2020 Baseball Rules

As we get ready for the long-awaited 2020 MLB season and teams prepare for the start of Spring Training 2.0 (which MLB has given the awesome name of "Summer Camp"), we also must prepare ourselves for one of the strangest seasons we'll ever see.  The six-month marathon has been turned into a 10-week sprint, and teams that don't even play each other will be fighting for the same wild card berths!  And it'll all play out without fans in the stands!

But that's nothing compared to the 2020-specific rules that will definitely require some getting used to.  Some of these changes, obviously, were implemented as part of MLB's safety protocol.  For others, though, this might be the test run on their way to becoming permanent.  Depending on the rule, that could either be a good thing or a bad thing.

Universal DH: Sorry National League purists, but this one's been on its way for a while.  (And, frankly, with very few exceptions, no one wants to watch pitchers hit!)  It had been mentioned in any return-to-play scenario, so it seemed like a certainty regardless of how long the season ended up being.  The real question is whether this is a one-year thing or if the 2019 season marked the last time pitchers regularly hit for themselves (which would make Anibal Sanchez the answer to the trivia question).

If I had to guess, I'd say it only lasts for this year, but with an asterisk.  National League owners have always thought that they have the advantage in interleague games and will want to go back to "NL ball" in 2021 (as will a good number of NL fans).  However, that might be its swan song.  With the CBA set to expire after next season, I can see the universal DH being implemented permanently when the new one takes effect.  

Which, frankly, is long overdue.  NL purists, you're just gonna have to suck it up.  And, after this season, when come to realize the DH is NOT the root of all evil, you'll probably sit there wondering what took so long.

Extra Innings: I sure hope this one is limited to 2020.  I'm not opposed to the international/college tiebreaker rule in general.  I just never thought I'd see it in an MLB game!  Because that's the absolute LAST place where it belongs!

The thought process behind it wasn't terrible.  They did it to make sure there aren't any of those crazy long games that we all love.  Again, it's all in the name of health and safety.  If the season wasn't starting three months late and in the middle of a pandemic, this never would've even crossed anybody's minds.  But, even though it's being done with player health and safety in mind, I still wish it hadn't.

My biggest problem is that they'll be putting a runner on second base as soon as the game goes into extra innings.  I'd be a little more OK if they started it, say, in the 12th.  Let them play the 10th and 11th like normal, then go to the tiebreaker rule after that.  Then it would serve its purpose of making the games shorter while not having as much of an impact.  Because how many extra-inning games are decided in the 10th anyway?  Give them an inning or two to determine a winner instead of immediately going to the tiebreaker.

Three-Batter Minimum: This is the only one of this year's new rules introduced in Spring Training that actually made it to the start of the season.  I loved it then, and I love it now.  The parade of relievers had become interminable!  Something had to be done about it!  This rule change certainly has its critics.  And there's definitely some doubt about how much it'll actually help make games shorter.  But teams were already preparing for it to take effect this season, so it made sense to keep the new rule in place.

Position Players Pitching: Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't also keep the new rule limiting position players pitching.  Especially because it's another health and safety thing.  Pitchers won't be hitting because of the increased injury risk in the short season.  But position players are just as susceptible to injury when they're asked to pitch.  Maybe the thought process was that there will be fewer long extra-inning games with the tiebreaker rule, so teams will be less likely to run out of pitchers.  That doesn't change the fact that the new rule is a good one, though.

Expanded Rosters: Everyone agreed that this was going to be a necessity, so no problem at all.  I like it how they'll gradually reduce the roster from 30 to 28 to 26 as the season goes on, too.  Although, they won't have the 13-pitcher maximum that was supposed to be put in place this season, which I think is a mistake.  At the beginning, I can see teams carrying 16 or even 17 pitchers on the 30-man rosters.  Which is exactly what the problem with the 40-man September rosters was!

A three-man taxi squad on road trips makes a lot of sense, too.  I'd imagine most teams will carry a third catcher, an extra reliever and a utility guy on their taxi squad.  With no Minor League seasons, teams won't have guys available to just call up from Triple A whenever they need a player.  And the last thing you want is a replacement having to fly commercial and meet the team on the road.  So, allowing teams to three extra guys so they already have a replacement with them in case it's needed was very smart.

Regional Schedules: There was really no other option than making the schedules regionally-based.  There's only 60 games, so you can't play everybody.  And having teams flying all over the country doesn't sound like the smartest idea, either.  With that being said, though, the schedule could end up having a big impact on who makes the postseason.  Because, like in the NFL, strength of schedule suddenly becomes a consideration.

With the Easts playing each other, that means the Yankees and Rays will get 13 games against the Orioles and Marlins.  But that'll be balanced out by the remaining interleague games being against the loaded NL East.  And the NL East teams will play a majority of their games against each other, the Yankees, and the Rays.

You won't be able to say the division winners didn't earn it, though.  That's what happens when they play each other and nobody else.  Except everyone's competing for the same wild cards, which will give some teams an inherent advantage over others if they play in a weaker division.  Likewise, strength of schedule might come into play for home field advantage in each league (which might take only 35-36 wins).

Postseason: Of course, if the players had just agreed to one of the owners' proposals, they would've gotten expanded playoffs for this season and next season (and likely beyond that), so there would've been five wild cards at stake instead of just two.  Now, I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of expanded playoffs, so, in a sense, I'm relieved it's not happening.  That seems like a lost opportunity for the players, though.  And in a crazy season like this, it might've been beneficial.  Because the best team may not be among the top five after 60 games, but they'll almost certainly be among the top eight.

The 2020 Swim Team

If this year had gone the way it was supposed to, the U.S. Olympic Swimming Trials would be wrapping up in Omaha and we'd know who's headed to Tokyo.  And, just like in track, many consider the Olympic Swimming Trials to be tougher than the Olympics themselves.  After all, when you're at the Olympics, the pressure's still there, but it's a different kind of pressure.  You've already done the hard part.  You've made the team.

I'd even venture to say it's harder to make the U.S. swim team than the U.S. track team.  One reason for that is because countries are limited to just two competitors per event, which means you have to finish top two at Trials to make the team.  And so many events are ridiculously deep that the third- or fourth-place finisher might be a former World Champion or Olympic medalist.

Another thing that makes the swim team so difficult to make is the fact that the stars usually do several events.  That's a great thing for the sport.  They want those big stars to win as many medals and get as much exposure as they can.  But it also means that for those unfortunate enough to be competing against them, one spot on the team is already accounted for, which just amps up the pressure for that remaining spot even more.  Just ask anybody who did the same events as Michael Phelps what that's like.

Next year's squad will be the first U.S. Olympic swim team in 25 years that Phelps won't be on.  But just because the greatest champion in Olympic history is now retired for good doesn't mean that USA Swimming will be lacking stars.  Not by a long shot.

Caeleb Dressel has long been considered Phelps' heir apparent.  He won a Phelpsian seven gold medals at the 2017 World Championships, then won six gold and eight total at last year's Worlds.  Dressel likely won't do eight events in Tokyo, so he won't be able to catch Phelps.  He only does the sprints, so, unless he swims the 200 free at Trials to qualify for the 4x200 free relay, Dressel will be limited six events at the Olympics.

One of those opportunities will almost certainly come in the mixed medley relay, one of three new events FINA added for the Tokyo Games.  The others are the men's 800 free and women's 1500 free, which gives another medal opportunity to the female star of the swimming universe.  Katie Ledecky is already a five-time Olympic gold medalist.  With the 1500--perhaps her best event--now on the program, she could easily win that many in Tokyo alone.  It's very conceivable that Ledecky could sweep every freestyle event from 200-1500, with another gold in the 4x200 free relay mixed in.

While they're USA Swimming's biggest stars at the moment, Dressel and Ledecky are by no means the only stars.  Not by a long shot.  That's why the U.S. is expected to bring home its usual massive haul of swimming medals from Tokyo.  It's also why NBC was successfully able to lobby the IOC (over the organizers' objections) for morning finals, which will be live the night before here.

A lot can change between now and the Olympics, though.  Especially when you consider the fact that everyone's gonna have an extra year under their belts.  In swimming, a year is a long time.  We've seen swimmers go from unknown to world record-holder in that short a span.  So, it really is anybody's guess who'll end up snagging those two spots per event when the Trials actually do take place next year.

Likewise, there's gonna be a whole new crop of pros by the time Trials come around.  The NCAA Championships were scheduled for the same week as the first round of the men's & women's basketball tournaments, so they weren't held.  Since the season was otherwise complete, though, those swimmers didn't retain their year of eligibility.

We'll see how much of a difference that ends up making.  Usually in Olympic years, top collegians just keep training through the NCAA Championships in preparation for Trials.  Those who weren't seniors will still be able to do that next year.  But those who weren't had their whole plan upended.  I'm sure they'll still compete at Trials.  It'll be under completely different circumstances, though.

OK, enough of me trying to sound like I actually know anything about swimming.  Same deal here as with my track & field predictions.  This is who I think would've made the team had Trials taken place this week as originally scheduled.  The actual team that goes to Tokyo next year will likely look very, very different.

Also, I'm only selecting pools for the two freestyle relays.  The medley relays are chosen from athletes already on the team, and they'll likely pick the four swimmers in the mixed medley relay the same way (if I had to guess, I'd say Simone Manuel, Lilly King, Caeleb Dressel and Ryan Murphy).  And the open water team was selected at last year's World Championships, so that's not included either.  With all that in mind, here we go...

