Back in March and April, I thought there was no way this would be possible. How were they gonna hold a major international sporting event in New York at the end of the summer? It seemed crazy that they were even considering trying. Yet here we are, and the US Open isn't just being held. It's being on time at its usual site. It really is remarkable.
In fact, the US Open is the first major event since this all started that didn't have to be rescheduled and/or moved. It wasn't cancelled or postponed like so many other events that were suddenly wiped off the calendar this spring and summer. So, in a way, the 2020 US Open is what we all needed. It feels "normal," even though it's not. But it is a sign that we will be back to normal eventually.
That's not to say this will be a typical US Open. Not even close! Ordinarily, the players feed off the energy of the fans. This year the fans won't be there. Ordinarily, it's the end of a grueling summer slog. This year, the players have had unplanned months-long breaks, with only a handful of tune-up tournaments having taken place since the restart (including the Cincinnati event that was moved to the National Tennis Center for travel/practicality reasons).
The lack of fans is definitely going to be the most noticeable difference, especially since Arthur Ashe Stadium is cavernous. But it was either no fans or no US Open, so the choice was an easy one. And I think the fact that there won't be any will actually help the lower-ranked players. They're used to playing in front of smaller crowds and finding ways to pump themselves up. Serena Williams and Novak Djokovic, meanwhile, haven't played in front of empty seats in years. Those massive crowds include their legions of fans. So this will definitely be an environment that's more foreign to them.
There was plenty of pre-tournament concern about the quality of the fields. A number of top players, women's No. 1 Ashleigh Barty chief among them, have opted out because of COVID concerns, and several have had to withdraw due to positive tests. Still others will miss the tournament due to injury, including Roger Federer and defending women's champion Bianca Andreescu.
With Rafa Nadal deciding to stay in Europe (where he can prepare for the Rafa Invitational, aka the French Open), that means this will be the first US Open since 1971 not to feature either defending champion. And with Federer missing the rest of the year after knee surgery, this is the first Grand Slam tournament in the entirety of the 2000s without either one in the draw. It also means that Rafa can't tie Roger's record here. (Although, Djokovic can pull one closer to both.)
However, instead of being concerned about who's not here and worrying that the fields are watered-down, this can be viewed as an incredible opportunity. Some of the younger players have never had a better chance for their Grand Slam breakthrough. And, whether the high-ranked, big-name players are there or not, you've still gotta win seven matches in two weeks to win a Grand Slam title, which is difficult no matter how you slice it. And the title won't come with an asterisk. The winners will still be the 2020 US Open champions.
This US Open could end up being historic, too. Serena Williams has 23 career Grand Slam titles, one shy of tying Margaret Court's all-time record. Serena's been "stuck" on 23 since the 2017 Australian Open, and she's lost the last two finals here. But any time she enters a Grand Slam healthy, she has to be considered one of the favorites, and that's certainly the case here. (Although, she did suffer a surprise loss to Maria Sakkari in the third round of the "Cincinnati" tune-up tournament.)
Serena faces plenty of competition, though. Naomi Osaka, the 2018 champion, made the final in "Cincinnati," but had to withdraw due to injury, giving the title to Vika Azarenka. She's still not quite the same player she was in the early 2010s, when she won back-to-back Australian Opens and made consecutive US Open finals. But I wouldn't count her out either.
And let's not forget the other American women, starting with Australian Open champ Sofia Kenin. It seems like a lifetime ago when the world was still normal back in January and Kenin won her first Grand Slam title. But she carried that momentum throughout the early spring and into the stoppage, and she enters the US Open as the top American and No. 2 seed.
Then there's the 2017 finalists, Sloane Stephens and Madison Keys. They've both got a great shot, too. As do young, up-and-coming Americans Coco Gauff and Taylor Townsend. (Last year Gauff's match against Osaka was one of the highlights of the tournament, and they could potentially meet again in the third round this year.)
Among the non-Americans, look out for the Czechs. Karolina Pliskova is the No. 1 seed, and she's still looking for that first Grand Slam title, so the 2016 runner-up is just as motivated as ever. I like two-time Wimbledon champ Petra Kvitova, too. Then there's the Brit Jo Konta, 2016 champ Angelique Kerber and Australian Open finalist Garbine Muguruza. So, yeah, there's no worry about the women's tournament not being competitive.
On the men's side, Djokovic is an overwhelming favorite to win his fourth US Open and 18th career Grand Slam title. In fact, he's undefeated on the year. Yes, that included a three-month hiatus, but undefeated on the year is undefeated on the year. And without his two main rivals in the field, it would be a surprise to see anyone but the Djoker hoist the trophy on September 13.
However, like I said before, this is a golden opportunity for everybody else. There's never been a better chance for a career-defining Grand Slam breakthrough. And there are plenty of guys who've been knocking on the door, only for the Big Three to slam it in their faces. Players like Stefanos Tsitsipas and Alexander Zverev and Dennis Shapovalov. Daniil Medvedev made the final last year and probably should've beaten Nadal. Milos Raonic has been a Wimbledon finalist and took a set off Djokovic in the "Cincinnati" final. I'd look out for both of them, as well.
While the state of the American men's game isn't anywhere near as strong as it is with the women, there are still some American men worth keeping an eye on. Reilly Opelka had a great run last week, so we'll see if he can carry it over. John Isner is still the top American man, but unfortunately drew Djokovic as a potential round-of-16 matchup. Then there's Sam Querrey, who may have to deal with Raonic. Also in that section of the draw are two former champions on their way back from injury, Marin Cilic and Andy Murray. It's so great to have Murray back after we all thought his career was over.
Ultimately, though, this is Djokovic's tournament to lose. It likely would've been anyway, but especially when you consider all of the other factors working in his favor, anyone other than Djokovic winning the men's title truly would be shocking. (For the record, I'm saying he beats Raonic in the final.) As for the women, I'm not going with Serena. Instead, I'll say Karolina Pliskova finally wins her maiden Grand Slam title, defeating Madison Keys in the final.
Sunday, August 30, 2020
Saturday, August 29, 2020
Best of Seven
Seven-inning games are nothing new. They've been a part of baseball forever. In fact, seven innings is the standard everywhere except the college and professional levels. And even in college and the Minors, doubleheaders usually include at least one seven-inning game. But Major League doubleheaders have always been two nine-inning games. Until this year.
Major League Baseball had no other choice in this unusual season. Trying to cram 60 games into 66 games was already going to be a challenge. Then you throw in the number of doubleheaders that teams will need to play for a variety of reasons, and it would've been virtually impossible for their pitching staffs to survive the season. Fourteen innings is going to be taxing enough (especially with multiple doubleheaders in a week), but 18? Forget about it! You thought there were a lot of pitching injuries already!
Some teams have obviously ended up with more doubleheaders on their schedule than others. The Miami Marlins, of course, drew some early attention for the COVID outbreak in their clubhouse that shut down both their and the Phillies' season for a week, resulting in makeup doubleheaders for both teams.
But that's nothing compared to the St. Louis Cardinals! The Cardinals had to sit out two weeks after their outbreak and they have to make up all of those games. As a result, their remaining schedule is a jumbled mess of seemingly every-other-day doubleheaders with the occasional single game mixed in. They don't have any off days, either, since they're also using those for makeups. I just hope they get good weather!
I don't envy the Cardinals and what they're gonna have to do. Their last of two remaining off days is on September 9, after which they play 22 games in 17 days to conclude the season (they also have two makeup games against the Tigers that haven't been rescheduled yet). It'll be a grind to be sure!
With the Cardinals playing so many doubleheaders, it almost guarantees that seven-inning games will have a direct bearing on who wins the NL Central. Again, it's something everybody agreed to, so it's not like that's an unfair advantage/disadvantage. But St. Louis will end up with significantly fewer innings played than some of their division rivals. More importantly, the two innings they won't play in each of those doubleheaders are the equivalent of two nine-inning games.
And who's to say that not having the eighth and ninth innings won't change the results of games? It's going to be impossible to get those stats, but I wonder how many games will end up with different winners because of it. What they can do, however, is look at the number of eighth- and ninth-inning runs that are scored in non-doubleheader games and come up with some sort of rough estimate based on those percentages. Although, that's a trade-off everyone is willing to accept this season.
The other thing about the seven-inning doubleheaders is that, in many ways, they really are a throwback. Most Major League doubleheaders are the day/night variety. This is done intentionally. A day/night doubleheader is two separate admissions, meaning owners don't lose the ticket revenue for the makeup game. They also give the players a little bit more of a break instead of just going right from one game to the other (which some might prefer).
Since there are no fans in the stands this year, there's no need to worry about gate receipts, so there's no reason to do the split doubleheader. That also makes things easier for the TV networks, which can just stay on the air straight through without having to come up with filler programming in between games. Likewise, playing the games back-to-back makes for a shorter day at the ballpark, which was also one of the objectives behind the switch for this season.
Another thing they're doing this season that would otherwise being unlikely is teams playing "home" games in their opponent's park. Again, when you have paid attendance, this would never happen (unless the last game in one city is rained out and they decide to make it up in the other for the sake of convenience). But nobody's losing ticket revenue this year, so the ballpark the game's in doesn't really matter. Who bats last does, though, and this way makes sure that teams will still have an equal number of 30 "home" games and 30 "road" games.
Now that MLB has moved to seven-inning doubleheaders, it has led to some speculation that this change will become permanent beyond this season. I think this, like the stupid extra-inning rule, is a 2020-only change, though. Because the factors that necessitated it this season won't exist when we go back to playing 162 games in front of fans.
During today's Mets-Yankees twinbill, Michael Kay opined that if there were more doubleheaders on the schedule, teams would have more off days. While that's technically true, teams would still be playing the same number of games in the same number of days. And I'm not sure how many would think that having more off days because they're playing doubleheaders is much of a trade off.
Off days also create schedule flexibility for make-up games. Sometimes teams don't have a common off day, so they have to schedule a doubleheader. It's also true that sometimes teams opt to play a doubleheader in order to keep an off day. But, for the most part, teams don't like playing twice in a day unless they need to.
For example, consider what a doubleheader does to a pitching staff. Teams have five-man rotations, which means starters pitch every fifth day. But if you play a doubleheader, you need two starters, which throws your entire rotation off. Plus, relievers aren't gonna pitch in both games, so you're limited there. And most of your position players won't play both games, either, so it impacts your lineup, too. Especially when they have that built-in buffer.
There's also no benefit to teams if they start seven-inning straight doubleheaders permanently. Owners don't like straight doubleheaders for a reason. They only have 81 home games, and they want to sell tickets to all 81. But a straight doubleheader is single admission. That might not make much of a difference for some teams, but for others it does. And if you've got the Yankees or Dodgers or Cubs in town for their only visit, you want to make sure you're selling tickets to each of those games separately.
So, do I think Major League Baseball should/will permanently adopt seven-inning doubleheaders? No. Because it's unnecessary. This season it is. It's the only way some teams are gonna get through the season. But things will be back to normal eventually. And seven-inning games aren't "normal" in the Majors.
Major League Baseball had no other choice in this unusual season. Trying to cram 60 games into 66 games was already going to be a challenge. Then you throw in the number of doubleheaders that teams will need to play for a variety of reasons, and it would've been virtually impossible for their pitching staffs to survive the season. Fourteen innings is going to be taxing enough (especially with multiple doubleheaders in a week), but 18? Forget about it! You thought there were a lot of pitching injuries already!
Some teams have obviously ended up with more doubleheaders on their schedule than others. The Miami Marlins, of course, drew some early attention for the COVID outbreak in their clubhouse that shut down both their and the Phillies' season for a week, resulting in makeup doubleheaders for both teams.
But that's nothing compared to the St. Louis Cardinals! The Cardinals had to sit out two weeks after their outbreak and they have to make up all of those games. As a result, their remaining schedule is a jumbled mess of seemingly every-other-day doubleheaders with the occasional single game mixed in. They don't have any off days, either, since they're also using those for makeups. I just hope they get good weather!
I don't envy the Cardinals and what they're gonna have to do. Their last of two remaining off days is on September 9, after which they play 22 games in 17 days to conclude the season (they also have two makeup games against the Tigers that haven't been rescheduled yet). It'll be a grind to be sure!
With the Cardinals playing so many doubleheaders, it almost guarantees that seven-inning games will have a direct bearing on who wins the NL Central. Again, it's something everybody agreed to, so it's not like that's an unfair advantage/disadvantage. But St. Louis will end up with significantly fewer innings played than some of their division rivals. More importantly, the two innings they won't play in each of those doubleheaders are the equivalent of two nine-inning games.
And who's to say that not having the eighth and ninth innings won't change the results of games? It's going to be impossible to get those stats, but I wonder how many games will end up with different winners because of it. What they can do, however, is look at the number of eighth- and ninth-inning runs that are scored in non-doubleheader games and come up with some sort of rough estimate based on those percentages. Although, that's a trade-off everyone is willing to accept this season.
The other thing about the seven-inning doubleheaders is that, in many ways, they really are a throwback. Most Major League doubleheaders are the day/night variety. This is done intentionally. A day/night doubleheader is two separate admissions, meaning owners don't lose the ticket revenue for the makeup game. They also give the players a little bit more of a break instead of just going right from one game to the other (which some might prefer).
Since there are no fans in the stands this year, there's no need to worry about gate receipts, so there's no reason to do the split doubleheader. That also makes things easier for the TV networks, which can just stay on the air straight through without having to come up with filler programming in between games. Likewise, playing the games back-to-back makes for a shorter day at the ballpark, which was also one of the objectives behind the switch for this season.
Another thing they're doing this season that would otherwise being unlikely is teams playing "home" games in their opponent's park. Again, when you have paid attendance, this would never happen (unless the last game in one city is rained out and they decide to make it up in the other for the sake of convenience). But nobody's losing ticket revenue this year, so the ballpark the game's in doesn't really matter. Who bats last does, though, and this way makes sure that teams will still have an equal number of 30 "home" games and 30 "road" games.
Now that MLB has moved to seven-inning doubleheaders, it has led to some speculation that this change will become permanent beyond this season. I think this, like the stupid extra-inning rule, is a 2020-only change, though. Because the factors that necessitated it this season won't exist when we go back to playing 162 games in front of fans.
During today's Mets-Yankees twinbill, Michael Kay opined that if there were more doubleheaders on the schedule, teams would have more off days. While that's technically true, teams would still be playing the same number of games in the same number of days. And I'm not sure how many would think that having more off days because they're playing doubleheaders is much of a trade off.
Off days also create schedule flexibility for make-up games. Sometimes teams don't have a common off day, so they have to schedule a doubleheader. It's also true that sometimes teams opt to play a doubleheader in order to keep an off day. But, for the most part, teams don't like playing twice in a day unless they need to.
