has been rumored as a possibility, they'll end up having to travel five time zones instead of eight!

It's not like the players would have a choice about playing, either.  Unless they're injured, players are required to play in Grand Slams, which automatically count in their rankings.  So, you don't show up, you get zero points.  Plain and simple.

That's not even taking into account the possibility of having to be quarantined.  Even if you play without fans, which is almost a certainty, you're still talking about players from all over the world traveling between two of the hardest-hit countries.  I don't think the U.S. has a mandatory quarantine to enter the country for non-Americans anymore, but I have no idea about France.  If France has a mandatory 14-day quarantine, than anyone who made it to the second week of the US Open (aka, most, if not all, of the top players) would be out of luck since their quarantine wouldn't expire until the second week of Roland Garros.

Beyond that, though, the ATP already had the Laver Cup scheduled for the final weekend of September in Boston.  The Laver Cup is a Davis Cup-style competition between Team USA and Team Europe that has gotten the buy-in of many top players, including all of the Big Three.  Federer and Nadal had already committed to it.  The Laver Cup has since been cancelled, but it hadn't been yet when the French made their move.

Then there's qualifying.  Every Grand Slam tournament allots 16 places in the field to qualifiers.  The qualifiers are held the week before the tournament.  Which means French Open qualifying will start literally days after the US Open ends.  That's an awfully quick turnaround, especially if one of those players makes it to the second or third round of the US Open.  

Wimbledon used to start two weeks after the French Open ended.  A few years ago, they moved it back a week, which the players had wanted for years.  One of the reasons they wanted the change was so that they could have more time to make the transition from clay to grass, which require two completely different styles of play.  Clay courts are slow and matches are long, grind-it-out affairs.  Grass courts are generally fast with quick points that favor the big servers.  That's why, historically, players are good at one and not the other (it's not a coincidence that Federer chose to skip the French but still play Wimbledon three years in a row).

Sometimes top players would simply take those two weeks off and go right to Wimbledon without having played a match since the French Open.  Moving Wimbledon a week later, though, gave them the opportunity to play in the warm-up tournaments.  While the rest is important, getting a grass court match in your legs (especially since there are so few grass-court tournaments) is just as necessary.  And I think everyone would agree that change was beneficial.

What the French Open organizers were asking the players to do was nonsensical.  Hard courts and clay courts are nothing like each other!  And the players wouldn't have any opportunity to play a tune-up or get acclimated to the time change with only a week in between the two events.  Not to mention the whole 14 best-of-fives on two different continents thing.  And we're talking about two majors here!  These aren't two random tournaments.

They obviously had their reasons for choosing those dates.  Roland Garros doesn't have lights, so they need it to be early enough in the year for them to have enough daylight.  And, it's not like Paris gets particularly chilly to begin with.  But they obviously want to play it when the weather is a little more comfortable.

Ultimately, though.  Those reasons were selfish.  Had they been looking beyond their own self-serving interests, the FFT would've realized the September 20 start date simply doesn't work.  For starters, the rescheduled Tour de France is supposed to end on that day.  Beyond that, though, had they worked with the ATP, WTA and ITF, they could've all collectively figured out the date that worked best for all parties (all the more reason why the men's and women's players need a single, unified tour).

Fortunately, it looks like their friends in Italy have bailed them out.  The Italian Open is perhaps the most significant of those spring European clay court tournaments.  It's the only combined French Open tune-up and the one that most of the top players play in.  The Italian Open, too, was obviously postponed this spring.  But they also expressed a desire to still hold the tournament, and they've suggested that September 21 is the best option.  If that's the case, the French Open will almost certainly move back a week itself.

Frankly, that's the date the French Open should've moved to all along.  While still not ideal, September 27-October 11 is much more doable for the players.  This way, they won't immediately have to hop on a plane to Paris and get ready to play another Grand Slam less than a week later.  Giving them that extra week is key.  Some may choose to play in Italy, while others might choose the break.  Point is, they'll have a choice.  And those who have to go through qualifying will still have time in between.

There's obviously no perfect answer.  We don't even know if we'll be in a position to have tennis players from all over the world coming together in the same place by late August (when the US Open is supposed to start).  But, regardless of the situation, one week between the US and French Opens is simply not enough time.  Two weeks, though.  They can make that work.

The Biggest Victims

It was obvious from the start who the biggest victims of this pandemic were.  College athletes.  Basketball players saw their conference and NCAA Tournaments abruptly cancelled, athletes who were already at the NCAA Championships were told to go home without even having a competition, and everybody who plays a spring sport saw their season come to a sudden and immediate end.

The NCAA's decision to cancel its biggest money-maker was the right one, but it left a massive financial hit that will trickle down to the schools.  March Madness money is distributed to conferences who then spread it among their member institutions.  The better the conference does, the more money everybody gets.  No games means no money.  For anybody.  Which is a tremendous blow to the schools that rely on that money and now need to find a way to make up for that loss.

That's one of the reasons it's so important for there to be a college football season this year, and why schools and conferences have been coming up with contingency plan after contingency plan to make sure there is one.  The money BCS schools bring in because of football makes the March Madness money look like pocket change.  And losing that money would be even more catastrophic.

Some smaller BCS schools, particularly those in the Mid-American Conference, have been preparing for that possibility in the worst way possible.  They're cutting sports, particularly men's sports.  To the bare minimum level.  All while leaving football alone.

Schools with a BCS football team are required to have 16 sports (the non-football NCAA minimum is 14).  Outside of needing to have at least one sport per gender per season, there's no additional requirement on how those programs are broken down.  However, because of Title IX and the sheer number of football scholarships, that breakdown is overwhelmingly tilted towards women's teams.  Which is why when Athletic Departments cut sports, it's men's sports that are more vulnerable.  And it's no different here.

I've lost count of how many schools and how many programs, but it's well over 100 teams that have been cut--a vast majority of them men's teams.  The University of Akron, for example, will be down to just six men's teams in the fall, two of which are football and basketball.  By contrast, Akron, also cut women's tennis, but will still have 10 women's programs.  Meanwhile, Furman, which plays football at the FCS level, cut two large-roster men's programs--baseball and lacrosse.

These cuts aren't limited to mid-major schools, either.  The University of Cincinnati was one of the first to announce it was discontinuing sports.  They dropped men's soccer back in mid-April after a "comprehensive and thorough review" of their athletic program and the "long-term budget implications of supporting the number of athletes currently at UC."  They didn't flat-out blame it on coronavirus, but everyone knew that was the main reason.

UConn may be next.  Just as they get ready to rejoin the Big East, they're also evidently planning on cutting eight of their 24 sports.  A third of their sports offerings gone in one felt swoop!  In a not-so-flattering article on SI.com the other day, Pat Forde wasn't shy about offering a reason why UConn was in this financial situation.  You get one guess as to what sport he blamed (his reasoning is pretty solid, so I can't really argue with him).

Even the Ivy League, which doesn't even offer athletic scholarships, isn't immune.  Ivy League athletic programs are notoriously big.  Harvard has 43 sports and the others are in the 30s.  Brown, however, will go from 38 to 29 next season after reducing nine teams from varsity to club status.  At least they aren't flat out cutting those nine teams, but they won't receive nearly as much support (financial or otherwise) by dropping to club.  More significantly, the NCAA doesn't recognize club programs.  Only varsity.

Not all of these decisions were caused by coronavirus.  Dropping sports isn't something schools just do without putting some thought into it, so it's entirely possible that some of these teams were already on the chopping block anyway.  The unprecedented situation that the country is currently in only exacerbated the problem and forced their hand.  However, there's no doubt that some of these cuts were indeed directly because of coronavirus and the expected budget shortfalls that these Athletic Departments envision having to make up.