Men's 50 Free: Caeleb Dressel, Zach Apple
Men's 100 Free: Caeleb Dressel, Ryan Held
Men's 200 Free: Townley Haas, Andrew Seliskar
Men's 400 Free: Zane Grothe, Jake Mitchell
Men's 800 Free: Jordan Wilimovsky, Zane Grothe
Men's 1500 Free: Robert Finke, Jordan Wilimovsky
Men's 4x100 Free: Maxime Rooney, Zach Apple, Michael Andrew, Kieran Smith
Men's 4x200 Free: Dean Farris, Blake Pieroni, Luca Urlando, Eric Knowles
Men's 100 Back: Ryan Murphy, Matt Grevers
Men's 200 Back: Ryan Murphy, Austin Katz
Men's 100 Breast: Andrew Wilson, Cody Miller
Men's 200 Breast: Andrew Wilson, Josh Prenot
Men's 100 Fly: Caeleb Dressel, Jack Conger
Men's 200 Fly: Luca Urlando, Zach Harting
Men's 200 IM: Chase Kalisz, Michael Andrew
Men's 400 IM: Jay Litherland, Chase Kalisz

Women's 50 Free: Simone Manuel, Abbey Weitzeil
Women's 100 Free: Simone Manuel, Mallory Comerford
Women's 200 Free: Katie Ledecky, Allison Schmitt
Women's 400 Free: Katie Ledecky, Leah Smith
Women's 800 Free: Katie Ledecky, Leah Smith
Women's 1500 Free: Katie Ledecky, Ashley Twitchell
Women's 4x100 Free: Abbey Weitzeil, Erika Brown, Gretchen Walsh, Margo Geer
Women's 4x200 Free: Katie McLaughlin, Leah Smith, Gabrielle Deloof, Mallory Comerford
Women's 100 Back: Regan Smith, Olivia Smoliga
Women's 200 Back: Regan Smith, Kathleen Baker
Women's 100 Breast: Lilly King, Annie Lazor
Women's 200 Breast: Lilly King, Annie Lazor
Women's 100 Fly: Kelsi Dahlia, Katie McLaughlin
Women's 200 Fly: Hali Flickinger, Katie Drabot
Women's 200 IM: Kathleen Baker, Melanie Margalis
Women's 400 IM: Melanie Margalis, Madisyn Cox

The 2020 Track Team

At the risk of stating the obvious, this year has been anything but normal.  There was supposed to be an Olympics next month, and this week was supposed to be that wonderful week when the two hardest Olympic teams in the world to make--the U.S. track & field and swimming teams--were decided.  But, alas, none of that happened!  Hopefully this will all be behind us by this time next year and we can choose those teams 12 months later.

It's hard to predict what would've happened at Trials.  That's part of what makes them so much fun.  There are so many athletes who've achieved the Olympic qualifying standard that our way of doing it is the only way that will work.  You either make the team on that day or you don't.  It's that simple.

The Olympic Trials are also the only time all of the top athletes actually show up at U.S. Nationals and compete in their normal event.  World Champions get a bye into the next World Championships, and USA Track & Field only requires them to show up at Nationals in order to receive their bye.  But there are no byes onto the Olympic team.  If you want to make it, you have to compete in your primary event and finish in the top three (provided you have the standard).  No exceptions!

There's almost always a surprise or two at Trials, as well.  It's usually the college athlete who has a ridiculous NCAA Championships and carries that over into Olympic Trials, giving them the spot that everyone thought was earmarked for someone else.  And there's always that random injury that pops up at the most inopportune time, knocking out somebody who we all thought could medal in Tokyo.

Despite all that, I'm gonna give it a shot and name my 2020 U.S. Olympic track & field team.  (I'll do swimming over the weekend.)  It's tough because no one has been able to compete in months, so these predictions are based mainly on their performances from last year (as well as some who I simply like the best and want to make the team).

Christian Coleman's status, fortunately, is something that will likely be resolved one way or the other by the time we actually have the Trials next year.  I think it's likely that he'll end up facing a suspension.  If it's only for one year, he'll be able to run at Trials.  If they give him two, he won't.  And, when you consider he's the Olympic favorite in the 100 meters and would likely also make the team in 200, whether or not he's there will make a huge difference.

In Coleman's case, the Olympic postponement ended up being a good thing.  Because he would've been out of Trials had they been this week.  A provisional suspension is still a suspension, so Coleman wouldn't have been eligible.  And, as a result, he wouldn't be going to Tokyo.

With that in mind, I'm excluding Coleman from my predictions.  The rest of the teams are based on who I think will be top three finishers among those who already have the Olympic standard (World Athletics has a handy "Road to Tokyo" tracker here). 

I'm not gonna get into all the logistics of it now, but a top three finish doesn't necessarily guarantee a place on the team if the athlete doesn't have the standard.  A fourth-place finisher can get in if they have the standard and one of the top three doesn't, and they've added a wrinkle with the new world rankings, too, so that's another way to make the team.

Fortunately, in most events, there are more than three Americans with the standard, so that part's not an issue.  In those events, it's straight forward.  Top three go.  It really does make things so much easier.  So, these predictions will reflect that.  For the most part, these are the people who I think would've finished top three in there event at Olympic Trials, thus earning a trip to Tokyo.

Before moving on to the selections, a few notes: The Marathon Trials were held before the Olympic postponement was announced, so that team has already been chosen; They also have separate Olympic Trials in the race walks, so I'm not including them here; The mixed 4x400 relay will make its Olympic debut in Tokyo, with participants being chosen from those already in the men's and women's 4x400 pools.

Finally, and most importantly, they actually set up the Olympic schedule to encourage doubles.  All of the doubles.  Not just 100/200.  They can do 800/1500, 1500/5000 or even 5000/10,000 if they want to.  I have no doubt some will attempt to do just that, too.  So, with that, it's on to the picks...

Men's 100: Justin Gatlin, Cravon Gillespie, Noah Lyles
Men's 200: Noah Lyles, Kenny Bednarek, Rodney Rowe
Men's 400: Fred Kerley, Michael Norman, Will London
Men's 800: Donavan Brazier, Clayton Murphy, Bryce Hoppel
Men's 1500: Craig Engels, Matthew Centrowitz, Ben Blankenship
Men's 5000: Lopez Lomong, William Kincaid, Ben True
Men's 10,000: Shadrack Kipchirchir, Leonard Korir, Paul Chelimo
Men's 110 Hurdles: Grant Holloway, Daniel Roberts, Devon Allen
Men's 400 Hurdles: Rai Benjamin, T.J. Holmes, Norman Grimes
Men's Steeple: Evan Jager, Hillary Bor, Andy Bayer
Men's 4x100: Michael Rodgers, Isiah Young, Christopher Belcher
Men's 4x400: Michael Cherry, Nathan Strother, Vernon Norwood
Men's Long Jump: Jeff Henderson, Will Claye, Steffin McCarter
Men's Triple Jump: Christian Taylor, Will Claye, Omar Craddock
Men's High Jump: Jeron Robinson, Shelby McEwen, Darryl Sullivan
Men's Pole Vault: Sam Kendricks, Chris Nilsen, Cole Walsh
Men's Shot Put: Joe Kovacs, Ryan Crouser, Darrell Hill
Men's Discus: Mason Finley, Sam Mattis, Reggie Jagers
Men's Hammer Throw: Connor McCullough, Rudy Winkler, Sean Donnelly
Men's Javelin: Riley Dolezal, Michael Shuey, Curtis Thompson
Decathlon: Zach Ziemek, Harrison Williams, Solomon Simmons

Women's 100: Sha'Carri Richardson, Tori Bowie, Kiara Parker
Women's 200: Dezerea Bryant, Brittany Brown, Teahna Daniels
Women's 400: Shakima Wimbley, Kendall Ellis, Phyllis Francis
Women's 800: Ajee Wilson, Raevyn Rogers, Hanna Green
Women's 1500: Shelby Houlihan, Jenny Simpson, Shannon Osika
Women's 5000: Shelby Houlihan, Karissa Schweizer, Elinor Purrier
Women's 10,000: Molly Huddle, Emily Sisson, Emily Infeld
Women's 100 Hurdles: Brianna McNeal, Keni Harrison, Nia Ali
Women's 400 Hurdles: Dailiah Muhammad, Sydney McLaughlin, Ashley Spencer
Women's Steeple: Emma Coburn, Courtney Frerichs, Colleen Quigley
Women's 4x100: Twinasha Terry, Angie Annelus, Morolake Akinosun
Women's 4x400: Wadeline Jonathas, Courtney Okolo, Allyson Felix
Women's Long Jump: Brittney Reese, Sha'keela Saunders, Quanesha Burks
Women's Triple Jump: Tori Franklin, Keturah Orji, Chaquinn Cook
Women's High Jump: Vashti Cunnigham, Inika McPherson, Ty Butts-Townsend
Women's Pole Vault: Sandi Morris, Katie Nageotte, Olivia Gruver
Women's Shot Put: Michelle Carter, Jeneva Stevens, Chase Ealey
Women's Discus: Valarie Allman, Gia Lewis-Smallwood, Whitney Ashley
Women's Hammer Throw: DeAnna Price, Gwen Berry, Maggie Ewen
Women's Javelin: Kara Winger, Ariana Ince, Jenna Gray
Heptathlon: Erica Bougard, Kendell Williams, Annie Kunz

Women's World Cup Headed Down Under

I bet you were probably expecting a post about the baseball season that finally appears as if it's going to happen.  Maybe something about the Olympics in honor of Olympic Day yesterday and what was supposed to be the start of the U.S. Olympic Trials coming up this weekend.  Maybe even my reaction to the Hockey Hall of Fame announcement.  Well, wrong, wrong, and wrong again!