For example, consider what a doubleheader does to a pitching staff. Teams have five-man rotations, which means starters pitch every fifth day. But if you play a doubleheader, you need two starters, which throws your entire rotation off. Plus, relievers aren't gonna pitch in both games, so you're limited there. And most of your position players won't play both games, either, so it impacts your lineup, too. Especially when they have that built-in buffer.
There's also no benefit to teams if they start seven-inning straight doubleheaders permanently. Owners don't like straight doubleheaders for a reason. They only have 81 home games, and they want to sell tickets to all 81. But a straight doubleheader is single admission. That might not make much of a difference for some teams, but for others it does. And if you've got the Yankees or Dodgers or Cubs in town for their only visit, you want to make sure you're selling tickets to each of those games separately.
So, do I think Major League Baseball should/will permanently adopt seven-inning doubleheaders? No. Because it's unnecessary. This season it is. It's the only way some teams are gonna get through the season. But things will be back to normal eventually. And seven-inning games aren't "normal" in the Majors.
Thursday, August 27, 2020
MLB at Midseason
The weirdest MLB season in memory has reached the halfway point. It might not seem like it because (a) the season only started a little over a month ago and (b) some teams have so many missed games that they'll have a ton of doubleheaders in September. But, we're five weeks into a nine-and-a-half week season, so we're close enough to the midpoint to hand out some awards.
Yes, it does seem silly to be handing out "awards" based on 30 games' worth of stats (or fewer), but it's gonna feel just as strange to have the actual awards determined with a 60-game sample size. And, yes, some teams are definitely short-changed in the stats department. Nevertheless, we've gotta play the hand we're dealt. And 2020 hasn't dealt anybody a winning hand!
Speaking of being dealt, the Monday trade deadline could be very interesting. With 16 teams making the playoffs, there will be a lot of buyers and very few sellers. But even the buyers will have to ask themselves if it's worth it to give up whatever package of prospects and money will be necessary to get that impact veteran, who may only be with the team for a month. For a starting pitcher, that would mean only a handful of starts! Yet that handful of starts could make a difference.
Anyway, back to the midseason awards. They're basically what would normally be the April Player of the Month. And, as we all know, the April Player of the Month usually doesn't sustain it for the entire season. (How many often follow it up with a terrible May?) But can these guys sustain it for another month? Absolutely! In fact, I'd be surprised if the current front runners aren't still very much in the discussion when the season ends next month.
However, it also seems incredibly likely that we'll have players who had rough Augusts end the season on fire. And let's not forget the injured guys. Normally a player who misses a chunk of time with an injury would have no place in the MVP conversation. But, as we all know, this season is not normal. So everything that normally goes into the thought process for MVP/Cy Young/Rookie of the Year will be completely different. Because anything can happen in this crazy season.
Fortunately, there are some clear front runners right now. And if those front runners keep it up, we could be looking some historic seasons (yes, they'll obviously come with an asterisk). So who are those front runners? Here's who I'd pick...
AL MVP: Jose Abreu, White Sox-I told you the White Sox would be sleeper contenders this year, didn't I? And Jose Abreu has been a big reason why. He's among the top five in the AL in virtually every offensive category and leads in both homers and RBIs. The White Sox, meanwhile, are hanging right in there with the Twins and Indians atop the division. So, sorry to the legion of Mike Trout supporters who think that AL MVP is somehow his birthright. This race isn't even close. Abreu is the clear winner right now.
AL Cy Young: Shane Bieber, Indians-None of us had any clue who this guy was when he won All-Star Game MVP honors in his home park last season. As it turns out, he's one of the best pitchers in the American League! Simply put, Bieber's 2020 numbers are insane. He's 6-0 with 1.35 ERA in seven starts. Bieber has more walks this season (9) than runs allowed (7). And he has 75 strikeouts in just 46.2 innings. Can he keep it up? Is it possible that he'll finish the season undefeated?
AL Rookie: Kyle Lewis, Mariners-Rookies of the Year often come out of nowhere, and that's certainly the case for the Mariners' Kyle Lewis. His body of work so far is enough to make him the runaway winner even if he doesn't play over the final month! Lewis leads the entire American League in hitting (.360) and is tied for second in hits (40). He's also the rookie leader in homers (7) and RBIs (19).
AL Manager: Bob Melvin, Athletics-Oakland has won 97 games in each of the past two seasons, but lost the Wild Card Game each time. So far this year, though, they've put everything together and then some. The A's have the best record in the AL and trail the Dodgers by just a half-game for the best record in baseball. It's enough to make Melvin the favorite to win his third Manager of the Year award. Of course, they'll trade all that for finally having some success in October.
NL MVP: Fernando Tatis Jr., Padres-Not even close! Tatis and the Padres have been THE story of the season's first half. Tatis is breaking every unwritten rule in the book and having a great time doing it! And fans are loving it! He's played all 31 of San Diego's games and has done more than hit grand slams. Tatis leads the NL in homers (12) and RBIs (29), but he's also right up there in runs, hits, and stolen bases. Plus, he plays Gold Glove-quality defense at shortstop. This guy is the game's next superstar!
NL Cy Young: Max Fried, Braves-An argument could definitely be made for two-time defending winner Jacob deGrom, who'll probably garner plenty of support because of that fact alone. But I'm giving the nod to Atlanta's Max Fried. His numbers are remarkably similar to Bieber's (5-0, 1.35 ERA in seven starts). Fried has given up just six runs all season and zero! homers. The one area where deGrom has the clear edge is in strikeouts, but Fried's team is leading the division, which matters enough to me for him to get the nod.
NL Rookie: Jake Cronenworth, Padres-Perhaps the toughest one because there's no clear front runner (the preseason favorite, Gavin Lux, has spent the entire season at the Dodgers' alternate site). I can't go with Lux, so I'll take another NL West second baseman instead. Cronenworth was part of the trade that brought Tommy Pham to San Diego, and he might turn out to be the biggest prize in the deal. His Major League debut was on July 26, when he had an RBI double in his first at-bat. Cronenworth has played in just 25 Major League games. He's hitting .342 in them and nearly half of his hits have gone for extra bases!
NL Manager: Jayce Tingler, Padres-San Diego is one of the most exciting teams in baseball. And, after a few years of collecting high-priced free agents as a part of their rebuild, the Padres sure look playoff-bound (and potentially would be even if there were just two wild cards). They're even hanging with the Dodgers in the NL West. San Diego hasn't made the playoffs since 2006 (the Matt Holliday game in 2007 was a one-game playoff) and hasn't had a winning record since 2010. Look for both of those things to change this season under their rookie manager.
Sunday, August 23, 2020
Indy In August
This year has been weird. You don't need me to tell you that. When this all started, I thought the Indy 500 would be the benchmark. As it turns out, it was optimistic to think they'd still be able to hold it on Memorial Day Weekend like normal. So we've got an August Indy 500 instead. Because, well, 2020!
But at least we have an Indy 500 to talk about! So what if, instead of marking the unofficial beginning of summer, it's marking the unofficial end! So what if there won't be any fans in the stands (although they were still planning on having limited attendance until a few weeks ago)! And, we already know it's going to be historic. Because this is the first time in Indy's 109-year history that the race isn't being held in May.
I wonder how much those two differences will be a factor. The empty grandstand likely won't matter that much. They're in a car going more than 200 mph. They can't see the crowd during the race anyway. The different time of the year could definitely have an impact, though. They're right smack in the middle of the summer heat, so the track will get hotter and act differently than it does in May.
The race is also scheduled for a 2:30 start time, which means it will end around 6. It normally starts at 1. The reason cited was avoiding the summer heat. Obviously there's more sunlight at this time of year, so if the weather's nice that makes absolutely no difference. But any sort of delay could push it into twilight, when the track conditions will change (I also don't think Indy has lights).
NBC also has an interesting scheduling situation. The NASCAR race in Dover is on NBCSN at the same time as Indy, so they'll be directly in competition with themselves. Indy, of course, is usually the middle race of that Memorial Day Weekend tripleheader, with NASCAR's Coca-Cola 600 serving as the nightcap and starting about an hour after Indy ends. (Speaking of NASCAR, Jimmie Johnson has indicated he wants to race Indy next year, which would be awesome!)
All of these changes make this race incredibly hard to handicap (just like the Kentucky Derby, French Open and Masters will be). Even the Indy veterans have never experienced a race week like this. So no one knows what to expect. Which should at least make for an exciting race!
For the first time this century, there won't be any female drivers in the field, which is certainly disappointing. There weren't even any women entered. In fact, there were only 33 entrants total, which at least guaranteed a full field. And that field includes eight former winners, as well as five Indy 500 rookies.
It's the legacy, Marco Andretti, who's on the pole, though. His family is one of the legendary families in the sport, but the only Andretti ever to win is still Marco's grandfather Mario 51 years ago. Since then, the Andretti family hasn't found its way to Victory Lane despite competing in every race (Andretti Autosport has been very successful as a team, however). Marco has eight top 10s in 14 prior Indy starts, including three third-place finishes and second place (in the third-closest Indy 500 ever) as a rookie in 2006.
Maybe this is the year the Andretti Curse is broken and Marco makes his way to Victory Lane. He had only the 28th-fastest time in the final practice session, though, so you have to wonder how the car will actually perform. Will it be the one that had the fastest time on both days of qualifying? Or will it be the one that went seven mph slower on Friday? Or will some other crazy thing happen that keeps him from being the first across the Yard of Bricks?
Former winners Scott Dixon and Takuma Sato join Andretti in the front row, while the second row features a rookie (Rinus VeeKay), a former champion (Ryan Hunter-Reay) and another talented, yet unlucky guy (James Hinchcliffe). Hinch will most likely have a car that's good enough to win, but have either an accident or mechanical problem that knocks him out and finish somewhere in the 20s.
Another driver who hasn't seemed to match his qualifying success with success in the race is Graham Rahal. This is his 13th Indy 500, and he has as many last-place finishes (two) as he does top fives. And the interesting thing is that when Rahal has a good starting position, he finishes towards the back, but the two times he's started 30th, he finished in the top 10. So, with Rahal starting eighth, the trend would indicate he won't be in the mix at the end.
Don't be surprised if someone who starts in the back ends up being a factor, either. There are four former winners in the final four rows, including defending champ Simon Pagenaud. Last year, he dominated the Brickyard. He qualified on the pole, had the fastest times all month, and won the race. This year hasn't quite gone as well. But don't count him out, either.
Helio Castroneves, meanwhile, makes his 20th consecutive Indy 500 start. He'll become just the seventh driver in history to be at the starting line for 20 different Indy 500s, let alone 20 in a row (A.J. Foyt's record is an incredible 35!). He won as a 26-year-old rookie in 2001, making him one of the youngest winners in Indy 500 history. If he wins his fourth this year (to tie the record for most victories), he'd be one of the oldest. His most recent win was in 2009, so if he wins this year, the 11-year gap would be the second-longest in history. I'm not saying Helio is going to win, and his place in Indy history is already secured. But the record he is setting and the others that are possible are simply remarkable. Especially when you consider this race was first held in 1911!
And, this is a stat that I can't go without mentioning. Helio, Pagenaud and Will Power are all former winners who drive for Team Penske. Team Penske has won the last two races, three of the last five, and 18 overall (including eight since 2001). So, you could say that Roger Penske "owns" Indianapolis. And that's now literally true. Penske bought the Speedway, the Indy 500 and the IndyCar Series last November, and this is the first Indy 500 under his ownership.
Will that make a difference? Probably not. But, seeing as his four drivers are three former winners and the defending series champion (Josef Newgarden), it wouldn't be a surprise at all to see Penske celebrating his first year of ownership by joining one of his guys in Victory Lane.
In fact, I do think it'll be one of the Penske guys who ends up winning the 104th Indianapolis 500. It won't be one of the three who already has, either. Which means my pick for the winner of the race is Josef Newgarden.
Friday, August 21, 2020
Hits & Misses Of Sports' Return
Sports have been back for about a month now, and it's been great to have them back! So what if we can only watch on TV! Most of us are in agreement that, while we'd rather have the option of attending games live, being able to watch them is better than nothing. And the NHL, NBA and MLB have all been making up for lost time, showing games on national TV all day and night.
Every league that has returned (which also includes MLS, NASCAR, Indy Car and golf) deserves credit for what they've done to enhance these TV-only productions. They haven't missed a beat, which is especially impressive when you consider most of it's being done off-site. Some of these innovations have been great and may very well become permanent, while others haven't quite hit the mark.
FOX's virtual fans are probably the worst of these ideas. I decided to give them a chance, but, no, they're stupid! They aren't fooling anybody. Everyone knows the games are being played in empty stadiums. And, to make matters worse, the virtual fans are only in the outfield...and they're only on the live home plate camera. They aren't there on replays or in any other camera shots. It just looks dumb!
Likewise, I'm not feeling the videos of all the fans watching from home. I get what they're trying to do. They want the fans to feel involved even though they can't physically be there, and they want the players to feel like they aren't playing in an empty arena. But basically looking at a Zoom call for five seconds isn't suddenly going to make it seem like those fans are there. And the timing of it always seems forced. It's like they're doing it just to do it. It adds nothing and could easily be scrapped.
The announcers (for the most part) not being on-site has been hit or miss. The NHL is doing a mix. Some announcers are on-site inside the bubbles in Edmonton and Toronto, some are at NBC's headquarters in Stamford, Conn., and others (like Doc Emrick) are doing the game from wherever they are. Frankly, things have been so seamless, I can't even tell the difference. (NBC has done this with its Olympic coverage for years, and that experience shows.)
With baseball, though, some of the remote broadcasts have definitely been better than others. Some of the broadcasters are clearly less comfortable doing a game off a monitor, and you can tell they struggle with it. It can definitely be an adjustment if you're used to being in the ballpark and watching the game on the field, especially when what you can see is limited to what the director chooses to show on the screen. But don't make your discomfort obvious. Especially since broadcasters not being on-site could definitely be one of the permanent changes that comes out of this.
However, most of the stuff they've done has been good. Starting with the atmosphere. Even though there aren't any fans there, the gameday experience is no different. They still do PA announcements, in-game music, walk-up songs, scoreboard graphics, etc. Basically, everything is the same as it would normally be, minus the fans. Although, they do have fake crowd noise, which I though would be silly, but they're not overdoing it, so it's actually working out OK.
It's obviously necessitated by the fact that they're all at the same site, but the all-day scheduling in both the NHL and NBA has been a hit. After a spring and summer where there was absolutely nothing for sports fans to watch, we've now got sports overload. And it's great! It'll be difficult to do moving forward when teams are playing in their own arenas again (and mostly on weekdays), but it may be worth at least considering staggered start times for playoff games in the future.
Major props have to go out to the NHL for their entire setup, which has been exceptional in both Toronto and Edmonton. They made those massive, empty arenas seem intimate. The branding covering the seats really helped create that atmosphere, and those video screens have really added something. That's obviously something they couldn't do in a normal situation, but it really works here. I also love how they're playing every team's goal song and victory music, regardless of who the "home" team is for that particular game. It's a nice touch.