Yes, it's a difficult financial reality for these schools.  And not having to pay scholarships and team budgets and coaches' salaries will definitely help their bottom line.  Although, it should be noted that a lot of these schools are dropping non-revenue sports, which generally have smaller rosters (and thus fewer scholarships) and smaller operating budgets.  But it's easier to justify getting rid of men's golf than cutting the football budget.  (Akron's cutting men's cross country also makes absolutely no sense to me when they're keeping men's track.)

But who is it that suffers?  The student-athletes on these teams.  Or, I should say, the former student-athletes.  Furman baseball players had no idea that March 10 would be their final day as Furman baseball players.  Period!  First they lost their season, then they lost their program.  Through no fault of their own.  Sure, they can transfer or stay at the school and have their scholarships honored.  But they're no longer Furman baseball players, and that's probably the whole reason they went to Furman in the first place!

Talk about a double whammy!  All that work they did to earn a scholarship, only to have their program taken away because of a global pandemic.  And they won't necessarily be able to get another one, either.  Not only are there now fewer teams, other schools are reducing their number of scholarships, and still others have to find money for both their 2020 seniors and 2021 freshmen.  So it's possible that some of these students will never play college sports again.  Which is the biggest shame of it all.

This can't be easy for anybody.  Making the decision to cut sports is something no Athletic Director wants to do.  And in the long run, it might help their department financially, which is the entire point.  But in the short term, it's the student-athletes who feel the biggest blow.  Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done about that.  That doesn't make it any more heartbreaking, though.

Comeback Plans

While we still don't know when the NHL and NBA will return, we at least have some idea how they plan to.  Both leagues appear to be targeting July restarts and have outlined their return to play procedures.  The next steps appear to be identifying the "hub" cities that will host the games, determining the start date, and getting the players back into shape after so many months off.

Orlando seems to be the favored location for the NBA's return, and I must say, their plan makes a lot of sense.  Especially since they plan on playing at Disney.  Disney has so many hotels on its properties that they can easily accommodate all 30 teams and the necessary support personnel.  The fact that those hotels are currently empty makes things even more feasible.  Frankly, Disney is probably the only place that has enough hotel rooms close enough to each other to house every team and still be able to maintain the appropriate protocols.

More importantly, the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex features about 7,000 basketball courts, so there's plenty of locker room and practice space in addition to multiple arenas for the actual games, all of which are necessities.  There are so many basketball tournaments and so many games at the complex all year-round that they can have everything up and running in no time at all.  One of those tournaments is the college basketball Thanksgiving event where every game is on one of the ESPNs.  Which means they've already got the TV setup in place.

And one advantage basketball will always have over hockey in any restart plan is that you can easily play several basketball games in one day at the same facility with very little required between games.  The NCAA and conference tournaments usually have at least four games in a day.  In the Olympics, they sometimes play as many as six!

Especially when you consider the fact that ESPN and TNT will want the game inventory, it's easy to see the NBA playing four games on the same court every day.  I'd assume they'll use at least three courts (which Disney has).  That's 12 games per day, which means 24 of the 30 teams could be in action.  And, with no travel between games, they'd be able to play every-other-day no problem.  Four games in a week would probably be a stretch, but it's theoretically possible, especially under the circumstances.

Other than saying they want to play some regular season games followed by a full playoffs, the NBA hasn't really been clear about that that exactly means.  Some teams had 15 games left, so that's a month's worth of games, plus two months of playoffs, which doesn't seem realistic if they start in mid-July.  I do like the idea of every team coming back and playing some regular season games, but getting everybody to 82 before starting the playoffs is both impractical and unnecessary.

The NBA is at least committed to "finishing" its regular season in some form.  That was the NHL's plan, too, until things changed.  The league announced today that the regular season is over.  No timetable was given.  The word "if" was very noticeable in the announcement.  But if the NHL returns, they'll go straight to the playoffs.

Personally, I would've liked to have seen at least some sort of conclusion to the regular season if for no other reason than to get everybody the same number of games played.  It also would've given the players a chance to at least get a few games in their legs before immediately jumping into the intensity of the playoffs.

Neither of those things will happen.  The 24-team playoff tournament, which was obviously a compromise solution, ends the season officially for the Red Wings, Sabres, Senators, Devils, Kings, Ducks and Sharks (rough year for hockey in California, huh?).  Although, logistically, 24 teams in two "hub" cities was probably the best-case scenario for the NHL's return.

You can't play nearly as many hockey games in the same arena in one day as you can basketball games.  Not only are the games longer, you have to Zamboni the ice and let it set between each one, in addition to the necessary warmup time.  At best, you need three and a half hours between games, four to be safe.  As a result, I can't see them playing any more than three games in a day at any one site (12, 4 and 8).

So that's where 24 teams makes sense.  Whenever they decide on the two cities, I'm sure they'll divide them East-West.  And sending 12 teams to each site means you play three games each day, alternating the six who are playing.  It does make sense, and it probably was their best option.  Especially since Gary Bettman wants to finish everything in "approximately" 60 days after they start back up.  This was the only way to feasibly achieve that timeline.

There are things to like about the NHL's 24-team playoff plan, too.  First off, it was the fairest solution for those bubble teams who were only a few points out of the top eight, but conceivably could've made up that ground and made the playoffs had they been able to finish the season.  And those top four teams, who'll get byes in that opening round, will play a round-robin to determine their seeds, which again, conceivably could've changed had the entire regular season been played.

My favorite thing about the format, though, is that the NHL is finally going back to conference-based seeding!  I don't care if it's only for one year!  This is the way it should be done.  Everyone agrees that the current division-based playoff system is inherently flawed and needs to be changed to conference-based.  It's just that nobody seems to care enough to do anything about it.  But, for this year at least, we're back to conference-based.

I also like the fact that these opening round series will be best-of-five.  The conference quarterfinals probably will be, too, and maybe even the conference semifinals.  The conference finals and Stanley Cup Final will remain best-of-seven.  As they should.  Because best-of-seven takes some of the randomness out.  The better team will win.  And, even in this crazy year, you don't change the way you crown a champion.

One of the great things about the Stanley Cup Playoffs is how you see so many lower-seeded teams beat higher seeds in the first round (take last year when all four division winners lost in the first round, including Tampa Bay shockingly being swept by Columbus).  We have no idea how the switch to best-of-five will change things (will it lead to more upsets or fewer?.  But, best-of-five series are quicker and still long enough to determine a legitimate winner, which makes this the perfect compromise for an expanded playoffs.

A lot still has to happen for the NBA and NHL to return to action.  But both leagues are optimistic about a summer return and taking the necessary steps to make that happen.  It won't be the same.  But nothing about this year is.  And, who knows?, different may turn out to be better.  All I know is that it's good to be talking about the possibility of live sports again.  Even if that's all it is.  A possibility.

The 2020 Yankees Roster

Memorial Day Weekend usually means the Stanley Cup Final is about to start, the great three-race Sunday (Monaco, Indy, Charlotte) is upon us, the Clay Boy Invitational is set to begin, and the baseball season has hit its first significant in-season checkpoint.  Instead, we're still stuck in a holding pattern, with the Coca-Cola 600 the only Memorial Day Weekend fixture that will take place as originally scheduled (without fans, of course).

We are starting to see some progress on the sports front, though.  NBA facilities have reopened, the NHL has presented its players with a 24-team postseason plan, and MLB is still trying to work out its issues between owners and players that will result in a return to the field by the Fourth of July (benchmark No. 2).

Whenever the baseball season starts (assuming there is a season), there'll be some changes necessitated by the situation.  Because of the short length of Spring Training 2.0 and the lack of Minor League seasons, rosters will probably be larger than the standard 26 (which only became the standard this year).  Teams will most likely have 30-man active rosters, with a "taxi squad" of Double- and Triple-A players available in case of injury.