Instead I'm going to talk about a pretty major event that takes place in 2023, yet still doesn't have a host yet!  That'll all change tomorrow, as Australia/New Zealand is set to be awarded the next Women's World Cup.

Frankly, the fact that the next Women's World Cup is three years away and the host is only just now being named is a prime example of what the women's players are talking about in their push for equality.  FIFA awarded both the 2018 and 2022 Men's World Cups at the same time, and they announced that the 2026 edition would be in North America before the 2018 World Cup even started.  Yet, when the Women's World Cup ended last year, they still had no idea where the next one was going to be.  What a joke!

Then they delayed the vote even longer by expanding the tournament from 24 to 32 teams, which changed the entire bidding process.  I'm not saying Women's World Cup expansion was the wrong thing to do, but it seemed quick and impulsive.  Not to mention the bind they were putting potential bidders in by adding eight teams, which means more games and more cities/stadiums that need to be involved.

Fortunately, that didn't deter the two most likely bidders, who both have strong women's teams and would be more than capable hosts--Japan and Australia.  While it seemed obvious that Australia was going to be the leading candidate even before last year's Women's World Cup, when I was saying over and over again: "Why don't they just give it to Australia already?"  Japan, however, has not only won a Women's World Cup, they've been a popular host for worldwide events in recent years, including last year's Rugby World Cup and next year's Olympics.  The Women's World Cup would've completed the trifecta.

Brazil also submitted a bid, which could've made for a very interesting three-country race.  Brazil would've, assumingly, used many of the same stadiums from 2014.  And, when you consider Brazil is arguably the best women's national team to have never won the World Cup, that would've added another layer.  (Also, imagine a Brazil-USA final at a sold out Maracana!  It would be amazing!)

But Brazil has been hit hard by the pandemic, resulting in their bid being withdrawn.  Japan's was too, also for economic reasons, which is beyond understandable when you consider how much postponing the Olympics is costing them.  So, that leaves it as a two-horse race between Australia/New Zealand and Colombia.  It's not even close when you compare the two bids.  And I don't expect the vote to be close either.

Australia has plenty of large stadiums in major cities.  Then you throw New Zealand's big stadiums in big cities on top of that?!  Plus, they've got plenty of big-event experience having co-hosted the first Rugby World Cup in 1987 and each hosting it individually, as well.  Australia has obviously hosted a ton of Olympics/Commonwealth Games, too, and Brisbane is the odds-on favorite for 2032.

Colombia has none of that.  Their national stadium in Bogota, which would host both the opening game and final, doesn't even meet FIFA's minimum size requirements.  And that's their largest stadium!  (By contrast, Australia will hold the final at Sydney's Olympic Stadium, which seats 85,000.)

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Australia uses this as a test-run for a Men's World Cup bid.  After all, everything I've said about why they're an attractive bid for the Women's World Cup is also true on the men's side.  The next time Asia's eligible to bid for the Men's World Cup is for the 2034 tournament, and expect a strong Aussie bid for either that one or 2038 (likely 2038 since they're putting on the full court press for Brisbane 2032).

Even though Australia's Soccer Federation might have sights on something bigger, they'll present a high-quality Women's World Cup.  Just like the U.S. in 2026, Australia could do it without New Zealand's involvement.  But the fact that their neighbor is involved makes the bid that much stronger.  And, let's not forget the historical aspect of it, too.  It'll be the first co-hosted Women's World Cup.  Beyond that, though, since Australia is part of the Asian federation in soccer and New Zealand is still in the Oceania federation, this'll be the first World Cup (men or women) hosted by two different confederations.

As for the logistics, I'm curious to see when they actually choose to schedule it.  FIFA's preferred July-August timeframe is right smack in the middle of winter down there.  But if they do it in May-June, it'd be mid-fall.  That's probably preferable to pushing it later in the year.  Perhaps you start it the weekend after the Champions League Final (which should be back on its normal schedule by then).

Anyway, the opening game will be in Auckland, one of the five cities in New Zealand that will host.  The other seven host cities will be in Australia, with two stadiums in Sydney.  Oddly, the capital city of Canberra and Gold Coast, which just built a brand new stadium to host the 2018 Commonwealth Games, weren't chosen.  Launceston in Tasmania was, which isn't that big of a deal since it's not too bad of a flight.  Perth, however, is the only city in Western Australia.  It's on the complete opposite side of the country!  It's the fourth-largest city in Australia, so I get it, but it's definitely going to be the Manaus of the 2023 Women's World Cup.

Each country will host four groups, so teams won't have to go back-and-forth, which is good.  (The setup is similar the the 2002 Men's World Cup that was co-hosted by Japan and South Korea.)  Five knockout games in New Zealand, with the rest in Australia.

And, with the success of the Matildas in recent years, it's not hard to envision them making a deep run in the first World Cup Down Under.  They likely won't enter the tournament with the co-favorite status that France had last summer.  But matching, or even bettering, France and Canada's quarterfinal showings as hosts of the last two Women's World Cups isn't a stretch by any means.  (I'm not counting New Zealand out either, even though Australia has the stronger squad.)

If (or, should I say, when) it goes well, expect there to be another.  As for the 2027 Women's World Cup, FIFA better get their acts together.  Because they owe it to every women's national team to know where the next World Cup is before the 2023 edition ends.  And, depending on how quickly Brazil can recover from the pandemic, they're looking pretty good to host that one.

Reliving Sports In a Different Time

Like most of you, in order to get my sports fix over the past three months, I've had to rely on the classic games that virtually every sports network has been airing on repeat in lieu of live programming.  I've gotta admit, some of them have been fun to watch, especially the events I'd never seen before!  (The fact that I already know who wins takes a little bit away from it, but not enough to prevent me from enjoying it.  After all, these classics were chosen for a reason!)

Anyway, the one thing that's most noticeable on those old games is how vastly different things were back then.  The production value, obviously, has improved significantly over time.  But it's more than the production value (which was still pretty good for those broadcasts to have been preserved as well as they are).  You can tell within five minutes exactly what era the game is from.  And, in my opinion, the older the better.

The most noticeable difference between watching a game from today and a game from any decade before the 2010s isn't the black bars on the side of the screen.  It's the graphics.  Or, I should say, lack thereof.

It's graphics overload on the broadcasts of sporting events today.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing.  But we've definitely taken for granted that the scoreboard will be up there permanently, along with any other pertinent details to that particular sport (clock, timeouts remaining, down & distance, shot clock, inning, base runners, outs, count, etc.).  The scoreboard is even color-coated to each team!

That stuff is so taken for granted that it feels like the broadcast is missing something without it.  ESPN provides graphics templates to every college who produces their own ESPN3 broadcasts, but even if you don't have all those bells and whistles, people expect to see a scoreboard at the very least.  And I'm just talking about college webcasts!  If you don't have all that and then some during a professionally-produced TV broadcast, don't even bother.

But, as you can see on these classic broadcasts, that wasn't always the case.  Not by a long shot.  In fact, the older the game is, the fewer and more infrequent the graphics.  And, you know what?  The games don't really lose that much!  In fact, it almost enhances them.  Which I guess proves that old adage: "Less is more."  Let the broadcaster do his job and describe the action.

Broadcasts these days are so packed with information that it's almost overwhelming.  I'm not just talking about the graphics, either.  You have all of the different camera angles, all of the different features, all of the sponsored elements.  And don't forget the mic'd up players and in-game interviews.  Again, I'm not saying any of these are bad things.  It's nice a nice change of pace to watch these simple productions with basic graphics.

Although, I have to admit, as much as I've been praising these older games, not having the scoreboard up there the whole time takes some getting used to at first.  On those World Series games from the 80s that have been so enjoyable, they flashed up the count after every pitch, but the score only when somebody scored or at the half-inning.  At least baseball doesn't have a clock to worry about!  The Lakers-Pistons NBA Finals games from the 80s had the score and quarter, but not the time or shot clock, so you really had no idea what time in the game it was.

Another thing that struck me is how effective those simple graphics were.  They were all basically the same.  White text and yellow numbers (both with a black outline) or vice versa.  As technology improved, the graphics obviously became more sophisticated and more colors were added.  But you can't tell me that those basic graphics from the 80s didn't get the point across just fine.  (The white graphics on the black-and-white broadcasts are a little hard to read, but they were limited in what they could do, so I'll give them a bit of a break.)

There's another way to tell these classic games are from a bygone era, too.  The time of day!  So many of these major events took place in the afternoon, which is simply unfathomable today.  Yet back then, a World Series game played in the sunshine was normal.  There also weren't 35 pitching changes and sponsor reads they had to get in, so the games were quicker.  They could actually complete the whole thing in under three hours.

Last week, MLB Network showed Games 6 & 7 of the 1971 World Series.  Game 7 was at 2:00 on a Sunday, followed by the NFL.  The 1:00 football games were preempted (I was also confused because the Jets and Giants were both playing on the same network at the same time, then I realized this was when the home team's games were still blacked out in their local markets).  All so that everything was over well before the network's shows started.