Since I'm not a fan of the NBA, I haven't seen as much of what they've done in their bubble. Although, I can say that I do like the things I've noticed. For one, the court is the same in all three arenas, so you can't tell the difference from one to another. They do put the "home" team's logo on the floor, though, which doesn't really matter in that it make absolutely no difference, but it's still nice to know who's "home" game it is, especially since the NBA lets them wear whatever jersey they want for every game now!
One of the first things I noticed that both the NBA and WNBA did to make the arena seem smaller was put up a wall behind the benches. This is something I've seen done plenty of times, but never at the professional level. Again, it's a smart and creative way to make it more intimate. It's even cooler that it's a full-length video board, which allows them to do all kinds of different things (including putting up those dumb Zoom fans).
Speaking of Zoom, virtual postgame interviews could definitely become the wave of the future. The media being completely cut off from having access to players and coaches is obviously not going to be permanent, but I can certainly see the benefit of them not needing to physically be there to get their interviews. At the very least, I can see a hybrid model where interviews can be done both face-to-face and remotely.
TV interviews need to go back to face-to-face, though. Because the microphone on a stick thing just looks awkward. Especially since the sideline reporter is holding their own mic, but can't share it because they have to maintain social distancing. Likewise, doing an interview through a mask is something that no one will ever be able to get used to.
Most of this stuff is obviously temporary. It's concessions that we were all willing to make if it meant the return of live sports, something we've been so greatly missing over the past few months. And, frankly, the leagues and broadcasters have gone above and beyond to create an atmosphere that's both familiar and different. We can't be there, so they want to give us something more, even though they're limited themselves.
Every league that has returned (which also includes MLS, NASCAR, Indy Car and golf) deserves credit for what they've done to enhance these TV-only productions. They haven't missed a beat, which is especially impressive when you consider most of it's being done off-site. Some of these innovations have been great and may very well become permanent, while others haven't quite hit the mark.
FOX's virtual fans are probably the worst of these ideas. I decided to give them a chance, but, no, they're stupid! They aren't fooling anybody. Everyone knows the games are being played in empty stadiums. And, to make matters worse, the virtual fans are only in the outfield...and they're only on the live home plate camera. They aren't there on replays or in any other camera shots. It just looks dumb!
Likewise, I'm not feeling the videos of all the fans watching from home. I get what they're trying to do. They want the fans to feel involved even though they can't physically be there, and they want the players to feel like they aren't playing in an empty arena. But basically looking at a Zoom call for five seconds isn't suddenly going to make it seem like those fans are there. And the timing of it always seems forced. It's like they're doing it just to do it. It adds nothing and could easily be scrapped.
The announcers (for the most part) not being on-site has been hit or miss. The NHL is doing a mix. Some announcers are on-site inside the bubbles in Edmonton and Toronto, some are at NBC's headquarters in Stamford, Conn., and others (like Doc Emrick) are doing the game from wherever they are. Frankly, things have been so seamless, I can't even tell the difference. (NBC has done this with its Olympic coverage for years, and that experience shows.)
With baseball, though, some of the remote broadcasts have definitely been better than others. Some of the broadcasters are clearly less comfortable doing a game off a monitor, and you can tell they struggle with it. It can definitely be an adjustment if you're used to being in the ballpark and watching the game on the field, especially when what you can see is limited to what the director chooses to show on the screen. But don't make your discomfort obvious. Especially since broadcasters not being on-site could definitely be one of the permanent changes that comes out of this.
However, most of the stuff they've done has been good. Starting with the atmosphere. Even though there aren't any fans there, the gameday experience is no different. They still do PA announcements, in-game music, walk-up songs, scoreboard graphics, etc. Basically, everything is the same as it would normally be, minus the fans. Although, they do have fake crowd noise, which I though would be silly, but they're not overdoing it, so it's actually working out OK.
It's obviously necessitated by the fact that they're all at the same site, but the all-day scheduling in both the NHL and NBA has been a hit. After a spring and summer where there was absolutely nothing for sports fans to watch, we've now got sports overload. And it's great! It'll be difficult to do moving forward when teams are playing in their own arenas again (and mostly on weekdays), but it may be worth at least considering staggered start times for playoff games in the future.
Major props have to go out to the NHL for their entire setup, which has been exceptional in both Toronto and Edmonton. They made those massive, empty arenas seem intimate. The branding covering the seats really helped create that atmosphere, and those video screens have really added something. That's obviously something they couldn't do in a normal situation, but it really works here. I also love how they're playing every team's goal song and victory music, regardless of who the "home" team is for that particular game. It's a nice touch.
Since I'm not a fan of the NBA, I haven't seen as much of what they've done in their bubble. Although, I can say that I do like the things I've noticed. For one, the court is the same in all three arenas, so you can't tell the difference from one to another. They do put the "home" team's logo on the floor, though, which doesn't really matter in that it make absolutely no difference, but it's still nice to know who's "home" game it is, especially since the NBA lets them wear whatever jersey they want for every game now!
One of the first things I noticed that both the NBA and WNBA did to make the arena seem smaller was put up a wall behind the benches. This is something I've seen done plenty of times, but never at the professional level. Again, it's a smart and creative way to make it more intimate. It's even cooler that it's a full-length video board, which allows them to do all kinds of different things (including putting up those dumb Zoom fans).
Speaking of Zoom, virtual postgame interviews could definitely become the wave of the future. The media being completely cut off from having access to players and coaches is obviously not going to be permanent, but I can certainly see the benefit of them not needing to physically be there to get their interviews. At the very least, I can see a hybrid model where interviews can be done both face-to-face and remotely.
TV interviews need to go back to face-to-face, though. Because the microphone on a stick thing just looks awkward. Especially since the sideline reporter is holding their own mic, but can't share it because they have to maintain social distancing. Likewise, doing an interview through a mask is something that no one will ever be able to get used to.
Most of this stuff is obviously temporary. It's concessions that we were all willing to make if it meant the return of live sports, something we've been so greatly missing over the past few months. And, frankly, the leagues and broadcasters have gone above and beyond to create an atmosphere that's both familiar and different. We can't be there, so they want to give us something more, even though they're limited themselves.
Thursday, August 20, 2020
Baseball's Unwritten Rules
Padres shortstop Fernando Tatis, Jr., is one of the best, most exciting young players in the game (and the likely NL MVP if they were voting today). He also caused quite a stir the other day against the Rangers when he hit a grand slam on a 3-0 pitch in the eighth inning of a game San Diego was already winning 10-3. Texas manager Chris Woodward was miffed, and Padres manager Jayce Tingler wasn't happy about it either. Tingler, in fact, threw Tatis under the bus, declaring that he missed a take sign. And, to make things even more ridiculous, he made him apologize. (It should be noted here that the Houston Astros cheated their way to a World Series title and are yet to apologize for it.)
Why were they so angry? Because Tatis had broken one of baseball's unwritten rules. Evidently you're not supposed to swing at a 3-0 pitch right down the middle when your team has a seven-run lead in the eighth inning. Six runs is OK, but seven, that's where you draw the line. Shame on Tatis for not knowing that! How dare he commit such a breach of baseball etiquette! The Padres should send him down to the alternate site to teach him a lesson!
Part of the problem with baseball's unwritten rules is just that. They're unwritten. Everybody is supposed to just know them. And breaking one is some sort of capital offense. Never mind the fact that there's no clock in baseball, so a comeback is possible until the last out (one of the most memorable games I ever attended was when the Yankees came back from 9-1 down in the sixth to beat the Orioles 14-11 on Matt Holliday's walk-off three-run homer in the 10th).
There's no mercy rule, either, so why should a team stop trying to score? Just because there's a 3-0 count on the hitter and the score is "out of hand" doesn't mean you should get to throw one right down the middle and get a free strike. You don't want a guy to hit a home run off you? Throw a better pitch! Your job is to get him out. If you didn't do that, that's on you.
Baseball's unwritten rules have existed for years. And breaking one can lead to all kinds of consequences. If the other team takes offense, somebody's getting hit, either the next hitter or you the next time you come up (another unwritten rule!). Yet that's an unwritten rule nobody seems to have a problem with. I guess not all unwritten rules are created equal!
So which unwritten rules are OK to break and which aren't? That's definitely a subjective question. Frankly, I think the fact that they're all unwritten makes them all fair game, but I definitely think some need to be observed more strictly than others.
Don't talk about a perfect game/no-hitter while it's happening: Broadcasters break this one all the time, and every time they harp on it, the next batter inevitably gets a hit (or walks in the case of a perfect game). I guess I'm just superstitious about it. Every time I even realize there's a no-hitter going on in my head I jinx it. Saying "he's perfect through three" is fine. Early in the game no one's thinking about it. But not being able to shut up about it in the seventh is a different story! By then everyone knows about it, including the pitcher, so just let it play out.
Don't bunt to break up a no-hitter: People go back and forth on this one. The argument for it is: "Why is it OK to bunt for a hit in the first, but not in the eighth?" I have no problem with it if it's a 1-0 or 2-0 game. You're trying to win the game and you need base runners. But if it's 6-0 and you're doing it just to break up the no-hitter, that's bush league. Break it up with a seeing-eye single to the outfield.
If the pitcher gets two outs on two pitches, take the first one: THIS is when there's a universal take sign for the batter. Because there's no way you're letting the opposing pitcher get out of the inning by throwing only three pitches. You might even be directed to take the first two. Sure, they might be fastballs right down the middle that are painful to take. But that's better than the hell you'll pay when you get back to the dugout after popping up on the first pitch and sending everybody right back on defense when they've barely had time to sit down.
Your pitcher's got your back: Preemptive warnings have taken a lot of the fun out of this one, but the brush back pitch is a time-honored part of baseball. If there's a history of bad blood or leftover resentment because of a previous incident, everyone knows the close, inside one is coming. So let it happen and that'll be the end of it. Yes, there's a possibility it can escalate if the pitcher comes too far inside or gets a little too close to the head, but let the guys police themselves.
Don't steal when your team is up big: Much like "don't swing 3-0 when your team is up big," I don't quite get this one. Just because you have a big lead and the other team isn't holding the runner on he has to stay at first? Why? So it's easier to get a double play or he can't score on a single? If they're not holding you on, and you want to go to second, go for it!
Don't flip your bat: What is it about the Rangers and the unwritten rules? Ask Rougned Odor about Jose Bautista. I'm sure he's got some feelings. I agree that Bautista's bat flip was over the top, but that doesn't mean they should all be outlawed. Especially because there's a difference in flipping the bat to show the pitcher up and flipping the bat in a moment of pure excitement. The first warrants a reaction. There's nothing wrong with the second.
Don't bunt against the shift: I'm not even sure if this one counts as an unwritten rule. Either way, it's frankly just stupid that more left-handed hitters don't do it. They're giving you the entire third base line! Just drop one down, run down to first, and you've got an easy single!
Once they pull their starters, you should too: Again, why is this an unwritten rule? Why should what one team decides to do have any bearing on the other? If the Dodgers are up big and want to take Cody Bellinger and Mookie Betts out, that's their prerogative. But that doesn't mean the Padres also have to take out Fernando Tatis, Jr., and Manny Machado. The game's not over. They can take them out if they want, but they're under no obligation to do so. If the Padres come back and the Dodgers don't have their big bats in the game, that's their problem, not San Diego's!
As you can tell, the unwritten rules are incredibly arbitrary. And adherence to them is a matter of interpretation. For example, who's to define a "big lead?" And when do you start applying them? There's no mercy rule, so what's the threshold? When teams are allowed to start using position players in relief?
Even though a lot of them are stupid, baseball's unwritten rules aren't going away anytime soon. And Fernando Tatis, Jr., broke one, which clearly offended the Texas Rangers. I think it was great though. As the MLB marketing campaign from a few years ago states, "Let the Kids Play." That's what he was doing. And he was having fun doing it!
Why were they so angry? Because Tatis had broken one of baseball's unwritten rules. Evidently you're not supposed to swing at a 3-0 pitch right down the middle when your team has a seven-run lead in the eighth inning. Six runs is OK, but seven, that's where you draw the line. Shame on Tatis for not knowing that! How dare he commit such a breach of baseball etiquette! The Padres should send him down to the alternate site to teach him a lesson!
Part of the problem with baseball's unwritten rules is just that. They're unwritten. Everybody is supposed to just know them. And breaking one is some sort of capital offense. Never mind the fact that there's no clock in baseball, so a comeback is possible until the last out (one of the most memorable games I ever attended was when the Yankees came back from 9-1 down in the sixth to beat the Orioles 14-11 on Matt Holliday's walk-off three-run homer in the 10th).
There's no mercy rule, either, so why should a team stop trying to score? Just because there's a 3-0 count on the hitter and the score is "out of hand" doesn't mean you should get to throw one right down the middle and get a free strike. You don't want a guy to hit a home run off you? Throw a better pitch! Your job is to get him out. If you didn't do that, that's on you.
Baseball's unwritten rules have existed for years. And breaking one can lead to all kinds of consequences. If the other team takes offense, somebody's getting hit, either the next hitter or you the next time you come up (another unwritten rule!). Yet that's an unwritten rule nobody seems to have a problem with. I guess not all unwritten rules are created equal!
So which unwritten rules are OK to break and which aren't? That's definitely a subjective question. Frankly, I think the fact that they're all unwritten makes them all fair game, but I definitely think some need to be observed more strictly than others.
Don't talk about a perfect game/no-hitter while it's happening: Broadcasters break this one all the time, and every time they harp on it, the next batter inevitably gets a hit (or walks in the case of a perfect game). I guess I'm just superstitious about it. Every time I even realize there's a no-hitter going on in my head I jinx it. Saying "he's perfect through three" is fine. Early in the game no one's thinking about it. But not being able to shut up about it in the seventh is a different story! By then everyone knows about it, including the pitcher, so just let it play out.
Don't bunt to break up a no-hitter: People go back and forth on this one. The argument for it is: "Why is it OK to bunt for a hit in the first, but not in the eighth?" I have no problem with it if it's a 1-0 or 2-0 game. You're trying to win the game and you need base runners. But if it's 6-0 and you're doing it just to break up the no-hitter, that's bush league. Break it up with a seeing-eye single to the outfield.
If the pitcher gets two outs on two pitches, take the first one: THIS is when there's a universal take sign for the batter. Because there's no way you're letting the opposing pitcher get out of the inning by throwing only three pitches. You might even be directed to take the first two. Sure, they might be fastballs right down the middle that are painful to take. But that's better than the hell you'll pay when you get back to the dugout after popping up on the first pitch and sending everybody right back on defense when they've barely had time to sit down.
Your pitcher's got your back: Preemptive warnings have taken a lot of the fun out of this one, but the brush back pitch is a time-honored part of baseball. If there's a history of bad blood or leftover resentment because of a previous incident, everyone knows the close, inside one is coming. So let it happen and that'll be the end of it. Yes, there's a possibility it can escalate if the pitcher comes too far inside or gets a little too close to the head, but let the guys police themselves.