The crazy thing about this season is that some teams actually benefited from the delay.  The Yankees were going to start the season without Aaron Judge, Aaron Hicks and James Paxton, and Giancarlo Stanton was also set to miss Opening Day.  With the possible exception of Hicks, all four should be ready to go once they actually do get started.  That could be huge since getting out to a good start will be even more important in a season that's only half as long.

Although, that creates the same "problem" they were dealing with throughout the entire offseason...trying to find a place for everybody to play!  Brett Gardner went from fourth outfielder to starting center fielder back to fourth outfielder.  Had Opening Day been March 26 like it was supposed to, the Yankee outfield would've been Mike Tauchman in left, Gardner in center, Clint Frazier in right.  When the season actually starts, the regular outfield of Stanton-Hicks-Judge should all be good to go.

Same thing with the pitching staff.  The Yankees were having all kinds of issues trying to figure out who'd be the fifth starter in April and early May until Paxton was ready.  No such problem anymore.  The rotation of Cole, Paxton, Tanaka, Happ, Montgomery is all set and (presumably) all healthy.  Severino's out for the year, and Domingo German's suspension is 81 games, so he won't be available at all this season, either.

I'm still curious to see how the roster will be constructed, though.  Because even with those four extra spots, there are still plenty of decisions to be made.  Especially when you consider Judge, Hicks, Stanton and Paxton were all supposed to start the season on the injured list.  So, they're effectively taking those four spots.

Clint Frazier is probably the most interesting of the now bubble guys.  He was borderline to make the team until they realized the extent of Judge's injury.  Then, when Stanton went down, Frazier's roster spot went from secure to a starting position in right field.

Now that all three regulars will likely be available (or close to it) when the season starts, though, is there a place for Frazier?  Gardner will obviously be on the team, and Tauchman is more valuable than Frazier for a few reasons (he's actually a good outfielder, he can play all three positions, and, most importantly, he's left-handed).  Plus, Miguel Andujar was able to hold his own in left field during Spring Training 1.0, so I don't think Aaron Boone would have any hesitation putting him out there so either Stanton or Judge can DH.

Besides, assuming there are six bench guys, do you really want use up three of them on outfielders?  Luke Voit is the only first baseman on the roster (although LeMahieu can also play there), so maybe it's worth it to have Mike Ford, another left-handed hitter, as a backup.  Under normal circumstances, they'd have to choose between Ford and Frazier.  Fortunately, unless they want to carry a third catcher (which may not be a bad idea), there's room for both of them.

While they brought a bunch of veteran catchers into camp as non-roster invitees, Kyle Higashioka is out of Minor League options and already on the 40-man roster.  That, and the fact that he already knows the Yankee pitchers from his seemingly annual call-ups over the past few seasons, means he's still the front-runner to be Gary Sanchez's backup.

Likewise, Tyler Wade should be a lock to make the team as the utility infielder.  LeMahieu is now the starter at second, so they can't just rely on moving him all over the place like they did last year.  And Wade is really the only viable option as a backup shortstop now that Gleyber will be playing short full-time.  Plus, I'll say it again.  With the starting lineup overwhelmingly right-handed, having a left-handed hitter on the bench isn't a bad thing.

So, that leaves us with the bullpen.  This year was the first time MLB set a maximum on the number of pitchers you're allowed to have on the roster (because it was getting ridiculous with teams carrying 10 relievers and two bench players!).  It was going to be 13, so I'll assume that if the rosters are 30 players, they'll be capped at 15 pitchers.  Which still gives them a 10-man bullpen after you take out the starters.

Five of those spots are already locked in--Chapman, Britton, Ottavino, Kahnle and Green.  Luis Cessa was the long man last year and I don't see any reason for that to be any different, so he's six.  Likewise, I can easily see Jonathan Loaisiga moving into that Dellin Betances role.  Even though the organization may still view him as a future starter, he has more value as a reliever right now.  Jonathan Holder probably would've been the eighth reliever on the 26-man roster, so there's no reason to think he wouldn't be included in a 10-man bullpen.

That leaves us with two remaining bullpen pieces.  There are plenty of pitchers on the 40-man roster.  One of them is Ben Heller, who was assigned to Scranton just before the roster freeze.  Still, with no RailRiders for him to join, Heller is an easy call to join the big league bullpen.  And I think they'll go with lefty Tyler Lyons, a non-roster invitee who was actually on the Yankees' postseason roster last year.  He didn't allow a run over five appearances in the original Spring Training.

And there you have it.  My 30-man Yankees roster for Opening Day 2020, whenever that may be, is:

SP: Gerrit Cole, James Paxton, Masahiro Tanaka, JA Happ, Jordan Montgomery
RP: Aroldis Chapman, Zack Britton, Adam Ottavino, Tommy Kahnle, Chad Green, Jonathan Holder, Jonathan Loaisiga, Luis Cessa, Ben Heller, Tyler Lyons
C: Gary Sanchez, Kyle Higashioka
IF: Luke Voit (1B), D.J. LeMahieu (2B), Gleyber Torres (SS), Gio Urshela (3B), Miguel Andujar (DH), Tyler Wade, Mike Ford
OF: Aaron Judge, Aaron Hicks, Giancarlo Stanton, Brett Gardner, Mike Tauchman, Clint Frazier

Next Year or Never

In an interview with NBC's Mike Tirico this afternoon, IOC President Thomas Bach confirmed what everybody already knew.  If the Tokyo Olympics can't take place next year, they'll be cancelled entirely.  Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had already said that, and, frankly, the reason they were postponed instead of outright cancelled to begin with was because the organizing committee and Japanese government were both willing to take on the additional expense and logistical hurdles of a one-year delay.

Somehow that got translated into "Tokyo Olympics Cancelled," which then immediately started trending.  I know headlines are designed to be click-bait, but that is in no way what Bach said!  He said that if the Olympics can't be held in 2021, they won't be held at all.  They key word there is if.  

The plan is still to have the world gather in Tokyo next July.  That's 14 months from now!  That's a long time.  Especially considering how much the world has changed since the start of 2020 (which was only five months ago!).

And, frankly, Bach was stating the obvious.  It was hard enough to reschedule the Olympics for 2021.  You can't keep postponing them indefinitely (imagine Tokyo 2020 and Paris 2024 taking place in back-to-back summers!).  As he correctly pointed out in the interview, the hurdles they have to overcome just to delay by a year are immense.  Not to mention the fact that you'd have to keep paying an organizing committee, force international federations to restructure their calendars, hope sponsors keep their commitments, and leave National Olympic Committees in limbo.

Most importantly, the athletes need definite answers.  Bach, a former Olympian himself, knows that.  That uncertainty was one of the things that led to the original postponement announcement in March.  They put four (now five) years of work and sacrifice into making it to the Olympics.  Some put their lives on hold.  It would be unfair to them to keep pushing that date back.

Of course, back in March when the IOC was doing everything it could to still try and make the Games happen this summer, those same athletes felt it was unfair to ask them to train in the middle of a pandemic.  Many were even wondering how they were supposed to train when countries were on lockdown and facilities were closed.  Throw in travel bans and it would've made holding the Olympics this summer as originally scheduled impossible.  Postponement was inevitable, and the IOC eventually gave in to the reality.

I was among those who agreed with the IOC's decision to wait on making a decision about postponement.  No one knew how fast this thing would move, so they chose to be optimistic.  The IOC's hand was forced when nations started to pull out, but they knew there was only one decision that could be made.  They just had to dot all the i's and cross all the t's before they could announce it.

It was the right decision.  There's no way the world would've been ready for an Olympics two months from now.  Not with some countries still in lockdown and others just starting to come out.  And the questions still persist whether or not next summer is even possible, which is why Bach had to provide that clarity.