Nowadays, that would never happen.  Prime time shows get preempted by sports, not the other way around.  Beyond that, they meticulously make the broadcast schedules specifically so that events don't conflict.  (One of the reasons Rob Manfred is so determined to have the MLB season end on Sept. 27 is because the postseason TV schedule has been set with FOX and TBS for months.)

In this era where fans pay thousands of dollars to be as close to the action as possible, I was also struck by the stadiums.  Those multi-use cookie cutters all had Astroturf and all looked the same from the outside.  They all had character, though.  More than that, though, just looking at the overhead shots and seeing how much room there was in foul territory or how high the walls were or, because they were also football stadiums, how many fans they could cram in there really was impressive.

Again, I'm not comparing those classic broadcasts with the ones from today.  I'm not going to say which are "better."  They're from a different era, so they're different.  And it's been a refreshing change of pace.  (Which doesn't mean I can't wait for live sports to reenter my life soon!)

Gotcha! Drug Testing

Christian Coleman, the World Champion and Olympic favorite in the 100 meters, is facing a suspension from track & field.  Why?  Because of a "whereabouts failure."  Although, the way Coleman explained the situation sure makes it sound like this is anything but an open and shut case.

Coleman was almost suspended last year for the exact same reason.  His appeal was successful because of a paperwork error.  Frankly, that case never should've been brought forward.  They violated their own rules and made Coleman out to be a cheat when he wasn't.  That clearly angered the anti-doping authorities.  Because the details of this current case are shady at best.  And it sure looks like Coleman was put into a no-win "Gotcha!" situation.  Which is anything BUT the point of random drug testing.

If you want to be an world-class athlete, registering for the anti-doping program comes with the territory.  Athletes are required to be available for testing 365 days a year and must give the drug testers a one-hour window when and where they'll be everyday.  It's the athlete's responsibility to make sure that is accurate.  If they have a change of travel plans, they'd better remember to update their whereabouts just in case.  If not, they're subject to either a "filing failure" or a "whereabouts failure."  

A "filing failure" is just that.  Providing the testers with the wrong information.  A "whereabouts failure," meanwhile, is when they aren't where they said they'll be during their designated time.  The distinction between the two isn't particularly relevant, however, since any combination of three failures within 12 months, whether they're filing or whereabouts, automatically triggers a suspension.

The big difference, though, is that filing failures go back to the start of the relevant quarter.  That was the issue with Coleman last year.  He had a filing failure in June that was his third within a year, but that should've been backdated to April, meaning it wasn't his third strike since he only had two filing/whereabouts failures in the previous 12 months.  The USADA knew this, but still announced that he was provisionally suspended (which they should not have done), making Coleman look like he was trying to hide something.

Fast forward to December.  That's the heart of the current issue.  The AIU, which handles drug testing for World Athletics, charged him with a whereabouts failure.  Since he already had the January and April filing failures on his record, that counted as his third strike.  Except Coleman's version of the story and AIU's version don't match up.  And that's the root of the problem.

According to Coleman, he wasn't at home during the start of his window (which I think was 7:30-8:30 pm).  He was Christmas shopping at a mall five minutes away.  He then got dinner and was home in time for Monday Night Football.  The AIU claims that Coleman wasn't there when they showed up at his house.  Because of that, he was charged with a failure.

Here's where it gets shady, though.  Coleman said that he's gotten a call from the drug tester every time he's been tested, and if he'd been called, he easily would've been able to return home and produce a sample during his window.  Yet there were specific instructions on the paperwork telling the tester not to call him.  Why?

Furthermore, Coleman wants to know if they were even looking for him at the right address.  The testers are told that if the athlete isn't there when they arrive, they should wait the entire hour so that they can perform the test as soon as they show up.  Since Coleman arrived home during his window, he theoretically should've seen the drug tester there waiting for him.  But he didn't.  Why not?  Clearly somebody's not telling the truth here.

When did the tester actually show up?  How long did they actually stay?  If Coleman said he'd be home from 7-8 and the tester arrived at 7:10, he theoretically should've waited there for 50 minutes.  Coleman could've gotten home at 7:55 and they still could've performed the test during that time.  If Coleman was home from 7-7:45 and the tester showed up at 7:50, that's on him.  But that's not what happened here.  If Coleman wasn't home at the start of his window, but showed up before it was over, why wasn't the tester there waiting for him?

That, frankly, is the biggest problem with the entire system.  Drug testers wield incredible power, yet have no accountability.  Meanwhile, the athlete needs to bend over backwards to prove their innocence and is still left completely at the mercy of others.  Yet, as soon as the words "anti-doping" and "suspension" are uttered in the same sentence, that athlete is immediately branded a cheater.  Even if they didn't do anything.  (It should be noted that Christian Coleman has never failed an actual drug test.)

Meanwhile, who's the one that suffers?  The anti-doping police aren't the ones facing the lost earnings that come from not competing.  They're not the ones facing a suspension that will keep them out of the marquee sporting event on the planet.  They're not the ones who'll have that scarlet letter for the rest of their career.  They're not the ones who'll have to sit out two years in the prime of their career.

I'm not saying Christian Coleman is completely without fault here.  He was a little too careless, which is what put him in this position to begin with.  He especially should've been more diligent knowing he already had the two filing failures on his record.  

But a two-year suspension for something so ticky-tack seems excessive.  Especially when you consider people who are actual drug cheats sometimes get less.  Nevertheless, Coleman has resigned himself to the fact he probably won't get off on a technicality two years in a row, so he's trying to work a deal where he'll only receive a one-year suspension and still be eligible for Tokyo.  (Assuming it's backdated, a one-year suspension would expire just before next year's Olympic Trials.)

What this case exposes, too, is a major flaw of the anti-doping process.  The whole point of random testing is to catch cheaters.  They're tested anytime, anywhere without warning so that they can't prepare themselves for it (which is evidently AIU's reason for saying not to call Coleman).  No one has an issue with that.  However, when it becomes about simply handing out suspensions, that's an issue.  Especially when those suspensions are the result of technicalities.  And when the same athlete who got off on a technicality faces another questionable suspension with similar reasoning that's full of holes, it looks suspect.  

This is just the start of Christian Coleman vs. Drug Testers 2.0.  I'm sure this story will have plenty more twists and turns.  I know how I hope it ends, though.  With Christian Coleman winning the 100-meter gold medal in Tokyo.  Because, from the sound of it, he doesn't deserve to be suspended.  Not in the slightest.

No Fans, No Fun, But Still Tennis

When they first announced that, if possible, they were still planning on holding this year's US Open, I was skeptical.  Then, as more and more top players expressed their own concerns and indicated they might skip the event if it was held, I was almost certain that the US Open would be cancelled for the first time in its history.  So, even though it probably shouldn't have, it caught me by surprise that Gov. Cuomo and the USTA signed off on holding a fan-less US Open on the original dates.

I've gotta admit, I'm still a little skeptical.  I give the USTA a world of credit for doing everything they could to still hold the US Open and do so as safely as possible.  And the precautions they're taking are certainly going above and beyond, for which they should be applauded.  I'm just not sure how it's gonna work, though.

As someone who's attended the US Open numerous times, I can tell you from personal experience that there's nothing like it.  Especially in the early rounds when you can wander the grounds of the Tennis Center and see great matches between obscure players on the outer courts or sitting at the practice courts for hours as all the top players have their practice sessions.  You don't even need to actually watch a match to have a great time thanks to all of the other fan-centric things they have all over the place.

Then there's walking into Arthur Ashe Stadium and just feeling the electricity.  Especially when there's an upset brewing and the whole crowd suddenly becomes fans of the other guy, not the top player he's about to beat.  And there's nothing like a US Open night session!  As it pushes 12:30-1:00 in the morning and the only people left in the stands are the die-hards, you can tell there's something special about it.  The players feed off it as much as the fans do.

How ridiculously expensive everything is aside, the US Open is all about the fans.  Which makes sense when you consider that it's the only Grand Slam played on public courts.  A ball goes into the stands?  You can keep it!  In fact, we'll have the winning player sign some and hit them up there after the match.

That, I think, is going to be the biggest thing that will make this year's US Open seem so weird.  It's the highest-attended annual sporting event in the country every year.  People show up by the thousands every day for the entire two weeks.  And the players feel the enthusiasm of that New York crowd.

So, yes, this year will be different.  I get why they're not allowing fans.  It was really the only reasonable option they had if they wanted to hold the tournament.  But it won't feel the same.  You can't feed off the crowd's energy when there's no crowd to watch you.  And not to mention how empty it'll feel in the cavernous Arthur Ashe Stadium, the largest tennis venue in the world.

Of course, one of the reasons the US Open will be going ahead as planned is because ESPN wanted it to.  And they'll do the best they can to make it a worthwhile TV event.  Frankly, there isn't much difference between watching tennis live and watching it on TV, so from a viewing standpoint, we'll hardly be able to tell.  But the roar of the crowd after a long, exciting rally isn't something that can be faked.  And it'll definitely be missed.

The atmosphere isn't the only thing that'll be different.  No juniors.  No wheelchair.  No mixed doubles.  Smaller doubles fields consisting only of players not in singles.  Electronic line calling instead of human line judges on the outer courts (which could be a sign of things to come).  And who knows how many people in the players' limited entourages will actually be allowed to attend their matches?

Not every player is enamored with some of the safety precautions that have been put in place.  They're used to having their entire team with them.  They're used to being able to come and go as they please.  They're used to actually having the ability to enjoy New York and everything it has to offer.  This year, they'll have none of that.  What they will have, though, is frequent COVID testing and a sterile environment (in more ways than one).