Don't steal when your team is up big: Much like "don't swing 3-0 when your team is up big," I don't quite get this one. Just because you have a big lead and the other team isn't holding the runner on he has to stay at first? Why? So it's easier to get a double play or he can't score on a single? If they're not holding you on, and you want to go to second, go for it!
Don't flip your bat: What is it about the Rangers and the unwritten rules? Ask Rougned Odor about Jose Bautista. I'm sure he's got some feelings. I agree that Bautista's bat flip was over the top, but that doesn't mean they should all be outlawed. Especially because there's a difference in flipping the bat to show the pitcher up and flipping the bat in a moment of pure excitement. The first warrants a reaction. There's nothing wrong with the second.
Don't bunt against the shift: I'm not even sure if this one counts as an unwritten rule. Either way, it's frankly just stupid that more left-handed hitters don't do it. They're giving you the entire third base line! Just drop one down, run down to first, and you've got an easy single!
Once they pull their starters, you should too: Again, why is this an unwritten rule? Why should what one team decides to do have any bearing on the other? If the Dodgers are up big and want to take Cody Bellinger and Mookie Betts out, that's their prerogative. But that doesn't mean the Padres also have to take out Fernando Tatis, Jr., and Manny Machado. The game's not over. They can take them out if they want, but they're under no obligation to do so. If the Padres come back and the Dodgers don't have their big bats in the game, that's their problem, not San Diego's!
As you can tell, the unwritten rules are incredibly arbitrary. And adherence to them is a matter of interpretation. For example, who's to define a "big lead?" And when do you start applying them? There's no mercy rule, so what's the threshold? When teams are allowed to start using position players in relief?
Even though a lot of them are stupid, baseball's unwritten rules aren't going away anytime soon. And Fernando Tatis, Jr., broke one, which clearly offended the Texas Rangers. I think it was great though. As the MLB marketing campaign from a few years ago states, "Let the Kids Play." That's what he was doing. And he was having fun doing it!
Monday, August 17, 2020
In Their Own Little World
I shouldn't be surprised that, despite the fact that the pandemic is nowhere near under control and that all fall NCAA Championships have been postponed, there's still that group of schools and conferences that are still going ahead with their plans to play college football in a few weeks--legitimate safety concerns be damned! It's true of any sport, but it's especially true of college football, that those involved often can't see the big picture. And that has never been truer than over the past few weeks.
Let's start with the "Stubborn Six," as Sports Illustrated has so aptly nicknamed the conferences that are surging ahead with a football season as the pandemic rages on. Football is perhaps the worst sport to be playing during a public health crisis. You can't social distance. There's physical contact on every play. That's why the Big Ten and Pac-12 deemed it too unsafe to play football this fall. Yet in the South, where college football is religion, they have no such reservations.
Meanwhile, if you look at a map of the United States and you see where COVID cases are rising, it's all the Southern states! The states where the virus is getting worst are the ones that think it's safe to play football. Yet in the Northeast, Upper Midwest and West Coast, the places where the virus IS under control, nobody is planning on playing. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Consider this, too. How many outbreaks have we heard about at college campuses over the past few weeks? Pretty much all of those colleges are ones that haven't called off their football seasons yet. There have even been how many outbreaks within football teams? Yet that's not enough to deter these schools from forging ahead.
Part of their argument for playing is that they've been following of the NCAA protocols, which is true. But even that hasn't been able to stop outbreaks within teams. And, let's not forget, student-athletes, by definition, are students. Which means they're going to intermingle with other students on campus. Students who won't be subjected to the same rigorous standards or regular testing. All it takes is one interaction with an infected person for the virus to spread and knock out the entire team.
Then there's the collateral damage of the other fall athletes. They don't care about the soccer, volleyball and field hockey players or the cross country runners. But the optics of only playing football this fall would be terrible (and most likely a Title IX violation). So, student-athletes in those sports--who have nothing to play for with no NCAA Championships--are being asked to go out there and play whether they like it or not and whether it's safe or not just so the football season can be salvaged.
That brings me to the ridiculous petition started by Ohio State quarterback Justin Fields that had gained more than 200,000 signatures as of Sunday night. Fields wants the Big Ten to immediately reinstate the 2020 football season and let players/teams make their own choice about whether or not they want to play. It even has a catchy name: "We Want to Play."
Once again, no mention of the volleyball, soccer, field hockey and cross country student-athletes in the "We Want to Play" petition. Because who cares about them? We're talking about college football here. There's nothing more important!
It wasn't an easy decision that the Big Ten and Pac-12 AD's, Presidents and Chancellors made. They understand the financial blow to their athletic departments, not to mention the psychological blow to all involved by not playing football this fall. But they had to think about more than the football players! They had to think about those volleyball, soccer and field hockey players and cross country runners, too.
And just imagine what would happen if they'd allowed those volleyball and soccer and field hockey and cross country seasons to begin, only for somebody on one of those teams to get infected. Or, even worse, they play a game with an infected person on the field (either on their own team or their opponent). You might as well have the lawyers on standby! Because the lawsuit would be filed before the bus even got back to campus! And, frankly, it's not worth that financial risk.
The other Power 5 conference that has postponed all fall sports, including football, is the Pac-12. Even before making that decision, the Pac-12 had its own football-related issue to deal with in the form of the #WeAreUnited movement, which started at Washington State, but quickly grew to include players throughout the entire conference. They had a list of demands and threatened to boycott the season if they weren't met. That boycott obviously won't happen now, but that's beside the point.
Some of the points that the Pac-12 players made are good ones, but some of their demands aren't just unreasonable, they're completely unrealistic. For example, they want things such as six-year athletic scholarships, the ability to transfer once without having to sit out, and the ability to enter the draft, but return to school and remain eligible if they go undrafted. These are NCAA rules. The Pac-12 can't do anything about them unilaterally.
Likewise, they want six years of medical insurance after they leave school. Why should their university be on the hook for a "football injury" that suddenly pops up when they're 28...after having felt fine for the previous five years? And if they get drafted, they're covered by the NFLPA, so why would any medical costs fall back on their school?
My absolute favorite, though, is their demand for 50 percent of conference revenues to be spread evenly among the student-athletes. Guys, you aren't professional athletes! You don't have a CBA! Yes, the name, image, likeness legislation passed and will go into effect soon, giving them the ability to receive financial compensation without penalty for the first time. But there's a big difference between that and revenue sharing.
Again, revenue sharing is part of the agreement between professional leagues and their respective players unions. College athletes are not professional athletes! Not only that, but giving 50 percent of all Athletic Department revenues to student-athletes is beyond absurd. For starters, most Athletic Departments operate at a deficit, so there aren't any revenues to go around to begin with. Beyond that, though, Athletic Departments use whatever revenue they do get to benefit every program at the school, not just football! Whether football players think that's fair or not is irrelevant. The point remains...there wouldn't be any money left for things like facilities improvements, support staff, etc., if Athletic Departments were giving it directly to student-athletes, who would then be complaining about not having those things!
Nobody wanted to cancel/postpone the college football season, and the disappointment isn't limited to the players. But it's also something that wasn't taken lightly. It was done in the interest of public safety. And once we get through this, college football will be there again. If you look at the bigger picture, though, it's something that doesn't really seem particularly important right now. The Big Ten and Pac-12 get that. The Stubborn Six, unfortunately, don't.
Saturday, August 15, 2020
An Inoffensive Protest
If there was one good thing about the Olympics being postponed until next summer, it's that the IOC and the different international federations didn't have to deal with the issue of political protests. The events of this summer have obviously made the athlete activist more prevalent than ever, especially in the United States...and you know there are American athletes who would've protested on the medals stand in Tokyo, whether it was "allowed" or not. Now the IOC has time to come up with some sort of plan that, while it might not make everybody happy, will at least be a reasonable compromise.
IOC rules are very clear in that "no political demonstrations are allowed on the field of play or medals stand." American athletes don't like this rule, but it's a good one that exists for a good purpose. You're dealing with athletes from 205 different countries. They don't all share the same ideologies. So, one athlete might be protesting for something that their competitor might be against. Neither is "right." Neither is "wrong." And they're both entitled to have their conflicting opinions.
Likewise, an act of protest is as much about the athlete as it is about the issue. The athletes know this. That's part of the reason they do it. They want to draw that attention to themselves. So, regardless of the motivation, the act is selfish.
And, again, you're talking about 205 different nations here! Triple jumper Christian Taylor is one of the most outspoken advocates of "athletes' rights." But what Taylor fails to understand is that not everyone thinks the way he thinks. As an American, he takes things like freedom of speech and freedom of expression for granted. Those are foreign concepts in a lot of other societies.
So, while Taylor and Co. may think the ability to protest is a "right" that they're unfairly being denied, that sentiment is not shared by all athletes around the world. And the IOC needs to consider the feelings of those athletes, as well.
They also want to avoid situations like what happened at last year's Swimming World Championships, where Australia's Mack Horton refused to take the medals stand with China's Sun Yang, who was allowed to compete despite a pending doping suspension. The reaction was mixed to say the least. A lot of people praised Horton for taking a stand (metaphorically). But there were also plenty of people who criticized Horton for making it about himself. And the level of criticism will only be magnified in Tokyo.
This important topic was discussed by the IOC Athletes' Commission at its virtual meeting a few weeks ago, and the results were telling. There was no clear consensus one way or the other. Some athletes favored abolishing the rule. Some were fine with it as-is. Others would like to see it amended and perhaps define what's acceptable and what's not.
The point is there's no simple solution. That was never going to be the case. Somebody's not gonna be happy either way. If the rule is kept in place, you'll have a group of (mostly American) athletes who are upset about being denied their "right" to protest. If the rule is changed, you'll have a group of athletes who are upset when others are protesting during the medals ceremony, potentially hijacking a moment that they've worked their entire lives for.
It's a difficult balance that the IOC must find here, and they still might not have a solution to this very complex problem even with the extra year. IOC President Thomas Bach, an Olympic gold medalist himself, doesn't appear to be completely opposed to the idea. However, he also cautioned that that a clear distinction needs to be made between suitable forms of protest and "divisive demonstrations."
One potential solution proposed by the Athletes' Commission was to have a moment of silence at the Opening Ceremony in Tokyo. Kikkan Randall, a gold medalist in PyeongChang and member of both the IOC Athletes' Commission and USOPC board, thinks that could be a "really powerful statement to the world."
I agree with her. That would be an excellent compromise. It would be an excellent demonstration of worldwide solidarity, too. While it probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy those athletes who still want the ability to protest individually, it would still show them that their voices aren't being ignored. More importantly, it's not specific, which is key. Because once you start getting into specific causes, you run the risk of offending/alienating those who disagree.
Maybe there's a way to individually protest within the rules, though. That solution was provided by American Noah Lyles, who figures to be one of the sprinting stars of the Tokyo Games. When he was introduced prior to his race at the Monaco Diamond League meet, Lyles lowered his head and raised his fist. It was simple, personal and inoffensive. And it got the point across.
That's easier said and done in a sport like track & field or swimming, where they have individual introductions. But it does seem like it could work in the other sports, as well, which makes it perhaps the best solution of all. Athletes would have their opportunity to express themselves without tainting the medals ceremony with a political statement that others may not agree with.
Regardless, there will be athletes who want to protest in Tokyo. Especially in the politically-charged environment of the past several months (that doesn't figure to calm down before next summer). The IOC's challenge will be to find a way to accommodate their desire to protest with their own desire to keep politics out of the Olympics. It's a daunting task to be sure.
IOC rules are very clear in that "no political demonstrations are allowed on the field of play or medals stand." American athletes don't like this rule, but it's a good one that exists for a good purpose. You're dealing with athletes from 205 different countries. They don't all share the same ideologies. So, one athlete might be protesting for something that their competitor might be against. Neither is "right." Neither is "wrong." And they're both entitled to have their conflicting opinions.
Likewise, an act of protest is as much about the athlete as it is about the issue. The athletes know this. That's part of the reason they do it. They want to draw that attention to themselves. So, regardless of the motivation, the act is selfish.
And, again, you're talking about 205 different nations here! Triple jumper Christian Taylor is one of the most outspoken advocates of "athletes' rights." But what Taylor fails to understand is that not everyone thinks the way he thinks. As an American, he takes things like freedom of speech and freedom of expression for granted. Those are foreign concepts in a lot of other societies.
So, while Taylor and Co. may think the ability to protest is a "right" that they're unfairly being denied, that sentiment is not shared by all athletes around the world. And the IOC needs to consider the feelings of those athletes, as well.
They also want to avoid situations like what happened at last year's Swimming World Championships, where Australia's Mack Horton refused to take the medals stand with China's Sun Yang, who was allowed to compete despite a pending doping suspension. The reaction was mixed to say the least. A lot of people praised Horton for taking a stand (metaphorically). But there were also plenty of people who criticized Horton for making it about himself. And the level of criticism will only be magnified in Tokyo.
This important topic was discussed by the IOC Athletes' Commission at its virtual meeting a few weeks ago, and the results were telling. There was no clear consensus one way or the other. Some athletes favored abolishing the rule. Some were fine with it as-is. Others would like to see it amended and perhaps define what's acceptable and what's not.
The point is there's no simple solution. That was never going to be the case. Somebody's not gonna be happy either way. If the rule is kept in place, you'll have a group of (mostly American) athletes who are upset about being denied their "right" to protest. If the rule is changed, you'll have a group of athletes who are upset when others are protesting during the medals ceremony, potentially hijacking a moment that they've worked their entire lives for.
It's a difficult balance that the IOC must find here, and they still might not have a solution to this very complex problem even with the extra year. IOC President Thomas Bach, an Olympic gold medalist himself, doesn't appear to be completely opposed to the idea. However, he also cautioned that that a clear distinction needs to be made between suitable forms of protest and "divisive demonstrations."
One potential solution proposed by the Athletes' Commission was to have a moment of silence at the Opening Ceremony in Tokyo. Kikkan Randall, a gold medalist in PyeongChang and member of both the IOC Athletes' Commission and USOPC board, thinks that could be a "really powerful statement to the world."
I agree with her. That would be an excellent compromise. It would be an excellent demonstration of worldwide solidarity, too. While it probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy those athletes who still want the ability to protest individually, it would still show them that their voices aren't being ignored. More importantly, it's not specific, which is key. Because once you start getting into specific causes, you run the risk of offending/alienating those who disagree.
Maybe there's a way to individually protest within the rules, though. That solution was provided by American Noah Lyles, who figures to be one of the sprinting stars of the Tokyo Games. When he was introduced prior to his race at the Monaco Diamond League meet, Lyles lowered his head and raised his fist. It was simple, personal and inoffensive. And it got the point across.