What Bach said, though, is that the IOC needs to prepare for a number of different scenarios for next year.  Cancellation is just one of those scenarios.  But it's also the last resort.  Not the headline.  (Yes, "Olympics cancelled" is better click-bait.  I get it!  But it's wrong and misleading.)

Likewise, Yoshitake Yokokura, the President of the Japan Medical Association, was speaking out of turn last month when he suggested it would be hard to host the Games without a vaccine.  I'm not sure if Yokokura was simply stating his opinion (I think he probably was), but he shouldn't be speaking on the record unless he has an official role with the Tokyo Games, which it doesn't sound like he does.  Even as a government official, it's not his place to speak for the Prime Minister, Tokyo's local government, or anyone associated with the organizing committee.

No one actually involved with the Games has said that they're contingent on there being a vaccine.  That may end up being the case, but it's also possible that it'll be determined safe enough for athletes and fans to travel to Japan without one.  The IOC will rely on advice from the World Health Organization.  If they think it's too big of a risk, the IOC will take appropriate action, whatever that may be.

Yes, cancellation is one scenario that they're considering.  One of many.  Will the athletes and anyone else traveling to Tokyo for the Games have to be quarantined as soon as they enter Japan?  Will they be restricted to the Olympic Village and their competition/training venues so as not to catch/spread the virus?  How will venue capacities have to be adjusted to allow for spectators while maintaining social distancing?  (Bach has already ruled out holding the events without fans, a decision I agree with.)  And what if there IS a vaccine, rendering all of these plans moot?  That, of course, is the best option.

Cancellation, obviously, is the worst-case scenario.  They have to acknowledge the possibility and consider it, but it should be avoided at all costs.  However, delaying again beyond next summer is both unrealistic and impractical.  There would be way too much of a trickle-down effect.  Enough havoc has already been caused with international federations having to move their 2021 World Championships to 2022 while still avoiding the Commonwealth Games (and not to mention the fact that there are already a Winter Olympics and Youth Olympics scheduled for 2022).

If the global health situation hasn't improved enough for the Olympics to be held safely next summer in Tokyo, they'll have no choice but to cancel.  It's way too early to even speculate about them having to make that call, though.  If they do, however, get ready for the Tokyo 2032 Olympics.  Immediately giving the 2032 Games to Tokyo would be the only fair solution.  Because they've already invested too much to not be given the hosting opportunity they've earned.

Sports Documentaries That Need to Be Made

ESPN sure made a smart decision by moving up "The Last Dance," its 10-part documentary chronicling Michael Jordan's final season with the Bulls.  They made an even smarter decision by keeping with the weekly Sunday night 30 for 30 for the next few weeks (or however long until things get back to normal).

There have been plenty of great sports documentaries over the years.  Sometimes the story is so obvious that it writes itself (and gets turned into a Hollywood move).  Sometimes somebody writes a book and that ends up getting turned into a very similar TV documentary.  But it's usually the ones about some obscure bench player or the ones that take a different angle and look at the story from the fans' perspective that end up being the most compelling.

It's a tried-and-true formula for a reason.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of new sports documentaries debut every year, with at least as many in development.  Some are good.  Some are not.  As you would expect.  So, I have no idea if any of these are already in the works or not.  But these are sports documentaries that I would watch (and I want a producer credit if you steal my idea!).

Vegas Strong: The Golden Knights made history in their expansion season, going all the way to the Stanley Cup Final.  It really was a fairy tale inaugural season for the first major league pro sports team in Las Vegas.  Although, as we all remember, it got off to a tragic start with the mass shooting at the music festival right before the season started.  Looking at the entire season through that prism, and even bringing it back to what it took for Las Vegas to finally become a major league town, would really be worth watching.

Connie Mack: This one might be tough since all of the principal figures are long since dead, but Connie Mack is a fascinating figure.  The winningest manager in baseball history, he was owner and manager of the Philadelphia Athletics for 50 years.  And the A's alternated eras of being among the best teams in baseball with years where they were among the worst throughout that time.  It really must've been fascinating to see how he balanced those two contrasting roles, especially for so long.

Minnesota Giants: Everyone knows the story.  The Giants and Dodgers both left New York following the 1957 season, packing up for California and bringing Major League Baseball to the West Coast.  But that story is always told from the Dodgers' perspective.  Walter O'Malley is the villain in Brooklyn's side of the story.  Has anyone ever looked at it the Giants and what went into their move, though?  That has to be just as interesting.  (The Giants were supposedly moving to Minnesota before O'Malley convinced them to go to San Francisco instead, hence the name of this documentary.  And, frankly, that story seems just as worthwhile.)

Olympics Lost: For all those potential Olympians who were working towards a Games this summer in Tokyo, that one-year wait will feel like an eternity.  But they'll still get their opportunity, albeit a year later than planned.  The 1980 U.S. Olympic team, though, never got that chance.  Some would have their Olympic moment four years later in L.A.  Others never would have their Olympic moment.  Let's hear those stories.

American Pharoah: Sometimes you need a feel-good one, too.  So why not a documentary about American Pharoah and the people behind him.  We went 37 years between Triple Crown winners, and some thought there would never be one again.  But a special horse and a special team finally broke that curse.  Let's go behind the scenes of those memorable five weeks and how they handled the pressure leading up to that triumphant run into history at the Belmont.

Iceland vs. the World: Italy didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup.  Neither did the United States.  Or the Netherlands.  Iceland did.  An isolated island of just 364,000 took on the world two years after making a Cinderella run to the semifinals of Euro 2016.  That team was incredibly fun to watch, but wouldn't you love to know how tiny Iceland managed to conquer Europe's best and take on the world?

The Salt Lake Scandal: Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been a feature-length documentary about this already.  The pairs figure skating scandal at the Salt Lake City Olympics rocked the sport to the core and led to sweeping changes.  We all know what happened, but why did it happen?  I'm not just talking about the basic details we already know.  I want to dig deeper an find out about the culture that led to that infamous night in 2002.

0-16: While it might not seem like the most obvious topic, it must've been miserable to be a member of the 2008 Lions or 2017 Browns.  What was it like to endure a winless season?  And this isn't the 0-26 expansion Bucs we're talking about, either.  These are proud, established NFL franchises where everything that could've gone wrong did and the results were disastrous.  Yet they both bounced back from it pretty quickly.  Take us on that journey, NFL Films.  You know if they produce it, it'll be good.

Jumping Into History: Carl Lewis and Mike Powell had a pretty intense rivalry in the long jump in the late 80s and early 90s.  It all came to a head at the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo.  In what's still widely considered one of the greatest competitions in track & field history.  It was punch and counter-punch.  They were both going after Bob Beamon's world record, and they both surpassed it.  Except Lewis' jump was wind-aided and didn't count for the record.  Powell's wasn't and did.  He had the world record, the World Championship, and had beaten his rival for the first time.  NBC, please take us back to that competition on the day of the long jump final next year!  Especially since it'll be the 30th anniversary.  In the same stadium.

Mr. Irrelevant: Another one that, if done right, NFL Films would probably do very well.  Getting picked last in the NFL Draft usually does little more than make you the answer to a trivia question.  Mr. Irrelevant's rookie year is vastly different than the well-known, high-priced first-round picks.  That story's been told.  Let's go on Mr. Irrelevant's journey from the draft, through training camp, through his first year in the NFL.  One that won't be nearly as glamorous as the QB picked No. 1 overall.

Are there more sports documentaries that are out there just dying to be produced?  Absolutely.  The current state of the country will lead to plenty of worthwhile stories, too.  Further proof that sports can provide just as much drama, if not more, than anything else on TV.

National League DH's

Assuming they're able to work out all the financials and other details, the 2020 baseball season will look very different, and not just because it'll be half as long as a normal season.  National League purists aren't going to like it, but the universal DH seems like it's a done deal for 2020.  Does that signal a move to a permanent change once the CBA expires after the 2021 season?  Perhaps.  But I think it's something that everyone within the game expects is going to happen eventually (despite the protestations of NL fans).