Some players are still understandably hesitant about traveling to New York, which was once the hotbed for the virus.  Novak Djokovic made his opposition known, and Nick Kyrgios called the decision to play "selfish."  Roger Federer definitely won't be playing.  He had knee surgery in February, his recovery is going slowly, and he thinks it's better to wait until 2021 before he returns.

Serena Williams, on the other hand, isn't just willing to play.  She's excited.  She's not the only one, either.  What I think is interesting, though, is that the Americans are excited and the European-based players are hesitant.  It's not entirely surprising if you think about it.  Nobody knows if players will be required to quarantine after landing in New York (which is how the virus got to the U.S. in the first place).  American players don't have that worry.

What I'm curious about, though, is how the ATP and WTA will handle the players who don't want to play, for whatever reason.  The Grand Slams are required tournaments for everybody who qualifies based on their ranking unless they're injured.  So, that would mean Djokovic, Nadal, Kyrgios, etc., have to show up whether they like it or not.  But will they be penalized if they don't?  And with the French Open starting two weeks later, will they be required to either play both or miss both?

Although, I'd bet some players, especially male players, see this as a golden opportunity.  A Grand Slam potentially without Djokovic, Nadal AND Federer?  Here's my chance!  It'll never be a better situation for me to win one.  Yes, the circumstances will be vastly different.  But a Grand Slam title's a Grand Slam title.  It doesn't matter how or when you win it.

Perhaps most importantly, though, tennis players need tennis tournaments in order to make money.  If there are no tournaments, they don't make any.  And since there haven't been any tournaments since mid-March, they've gone a while without income.  The Federers and Djokovics and Serenas of the world still make plenty from their endorsements and other ventures.  But the lower-ranked players need to play, so they're chomping at the bit.

It'll be vastly different than ever before.  It probably won't even resemble the US Open we've become so used to.  But, the US Open will be held as scheduled.  The summer will end with Grand Slam tennis being played in New York.  Just like normal.  We're still a long way away from "normal."  But it's a start.  And, more importantly, we've got something to look forward to.  So, for that reason, I am excited that there will be a 2020 US Open.  Keeping the streak in tact.  Now 140 straight years and counting.

What to Do After the Postponement?

The Olympic postponement, while the right decision, has obviously wreaked havoc on the international sporting calendar.  World Championships have been moved from 2021 to 2022 and athletes have to rethink their plans--not just about this year and whether it's worth even competing at all--but for the whole cycle.  And it's not just individual athletes.  In some cases, it's entire national teams.

A lot of veteran athletes decide to stick around for "one more Olympics" before retiring.  For many, Tokyo was going to be their last hurrah.  Now they're forced to make a choice.  Either give it one more year and still hang it up after Tokyo or still call it a career after 2020 and miss out on that last Olympics.  Most will choose the former.  The fact that nobody's able to compete at all this year certainly makes that decision easier.  But I know there's at least one who opted for the latter, not wanting to subject their body to another year of training, etc.

You also have cases like Justin Gatlin's.  The next Track & Field World Championships are in Eugene, Oregon.  It's the first time they'll ever be held in the United States.  Gatlin planned on retiring after finally getting to compete in Worlds on home soil.  He now won't get that opportunity.  He's still retiring after the 2021 season.  Only his farewell will be in Tokyo.  Not Eugene.

Then there's the college athletes who took the year off.  Some deferred their enrollment, while some decided to use their redshirt season in order to focus solely on qualifying for the Olympic team.  That sometimes includes withdrawing from school for a year in order to train.  What are they going to do?

In many ways, that's an even tougher decision than the one faced by retiring athletes.  Would their school be willing to let them defer enrollment another year?  Or, for the ones who chose to redshirt, if they do it again, they'll lose a year of eligibility (although, in track, they'll only lose a year of indoor since there was no outdoor season). 

Granted, if you're an Olympic-caliber athlete, that's not as big of a concern.  Many of them turn professional without competing their eligibility anyway.  But for freshmen and sophomores, it's still a worthwhile question.  Is it worth missing ANOTHER year?  Or, do you change your plan entirely and compete collegiately in 2020-21?  And if they do take that option, how much does it impact the ultimate goal, which is still Tokyo?

That's a problem that the U.S. women's basketball team also faces.  Last WNBA season, most of the players announced that they weren't going to play overseas in the offseason and instead were going to spend the winter and spring together, as the National Team, playing exhibition games against top college programs.  They lost to Oregon and beat UConn.  Now that plan, too, went up in flames.

Is another national tour by the U.S. women's basketball team in the works for 2020-21?  Will that even be possible with uncertain travel conditions?  Or do they risk going back overseas (which could be even more difficult)?  After all, they only said they were taking 2019-20 off from their foreign teams.  They said nothing about 2020-21.  Likewise, does the WNBA really want to go two seasons without its best players, which will now include the Liberty's Sabrina Ionescu?

Likewise, a lot of athletes plan their competition schedules years in advance.  They build around major events--obviously--but also make a lot of decisions about their personal lives around the Olympic cycle.  Some might want to take it easy or try another event in the "off" year that now doesn't exist.  Some might take a year off entirely to focus on school or a job.  Others might've wanted to get married or have a baby or some other life milestone. 

No one is saying they can't still do that.  It just becomes a lot more difficult when you suddenly go from planning on having the typical four years between Olympics to now having only three.  They're professionals.  They'll figure it out.  But it's definitely an adjustment that wasn't planned.

Of course, there's no guarantee that the Tokyo Olympics will even take place in 2021.  That makes these decisions even more difficult.  All that work, all that training, all that planning went into an Olympics that everyone was expecting to be this summer.  What happens if the same thing happens again?  You refocus your efforts for an event 12 months later than planned.  Then it's all gone, only this time permanently?  The only good thing about it is it'll be one year closer to Paris.  But those will also be two years in the prime of their careers that they're never getting back.

Obviously, this is all new territory for everyone.  When all of these plans were made, the Tokyo Olympics were still scheduled for this July.  Even when the calendar turned to 2020, no one could've anticipated that all hell would break loose across the world and the Olympics would be delayed a year.  And, like everybody else, they're having to adjust on the fly.

Even as they make these new plans, though, there's still plenty of uncertainty.  That was one of the main issues earlier this year.  The IOC hadn't yet postponed the Games, so the athletes were left in limbo.  How were they supposed to train when everywhere was closed?  And, if it wasn't going to be possible to hold the Olympics this year as planned, what were they training for anyway?

Unfortunately, those questions still can't be answered.  But at least they can plan for the 2021-24 Olympic cycle.  Or, I should say, the 2022-24 Olympic cycle.  We'll have to wait until Paris to see how much of a difference it'll make having three years between Games instead of four.

More Conference Realignment Means Better Travel

As is the case every year, July 1 will mark the day when schools switch conferences.  That's when UConn officially rejoins the Big East, which is obviously the biggest move in the conference realignment puzzle for the 2020-21 season.  And the timing of it, while coincidental, couldn't be better.  Because athletic departments all across the country are reconsidering their travel plans for the upcoming season as a means of saving money.

The Big East, in fact, will be playing a division-based schedule this fall, with teams only playing the schools within their division.  Basically, they're separating the "old" Big East schools along the I-95 corridor into the East Division and the "new" Big East schools in the Midwest into their own division.  The schools on the East Coast likely won't have to fly at all, while the ones in the Midwest will only have to fly to Creighton (which will still have to fly everywhere).

Meanwhile, had UConn stayed in the American, they'd have to fly for every conference game.  But that's what happens when your conference is so spread out.  The Atlantic 10 is also incredibly spread out and has announced that it will adopt a "regional" scheduling model this year.  I'm not exactly sure what that means for Saint Louis, but the other schools in the conference likely won't have to get on a plane at all.

All of these travel adjustments are being made by necessity, obviously.  And no one knows if schools will even be able to play these regionalized schedules.  Hopefully these regionalized schedules are here to stay, though.  Because, as this pandemic has exposed, "national" conferences might sound great in theory, but they create a massive problem when air travel isn't advised (or even possible).  So, maybe the regional model is the way to go.  Just like it was in the old days.

Ever since moving to D1, NJIT has had those massive travel headaches.  Their first conference was the "Great West," which consisted of five schools that are nowhere near each other and the only thing they had in common was they were new D1 members that didn't have conferences.  Once the other four did, NJIT went back to being an independent until the Atlantic Sun needed an eighth member.  The Atlantic Sun was a little better fit, but NJIT was still the outlier.  The remaining members are all in the Southeast, so they were getting on a plane for every road game.

Those days are finally over!  NJIT is finally joining a conference that's a geographic fit.  They're the newest members of America East, which also includes Albany, Stony Brook, Binghamton, Hartford and UMBC.  They'll still have some long bus rides to New England, but that's a lot better than having their closest conference "rival" be 400 miles away.

Taking NJIT's place in the Atlantic Sun is Bellarmine, which is in Louisville.  That's still a hike that will require a flight for the Florida schools, but it's only two and a half hours from Nashville and four hours from North Alabama, so it makes a lot more geographic sense.  And Kentucky is at least actually in the Southeast, so no more trying to explain why NJIT is in a conference with a bunch of Florida schools.

Another league that would've been a fit for NJIT is the Northeast Conference, which will be losing a member (and going from 11 to the much more manageable 10).  Robert Morris is leaving the NEC for the Horizon League, which looks surprising on the surface, but actually makes a lot of geographic sense.