That's easier said and done in a sport like track & field or swimming, where they have individual introductions. But it does seem like it could work in the other sports, as well, which makes it perhaps the best solution of all. Athletes would have their opportunity to express themselves without tainting the medals ceremony with a political statement that others may not agree with.
Regardless, there will be athletes who want to protest in Tokyo. Especially in the politically-charged environment of the past several months (that doesn't figure to calm down before next summer). The IOC's challenge will be to find a way to accommodate their desire to protest with their own desire to keep politics out of the Olympics. It's a daunting task to be sure.
Friday, August 14, 2020
Where's the Originality?
The MLS expansion team in St. Louis has announced its name. And they continued in the recent MLS trend of not being creative at all. Instead, they became the latest MLS team to name their team the European way, going with the ultra-original "St. Louis City FC."
MLS has expanded significantly over the past several years. St. Louis will be the league's 30th team, and the 12th added since 2015. Of those 12 teams, eight have some variation of "(City) FC/SC." There are also two "Uniteds," 2017 additions Atlanta and Minnesota, and David Beckham added "Inter" before Miami (naturally in a nod to Inter Milan). The only exception is Sacramento Republic FC, which is simply keeping the name of the existing USL club when it joins MLS in 2023.
Once all four expansion teams (also Austin FC and Charlotte FC) begin play, more than half of MLS will have European-style names. The number will either be 17 or 18, depending on how you want to count the New York Red Bulls (this might be the first time that I didn't call them the MetroStars). And nearly all of those teams have joined MLS as expansion franchises over the past 15 years.
That hasn't always been the case. When MLS debuted, virtually every team had a nickname common to other North American professional franchises. The only exception was DC United. That remained the case until 2005, when the Dallas Burn changed their name to FC Dallas. The 2005 season also marked the debut of an expansion team in Salt Lake City, which got the whole European-style thing started when it bypassed the traditional naming convention and named itself "Real Salt Lake." (There was also a second LA team that debuted that season, "Chivas USA," which was partly owned by the owners of the Mexican team known as "Chivas.") Since then, we've seen more European-style names than not.
We're even seeing it at the lower levels. The USL is the second tier of North American professional soccer. A lot of MLS expansion teams are successful USL franchises in larger markets that have shown they can support an MLS club. And even the USL has become overrun with "FCs" and "SCs."
Over the first decade or so of MLS, the league wasn't taken very seriously. There were a number of reasons for this, and the team names were one of those reasons. Some of that criticism was warranted. A lot of it was not. But MLS franchises were particularly sensitive to the name thing.
Everyone likes to compare MLS to European leagues. And one of the trademarks of European leagues is that the teams have "traditional" names. They all have unofficial nicknames that are used by their supporters, but the formal name of the teams is the standard "(City Name) FC" or something similar. So, I guess as a way to legitimize themselves, MLS teams started adopting that naming convention. (Although, it's worth noting that the sport is called "soccer" here. We all know what "FC" means, but it comes off as a bit pretentious when North America's "football" is a completely different sport.)
Does any of this make an actual difference? Of course not! Teams are free to name themselves whatever they like. But that change in how MLS clubs are named can is almost directly proportional to the growth of soccer in the U.S. More specifically, the increased popularity of European soccer in the U.S.
All four of the biggest European domestic leagues have U.S. TV deals. NBCSN pays a fortune for the Premier League and shows like five games a weekend. England's not your cup of tea? That's OK. The Bundesliga is on FS1. Or you can watch La Liga on beIN, with the occasional Serie A game making its way onto ESPN. The Champions League has had a bit of a vagabond existence, with its U.S. TV rights moving to CBS Sports Network during the pause.
It's not a fair comparison to rate the quality of play in the top European leagues with the quality of play in MLS. But what MLS teams can do to make people think of these European clubs is adopting similar names. Which is why, you'll notice, it's only soccer teams that have taken the European naming convention. Every other expansion team in every other sport, goes with the American standard of "Location Nickname."
Here's the thing, though. No one is going to confuse an MLS team with a European team. So what exactly is the point of using the European name style? Is it because that feels more legitimate? Is it because they think they'll be taken more seriously if they're known as "(City) Football Club" instead of by whatever nickname they choose?
If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just so boring and unoriginal, though. Your name is your identity. People were anxiously waiting for months to see what Seattle was going to name its hockey team. Now we're waiting just as anxiously to find out what the Artists Formerly Known as the Washington Redskins will be known as moving forward. (Their temporary name, the "Washington Football Team," would fit right in with MLS. I can even envision a nice little intercity rivalry with DC United.)
Maybe the problem is that the unoriginal has also become the predictable. When Real Salt Lake joined the league, their name was unique. At the time, everybody except for DC United had an American-style name. But do you know the last time a team joined MLS with a name that was more than simply "(City) FC/SC" or "(Place) United"? 2012, when the Montreal Impact joined MLS from the USL. The last team to enter the league as a brand new franchise that actually has a nickname is the Philadelphia Union, who joined in 2010.
Since then, MLS has added 15 teams. The only four with actual nicknames (Montreal Impact, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Sacramento Republic) were elevated from USL. Everyone else has a European-style name. It's become boring in more than one sense. Not only do the names lack any sort of creativity, everybody has essentially the same name!
How can teams develop their own identities when the only difference in their names is the city? It's confusing! Sure, it doesn't matter to their own fans, but when those same fans refer to their team by the nickname they came up with for them, no one's gonna know who they're talking about! Likewise, if you say "the Sounders" or "the Galaxy," everybody knows who you mean. All the FCs and SCs and Uniteds have to be referred to by just their city name, though. That doesn't really do much to promote a brand.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this. If that's what they want to do, it's their prerogative. (Full disclosure, my favorite MLS team is New York City FC.) I'd just like to see the MLS teams work a little harder to build their own identity. Just because you're a soccer team (sorry "football club"), you don't have to copy what's done in Europe. You're not in Europe. You're in North America. You should embrace that. And one way to embrace that is to have an American-style name.
MLS has expanded significantly over the past several years. St. Louis will be the league's 30th team, and the 12th added since 2015. Of those 12 teams, eight have some variation of "(City) FC/SC." There are also two "Uniteds," 2017 additions Atlanta and Minnesota, and David Beckham added "Inter" before Miami (naturally in a nod to Inter Milan). The only exception is Sacramento Republic FC, which is simply keeping the name of the existing USL club when it joins MLS in 2023.
Once all four expansion teams (also Austin FC and Charlotte FC) begin play, more than half of MLS will have European-style names. The number will either be 17 or 18, depending on how you want to count the New York Red Bulls (this might be the first time that I didn't call them the MetroStars). And nearly all of those teams have joined MLS as expansion franchises over the past 15 years.
That hasn't always been the case. When MLS debuted, virtually every team had a nickname common to other North American professional franchises. The only exception was DC United. That remained the case until 2005, when the Dallas Burn changed their name to FC Dallas. The 2005 season also marked the debut of an expansion team in Salt Lake City, which got the whole European-style thing started when it bypassed the traditional naming convention and named itself "Real Salt Lake." (There was also a second LA team that debuted that season, "Chivas USA," which was partly owned by the owners of the Mexican team known as "Chivas.") Since then, we've seen more European-style names than not.
We're even seeing it at the lower levels. The USL is the second tier of North American professional soccer. A lot of MLS expansion teams are successful USL franchises in larger markets that have shown they can support an MLS club. And even the USL has become overrun with "FCs" and "SCs."
Over the first decade or so of MLS, the league wasn't taken very seriously. There were a number of reasons for this, and the team names were one of those reasons. Some of that criticism was warranted. A lot of it was not. But MLS franchises were particularly sensitive to the name thing.
Everyone likes to compare MLS to European leagues. And one of the trademarks of European leagues is that the teams have "traditional" names. They all have unofficial nicknames that are used by their supporters, but the formal name of the teams is the standard "(City Name) FC" or something similar. So, I guess as a way to legitimize themselves, MLS teams started adopting that naming convention. (Although, it's worth noting that the sport is called "soccer" here. We all know what "FC" means, but it comes off as a bit pretentious when North America's "football" is a completely different sport.)
Does any of this make an actual difference? Of course not! Teams are free to name themselves whatever they like. But that change in how MLS clubs are named can is almost directly proportional to the growth of soccer in the U.S. More specifically, the increased popularity of European soccer in the U.S.
All four of the biggest European domestic leagues have U.S. TV deals. NBCSN pays a fortune for the Premier League and shows like five games a weekend. England's not your cup of tea? That's OK. The Bundesliga is on FS1. Or you can watch La Liga on beIN, with the occasional Serie A game making its way onto ESPN. The Champions League has had a bit of a vagabond existence, with its U.S. TV rights moving to CBS Sports Network during the pause.
It's not a fair comparison to rate the quality of play in the top European leagues with the quality of play in MLS. But what MLS teams can do to make people think of these European clubs is adopting similar names. Which is why, you'll notice, it's only soccer teams that have taken the European naming convention. Every other expansion team in every other sport, goes with the American standard of "Location Nickname."
Here's the thing, though. No one is going to confuse an MLS team with a European team. So what exactly is the point of using the European name style? Is it because that feels more legitimate? Is it because they think they'll be taken more seriously if they're known as "(City) Football Club" instead of by whatever nickname they choose?
If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just so boring and unoriginal, though. Your name is your identity. People were anxiously waiting for months to see what Seattle was going to name its hockey team. Now we're waiting just as anxiously to find out what the Artists Formerly Known as the Washington Redskins will be known as moving forward. (Their temporary name, the "Washington Football Team," would fit right in with MLS. I can even envision a nice little intercity rivalry with DC United.)
Maybe the problem is that the unoriginal has also become the predictable. When Real Salt Lake joined the league, their name was unique. At the time, everybody except for DC United had an American-style name. But do you know the last time a team joined MLS with a name that was more than simply "(City) FC/SC" or "(Place) United"? 2012, when the Montreal Impact joined MLS from the USL. The last team to enter the league as a brand new franchise that actually has a nickname is the Philadelphia Union, who joined in 2010.
Since then, MLS has added 15 teams. The only four with actual nicknames (Montreal Impact, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Sacramento Republic) were elevated from USL. Everyone else has a European-style name. It's become boring in more than one sense. Not only do the names lack any sort of creativity, everybody has essentially the same name!
How can teams develop their own identities when the only difference in their names is the city? It's confusing! Sure, it doesn't matter to their own fans, but when those same fans refer to their team by the nickname they came up with for them, no one's gonna know who they're talking about! Likewise, if you say "the Sounders" or "the Galaxy," everybody knows who you mean. All the FCs and SCs and Uniteds have to be referred to by just their city name, though. That doesn't really do much to promote a brand.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this. If that's what they want to do, it's their prerogative. (Full disclosure, my favorite MLS team is New York City FC.) I'd just like to see the MLS teams work a little harder to build their own identity. Just because you're a soccer team (sorry "football club"), you don't have to copy what's done in Europe. You're not in Europe. You're in North America. You should embrace that. And one way to embrace that is to have an American-style name.
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
College Football On the Brink
As more and more conferences started postponing or cancelling their fall seasons, you had to wonder how long the Power 5 leagues would be able to hold out. You knew that they were going to do everything in their power to play, but, as the dominoes kept falling, you knew that possibility became smaller and smaller by the day. It eventually became a matter of who would accept the inevitable first.
The answer to that question was the Big Ten, which made the call one day after its Midwestern neighbors, the Mid-American Conference. The Pac-12 (which was my bet to be the one) followed suit soon after, leaving the SEC, ACC and Big 12 as the outliers. Those three still want to play and are going to try. But, again, how long until they're faced with the inevitable?
I get it. The prospect of not playing football this fall is something that they don't want to think about. But, like it or not, that's the reality we're living in. And the idea of playing college football in states that are still in the midst of the outbreak comes off as any combination of greedy, inappropriate and tone-deaf. It also shows how misplaced the priorities are at the schools that are still full-speed ahead preparing for a season that almost assuredly won't happen.
There's so much money involved in college football that it makes sense they were going to do everything they could to play if possible. The financial impact of not playing will be devastating to athletic departments that have already taken a massive hit because of the cancellation of March Madness. Not to mention the impact it'll have on the communities in those college towns with local businesses that are dependent on football Saturdays. So the desire to play was obvious.
However, the writing's been on the wall for months. They were just unwilling to see it. Or unwilling to accept it. Either way, the optics were terrible. You've got these football teams back on campus acting as if everything was normal while you've got other students at the same universities preparing to start the semester with online-only classes.
It's also worth noting that there are more fall sports than just football. Soccer, volleyball, cross country and field hockey are the seemingly forgotten pawns in the desire to salvage the football season. Nobody cares if those seasons happen. All they care about is football. But they can't have just football, so those other student-athletes were set to be collateral damage. Whether they wanted to return or if was safe for them to do so is irrelevant.
Everybody wishes things were different. When the NCAA cancelled everything and the sports world came to a grinding halt in March, we were all hopeful that life would be on its way back to normal by now. That wouldn't just mean college sports returning. It would also mean college campuses full of students. Unfortunately, none of those things are going to happen.
Those coaches and administrators who've been advocating playing a season and think it can be done safely point to the success of the NBA and NHL bubbles. The NBA and NHL have both done a tremendous job since their restarts. Neither league has had a positive test. Those bubbles are vastly different than a college campus, though.
College athletes, by definition, are college students. College students live and interact with other college students on a daily basis. They can't be isolated the way NBA and NHL players can in their respective bubbles. And, as we've already seen with some programs, the more interaction you have (especially if you don't take the proper precautions), the more likely it is you'll become infected. And in a contact sport like football, one infection can easily spread among an entire team, which would put also put their opponents at risk.
And, frankly, playing football this fall is a lawsuit waiting to happen. The players might say they want to play, and they might comply with all the testing and other precautions. That doesn't make them immune from infection. And as soon as there's one positive test, all liability waivers aside, the school might as well have the lawyers on standby. Especially if that player takes the field in a game, exposing players on both teams!
Simply put, playing college football this fall isn't worth it. There's still too much risk involved. I wish that wasn't the case, but wishful thinking isn't going to get us out of this nightmare. Fortunately, the Big Ten presidents and AD's made the right decision, which could not have been easy. It's not something any of them wanted to do. But they knew it was something they had to do. And they should be commended for it.
Players and coaches in the three remaining conferences were quick to jump on the Big Ten and Pac-12's decisions as "rash" and "too early." Yes, they had moved to conference-only schedules and pushed the start date back, but even that didn't guarantee a season was going to happen. And if the end result was ultimately going to be no fall football season, what difference does the timing make?
In fact, I'd argue the earlier, the better. The uncertainty is gone. You don't have players preparing for a season that they had to know was unlikely to happen all along. Big Ten and Pac-12 players at least know what's going on and can plan accordingly. Imagine what things are like for players in the ACC, SEC and Big 12, though. They have to keep going through preseason practices for a season that may or may not happen.