I'm not trying to start the DH debate here.  I've always been pro-DH, but that's irrelevant.  The fact is it's been around for 50 years and isn't going anywhere, so the anti-DH crowd really just needs to get over it.  And this temporary rule change could very well be a test-run to see how it goes over.  If it goes well, the NL DH could be here sooner than any of us were expecting.

Let's just focus on 2020 for a minute, though.  Because that's a MASSIVE change!  Some NL teams have issues finding a DH for interleague road games.  Now they're gonna have to find one for the entire season.  Others have an abundance of options, so they'll enjoy not having to put a terrible fielder on defense.  There are some pitchers who are decent hitters, too, and will now have their bats taken out of the lineup.  It's a massive strategy shift that could have a bearing on who ends up making the playoffs.

It's too late for teams to make any major roster adjustments, and once the second "Spring" Training begins, the focus will be solely on getting as prepared as possible as quickly as possible for the abbreviated season.  Which means they'll have to find a DH among the guys currently on the team.  That'll be easier for some teams than others.  Some National League teams are built to play NL-style ball and didn't factor a DH into their plans for this season.

Fortunately, finding a DH isn't as hard as it sounds.  Most NL teams carry a guy whose main role is to be their first pinch-hitter, so giving him four at-bats a game instead of one seems to be a pretty easy solution.  With that in mind, here's my guess as to who would be each National League team's "regular" DH for the 2020 season, whenever it starts...

Braves: Nick Markakis-The signing of Marcell Ozuna was going to push Markakis into a fourth-outfielder role.  Now he'll have the chance to stay in the lineup and the Braves can still start that very strong trio of Ozuna, Inciarte and Acuna in the outfield.  Likewise, Markakis can play right and one of those three can DH without Atlanta losing much.

Marlins: Matt Joyce-Honestly, Derek Jeter is probably the Marlins' best option at DH.  But...they did sign veteran outfielders Matt Kemp and Matt Joyce, neither of whom is actually a good outfielder anymore and both seem like pinch-hit options more than anything else.  As such, I think one of the Matts DH's.  I'll say Joyce because he's left-handed.

Mets: Dominic Smith-This is one NL team that would likely welcome the universal DH.  They have about 12 guys that need at-bats and only eight spots available in the lineup.  Dominic Smith is one of those guys.  He's a first baseman, but with Pete Alonso there, they were sticking him in left field last year.  Being able to make him the DH solves that problem.

Phillies: Jay Bruce-Jay Bruce belongs in the American League.  He can't play the outfield anymore, and he can't really play first base (espeically with Rhys Hoskins there).  But he can still hit.  Thus, it's an easy call to make him the Phillies' DH.

Nationals: Ryan Zimmerman-Zimmerman got no interest in the offseason, so he returned to Washington even though they singed Eric Thames to play first base.  The franchise icon will at least still have the opportunity to contribute more than once a game if he's DHing.

Cubs: Kyle Schwarber-Schwarber is technically the Cubs' starting left fielder, but a move to DH wouldn't shock me.  After all, they activated him for the 2016 World Series even though he was still injured and couldn't play the field specifically because they wanted him to DH in Cleveland.  And his defense in left hasn't exactly improved since then either.

Reds: Shogo Akiyama-Cincinnati went all-in on this year, bringing in about six different lineup pieces.  One of them was Akiyama, the Japanese outfielder who isn't even projected to start.  This solves that problem.  (They could also put Akiyama in center and move Nick Senzel to second if Mike Moustakas struggles defensively.)

Brewers: Ryan Braun-Milwaukee signed Avisail Garcia, which shifted Braun over to first base, where he's a complete novice.  They also have to actual first basemen on the roster in Justin Smoak and Logan Morrison.  Sounds like DH is the perfect position for Braun, then.

Pirates: Guillermo Heredia-Honestly, I have no idea.  Like the Marlins, the Pirates have a lot of young, unknown players.  Guillermo Heredia came over from the Rays and will likely serve as a backup outfielder, so I'll go with him.

Cardinals: Matt Carpenter-With the Cardinals, you never really know when there's a rookie coming up to take somebody's position and knock a veteran to the bench.  It seems like Matt Carpenter is a candidate to fall into that category.  Jose Martinez may be in the same boat.  So, one of them would probably end up being the DH.

Diamondbacks: Jake Lamb-Knowing Madison Bumgarner, he'll campaign to hit for himself on the days he pitches even if there is a DH, like the Giants let him do once in Oakland.  On all other days, though, former All-Star Jake Lamb seems to be a likely DH candidate.

Rockies: Ian Desmond-When they made the playoffs two years ago, the Rockies had an abundance of potential DH's.  Nowadays, not so much.  Although, I'm surprised they don't have a regular place in the lineup for Ian Desmond.  He'd be a good DH for multiple reasons.  He's adept at both first base and in the outfield, so you could put him in the field and spread the DH at-bats around, too.

Dodgers: Joc Pederson-Mookie Betts moved either A.J. Pollock or Pederson to the bench.  Pollock is a much better defender, while Pederson is a better hitter, so that looked to be a tough decision for Dave Roberts each game.  Giving him a DH solves that problem.  Pollock can play left and Pederson can DH.  Or Pederson can play left and Bellinger can DH.  Or Bellinger can play first and Muncy can DH.  It's nice to have options!

Padres: Brian Dozier-You know how the Padres have gone a little nuts signing free agent hitters over the past few offseasons?  Here's where it works to their benefit.  I'm not saying Brian Dozier because I think he'll DH more than a few times a week.  I'm going with him because he'll be the extra starter who gets into the lineup while Jurickson Profar moves around and Manny Machado, Wil Myers and Tommy Pham all get turns at DH.

Giants: Hunter Pence-Wilmer Flores is listed as the backup at virtually every infield position, and Kung Fu Panda is, incredibly, still on the roster.  DH really seems to be the only position he can play at this point, but I'm not sure he makes the team.  So instead I'm putting Billy Hamilton's glove in center, moving Mike Yastrzemski to right and letting Hunter Pence do what he does best.  Hit.

Bringing Baseball Back

When MLB owners presented the players with their proposal for an 82-game season to begin in July, people were obviously excited.  Finally there was optimism about the prospect of their actually being a 2020 baseball season.  Then it became obvious that the players were going to reject the deal, which made everybody freak out and leave us all to wonder if this could all break down over money.

For some reason, whenever the money issue comes into question, people are quick to side with the owners and accuse the players of being "greedy."  The Governor of Illinois went so far as to say he's "disappointed" in the players for "holding out for these very, very high salaries and payments during a time when I think everybody is sacrificing."  He also brings up the fact that there's nothing for people to watch on TV, so evidently he thinks the players have some sort of civic duty to simply sign on the dotted line.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as Gov. Pritzker would seemingly like it to be.  And, since the owners were the ones who came to the table first, it's easy to make the players out to be the bad guys...even though they want to get back on the field as much as the owners do!  But there's no way the players were going to accept this deal.  And they shouldn't have!

I think the owners knew that, too.  What they were doing was giving them a framework from which to begin negotiations.  Both sides know how disastrous a lost season would be, especially if there actually was a path back and it all fell apart.  That would be even more devastating than the 1994-95 strike and cripple the game economically (beyond the damage coronavirus has already done).

They both have incentive and desire to get back on the field.  And there's certainly common ground that can be found.  Money wasn't even brought up in the first round of negotiations, and it likely won't be until the end.  Frankly, there are more pressing issues before the players can even begin thinking about taking the field again.  And remember, it's the players who'll be assuming all the risk.  Not the owners.