Robert Morris is in Pittsburgh.  Most of the NEC schools are in the New York/New Jersey area or New England.  The Horizon schools are in the same footprint as the NFL's North Divisions.  So, they're going from the westernmost school to the easternmost.  And distance-wise, they're probably making out ahead.

With the exception of Green Bay and UIC, Robert Morris is within a six-hour drive of every other Horizon League school.  It's only two hours to Cleveland, less than that to Youngstown, and three to Detroit.  In the NEC, Robert Morris was traveling at least five every weekend unless they were playing travel partner Saint Francis (PA), which is outside Pittsburgh, or Mount St. Mary's (which will probably become the travel partner for Saint Francis).

I was having a conversation with a friend about this yesterday and I compared it to Buffalo and the MAC.  While Buffalo and the MAC may not seem like a match, Buffalo is actually really close to those MAC schools in Michigan and Ohio.  It just looks weird because people don't think of New York as "Midwest."  It's the same thing here.  Pittsburgh is three-and-a-half hours south of Buffalo.  It's pretty much a straight shot.  So Robert Morris being in an Ohio-based conference makes just as much sense as Buffalo being in one.  (Fun fact, Buffalo was actually in the Horizon League, which was still called the Midwestern Collegiate Conference at the time, before joining the MAC.)

There's obviously a lot that goes into conference affiliation changes.  For NJIT, being in a conference that made geographic sense was obviously paramount.  For UConn, it was about their alumni and restoring those rivalries.  For Robert Morris, the competition factor likely came into play.  The Horizon League is a strong mid-major.  The NEC is champion often ends up in the First Four.  I'm not saying those were the only factors for each school, but they can't be ignored either.

Likewise, conference realignment requires significant planning from a number of parties.  Which makes me wonder whether the financial realities and potential travel difficulties faced by some schools/conferences accelerated these timelines.  After all, these changes take effect in less than a month.

Either way, I think we can all agree that schools adjusting their schedules or even switching conferences because of travel is better than the other option--cutting sports.  We've already seen too much of that.  I'll take another round of conference realignment any day.  Especially when it actually makes sense.

2020's Lost Events

This year is unlike anything any of us have ever experienced before.  And we'll hopefully never experience anything like it again.  The world has come to a standstill, and the global sporting calendar was virtually empty for the first time any of us can remember.  Only now are we gradually starting to get back to "normal," albeit with empty stadiums

Some of those events were easy to reschedule.  Others were not.  And those are the ones you've gotta feel the worst for.  From fans who bought tickets to volunteers and staff who were preparing themselves to work an event that now won't happen to the local businesses that won't get the boost from all the visitors coming into town for the event.  They'll all probably be given the event again at some point soon.  But it'll take longer for some than for others.

The NCAA Tournament was one of the first events to go, and it's one of the best examples of what I'm talking about.  The first/second round and regional sites will be easy.  Those are only awarded a few years in advance.  In fact, the only NCAA Tournament sites that we already know are next year's.  They haven't been awarded for 2022 and beyond.  So, it makes sense to simply move the 2020 sites to 2022.

However, it's a different story with the Final Four.  This year's was supposed to be in Atlanta.  The next six Final Fours have already been awarded.  Which means Atlanta's earliest opportunity will be in 2027, seven years after the city was supposed to.  (The Final Four is in Indianapolis every five years, so they could conceivably give Atlanta 2026 and move Indy, which is also hosting in 2021, to the following year.)

Likewise, the next four Women's Final Fours are already set.  Although, assuming they give New Orleans, which was due to host in 2020, the next available opportunity in 2025, that will only be five years later.  Not too bad in comparison.  Especially when you consider New Orleans last hosted in 2013. 

In hockey, the Frozen Four is only scheduled for 2021 and 2022, so this year's host, Detroit, will likely be given 2023, which is no issue at all.  The World Hockey Championships, though, are a much different story.  Switzerland was due to host for the first time since 2009.  The next five have been awarded, so the Swiss will now have to wait until 2026 at the earliest.  Six years is a long time when you've already been waiting 11! 

Although, the IIHF might have an out.  The 2023 World Championships are currently scheduled for Russia, but one of Russia's doping sanctions is that the country can't host or bid for World Championships.  So, if those doping sanctions hold after Russia's appeal, the IIHF could easily move that event to Switzerland.  (It would actually be an incredible show of goodwill if Russia were to just voluntarily withdraw and hand over hosting duties to Switzerland.)

Speaking of waiting a long time for an event that's likely not going to happen, the MLB All*Star Game hasn't been played in Dodger Stadium since 1980.  That was due to change next month.  While it hasn't been officially cancelled yet, we'll be lucky if the 2020 season starts by then.  Fortunately, they haven't announced All*Star hosts beyond next year in Atlanta (not counting Philadelphia in 2026).  So, MLB had better do the right thing and give 2022 to Dodger Stadium.  (And Vin Scully better do the player introductions, too!)

Another event that will now happen in 2022 is the 150th British Open at St. Andrews.  That was done intentionally.  St. Andrews hosts the British Open every five years (for obvious reasons).  This year would've been the Old Course's turn in the rotation, but they wanted 150 at St. Andrews and this year was supposed to be 149, so they were going to hold off a year.

Cancelling this year's event threw that off entirely, of course.  Now next year is 149, not 150, which would've meant St. Andrews now wasn't due to host the milestone anniversary.  The Brits came up with a simple solution to this problem that was both smart and practical.  This year's host will host next year and St. Andrews will still host the 150th as planned, only in 2022 instead of 2021.  The 2022 host, meanwhile, gets bumped to a future tournament (I'd imagine in 2025, the next available date).

Unfortunately, there wasn't an easy solution for the European Track & Field Championships, which were due to be held in Paris in late August.  Unlike most 2020 events that were simply pushed back a year to 2021, that wasn't practical in this case.  Not with 2021 already jam packed with events that were either already scheduled (European Indoors, European Team Championships, World Relays) or rescheduled from this year (World Indoors, Tokyo Olympics).

So, 2021 wasn't going to work.  And the 2022 European Championships are already scheduled for Munich in late August (after the World Championships and Commonwealth Games).  The next one after that is in 2024, when Paris will already be a little busy.  Could they conceivably host in 2026 or 2028?  Of course!  But who's to say they'll still want to.

Then there's the big one.  There's still some doubt about whether the Tokyo Olympics can be held, even after postponing them a year.  The IOC has said it's 2021 or never.  We're not remotely close to that point yet, but "never" shouldn't be an option.  If they do have to cancel the 2020 Olympics entirely, Tokyo should immediately be granted the 2032 Games.

I'd like to believe that every city/country that was due to host a major sporting event in 2020 will get the opportunity to do so as soon as possible.  Because all the infrastructure, money, time and manpower that has been invested shouldn't be for naught.  Especially as a result of something that was out of anyone's control.  Talk about adding insult to injury!

Setting Up a Bigger Fight

We made some progress on the owners and players actually coming to an agreement about having a 2020 baseball season.  Sort of.  The owners revised their 50-game ultimatum and came back with a 76-game proposal, which was summarily rejected by the players.  If the owners simply stick to the agreement of full prorated salaries for however many games are actually played that the union already agreed to back in March, they'd have a deal.  It really is that simple.

The players were never going to get the 110 games they proposed and they knew it.  The owners were never going to get 50 games and they knew it.  So it always seemed like the 76-82-game range that was originally proposed is where we're going to end up.  And, if you think about it, that's exactly how long a season that starts in July should be.  July is the fourth month of a six-month season, aka about halfway through.

That's pretty much the exact schedule the owners proposed.  They wanted to play 82 games starting Fourth of July Weekend.  Since it's taken so long to reach an agreement, the Fourth of July (while still symbolic) seems to be out.  At best, they'll start the following week.  Which is why they cut it from 82 to 76.  Teams generally play six games in a week, so all they've done is chop a week off the schedule and keep all of the postseason dates (which are already set with FOX) the same. 

As I said the other day, both sides look bad in this fight about money.  And the solution is actually a pretty easy one.  It's 30 games less than the players wanted, but 82 games is right smack in the middle of the two proposals.  More importantly, it's half a season.  So, if the owners simply agree to the full prorated salaries, the players get half their salary.  That's what they were anticipating.  The owners' two most recent proposals that have them making anywhere between 31 and 35 percent of their annual salary are obviously nowhere close to that number.

In fact, if they can't come to an agreement and there ends up being a season of whatever length Rob Manfred decides, I can see plenty of players deciding that it's simply not worth it.  And not just because of coronavirus concerns.  In a season that short, any injury would effectively be season-ending.  And one slump would kill your free agent value going into an offseason that already figures to be lukewarm at best considering the economic state of the game.

So, frankly, it's the owners who are gonna have to be the ones to give here.  After all, the players are the ones with all the leverage.  They're the ones who have a lot more at stake.  They're the ones who have something to lose.  They're the ones who are needed for games to even be played in the first place.  Yes, that same March agreement gave the Commissioner latitude to unilaterally decide how long the season will be and when it starts.  But I think he's leery of pissing off the players anymore than they already are.  Because this is just the precursor to what promises to be contentious CBA negotiations.

There's plenty about the current CBA that the players don't like, and you can bet they're going to push for some of those things to change when the current deal expires after the 2021 season.  While every other sport has endured at least one work stoppage over the past 10 years, Major League Baseball has amazingly avoided one since the 1994-95 strike.  But that doesn't mean there's a lack of animosity between the union and the owners.  And what we're seeing now is the tip of the iceberg.