Moving the season to the spring has been floated as a possibility, but, to me, that doesn't seem like a viable option. Those who are advocating for a spring season either have no idea or don't care about the logistics that would be required (and the strain it would put on the athletic staff). Not to mention how it would affect the NFL Draft. Or the fact that moving the season to the spring would mean asking the players to play two full seasons in one calendar year.
Also, and I can't stress this enough, you wouldn't just be moving football to the spring. You'd be moving all fall sports. Which sounds great in theory but is impractical in reality (especially since the NCAA won't reschedule the championships in those sports). And, frankly, how fair would that be to the spring sport athletes, who already lost last season? Now you're gonna ask them to have a second consecutive season impacted so you can accommodate the fall athletes? And why should they have to lose a season when the fall athletes can simply have theirs rescheduled?
Thinking about college football returning in the fall gave a lot of people hope during the early months of the pandemic. It was a sense of normalcy that they craved while every aspect of daily life was upended all around them. As it turns out, that ended up being just a pipe dream. Life isn't back to normal. Not by a long shot. And as a result, something that was once unthinkable--an autumn without college football--will become a reality. Why? Because...2020.
The answer to that question was the Big Ten, which made the call one day after its Midwestern neighbors, the Mid-American Conference. The Pac-12 (which was my bet to be the one) followed suit soon after, leaving the SEC, ACC and Big 12 as the outliers. Those three still want to play and are going to try. But, again, how long until they're faced with the inevitable?
I get it. The prospect of not playing football this fall is something that they don't want to think about. But, like it or not, that's the reality we're living in. And the idea of playing college football in states that are still in the midst of the outbreak comes off as any combination of greedy, inappropriate and tone-deaf. It also shows how misplaced the priorities are at the schools that are still full-speed ahead preparing for a season that almost assuredly won't happen.
There's so much money involved in college football that it makes sense they were going to do everything they could to play if possible. The financial impact of not playing will be devastating to athletic departments that have already taken a massive hit because of the cancellation of March Madness. Not to mention the impact it'll have on the communities in those college towns with local businesses that are dependent on football Saturdays. So the desire to play was obvious.
However, the writing's been on the wall for months. They were just unwilling to see it. Or unwilling to accept it. Either way, the optics were terrible. You've got these football teams back on campus acting as if everything was normal while you've got other students at the same universities preparing to start the semester with online-only classes.
It's also worth noting that there are more fall sports than just football. Soccer, volleyball, cross country and field hockey are the seemingly forgotten pawns in the desire to salvage the football season. Nobody cares if those seasons happen. All they care about is football. But they can't have just football, so those other student-athletes were set to be collateral damage. Whether they wanted to return or if was safe for them to do so is irrelevant.
Everybody wishes things were different. When the NCAA cancelled everything and the sports world came to a grinding halt in March, we were all hopeful that life would be on its way back to normal by now. That wouldn't just mean college sports returning. It would also mean college campuses full of students. Unfortunately, none of those things are going to happen.
Those coaches and administrators who've been advocating playing a season and think it can be done safely point to the success of the NBA and NHL bubbles. The NBA and NHL have both done a tremendous job since their restarts. Neither league has had a positive test. Those bubbles are vastly different than a college campus, though.
College athletes, by definition, are college students. College students live and interact with other college students on a daily basis. They can't be isolated the way NBA and NHL players can in their respective bubbles. And, as we've already seen with some programs, the more interaction you have (especially if you don't take the proper precautions), the more likely it is you'll become infected. And in a contact sport like football, one infection can easily spread among an entire team, which would put also put their opponents at risk.
And, frankly, playing football this fall is a lawsuit waiting to happen. The players might say they want to play, and they might comply with all the testing and other precautions. That doesn't make them immune from infection. And as soon as there's one positive test, all liability waivers aside, the school might as well have the lawyers on standby. Especially if that player takes the field in a game, exposing players on both teams!
Simply put, playing college football this fall isn't worth it. There's still too much risk involved. I wish that wasn't the case, but wishful thinking isn't going to get us out of this nightmare. Fortunately, the Big Ten presidents and AD's made the right decision, which could not have been easy. It's not something any of them wanted to do. But they knew it was something they had to do. And they should be commended for it.
Players and coaches in the three remaining conferences were quick to jump on the Big Ten and Pac-12's decisions as "rash" and "too early." Yes, they had moved to conference-only schedules and pushed the start date back, but even that didn't guarantee a season was going to happen. And if the end result was ultimately going to be no fall football season, what difference does the timing make?
In fact, I'd argue the earlier, the better. The uncertainty is gone. You don't have players preparing for a season that they had to know was unlikely to happen all along. Big Ten and Pac-12 players at least know what's going on and can plan accordingly. Imagine what things are like for players in the ACC, SEC and Big 12, though. They have to keep going through preseason practices for a season that may or may not happen.
Moving the season to the spring has been floated as a possibility, but, to me, that doesn't seem like a viable option. Those who are advocating for a spring season either have no idea or don't care about the logistics that would be required (and the strain it would put on the athletic staff). Not to mention how it would affect the NFL Draft. Or the fact that moving the season to the spring would mean asking the players to play two full seasons in one calendar year.
Also, and I can't stress this enough, you wouldn't just be moving football to the spring. You'd be moving all fall sports. Which sounds great in theory but is impractical in reality (especially since the NCAA won't reschedule the championships in those sports). And, frankly, how fair would that be to the spring sport athletes, who already lost last season? Now you're gonna ask them to have a second consecutive season impacted so you can accommodate the fall athletes? And why should they have to lose a season when the fall athletes can simply have theirs rescheduled?
Thinking about college football returning in the fall gave a lot of people hope during the early months of the pandemic. It was a sense of normalcy that they craved while every aspect of daily life was upended all around them. As it turns out, that ended up being just a pipe dream. Life isn't back to normal. Not by a long shot. And as a result, something that was once unthinkable--an autumn without college football--will become a reality. Why? Because...2020.
Monday, August 10, 2020
One Round Done, Four to Go
There were definitely a few surprises during the first week of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. For starters, both 12 seeds advanced (even when there's no NCAA Tournament, we still get 12-5 upsets!). One of those 5-seeds was Edmonton, which clearly didn't enjoy the home ice advantage nearly as much as I thought they would. Neither did Toronto. Both home teams getting eliminated in the Qualifiers definitely ranks high up there among the unexpected happenings.
Another unexpected happening was how competitive each series was. Only Columbus-Toronto went five, but six others went four. Only Hurricanes-Rangers was a sweep, and even then, the Rangers showed they're gonna be a force relatively soon. And that process will only be sped up now that they've won the lottery and will get the No. 1 pick, which will likely be Alexis Lafreniere, who they can pair with Kaapo Kakko, last year's No. 2 pick, for years to come.
We also saw both teams that entered the round robin with the most points in their conference fail to win a game and end up with the 4-seed. Although, I'm not sure how much we can take away from that. Boston certainly looked flat, but the round robin games were essentially tune-ups. Since all of the games are being played at a neutral site, the seeding doesn't matter as much as it usually would, so you'd have to wonder if that thought process came into play at all. If it did, that may explain why the Bruins and Blues didn't look so great last week.
Overall, though, it was certainly playoff-quality hockey. After four-and-a-half months off, and playing at a time that they aren't used to, we weren't sure if that would be the case. But it was answered pretty quickly with a definitive "Yes!" In virtually every series!
And you'd have to expect that will only continue as we get into the Stanley Cup Playoffs proper. The teams that came out of the Qualifiers have a week's worth of playoff games under their belts already. The teams that played in the round robin, meanwhile, did so because they're the better teams.
I'm curious whether that's going to have an impact. The round robins were competitive games that mattered, but that's not the same as the intensity of a series. The lower seeds had to shift into playoff mode right away, and they've already got one round under their belts. That's no small thing. Besides, this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Lower seeded teams win all the time. In fact, what would be shocking is if all eight teams that had first-round byes advance.
EASTERN CONFERENCE
Flyers vs. Canadiens: Was any team more impressive in the round robin than the Philadelphia Flyers? They rolled past the top three teams in the Eastern Conference during the regular season, and they did so in dominant fashion! The Flyers have been far and away the best team in Toronto. I don't want to write off Montreal, though. I did that prior to the Qualifier and look what happened! So, the question really becomes: Can Carey Price steal them another series? He might get them a game or two, but if the Flyers play the way they did last week, I don't see Montreal winning four. Flyers in six.
Lightning vs. Blue Jackets: Remember what happened last year between these two? The Lightning sure do! They've been waiting more than a year for a chance at redemption. Now it comes against the same team that they laid an absolute egg against in 2019. Of course, it's not going to be easy without Steven Stamkos or Victor Hedman. We do know that Tampa Bay won't take Columbus lightly this time, though. And I think the team with something to prove will prove it. Lightning in six.
Capitals vs. Islanders: On paper, this is probably the most competitive first-round series in the East. Except for half of Game 3, the Islanders looked great against Florida. Meanwhile, Washington looked somewhat shaky in the round robin. The Capitals got better with each game, though, so maybe they were simply building up to playoff-ready. Washington has more talent, but, don't forget, Islanders coach Barry Trotz used to coach the Capitals. He knows those guys inside and out. That could make a huge difference. Either way, I see this one going seven. And, as we know, Game 7's are always a toss-up. Capitals in seven.
Bruins vs. Hurricanes: Perhaps I underestimated the Carolina Hurricanes. Because that team's defense is tight. As the Rangers found out, good luck coming back if Carolina scores first. Maybe it wasn't a fluke that they made the Eastern Conference Final last season, where they lost to...Boston! The Bruins looked nothing like the dominant team that won the President's Trophy over their first three games in the bubble, though. If they don't want to be upset here, they'll need to turn it on. Quick. If the Bruins play the way they did against Tampa Bay and Philadelphia, this could be a short series. And not in Boston's favor. Hurricanes in five.
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Golden Knights vs. Blackhawks: Never count out the Chicago Blackhawks in the playoffs! We should all know that by now, but for some reason, we all forgot in the Edmonton series. Can they do it again? After what they did against a superior Oilers team, don't count them out. Even against the Golden Knights. Vegas got strong goaltending from Robin Lehner in the round robin, which is one of the main reasons why they ended up with the 1-seed. He'll need to be just as strong against Chicago. Because if the Blackhawks carry over their momentum and confidence into this series, they could pull another upset. Blackhawks in six.
Avalanche vs. Coyotes: To show you just how much I know, I though the two weakest teams entering their respective bubbles were Montreal in the East and Arizona in the West. They both won their Qualifier. The first round may be where the Coyotes' run ends, however. Colorado is loaded from top to bottom. Yes, they lost their last round robin game to the Golden Knights, but I still think the Avalanche have been the most impressive team of the 12 in Edmonton. They'll make quick work of the Coyotes. Avalanche in four.
Stars vs. Flames: With the Oilers out, the Flames become Canada's best chance to hoist the Cup. And they've definitely got a shot against Dallas. In fact, I'd be surprised if Calgary doesn't win this series. Look what they did to Winnipeg! Granted, the Jets finished that series short-handed, but the Flames still looked mighty impressive. Plus, they got solid goaltending from Cam Talbot, which only makes them that much better. Flames in six.
Blues vs. Canucks: Unlike their 2019 Stanley Cup Final opponents, the Blues didn't look completely flat during the round robin. In fact, Craig Berube stressed how he felt good about the way his team played in the Dallas game. It almost didn't matter that they lost all three games. It certainly looks like they were ramping themselves up. The postseason starts now for St. Louis. And the defending champs will be very tough to beat. Blues in five.
Another unexpected happening was how competitive each series was. Only Columbus-Toronto went five, but six others went four. Only Hurricanes-Rangers was a sweep, and even then, the Rangers showed they're gonna be a force relatively soon. And that process will only be sped up now that they've won the lottery and will get the No. 1 pick, which will likely be Alexis Lafreniere, who they can pair with Kaapo Kakko, last year's No. 2 pick, for years to come.
We also saw both teams that entered the round robin with the most points in their conference fail to win a game and end up with the 4-seed. Although, I'm not sure how much we can take away from that. Boston certainly looked flat, but the round robin games were essentially tune-ups. Since all of the games are being played at a neutral site, the seeding doesn't matter as much as it usually would, so you'd have to wonder if that thought process came into play at all. If it did, that may explain why the Bruins and Blues didn't look so great last week.
Overall, though, it was certainly playoff-quality hockey. After four-and-a-half months off, and playing at a time that they aren't used to, we weren't sure if that would be the case. But it was answered pretty quickly with a definitive "Yes!" In virtually every series!
And you'd have to expect that will only continue as we get into the Stanley Cup Playoffs proper. The teams that came out of the Qualifiers have a week's worth of playoff games under their belts already. The teams that played in the round robin, meanwhile, did so because they're the better teams.
I'm curious whether that's going to have an impact. The round robins were competitive games that mattered, but that's not the same as the intensity of a series. The lower seeds had to shift into playoff mode right away, and they've already got one round under their belts. That's no small thing. Besides, this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Lower seeded teams win all the time. In fact, what would be shocking is if all eight teams that had first-round byes advance.
EASTERN CONFERENCE
Flyers vs. Canadiens: Was any team more impressive in the round robin than the Philadelphia Flyers? They rolled past the top three teams in the Eastern Conference during the regular season, and they did so in dominant fashion! The Flyers have been far and away the best team in Toronto. I don't want to write off Montreal, though. I did that prior to the Qualifier and look what happened! So, the question really becomes: Can Carey Price steal them another series? He might get them a game or two, but if the Flyers play the way they did last week, I don't see Montreal winning four. Flyers in six.
Lightning vs. Blue Jackets: Remember what happened last year between these two? The Lightning sure do! They've been waiting more than a year for a chance at redemption. Now it comes against the same team that they laid an absolute egg against in 2019. Of course, it's not going to be easy without Steven Stamkos or Victor Hedman. We do know that Tampa Bay won't take Columbus lightly this time, though. And I think the team with something to prove will prove it. Lightning in six.
Capitals vs. Islanders: On paper, this is probably the most competitive first-round series in the East. Except for half of Game 3, the Islanders looked great against Florida. Meanwhile, Washington looked somewhat shaky in the round robin. The Capitals got better with each game, though, so maybe they were simply building up to playoff-ready. Washington has more talent, but, don't forget, Islanders coach Barry Trotz used to coach the Capitals. He knows those guys inside and out. That could make a huge difference. Either way, I see this one going seven. And, as we know, Game 7's are always a toss-up. Capitals in seven.
Bruins vs. Hurricanes: Perhaps I underestimated the Carolina Hurricanes. Because that team's defense is tight. As the Rangers found out, good luck coming back if Carolina scores first. Maybe it wasn't a fluke that they made the Eastern Conference Final last season, where they lost to...Boston! The Bruins looked nothing like the dominant team that won the President's Trophy over their first three games in the bubble, though. If they don't want to be upset here, they'll need to turn it on. Quick. If the Bruins play the way they did against Tampa Bay and Philadelphia, this could be a short series. And not in Boston's favor. Hurricanes in five.