But, of course, it's easy to blame the players.  It's easy to call them "greedy" when you don't understand what the owners are actually proposing and how it affects the players.  If you look a little deeper into it, though, you can see the players' position.  Which, frankly, I agree with.

The big sticking point seems to be the proposed 50-50 split of revenues.  MLBPA Executive Director Tony Clark said all along that was a non-starter.  Especially since, in the players' minds, this has already been settled.  They've already agreed to prorated salaries based on the number of games that actually do get played this season.  So, in an 82-game season, they'll get half their salary.  Gerrit Cole's $36 million will become $18 million.  Done deal.  So why negotiate it again?

More significantly, the players object to any financial model that ties their salaries to revenues.  The NFL, NHL and NBA all have that model, and it's roughly a 50-50 split in each.  The NFL, NHL and NBA also all have salary caps.  MLB, of course, does not.  And the players aren't going to agree to anything that resembles one (such as a revenue split).

Their fear is that if they agree to this now, the owners might try to force a salary cap on them when the current CBA expires after the 2021 season.  The salary cap was the major sticking point that led to the infamous eight-month strike 26 years ago.  The players didn't want it then, and they don't want it now.  Yes, they risk losing their entire 2020 salaries if there are no games at all.  They understand that.  But that doesn't make them any more willing to accept anything less than what they've already agreed to.

That's the biggest sticking point.  No one knows how much money both sides stand to lose.  The numbers that the owners have presented are nothing more than estimates.  So, it's entirely possible that the players could end up making more in a 50-50 split.  It's also possible they'd end up making significantly less.  Most likely, things will end up close to even.  But can you really blame the players for not wanting to go into the season not knowing?

If you put it in simpler terms, the players' argument makes even more sense.  Their salaries aren't tied to revenues.  When the owners are making money, they don't get any of it.  So, now that the owners stand to lose a bunch, they suddenly expect the players to share their pain?  That's not what they agreed to in the CBA, so why should they be OK with that?

Yes, the owners are responsible for paying many more people than just the players.  And, yes, some teams have had to lay off or furlough employees because of the financial situation that this pandemic has caused.  But, once games resume, they'll still get paid from the national and local TV contracts.  They obviously won't make as much playing in empty stadiums, where they won't get revenue from tickets, concessions, parking, etc.  But they risk losing the TV money, too, if there's no season at all.  And that would be a much bigger financial blow to some franchises than paying the players their already agreed-to prorated 2020 salaries.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the players will be the ones assuming the highest risk.  Even in empty ballparks, they'll still be out there on the field, throwing and catching the same ball as everybody else.  They'll be the ones making tags on opposing base runners.  They'll be the ones who are quarantined and out of action for two weeks if they test positive...on top of all the other injury potential after two months of inactivity before an incredibly short second "Spring" Training.

And the players are also the ones who'll be losing half a season of their careers (at least).  That's time they aren't getting back (even if it does count as service time).  So they've got all the reason in the world to want to play.  Which they do.  Don't think any of this means they don't.  But they're not gonna come back at all costs.  Not when there are so many unknowns (from both a health and financial standpoint).

Everything else in the owners' proposal seems reasonable and likely hasn't gotten too much push back from the players.  National League purists might not like the universal DH, but you know the players will have no issue with it.  Regionalized schedules to reduce travel, while still focusing mainly on divisional play?  Makes sense.  Expanded rosters and more playoff teams?  Absolutely!

With both sides in agreement on almost everything else, it seems hard to believe that they won't be able to figure out the one sticking point.  Neither one would be stupid enough to let it all fall apart over money.  Because everybody wants baseball in 2020.  The players.  The owners.  And especially the fans.

Survivor: Athletes In Action

As Survivor gets ready to wrap its 40th season, all-time lists are coming out to rank the greatest players, moments, etc., from the show's incredible 20 years on the air.  Nearly 600 people have played the game, a good number of them athletes.  Which got me thinking, what would the cast of an all athletes season look like?

I decided to go with 18 castaways, which has become the standard.  And it was actually pretty difficult to make some cuts.  One criterion was no winners, so Ethan Zohn (college soccer player) and Tyson Apostol (former pro cyclist), who are both on the current all-winners season, are out.  So is Jimmy Johnson, who was on my original list (and only dropped after much debate with Steve Misevic).  Also, pro wrestler Ashley Massaro definitely would've been selected had she not passed away last year.  And with that, let me present the cast of Survivor: Athletes In Action...

Teivovo Tribe

Brad Culpepper (Blood vs. Water/Game Changers): He played nine years in the NFL and played Survivor twice.  He was voted out early in Blood vs. Water (when his wife finished second), then took second himself in Game Changers.

Gary Hogeboom (Guatemala): The first semi-well-known former athlete to appear on Survivor, way back in season 11.  The former Cowboys quarterback lied about his identity, but was outed by eventual winner Danni (a sports radio host).  That was actually the first season with hidden immunity idols, and he was the first to find and play one.

John Morrison (David vs. Goliath): Or John Hennigan, I'm not sure what his actual last name is.  Anyway, the professional wrestler was blindsided right after the merge in the last really good Survivor season before this one.

Elizabeth Beisel (Island of the Idols): Easily the most recognizable female athlete to have been cast on Survivor.  Everyone kew she was a two-time Olympic medalist, so she didn't even try to hide it.  Unfortunately, Elizabeth became embroiled in controversy after some poor judgment and didn't attend the reunion as a result.

Mikayla Wingle (South Pacific): If I'm being honest, I don't really remember this girl at all.  Which could explain why she wasn't chosen in the fan vote for Second Chance.  Her Survivor bio listed her occupation as "lingerie football player," though, so she makes the cut here.

Crystal Cox (Gabon): When she played, she was credited as "Olympic gold medalist."  That is no longer the case, as her gold medal from the 4x400 relay in Athens has since been stripped.  Which could explain why, despite being an "Olympic gold medalist," she kinda sucked at challenges.  But, hey, she did finish sixth.

Kailao Tribe

Scot Pollard (Kaoh Rong): Scot Pollard deserves to be brought back the next time they do an All-Stars season.  Five other players from this season have already played a second time (and some a third).  He got screwed over at tribal council, was voted out with an idol in his pocket, and voted for Michele to win over Aubry out of spite.

J.P. Calderon (Cook Islands): You've gotta go all the way back to Season 13 to find this former pro volleyball player.  That was an excellent season with so many Survivor legends that it's easy for him to get lost in the mix.  He was also voted out fourth, so that might be a reason why, too.

Steve Wright (Redemption Island): Jimmy Johnson's replacement on the cast.  He played nine years in the NFL and another in the USFL.  Steve's Survivor claim to fame was his season-long feud with Secret Agent Phil, one of the craziest people ever to play the game.

Laurel Johnson (Ghost Island): Full disclosure: I know Laurel.  She played volleyball at Yale while I worked with the team in my first job out of grad school.  Laurel holds a special place in Survivor history.  After the final vote for the $1 million ended in a 5-5 tie, she had to cast the deciding vote as the third-place finisher.

Bi Nguyen (David vs. Goliath): Our second professional fighter from David vs. Goliath, Bi is an MMA competitor.  Unfortunately, she sprained her MCL during an immunity challenge and voluntarily left the game as a result.  Ordinarily, there would be no place for a quitter to be welcomed back, but in that situation, it's understandable, so I won't hold it against her.

Kelly Bruno (Nicaragua): There have been a lot of women named Kelly on Survivor, including my goddess Kelley Wentworth.  Anyway, Kelly Bruno holds the distinction as one of only two amputees ever to be cast.  She holds a bunch of amputee world records in track & field and triathlons.

Siva Tau Tribe

Jeff Kent (Philippines): It took about 11 seconds for the five-time All-Star second baseman to be outed during Survivor: Philippines.  He hasn't gotten anything close to his due in the Baseball Hall of Fame vote or in Survivor annals.  Jeff was on a very solid season and made it to the merge before he was blindsided.