It's painfully obvious how owner-friendly the current CBA is.  Take the luxury tax, for example.  Baseball, of course, is the only sport without a salary cap.  Instead they have a luxury tax, which is designed to improve competitive balance.  Teams can go over it, but if they do, they're taxed a percentage of their payroll and those funds are distributed to the other teams.

This is obviously designed to prevent the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox and Cubs from outspending everybody.  But, in the players' eyes, it has also served as a soft salary cap, since, on more than one occasion, those large-market teams purposely kept their payroll lower so that they didn't go over the luxury tax threshold.  As a result, there were lukewarm free agents markets where top players got fewer offers or offers for less money than they're worth or no offers at all.  It happened in back-to-back winters, which is why Bryce Harper and Manny Machado had to wait until Spring Training started to sign their massive deals prior to last season.

Perhaps a bigger issue, though, is that there's no salary floor.  The luxury tax is designed to promote "competitive balance."  But too many small-market teams take that money and pocket it without investing in their team, which is the entire point.

Just think about how many teams in baseball are making absolutely no effort to be competitive!  The tanking problem has gotten even worse over the past few seasons.  It most famously worked for the 2017 Astros, but it also worked for the 2015 Royals and 2016 Cubs before them.  If it worked for them, why can't it work for you?  The theory is suck for a few years, get a bunch of high draft picks, then turn that into a good team in a few years.  If you're upfront with the fans about it, they'll hopefully bear with you and still be there for that rise to the top.

Then there's the issue of service time, which has been a hot-button topic with the players for years.  Kris Bryant is perhaps the most famous example.  He wasn't promoted to the Majors until April 17, 2015.  He hit .425 with nine home runs in Spring Training that year.  He was clearly ready for the Majors.  But the Cubs kept him in the Minors for two weeks until finally calling him up.  Why?  Because if he'd made his debut on Opening Day like he should've, Bryant's free agency clock would've started ticking.  Those two weeks in the Minors, though, gave the Cubs an extra year of team control.

Bryant might be the most obvious, but he's not alone in being a victim of service time manipulation.  In fact, I was shocked that Pete Alonso was actually ON the Mets' Opening Day roster last season.  I just figured he'd be the latest Rookie of the Year who was suddenly "ready" for the Major Leagues two weeks after the season started.

While there are other issues that need to be addressed in the upcoming CBA negotiations, those are the big two.  They're why the players didn't trust the owners before all of this.  Now that they feel like they're both being lied to and strong-armed into doing what the owners want, whatever amount of trust remained is all but gone.

Of course, some of this is the union's own fault.  They agreed to the previous deal, after all.  Which is what makes this time even more perilous.  Both sides want to get back on the field, but neither wants to give anything that can be seen as leverage heading into the CBA negotiations. 

Thus, we're at a standstill.  One that will hopefully be resolved soon.  Because it's not just this season that depends on it.  Major League Baseball's future beyond 2021 will be impacted, too.

No Asterisks Necessary

When the NBA and NHL suspended play nearly three months ago, they both said that they were committed not just to finishing the season, but crowning legitimate champions.  At the time, we didn't know what that meant other than that they would do everything possible to come back and play as many games a possible before a full playoffs.  Now that they've both announced their return to play plans, we can see how serious they were about that commitment.

The Stanley Cup has always been considered the hardest trophy in sports to win.  A hot goalie or an injured star or simply a bad matchup can derail Cup hopes of even the best teams.  Lower-seeded teams pulling off first-round upsets isn't just far more common, it's actually somewhat expected.  In other words, a lot needs to go your way in order to win 16 games in two months and be rewarded with the greatest prize in sports.

Bringing all 31 teams back to finish the regular season before starting the playoffs would've been ideal, but as time wore on without the season resuming, it became clear that wasn't feasible.  Having teams that out of it come back for the sake of coming back didn't make much sense.  Going right to the playoffs without giving those teams within striking distance of eight-place wouldn't have worked, either.  So, their 24-team solution was a reasonable compromise.

While the players wanted some sort of regular season so that they didn't have to go right into the playoffs after four months off, that will not be the case.  The 5-12 seeds will go right to best-of-five series that will determine the final four playoff teams in each conference, where they'll join the 1-4 seeds.  And instead of sitting around for that week, the top four teams will play a round robin to determine their seeds. 

Most importantly, the NHL is dropping their dumb division-based bracket for conference-based seeding.  (Psst, this is they way you should be doing.)  Even if it's just for this year and even if it's just because of the circumstances, I'll take it.  Pretty much everybody other than the executives in the NHL offices agree that this is the preferable format anyway, so hopefully it results in that much-needed change.

Anyway, they didn't initially say what the format would be after that play-in round other than that the conference finals and Stanley Cup Final would both be best-of-seven.  The players were going to need to sign off on any format regardless, so it was smart to wait until there was an agreement before announcing the decision.  And the decision they came to made hockey fans everywhere smile.  Four best-of-sevens.  In other words, a full playoffs.

That shows you how important it was to the players that the integrity of the playoffs be maintained.  The Stanley Cup Playoffs can be a grind.  That's part of what makes the reward so satisfying.  The players are willing to put themselves through all that at a time when they would normally be getting ready for next season...when they face serious health risks due to the pandemic.  But anything less than that grind would feel watered down.  And that's the last thing they want.  You get your name on the Cup, you want to feel like you earned it.

In fact, it might end up being harder to earn it this year than ever before.  Because of that extra play-in round, 16 of the 24 teams are looking at having to win 19 games in order to hoist the Cup.  If every series goes the distance, they could end up as many as 33 games.  That's a lot of hockey in the roughly 10 weeks this will all take! 

A first-round upset or two is still possible, but not as many as would've happened had they decided to go best-of-five.  And as the playoffs progress, the 1-4 seeds will end up having an even bigger advantage.  Yes, the three games that they play will still matter, but they won't have nearly the same intensity as the first round series.  And any lower seed that advances will have that many more games in their legs.  Even if they have a hot goalie, that could make a big difference the deeper they go, especially against more-rested opponents.

Things in the NBA were a little more complicated since they had roughly a quarter of the season left.  But I think their solution was fair, too.  Give the teams with a reasonable chance of making the playoffs that opportunity.  For the teams that were out of it, don't bother putting them through a month-long training camp just to play meaningless games.  They settled on six games.  If you're within six games of the playoffs, you get to come to Orlando.  If you're not, your season is over (for all intents and purposes, it already was anyway).

And Thank God they decided not to do that stupid play-in tournament.  The last thing the NBA needs is more mediocre 38-44 teams making the playoffs!  Anyway, they're still doing it, but in a way that makes sense and is fair.  The 9-seed has to beat the 8-seed twice, while the 8-seed only has to win one of the two games.  In a shortened season, that's a reasonable solution.  (And it's beyond unnecessary in a full season when the only purpose of it seems to be letting more teams say "we made the playoffs!")

Playing eight regular season games before the playoffs begin seems like a lot, but that seems to have been one of the union's conditions.  I guess my only problem with it is that they'll all play eight games, but still won't finish with the same number, so they'll use winning percentage to break ties.  Why not just determine the number of games you want every team to finish with and get them all to that number?  (Everybody is in the 64-66 range right now, so they easily could've set it at 72.)

Upsets are far more uncommon the NBA playoffs.  They're not impossible, but in basketball especially, the better team will establish itself over the course of a seven-game series.  So there's no doubt that whoever wins the NBA title will be just as legitimate as the Stanley Cup champion.  And with the eight "seeding games" before they start the playoffs, followed by the full 16-team tournament, the players will all be in game shape, so it won't be a case of the best-conditioned team winning.

Neither of these scenarios is perfect.  But no solution was going to be.  And this was possibly the best-case scenario for each league, if not for those also-rans who abruptly saw their seasons end.  But, they were going to be playing in empty arenas regardless, so it made sense to limit the restart to just the teams that are actually relevant.  Having them play in their home arenas wouldn't have made any sense either, since travel would've been an unnecessary added consideration.

So instead, the NBA will bring 22 teams to Orlando and the NHL will bring 24 teams to two "hub" cities for summer tournaments.  Those playoffs are supposed to be going on right now, so it'll be an adjustment for everybody.  The fans aren't used to watching hockey or basketball at this time of the year, and the players are used to gearing up for training camp, not playing the highest-intensity games of all.

Next season will obviously be impacted, too.  They both usually start the regular season in October, which obviously can't happen if they haven't finished this season yet.  All indications are that the offseason will be very short and they'll just turn right around and start next year in December.  So, after a four-month break, it's gonna be a lot of hockey and basketball for the rest of 2020 and into 2021.  Hopefully.

Figure It Out

For Major League Baseball, time is of the essence.  The NBA, NHL, WNBA and MLS have all figured out a way to return from the coronavirus pandemic and all plan on starting sometime in July.  Meanwhile, baseball, the sport that many figured would be the first to come back and in which it would be easiest to play while maintaining social distancing keeps shooting itself in the foot, leaving the fate of the 2020 season at stake.

Make no mistake, if the owners and players can't find some common ground and figure out the conditions upon which we'll actually see games this season, it would be catastrophic.  Catastrophic on the same level as the 1994-95 strike that cancelled the World Series.  Maybe even more so.  And they know it.  So, that begs the question: Which side will give?