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Golden Knights vs. Blackhawks: Never count out the Chicago Blackhawks in the playoffs! We should all know that by now, but for some reason, we all forgot in the Edmonton series. Can they do it again? After what they did against a superior Oilers team, don't count them out. Even against the Golden Knights. Vegas got strong goaltending from Robin Lehner in the round robin, which is one of the main reasons why they ended up with the 1-seed. He'll need to be just as strong against Chicago. Because if the Blackhawks carry over their momentum and confidence into this series, they could pull another upset. Blackhawks in six.
Avalanche vs. Coyotes: To show you just how much I know, I though the two weakest teams entering their respective bubbles were Montreal in the East and Arizona in the West. They both won their Qualifier. The first round may be where the Coyotes' run ends, however. Colorado is loaded from top to bottom. Yes, they lost their last round robin game to the Golden Knights, but I still think the Avalanche have been the most impressive team of the 12 in Edmonton. They'll make quick work of the Coyotes. Avalanche in four.
Stars vs. Flames: With the Oilers out, the Flames become Canada's best chance to hoist the Cup. And they've definitely got a shot against Dallas. In fact, I'd be surprised if Calgary doesn't win this series. Look what they did to Winnipeg! Granted, the Jets finished that series short-handed, but the Flames still looked mighty impressive. Plus, they got solid goaltending from Cam Talbot, which only makes them that much better. Flames in six.
Blues vs. Canucks: Unlike their 2019 Stanley Cup Final opponents, the Blues didn't look completely flat during the round robin. In fact, Craig Berube stressed how he felt good about the way his team played in the Dallas game. It almost didn't matter that they lost all three games. It certainly looks like they were ramping themselves up. The postseason starts now for St. Louis. And the defending champs will be very tough to beat. Blues in five.
Saturday, August 8, 2020
Glorious For a One-Off
Hockey returned last weekend, and it has been glorious! Playoff hockey all day long, starting at noon and ending after midnight. It has gone so well, in fact, that a number of participating players and coaches, as well as some media members, think the expanded Stanley Cup Playoffs should maybe become a permanent thing.
However, the NHL shouldn't get too carried away and wrapped up in all the success of the "bubbles." Because we need to remember what led to this unprecedented 24-team tournament. An extraordinary situation required an extraordinary solution. And that's what this is. An extraordinary solution. It has been exceptional no doubt, but it shouldn't become the norm. Instead it should be celebrated for what it is, a brilliant one-off event marking hockey's return after an unexpected four-month break.
Some of the reasons why this 24-team tournament is working are the exact reasons why the change should not be permanent. The argument that Islanders Coach Barry Trotz, among others, used in favor of playoff expansion is because this tournament has proven that "too many teams are too close." He's right. And that's why going to 24 teams this year was the right thing to do. There were teams just outside playoff spots that may or may not have made it had they been able to complete their regular season. This was the only fair way for their season to end.
There's no need to accommodate the "just-missed" teams in a complete, 82-game season, though. Everyone will have had the same amount of games played and the teams that just missed would've had their chance to qualify. You're three points out with eight games left, that's one thing. But if you play all 82 games and finish three points out, that's something else entirely.
Likewise, the "round robin" for the top four seeds in each conference was designed mainly to give those teams competitive games while the other eight played in the qualifiers. The two teams that had the most points in their conference at the end of the regular season (Boston and St. Louis) won't be the No. 1 seeds in the playoffs. That's fine in a situation like this where everybody's playing on neutral ice, so it really doesn't matter a whole lot.
Under normal circumstances, though, when teams are playing in their own arenas in front of their own fans, that seeding matters. And the best team should be rewarded with home ice advantage. They've earned by having the best record over 82 games.
I'm not exactly sure how a round robin would work under normal circumstances, either. Those four teams are in the "bubble" with everyone else, so it's easy for them to play each other. It doesn't make nearly as much sense when they'd be traveling to each other's arenas for games that amount to nothing other than seeding. In that situation, I'm sure they'd prefer the rest.
More importantly, once Seattle starts play in 2021-22, there will be 32 teams in the NHL. Having 24 teams qualify for the playoffs in a 32-team league is simply too many. That's 75 percent of the league!
It would be like in the 80s, when the NHL had that division-based playoff system and 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs. The regular season was virtually meaningless! Basically all you had to do to qualify for the postseason was not finish last in your division. As a result, there were some bad playoff teams during that era. The NHL is a better, deeper league now than it was then (as evidence by the results of the qualifying round series), but it would still water down the regular season significantly to have all but the bottom four teams in each conference make the playoffs.
Then there's the schedule. The Stanley Cup Playoffs take two months! Adding an extra round with best-of-five series would add 10 days. That would push the Stanley Cup Final into the end of June. That's a lot of arena dates that need to be held, as well as a lot of broadcast slots that NBC and Rogers would need to keep blocked off. And you know the TV partners will need to be consulted before any decision about an expanded postseason is made.
Beyond that, this season involves hockey in August for the first time ever and will end in October (when the season normally starts). Next season won't start until December and will probably run into July. Then the 2021-22 season will most likely have an Olympic break, which will push the playoffs later again. So, we're looking at 2023 before the Stanley Cup is awarded at its normal time in early-mid June again. And that would be using the traditional playoff format.
So, no, permanently expanding the Stanley Cup Playoffs to 24 teams is not a good idea. It works for this unusual season where people have been starved for months for any live sports to watch. And summer hockey certainly fits the bill! Once things are back to normal, though, will there be the same appetite for hockey that we're seeing right now? That's another thing that would need to be considered, because once they're expanded, they can't go back to 16.
Although, there is one element of the 24-team Stanley Cup tournament that should absolutely stay. And that's the conference-based seeding. For years, I've been wanting the NHL to dump the stupid division-based bracket and go back to the 1-8 seeding in each conference. As you know, I've never been a fan of the current playoff format, and this gives them the perfect opportunity to restore the conference seeding that (a) makes so much more sense and (b) is fairer.
Whether this year's unique postseason leads to permanent changes remains to be seen. What I do know, however, is that the first week of the 2020 Stanley Cup Playoffs has been great! And they only promise to get better! So let's just enjoy them for what they are and worry about everything else later.
However, the NHL shouldn't get too carried away and wrapped up in all the success of the "bubbles." Because we need to remember what led to this unprecedented 24-team tournament. An extraordinary situation required an extraordinary solution. And that's what this is. An extraordinary solution. It has been exceptional no doubt, but it shouldn't become the norm. Instead it should be celebrated for what it is, a brilliant one-off event marking hockey's return after an unexpected four-month break.
Some of the reasons why this 24-team tournament is working are the exact reasons why the change should not be permanent. The argument that Islanders Coach Barry Trotz, among others, used in favor of playoff expansion is because this tournament has proven that "too many teams are too close." He's right. And that's why going to 24 teams this year was the right thing to do. There were teams just outside playoff spots that may or may not have made it had they been able to complete their regular season. This was the only fair way for their season to end.
There's no need to accommodate the "just-missed" teams in a complete, 82-game season, though. Everyone will have had the same amount of games played and the teams that just missed would've had their chance to qualify. You're three points out with eight games left, that's one thing. But if you play all 82 games and finish three points out, that's something else entirely.
Likewise, the "round robin" for the top four seeds in each conference was designed mainly to give those teams competitive games while the other eight played in the qualifiers. The two teams that had the most points in their conference at the end of the regular season (Boston and St. Louis) won't be the No. 1 seeds in the playoffs. That's fine in a situation like this where everybody's playing on neutral ice, so it really doesn't matter a whole lot.
Under normal circumstances, though, when teams are playing in their own arenas in front of their own fans, that seeding matters. And the best team should be rewarded with home ice advantage. They've earned by having the best record over 82 games.
I'm not exactly sure how a round robin would work under normal circumstances, either. Those four teams are in the "bubble" with everyone else, so it's easy for them to play each other. It doesn't make nearly as much sense when they'd be traveling to each other's arenas for games that amount to nothing other than seeding. In that situation, I'm sure they'd prefer the rest.
More importantly, once Seattle starts play in 2021-22, there will be 32 teams in the NHL. Having 24 teams qualify for the playoffs in a 32-team league is simply too many. That's 75 percent of the league!
It would be like in the 80s, when the NHL had that division-based playoff system and 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs. The regular season was virtually meaningless! Basically all you had to do to qualify for the postseason was not finish last in your division. As a result, there were some bad playoff teams during that era. The NHL is a better, deeper league now than it was then (as evidence by the results of the qualifying round series), but it would still water down the regular season significantly to have all but the bottom four teams in each conference make the playoffs.
Then there's the schedule. The Stanley Cup Playoffs take two months! Adding an extra round with best-of-five series would add 10 days. That would push the Stanley Cup Final into the end of June. That's a lot of arena dates that need to be held, as well as a lot of broadcast slots that NBC and Rogers would need to keep blocked off. And you know the TV partners will need to be consulted before any decision about an expanded postseason is made.
Beyond that, this season involves hockey in August for the first time ever and will end in October (when the season normally starts). Next season won't start until December and will probably run into July. Then the 2021-22 season will most likely have an Olympic break, which will push the playoffs later again. So, we're looking at 2023 before the Stanley Cup is awarded at its normal time in early-mid June again. And that would be using the traditional playoff format.
So, no, permanently expanding the Stanley Cup Playoffs to 24 teams is not a good idea. It works for this unusual season where people have been starved for months for any live sports to watch. And summer hockey certainly fits the bill! Once things are back to normal, though, will there be the same appetite for hockey that we're seeing right now? That's another thing that would need to be considered, because once they're expanded, they can't go back to 16.
Although, there is one element of the 24-team Stanley Cup tournament that should absolutely stay. And that's the conference-based seeding. For years, I've been wanting the NHL to dump the stupid division-based bracket and go back to the 1-8 seeding in each conference. As you know, I've never been a fan of the current playoff format, and this gives them the perfect opportunity to restore the conference seeding that (a) makes so much more sense and (b) is fairer.
Whether this year's unique postseason leads to permanent changes remains to be seen. What I do know, however, is that the first week of the 2020 Stanley Cup Playoffs has been great! And they only promise to get better! So let's just enjoy them for what they are and worry about everything else later.
Wednesday, August 5, 2020
Time to Pick One
Is it time now for the Angels to finally end the great Shohei Ohtani experiment? When he came over from Japan, he was going to be this new sensation--the first full-time two-way player since Babe Ruth (who only did it for two seasons). One of the main reasons why he picked the Angels was because they were going to let him do both, and they even developed a plan that they were sure would work. He'd pitch on Sundays and DH during the week.
That's similar to what Ohtani did in Japan, which is why both he and the Angels believed in the plan and were convinced he wouldn't have to choose between them. And it did work that first year. In just his second start, Ohtani struck out 12 and gave up only one hit over seven shutout innings against Oakland. He ended up going 4-2 on the mound and hit .285 with 22 home runs to win AL Rookie of the Year honors (even though he shouldn't have, but it's best I avoid that subject).
It's worth noting, however, that Ohtani only pitched 51.2 innings as a rookie. He made just 10 starts, only one of which came after June 6, when he left after four innings with arm trouble. Ohtani wouldn't pitch again until September 2, when he lasted all of 2.1 innings and 49 pitches in his final appearance on the mound before Tommy John surgery.
Because of his Tommy John, Ohtani was limited to DH duty last season. He originally wasn't going to be available as a pitcher this season until sometime in May, but the delay meant that he'd be ready to resume his two-way role when the season began. Ohtani's first start on the mound in nearly two years came on July 26, when he gave up five runs, walked three and didn't get an out against Oakland. His second start wasn't much better: two runs on five walks in 1.2 innings against Houston. Ohtani's 2020 pitching stat line: 2 games, 1.2 IP, 7 R, 8 BB, 3 K, 37.50 ERA.
After that stellar performance against the Astros, Ohtani was diagnosed with a strained elbow. It'll keep him off the mound for 4-6 weeks, which basically means the whole rest of the season. Angels manager Joe Maddon has even admitted that he doesn't expect Ohtani to pitch again this year, but doesn't expect the injury to affect his hitting.
Despite this setback, the Angels still think the Ohtani experiment can work. Maddon flat out said, "I believe he can." He even suggested the abbreviated Summer Camp (which has been blamed for the rash of pitcher injuries over the season's first two weeks) might've contributed to the situation. Maddon wants to see how Ohtani's arm handles a normal Spring Training and a normal number of starts before making any sort of determination about his status.
They're inevitably going to have to make that decision, though. Because, as much as they might want it to work, it's not going to. Ohtani's arm simply hasn't been able to hold up. Fortunately, the arm injuries that have kept him off the mound haven't kept him out of the lineup. But, eventually one of them will. Then you won't have him at all.
I get it. He was their new toy that they wanted to play with as soon as they unwrapped it on Christmas morning. But how often is that new toy broken by New Year's? That's what's happening here. They envision Ohtani as an ace pitcher, but he's made a grand total of 12 appearances on the mound in his three seasons as an Angel. Which really makes you wonder if it's worth it.
For the Angels, it's a great paradox. They have the greatest player in the game in Mike Trout, but have only made one playoff appearance since 2009 (when they were swept by the wild card Royals in 2014). They've been adding the pieces around Trout to have a formidable lineup. Ohtani the DH is a big part of that. Their weakness has been the lack of a front line starter, which they think Ohtani the pitcher can be. That's part of the reason they're so invested in this working and not willing to give up on it just yet.
There's also the fact that Ohtani chose the Angles BECAUSE they told him he'd be able to do both. They want to be men of their word. The fact that Ohtani is represented by Scott Boras is significant, too, since Boras will immediately be out looking for suitors as soon as he gets the first indication the Angels want him to decide. That's an uncomfortable conversation the sides will eventually need to have, though.
Simply put, the Angels can't count on Ohtani as a pitcher. Even with all the things they've done to accommodate him, he hasn't been this reliably "great" No. 1 that was advertised. That's if he's even able to pitch at all. Even then, since he only pitches once a week, he'd be used less than the others, not more. Most starting pitchers make between 2-34 starts in a full 162-game season. Ohtani, assuming he stayed healthy and didn't miss a start, would only make 26-27.
Your ace is supposed to be your horse who you can hand the ball to every five days (and sometimes on three days' rest down the stretch). He's the guy who starts on Opening Day and Game 1 of every playoff series. You don't handle him with kid gloves. Which is exactly what the Angels have done with Ohtani.