Cliff Robinson (Cagayan): Much like Scot, he was recognized as a former NBA player almost immediately (I'd imagine somebody who's 6'10 probably stands out just a little).  He had the longest career of any pro-athlete Survivors, playing 18 years in the NBA and winning the Sixth Man of the Year Award in 1993 with the Blazers.  On Survivor, he got voted out pretty early.

Tom Laidlaw (Island of the Idols): Yes, two players from last season, which was arguably the worst in Survivor history.  Tom made Survivor history of his own as the first Canadian and first former NHL player on the show.  He played 10 seasons for the Rangers and Kings in the 80s.  I added Tom at the expense of John Rocker, the former Braves closer who was on the second blood vs. water season, San Juan del Sur.

Stephenie LaGrossa (Palau/Guatemala/Heroes vs. Villains): This would make Steph a four-timer, so she'd either dominate the game and win or be an immediate target and voted out at the first opportunity.  Her Survivor resume is actually pretty cool.  She was the infamous "tribe of one" in Palau, then returned the next season and finished second before being voted out second the third time she played (in the all-time great Heroes vs. Villains season).  And, before you ask, she played college lacrosse, so she qualifies as an athlete.  She's also married to former Phillies pitcher Kyle Kendrick.

Katrina Radke (Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers): As an 18-year-old, she finished fifth in the 200 butterfly at the Seoul Olympics.  Unfortunately, her turn on Survivor wasn't nearly as successful.  She was the oldest person in the game, which made her an easy first vote-off.

Julia Landauer (Caramoan): Finally, we've got race car driver Julia.  She currently competes in NASCAR's European series.  Her Survivor season was the second fans vs. favorites season, and, after the tribe swap, Julia ended up on a tribe with four favorites, who used their numbers to take her out just before the merge.  I've also got a soft-spot for her as a fellow New Yorker.

The Tricky Russia Situation

Back in January, WADA finally made its ruling on the Russian doping saga, which has been raging since 2015.  Among the sanctions, Russia received a four-year ban from international competition.  That ban was to include both the Tokyo and Beijing Olympics, but was also subject to appeal, which both sides wanted.  The whole point was to have the appeal heard before this summer so that Russia's status for Tokyo would be clear.

Of course, that was all before the entire world came to a screeching halt two months ago.  The Tokyo Olympics have been delayed until 2021 and Russia's CAS appeal won't be heard until all this subsides.  Although, you'd figure that it'll be at the top of the list once the CAS begins hearing cases again.  Either way, the situation should be resolved in plenty of time for the Tokyo Games.

The Olympic delay might even be a bit of a blessing in this case, at least from a jurisprudence perspective.  If everything had been normal, the appeal likely would've either just finished or been happening right around now.  But a decision might not have come down until after the Games, or at the very least just before, creating a situation where Russian athletes were allowed to compete in Tokyo, only to have the ban upheld and extended to the Paris Games instead.

Either way, you've got Russian teams and athletes already qualified for Tokyo, and it would've been way to late to adjust the fields, especially in the team sports.  However, if the final decision comes down in the fall or early next year, they'll have plenty of time to replace Russia in team sports.  No ridiculous situation like we had in PyeongChang where the "Olympic Athletes from Russia" won the hockey gold.  (Speaking of that, "Olympic Athletes from Russia" won't be used regardless, since the IOC ruled that the approved Russian athletes will compete as neutrals, and neutral athletes can't be associated with a particular country.)

This case is very complex and has so many layers.  It took them a long time to determine what type of punishment Russia would receive for its poor doping record, and the appeal will likely be just as lengthy.  With something this important, I'd expect nothing less.  They let Russia off easy in 2018 and paid for it, so I get why they don't want to make that mistake again.  At the same time, WADA wants to make sure the sanctions are appropriate, so letting the CAS make the final decision is the right call.

And I wouldn't be surprised if there's some modification to Russia's punishment.  Because a lot has changed since they were first handed out, and this time none of it is their fault.

Specifically, I'm talking about the length of their suspension.  The whole point of a four-year ban was so that they'd miss a Summer Olympics, a Winter Olympics, a World Cup, and (in most sports) two World Championships.  Then, presumably, Russia would have gotten its act together and been welcomed back to international sport in 2024 or 2025 (depending on when the suspension actually started).

However, virtually all international sport has been wiped out indefinitely and no one knows when it'll start up again.  That has nothing to do with Russia's suspension, which obviously means that there are no international competitions in which they can participate.  Yes, every other country is in the same boat, but that doesn't change the fact that Russia's not able to compete in anything right now even if they wanted to.

More significantly, though, I think the Olympic delay is what will have them reconsidering the length of Russia's ban.  Doping bans are four years for a reason.  It guarantees you miss an Olympics.  Because of the postponement, though, the gap between the Tokyo and Paris Olympics will only be three years.  So, if the four-year ban is upheld, Russia would end up missing both Games as a result.

There are plenty of people, including many athletes, who wouldn't feel bad about that.  And maybe it would be appropriate after the joke of a "punishment" in 2018 that saw Russia still send a full team to PyeongChang.  But to have them banned for two Olympics instead of one simply because of a global pandemic that upended so many things everywhere just doesn't sit well with me.  And I bet I'm not the only one.

Besides, Russia's participation in the Paris Olympics is already going to be limited.  Let's, for a second, assume that their suspension lasts until the end of 2023.  That'll mean they've missed a good portion of the qualifying period in a number of individual sports.  And it'd be nearly impossible for them to qualify in a team sport, since spots in those qualifying tournaments are usually based on your finish at the most recent World Championships (in which they won't participate) or world ranking (which they either won't have or will be very low).

Consider the impact that will have.  Russia will still be able to send some individuals to Paris.  But it seems highly unlikely they'll have a team anywhere near the size we're used to seeing.  The wouldn't be able to send their usual compliment of gymnasts or synchronized swimmers or divers or boxers or wrestlers (which are some of their strongest sports).  Their volleyball teams would probably be out, too.  So, it's not like Russia will immediately go back to being a juggernaut, especially since every Russian athlete will be under intense scrutiny.

Individual Russians will still be able to compete regardless, as long as they're able to prove they have no doping history.  That's not going to change whether the country is suspended for both Tokyo and Paris or not.  Either way, they'll be athletes without a country, forced to compete under the Olympic flag wearing a generic uniform with a neutral name.  Ask Maria Lasitskene how that feels.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying I think Russia should get off easy.  When the WADA sanctions were first announced, I considered them appropriate.  And I still do.  Most of them shouldn't be changed.  No Russian flag?  Fine.  Russia can't host events or bid to host any?  That works (they're scheduled to host the 2023 Men's Hockey World Championships, which can easily be moved to Switzerland, which was supposed to host this year).  Russian government officials can't attend events or serve on international sporting boards?  Makes sense to me!

In fact, I'd only like to see one of Russia's sanctions changed after the appeal.  The length of their ban.  It shouldn't include both the Tokyo and Paris Olympics.  Either count this year or reduce it to three.  Either way, have it end in 2023 or early 2024 so that they can work their way towards full reinstatement by Paris.  (And the decision will have to be made and suspension started before the rescheduled Tokyo Games, which are now only six months before the 2022 Winter Olympics.)

Russia can't remain a pariah forever.  The WADA sanctions were designed to serve as both a punishment and a path towards reinstatement.  And the sooner that process begins, the sooner it's over.  Which I think we all want.

2020 NFL Schedule Notes

When the NFL announced that they were building "contingencies" into this year's schedule and were considering starting the season as late as October (while pushing the Super Bowl to Feb. 28), a lot of people were wondering what that meant the schedule might look like.  Well, as it turns out, those contingencies weren't really that crazy.  Every Week 2 matchup is between teams with a common bye and Weeks 3 & 4 include no division games or byes, as well as one home and one road game for everybody.  So, that's your three-week buffer.  And everyone still knows who their opener is against.