Playing this out in the media is only serving to make both sides look bad, too.  Millionaires and billionaires are fighting over money at a time when 30 million people are out of work and the teams themselves are laying off or furloughing employees left and right.  It comes off as worse than tone deaf.  It comes off as selfish.  Plain and simple. 

Both sides have legitimate points.  But that doesn't matter.  Because to the American public, a public that is both looking for some sort of entertainment--any entertainment--and trying to figure out when their next pay check is coming, neither side is "right."  In fact, they're both wrong.  And the fact that this is all playing out the year before the CBA expires serves as a pretty good indication of how those negotiations are gonna go.  Because if they can't agree now when you'd figure both sides would be willing to give a little, how's it gonna go next December?

Some owners have indicated that they're content with not playing at all this season.  Their thought process is likely something along the lines of "I'm gonna lose money anyway, and I'll lose less if we don't play at all."  They haven't been publicly divulged, but I'd imagine it's teams like Oakland and the Angels, teams that are being so thrifty they've stopped paying their Minor Leaguers, who almost certainly won't have a 2020 season.

Now let's consider the consequences of missing an entire season.  The last MLB game that counted was Game 7 of the World Series on Oct. 30, 2019.  Assuming next season starts on April 1, that's 17 months.  Do they really think they can disappear for 17 months and everyone will come back?  Baseball fans are used to a game nearly every day for six months.  Now you want them to wait a year and a half?  People will develop different viewing/entertainment habits.  Not to mention the animosity that will have built up during that time.

Baseball has lost it's lofty status as "America's Pastime," having long since been surpassed by the NFL.  At best Baseball is No. 2, although the NBA is making a charge for that distinction.  Now, with July restarts planned in the NBA and NHL, Baseball won't enjoy being the only game in town during the summer.  Instead, they'll be going head-to-head with the NBA all season.  And they always get crushed by the NFL in the fall, anyway.  Now you're talking about the NFL and the NBA/Stanley Cup Playoffs well into the fall.  Plus college football. 

They're in danger of getting lost in the shuffle even if they do play.  If they don't, there will be plenty of other viewing options to keep people occupied.  And, with some NBA owners wanting to push that season into the summer already, you can bet they're using this as a test-run for potentially making that switch permanently.  In other words, Baseball needs to do whatever it can to keep its potential audience.  And cancelling the entire 2020 season amid a global pandemic over money won't do that.  It'll alienate them.

More significantly, neither side will engender any goodwill or trust when they return in 2021.  You'd have to assume fans will be allowed back in the stands by then.  But owners will have just as big a problem selling tickets as they did in 1995.  And those who do go to the games probably won't be too friendly towards the players, either.  The boos won't be reserved to players on the visiting team.  And rightfully so.

What makes this whole thing so frustrating is that there's obviously a middle ground to be found.  Both sides are just too stubborn to find it.  The players want to play more games.  The owners want less.  Neither side wants to budge.  And that's really the simplest of the issues they're facing.  That should be one of the easiest!

The players want 110 games, with the season ending in late October and the playoffs extending into November.  Major League Baseball is worried about a second wave of the outbreak wiping out the postseason if it's held that late in the year, which is a legitimate concern.  Ending in mid-November would also make for a quick turnaround before Spring Training starts in February (unless they want to delay next season, too, which would be completely unnecessary).

But, let's not forget that the players are the ones who'll be taking all the risk.  They'll be the ones out there on the field exposing themselves to possible infection.  So, the fact that they want to play more games and take that risk shouldn't be taken lightly.  It would be easy to say their desire to play so many games is all about money (which it probably is), but it also shows how dedicated the players are to playing something that at least comes close to a representative season.  The owners' 50-game plan does NOT do that.

I'm not sure if that 50-game thing was actually serious or not, but, either way, it's dumb.  Do you know how random a 50-game sample is in baseball?  That's two months.  It's not even a third of a season.  And the players' reaction to it was essentially, "why bother?," which is legitimate.  In fact, if they were to go ahead with a 50-game season, I can see a lot of players sitting out.  For a number of reasons.

You know what number would work, though?  The 82 that the owners originally proposed!  That's half a season, which is just about right considering when it would be starting.  All the logistics for that are easy to figure out, too (13 games against your division, 6 interleague games against the corresponding division).  It really is the plan that makes the most sense.

All that's left is to figure out the money.  Both sides need to realize that they need to give a little.  There probably won't be fans all season, so owners aren't getting gate receipts.  The players won't agree to anything less than their prorated salaries, though.  And if they play an 82-game season, they get half their salary.  It's that simple.  Why complicate it just so you can "win" when both sides have already lost in the court of public opinion?

We're running out of time for the baseball season to be saved.  It's time for the adults in the room to tell everyone to stop fighting and get it done.  Because if not, the economic repercussions will last far beyond 2020.

Sports Bring Us Together

My last post was about how, once the hysteria over the pandemic calms down, sports will eventually get back to normal.  When they do return, they'll look different in the short term.  But, over time, going to a game will once again be communal experience it has always been.

I've really been thinking about that a lot over the past few days, as protests and demonstrations take place all across the country.  It brings me back to the idea of sports as an experience for all.  Because it's true.  Sports bring people together. 

Fans root for their team no matter what.  They don't care what the players look like or where they're from.  They just care what uniform they're wearing.  Everyone has their favorites, sure.  And they might not necessarily be a "fan" of a particular player for whatever reason.  But the overriding loyalty is to the team and whoever can make the team win.

Likewise, teams don't care who their fans are or where they come from.  They all have community relations departments and may do more outreach with particular groups than others, but that's purely done in the interest of building the fan base.  It isn't designed to alienate the other fans.  And it doesn't.  It's simply the team's way of saying everybody's welcome.  And everybody is.  As long as you have a ticket, you're free to enjoy watching your team play with your fellow fans.

Sadly, there are still issues with racism, both among fans and directed towards players.  That's the unfortunate reality of society being too accepting of that behavior for too long in some places.  And, try as you might, you may never get those people to change that bigoted mindset.  Which is their loss.  Fortunately, that's the exception, not the rule.  By and large, sports is one of the most welcoming, all-inclusive activities anywhere.  A place where everyone is embraced with open arms.

Sports are the great equalizer, too.  If you're good enough to get a college scholarship or play professionally, you'll get your chance.  If you aren't good enough, you won't.  It's that simple.  Coaches aren't going to stop recruiting you or draft someone else over you because of your ethnicity.  Their livelihood is tied directly to how the team performs on the field.  If they don't win, they lose their job.  So they're going to get the players that put them in the best position to win.

That's the beauty of sports.  They don't discriminate.  We're a long way from Jackie Robinson.  It's the talent that matters.  Nothing else.  If you have the talent, you'll get your chance.  And if you're the best, you'll win.  If you're not, you won't.

Is there work to be done in some areas?  Yes.  That's the purpose of the NFL's Rooney Rule.  The NCAA also has an Immersion Program for minorities who are interested in a career in college athletics.  So, even though it's happening more slowly than some people would like, progress is being made in those areas.  And those opportunities will only increase over time.

The other great power of sports is their ability bring social issues to the forefront.  Colin Kaepernick has obviously been in the news a lot over the past week.  This is exactly what he was protesting about when he started taking a knee four years ago.  I've, of course, made my thoughts on Kaepernick known on numerous occasions.  But there's no denying that his status as an NFL player helped his case.  If he didn't have that platform, his protest never would've taken off the way it did.  He has his supporters.  He has his detractors.  Point is, his being in the public eye made people care.

While not nearly as vocal and maybe not as visible, there are plenty of other athletes who've spoken out in support of Kaepernick's cause.  Obviously not everyone agrees with them, which doesn't sit well with those who do.  But the point remains.  Being an athlete is a powerful tool.  And it can really help you get your point across.

Earlier this year, the IOC warned athletes not to make any sort of "political demonstration" in Tokyo.  The move, while well-intended, was derided in the media and criticized by athletes from all over the world.  Because it's the same thing with the Olympics.  If an athlete has a point they want to make, they know when their best opportunity to make that point is.  And if they want to protest, they're gonna protest.  Period.

And, just like every other protest, there'll be those who agree with it and those who think it's not the time or the place.  Australian swimmer Mack Horton made headlines last summer at the World Championships for refusing to stand on the podium with the other medalists during the victory ceremony because he didn't think the gold medalist, Sun Yang of China, should've been allowed to compete while appealing a doping suspension.

But it was another Australian who played a supporting role in perhaps the most famous Olympic protest of all-time.  Tommie Smith and John Carlos were vilified in Mexico City when they raised their fists covered in a black glove.  More than 50 years later, that protest is viewed in a different light and they're seen as heroes.  But the other man on the podium, silver medalist Peter Norman, showed solidarity by wearing the same patch as them on the medals stand.  The three became lifelong friends after that.  At Norman's funeral, both Smith and Carlos were pall bearers.

People will never stop debating whether or not it's the proper time and place.  Some fans go to sporting events because they want to get away and avoid the problems of everyday life (including social issues) for a few hours.  That position is entirely understandable.  But there's no denying that, for those exact same reasons, sports and social issues will always be intertwined.

Which brings me back to the beginning.  People like and watch sports for so many different reasons.  People like and hate certain teams and players for a variety of reasons.  But when the game itself is going on, none of that matters.  We're all the same.  Just sitting there watching these tremendous athletes get paid to do something we wish we were good enough to do. 

Maybe that's the only common ground we have.  You know what, though?  That's enough to build on.  After all, we're all people.  And if we take the time to listen to each other, maybe we'll see that we actually aren't all that different.