Ohtani doesn't want to make a decision because he likes doing both and still thinks he can effectively. But, make no mistake, there's a financial motivation for him too. An ace starting pitcher is one of the most valuable properties in the sport. Just ask Gerrit Cole and the Yankees. More significantly, starting pitchers make a lot more than DHs. And if he's still technically a "two-way" player when he hits free agency, he'll command starting pitcher money, not DH money.
Which is why the Angels will have to be the ones making the decision. And, frankly, it should be a pretty easy one. Ohtani the pitcher hasn't been anywhere near worth the money you're paying him. Ohtani the hitter, meanwhile, has more than held up his end of the bargain. And he's been putting up those offensive numbers while either serving as a two-way player or while unable to pitch because of arm injuries. Imagine what could happen if you took the pitching part out and that guy could really be unleashed!
Major League Baseball obviously wants the two-way thing to work. Ohtani was such a sensation when he came over from Japan, and those first two months of the 2018 season got so many people excited about his potential. They even created a freakin' Shohei Ohtani Rule! (It won't take effect until next year, but there will be restrictions on position players pitching unless they're declared "two-way" players by their team.)
However, it looks like Ohtani's detractors will end up being right. It was a noble attempt, but it looks like this experiment isn't going to work. Could it have worked? Perhaps. But Ohtani's arm will make the decision for everyone. It's the easy decision that was eventually going to be made all along. Because there's a lot more value in 140 games from a middle-of-the-lineup hitter than a pitcher who only makes 25 starts a year (if that).
That's similar to what Ohtani did in Japan, which is why both he and the Angels believed in the plan and were convinced he wouldn't have to choose between them. And it did work that first year. In just his second start, Ohtani struck out 12 and gave up only one hit over seven shutout innings against Oakland. He ended up going 4-2 on the mound and hit .285 with 22 home runs to win AL Rookie of the Year honors (even though he shouldn't have, but it's best I avoid that subject).
It's worth noting, however, that Ohtani only pitched 51.2 innings as a rookie. He made just 10 starts, only one of which came after June 6, when he left after four innings with arm trouble. Ohtani wouldn't pitch again until September 2, when he lasted all of 2.1 innings and 49 pitches in his final appearance on the mound before Tommy John surgery.
Because of his Tommy John, Ohtani was limited to DH duty last season. He originally wasn't going to be available as a pitcher this season until sometime in May, but the delay meant that he'd be ready to resume his two-way role when the season began. Ohtani's first start on the mound in nearly two years came on July 26, when he gave up five runs, walked three and didn't get an out against Oakland. His second start wasn't much better: two runs on five walks in 1.2 innings against Houston. Ohtani's 2020 pitching stat line: 2 games, 1.2 IP, 7 R, 8 BB, 3 K, 37.50 ERA.
After that stellar performance against the Astros, Ohtani was diagnosed with a strained elbow. It'll keep him off the mound for 4-6 weeks, which basically means the whole rest of the season. Angels manager Joe Maddon has even admitted that he doesn't expect Ohtani to pitch again this year, but doesn't expect the injury to affect his hitting.
Despite this setback, the Angels still think the Ohtani experiment can work. Maddon flat out said, "I believe he can." He even suggested the abbreviated Summer Camp (which has been blamed for the rash of pitcher injuries over the season's first two weeks) might've contributed to the situation. Maddon wants to see how Ohtani's arm handles a normal Spring Training and a normal number of starts before making any sort of determination about his status.
They're inevitably going to have to make that decision, though. Because, as much as they might want it to work, it's not going to. Ohtani's arm simply hasn't been able to hold up. Fortunately, the arm injuries that have kept him off the mound haven't kept him out of the lineup. But, eventually one of them will. Then you won't have him at all.
I get it. He was their new toy that they wanted to play with as soon as they unwrapped it on Christmas morning. But how often is that new toy broken by New Year's? That's what's happening here. They envision Ohtani as an ace pitcher, but he's made a grand total of 12 appearances on the mound in his three seasons as an Angel. Which really makes you wonder if it's worth it.
For the Angels, it's a great paradox. They have the greatest player in the game in Mike Trout, but have only made one playoff appearance since 2009 (when they were swept by the wild card Royals in 2014). They've been adding the pieces around Trout to have a formidable lineup. Ohtani the DH is a big part of that. Their weakness has been the lack of a front line starter, which they think Ohtani the pitcher can be. That's part of the reason they're so invested in this working and not willing to give up on it just yet.
There's also the fact that Ohtani chose the Angles BECAUSE they told him he'd be able to do both. They want to be men of their word. The fact that Ohtani is represented by Scott Boras is significant, too, since Boras will immediately be out looking for suitors as soon as he gets the first indication the Angels want him to decide. That's an uncomfortable conversation the sides will eventually need to have, though.
Simply put, the Angels can't count on Ohtani as a pitcher. Even with all the things they've done to accommodate him, he hasn't been this reliably "great" No. 1 that was advertised. That's if he's even able to pitch at all. Even then, since he only pitches once a week, he'd be used less than the others, not more. Most starting pitchers make between 2-34 starts in a full 162-game season. Ohtani, assuming he stayed healthy and didn't miss a start, would only make 26-27.
Your ace is supposed to be your horse who you can hand the ball to every five days (and sometimes on three days' rest down the stretch). He's the guy who starts on Opening Day and Game 1 of every playoff series. You don't handle him with kid gloves. Which is exactly what the Angels have done with Ohtani.
Ohtani doesn't want to make a decision because he likes doing both and still thinks he can effectively. But, make no mistake, there's a financial motivation for him too. An ace starting pitcher is one of the most valuable properties in the sport. Just ask Gerrit Cole and the Yankees. More significantly, starting pitchers make a lot more than DHs. And if he's still technically a "two-way" player when he hits free agency, he'll command starting pitcher money, not DH money.
Which is why the Angels will have to be the ones making the decision. And, frankly, it should be a pretty easy one. Ohtani the pitcher hasn't been anywhere near worth the money you're paying him. Ohtani the hitter, meanwhile, has more than held up his end of the bargain. And he's been putting up those offensive numbers while either serving as a two-way player or while unable to pitch because of arm injuries. Imagine what could happen if you took the pitching part out and that guy could really be unleashed!
Major League Baseball obviously wants the two-way thing to work. Ohtani was such a sensation when he came over from Japan, and those first two months of the 2018 season got so many people excited about his potential. They even created a freakin' Shohei Ohtani Rule! (It won't take effect until next year, but there will be restrictions on position players pitching unless they're declared "two-way" players by their team.)
However, it looks like Ohtani's detractors will end up being right. It was a noble attempt, but it looks like this experiment isn't going to work. Could it have worked? Perhaps. But Ohtani's arm will make the decision for everyone. It's the easy decision that was eventually going to be made all along. Because there's a lot more value in 140 games from a middle-of-the-lineup hitter than a pitcher who only makes 25 starts a year (if that).
Tuesday, August 4, 2020
Russia's Last Chance
It's been five years since the Russian Athletics Federation was suspended from international competition. The doping scandal is, of course, more widespread than the track & field team, but that sport has been the one that's received most of the focus. Mainly because, when it comes to reinstatement, they keep doing things that get in their own way.
Take, for example, their latest transgression. Back in March, World Athletics made the conditions for Russia's eventual reinstatement very clear. They were fined $10 million and ordered to pay $5 million of it by July 1 or face expulsion. That deadline, of course, was not met.
This didn't come as a surprise. The RusAF president acknowledged in the days leading up to the deadline that they simply didn't have the funds to pay the fine and asked World Athletics for more time. Whether or not they were just stalling for time or if they actually are short on funds is a whole separate debate, but with the impact the pandemic has had on the entire global economy, I'll bet there's at least some truth behind that request.
However, it also shows how little regard Russia has for its athletes. Because the federation still, even after all this time, refuses to take this seriously. And the athletes are the ones paying the price. Maria Lasitskene and Sergey Shubenkov haven't had a country to compete for in five years. But at least they were able to compete. Now even that's in jeopardy because of the federation's incompetence.
Whether or not the RusAF agrees with the findings (and they clearly do not) is irrelevant. And they obviously have no remorse, so it's not even worth pulling at that thread. They aren't even being asked to admit that they were wrong Simply put, these are the rules that have been established. All they need to do is play by them. Why that's so hard for them to understand is beyond me!
To their credit, the RusAF has admitted to wrongdoing under the federation's previous leadership. In a move that was egregious even by Russian standards, the former president helped forge documents that "proved" the innocence of a high jumper who had missed doping tests (and was subsequently handed an eight-year suspension). That was a direct violation of the Athletics Integrity Unit's anti-tampering rules and what led to the most recent fine.
In announcing the fine, World Athletics also made it clear that enough was enough. If they didn't make the payment on time, Russia could potentially face expulsion. And when they did, that's exactly what some members of the World Athletics task force wanted to do.
Rune Andersen, the head of the task force, said there "very little in terms of changing the culture of Russian athletics" has been done in the five years since the RusAF was first suspended. He added that the task force has spent "an enormous amount of time and effort to help RusAF reform itself and Russian athletics, for the benefit of all clean Russian athletes." Time and again, however, the federation hasn't held up its end of the bargain.
Perhaps expulsion will be the only way for the RusAF to finally get the message. World Athletics opted against taking that drastic step, though. Instead they threw the Russians a life line. Pay the fine, which is now $6.1 million because of increased legal costs, by August 15 or you will be expelled. And World Athletics President Seb Coe has warned that if they are expelled, the reinstatement process would be "lengthy" and "very difficult."
An expulsion wouldn't just keep the Russian flag and uniform out of international meets, which is already the case. It would also mark an end to the ANA process. It would mean that the clean Russian athletes, who've been allowed to compete as individuals, would suddenly be shut out of competitions, too. Through no fault of their own!
The ANAs are the biggest victims of the RusAF's arrogance and incompetence, yet they've shown incredible loyalty and patience. They haven't been able to wear "Russia" across their chest for the last five years (for some, that's their entire career). With the exception of Darya Klishina, they all had to miss an Olympics because of this. Yet they've put up with it. But now even they're fed up. Lasistskene, especially, has been outspoken in her frustration with the federation and its resistance to change.
And now the ANAs have another option. If they're willing to switch nationalities, Belarus will welcome them. There's at least one athlete who's taken them up on it, and I'd imagine others will follow if Russia is indeed expelled. National loyalty only goes so far. If you're an athlete who has a choice between a country that's allowed to compete internationally and one that isn't, that seems like a pretty easy decision. Competing in the Olympics for somebody else beats not competing in the Olympics at all!
Fortunately, all signs point to the Russians having finally gotten the message. Russian Minister of Sport Oleg Matystin sent a letter to World Athletics and promised the overdue payment would be made by the new deadline. He didn't say where the funds would come from, but did confirm that the ministry was "prepared to support RusAF" and guaranteed that the fine would be paid in full.
If World Athletics doesn't receive the funds by August 15, Russia WILL be expelled. It's no longer a question of "if." It could've happened a month ago, but didn't. When they were given a lifeline, it was made clear they wouldn't get another one. Hopefully that was enough to finally get the message across.
Take, for example, their latest transgression. Back in March, World Athletics made the conditions for Russia's eventual reinstatement very clear. They were fined $10 million and ordered to pay $5 million of it by July 1 or face expulsion. That deadline, of course, was not met.
This didn't come as a surprise. The RusAF president acknowledged in the days leading up to the deadline that they simply didn't have the funds to pay the fine and asked World Athletics for more time. Whether or not they were just stalling for time or if they actually are short on funds is a whole separate debate, but with the impact the pandemic has had on the entire global economy, I'll bet there's at least some truth behind that request.
However, it also shows how little regard Russia has for its athletes. Because the federation still, even after all this time, refuses to take this seriously. And the athletes are the ones paying the price. Maria Lasitskene and Sergey Shubenkov haven't had a country to compete for in five years. But at least they were able to compete. Now even that's in jeopardy because of the federation's incompetence.
Whether or not the RusAF agrees with the findings (and they clearly do not) is irrelevant. And they obviously have no remorse, so it's not even worth pulling at that thread. They aren't even being asked to admit that they were wrong Simply put, these are the rules that have been established. All they need to do is play by them. Why that's so hard for them to understand is beyond me!
To their credit, the RusAF has admitted to wrongdoing under the federation's previous leadership. In a move that was egregious even by Russian standards, the former president helped forge documents that "proved" the innocence of a high jumper who had missed doping tests (and was subsequently handed an eight-year suspension). That was a direct violation of the Athletics Integrity Unit's anti-tampering rules and what led to the most recent fine.
In announcing the fine, World Athletics also made it clear that enough was enough. If they didn't make the payment on time, Russia could potentially face expulsion. And when they did, that's exactly what some members of the World Athletics task force wanted to do.
Rune Andersen, the head of the task force, said there "very little in terms of changing the culture of Russian athletics" has been done in the five years since the RusAF was first suspended. He added that the task force has spent "an enormous amount of time and effort to help RusAF reform itself and Russian athletics, for the benefit of all clean Russian athletes." Time and again, however, the federation hasn't held up its end of the bargain.
Perhaps expulsion will be the only way for the RusAF to finally get the message. World Athletics opted against taking that drastic step, though. Instead they threw the Russians a life line. Pay the fine, which is now $6.1 million because of increased legal costs, by August 15 or you will be expelled. And World Athletics President Seb Coe has warned that if they are expelled, the reinstatement process would be "lengthy" and "very difficult."
An expulsion wouldn't just keep the Russian flag and uniform out of international meets, which is already the case. It would also mark an end to the ANA process. It would mean that the clean Russian athletes, who've been allowed to compete as individuals, would suddenly be shut out of competitions, too. Through no fault of their own!
The ANAs are the biggest victims of the RusAF's arrogance and incompetence, yet they've shown incredible loyalty and patience. They haven't been able to wear "Russia" across their chest for the last five years (for some, that's their entire career). With the exception of Darya Klishina, they all had to miss an Olympics because of this. Yet they've put up with it. But now even they're fed up. Lasistskene, especially, has been outspoken in her frustration with the federation and its resistance to change.
And now the ANAs have another option. If they're willing to switch nationalities, Belarus will welcome them. There's at least one athlete who's taken them up on it, and I'd imagine others will follow if Russia is indeed expelled. National loyalty only goes so far. If you're an athlete who has a choice between a country that's allowed to compete internationally and one that isn't, that seems like a pretty easy decision. Competing in the Olympics for somebody else beats not competing in the Olympics at all!
Fortunately, all signs point to the Russians having finally gotten the message. Russian Minister of Sport Oleg Matystin sent a letter to World Athletics and promised the overdue payment would be made by the new deadline. He didn't say where the funds would come from, but did confirm that the ministry was "prepared to support RusAF" and guaranteed that the fine would be paid in full.
If World Athletics doesn't receive the funds by August 15, Russia WILL be expelled. It's no longer a question of "if." It could've happened a month ago, but didn't. When they were given a lifeline, it was made clear they wouldn't get another one. Hopefully that was enough to finally get the message across.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)