Week 1: Classy move by the Royals to move their game so the Chiefs could have the traditional Super Bowl champion Thursday night opener.  If Brady was still in New England, I'm sure they would've chosen the Patriots as their opponent.  Instead, it's the Texans.  The Rams, meanwhile, open SoFi Stadium against the Cowboys on Sunday night, which I think was put in ink as soon as they realized Dallas was playing in LA this season.  Brady's Bucs debut will be against another future Hall of Fame QB--Drew Brees--in the national late game.  And I was shocked to see Giants-Steelers leading off the Monday night doubleheader!

Week 2: Definitely didn't think the Saints would be the first team to visit Las Vegas.  I was certain it'd an AFC West team.  The Chargers do get one in their first game at SoFi Stadium, as the champion Chiefs visit.  Not sure it'll be the national game, though, since Ravens-Texans is also scheduled for a 4:25 start on CBS.  Brady's first game in Tampa is against the Panthers, and Joe Burrow makes his national TV debut, as the first Thursday night game is that always thrilling Bengals-Browns matchup.

Week 3: I can't remember a week with no division games, but it makes sense.  It would be a bummer if Week 3 is wiped off the schedule, though.  Because two of the best games on the entire schedule would be lost.  Packers-Saints on Sunday night and Chiefs-Ravens on Monday night.  And the 49ers get to pull a Bills by playing their second straight game at MetLife Stadium, this time against the New York Football Giants.  Thursday Night Football, meanwhile, is getting all of the terrible matchups out of the way early with Dolphins-Jaguars.

Week 4: New England-Kansas City isn't a primetime game.  It's a national doubleheader late game.  (Although, you'd figure if Brady was still a Patriot, it would be.)  Anyway, that's clearly the best matchup of Week 4.  Eagles-49ers and Falcons-Packers are "Ehh!" primetime games, and Thursday night still isn't on FOX yet, so it's Broncos-Jets.  Although, the Dolphins host the Seahawks, so I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being Tua's first start.

Week 5: Nothing special in Week 5, either.  With the Cowboys opening the Rams' new stadium, their annual Week 1 home game against the Giants was moved to Week 5.  How can you tell Thursday Night Football shifts to FOX in Week 5?  The game is Brady and the Bucs visiting the Bears.  That's how.  Seahawks-Vikings on Sunday night could be fun, too.

Week 6: Ladies and gentlemen, the Buffalo Bills will be hosting multiple primetime games this season, starting with a Thursday-night matchup against the defending champs!  Joe and Troy have a pair of good ones that week, as Brady vs Rodgers is an exclusive national telecast as the late game on Sunday.  Rams-49ers is a good one on Sunday night, and that Ravens-Eagles game should be entertaining, too.

Week 7: Where do I start with Week 7?  There's lots of division games, but the best ones are the ones that aren't.  You knew the Raiders would get a Sunday night game to show off the stadium.  The fact that it's against Tom Brady on the Sunday FOX is theoretically scheduled to be showing the World Series seems about right.  The NFL likes to have a Sunday night game the know people will watch in that spot.  That 49ers-Patriots game is a lot less interesting without Brady, but Bears-Rams in Hollywood on Monday night should more than make up for it.

Week 8: In Week 8, though, the division games are the best ones.  Vikings-Packers, Patriots-Bills, 49ers-Seahawks and Cowboys-Eagles.  This is Buffalo's chance to prove that they're the team to beat in the AFC East now.  And, for some reason, the Giants get a second home Monday night game, when Brady and Gronk come to visit.  The Bucs are obviously this year's Browns when it comes to primetime games, which I think we were all expecting.

Week 9: Another week, another primetime game for Tampa Bay.  This time the Bucs are the home team for their rematch with the Saints.  Green Bay travels to San Francisco in a very good Thursday night matchup, and Pittsburgh-Dallas in the national late game.  I'm also intrigued by the Seahawks-Bills game, which is scheduled for a 1:00 start.

Week 10: CBS doesn't have an early game and only has three games on its schedule period because of the rescheduled Masters.  There are still AFC vs. AFC games, including a Baltimore-New England matchup on Sunday night and Colts-Titans on Thursday night, just none at 1:00 on Sunday.  FOX's two late games are both watchable--Seahawks at Rams and a rematch of last season's Game of the Year, that 49ers-Saints shootout in New Orleans.

Week 11: Can someone explain to me why the Giants and Jets have the same bye week?  And while you're at it, can you explain to me why the Dolphins and Jets play consecutive games against each other with the bye in the middle?  It's just dumb!  Also, guess what team has another Monday night game?  This time it's against the Rams.  The Titans-Ravens playoff rematch is an early game, and so is Rodgers vs. Rivers.  Cowboys-Vikings is the national exclusive late game before Dallas plays on Thanksgiving.

Week 12: After two straight years of Atlanta-New Orleans, they switch to another big rivalry on Thanksgiving night: Baltimore-Pittsburgh.  I was worried they'd have the Lions and Cowboys both play division games, so it was nice to see Houston scheduled against Detroit instead.  The Thanksgiving week primetime games are always pretty good, and this year is no exception.  Bears-Packers on Sunday night, Seahawks-Eagles on Monday night.  And the Chiefs-Bucs game is the national late game.

Week 13: Carolina and Tampa Bay have post-Thanksgiving byes, which I hate!  Too late in the season.  (And probably because there are no byes in Week 4.)  The NFL keeps its tradition of having Dallas play one of the other Thanksgiving teams the following Thursday alive.  This year it's a yummy matchup against the Ravens.  Bengals-Dolphins would normally be a game nobody cares about, but you can bet by this point in the season, it'll be Burrow vs. Tua (which SEC fans are used to seeing).  The Bills get another Monday night game, but this time they have to fly cross country to face the 49ers.

Week 14: Andy Dalton faces his former team when Dallas visits Cincinnati.  The Patriots also play the Rams for the first time since giving them a whooping in Super Bowl LIII.  Last year, Bills-Steelers got flexed into Sunday night in Week 14.  This year, that's the scheduled game, Buffalo's second home primetime game of the season!  The Browns also have a home primetime game against the Ravens, as Baltimore gets a nice little run of Thanksgiving night, Thursday night, Monday night.

Week 15: This is one of those "games will be played on either Saturday or Sunday" weeks.  (My guess is because they needed to make up for the lost Sunday morning London games on the NFL Network slate.)  Among the games where we do know the day, Odell Beckham Jr. returns to MetLife Stadium to face his former team for the first time, the Dallas-San Francisco rivalry is featured on Sunday Night Football, and we've got the matchup I thought would be last season's Super Bowl, Kansas City-New Orleans, as a nice little early Christmas present!

Week 16: Christmas Eve is a Thursday and there usually isn't a Thursday night game in Week 16 anyway.  So it came as quite a surprise to see that Thursday night game moved to 4:30 on Christmas Day.  And it's a good one, with Minnesota visiting New Orleans.  Same thing with the three games getting moved to Saturday, and Browns-Jets is one of them (making Cleveland the second team to do the New York back-to-back this season).  The Monday night slate concludes with Bills-Patriots, and wouldn't it be something if Buffalo clinched the division with a win in Foxboro?

Week 17: Early favorite for 256th and final game of the season?  Falcons-Bucs.  Although, the NFC South will probably go down to the wire, so those games might be simultaneous.  The extra wild card is going to add an extra layer of intrigue into Week 17, too.  No sitting starters when only one team gets a bye (or potentially more if the 1-seed is already locked in).  And the potential for virtually every game to matter.  (Although, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Raiders-Broncos won't.)