Give It A Rest

A week or so ago, I saw an article that really bugged me.  It was from either an NBA team executive or head coach complaining about this season's condensed schedule.  Now, as you know, I'm not a fan of the NBA, but I generally try to keep from piling on.  That article, though, was too much for me to ignore.  Because it's ridiculous!

The crux of the argument being made was that teams can't really use their full lineups this season for various reasons, including injuries and "load management."  It seemed like his issue was that top teams may not be at full strength until the playoffs and he was worried about a lack of cohesion when the best players aren't on the floor together.  That's a somewhat valid point.  However, if they want to complain about it, they should take it up with the owners, the players and the league office.

It was the NBA's choice to play 72 games.  It was the NBA's choice to start the season seven weeks after last season ended.  It was the NBA that decided to have a completely unnecessary All-Star Game, but everyone else went along with it.  So, if you have a problem with this season's schedule, it's a problem of your own making!

There was absolutely no reason for the NBA to try and squeeze in 72 games.  Especially when last season didn't end until mid-October.  They also knew that while this season didn't have to end by mid-July so it would be done in time for the Olympics, it would be an incredibly bad look if it didn't.  As it is, by scheduling Game 7 of the NBA Finals for the day before the Opening Ceremony in Tokyo, they've already made it so most of the top players won't be able to play for their countries this summer.

So, they had a limited time to work with.  And, considering they aren't just having a full playoffs, they're actually adding that play-in round (which Mark Cuban said probably should've waited a year), that basically gave them roughly four months in which to play the regular season.  Yet they somehow determined that they'd be able to play 72 games in that time frame when a normal NBA season is 82 games in six months?!  (Incidentally, every team that qualified for the bubble last season played roughly 72 games, which is probably how they came up with the number.)

Simply put, 72 games in that short a span is too many!  There really wasn't much of a reason for the NBA season to be that long, either.  They made do with 50-something games in each of the lockout seasons, both of which started right around the time this season did.  And, frankly, 50-something games is all they needed, especially in a pandemic!

That's really the part about the NBA schedule that blows my mind the most.  We're still in the middle of a pandemic, yet they've got these teams flying all across the country.  The NBA knows as well as anybody why the Orlando bubble to conclude last season was necessary.  One of the reasons why the bubble was so successful is because they had everybody in the same place!  So, knowing that, why are you taking the increased risk of having all the back-and-forth travel?

I'll also never understand why the NBA thinks interconference games are so important.  The 10 games that they eliminated this season were conference games (and division games at that!).  Everybody still plays a home-and-away series with every team from the other conference.  Why?!

They can rightly point to the back-to-back games between teams in the same city as a measure they've taken to limit travel and reduce risk.  That's true.  But, if you're trying to reduce travel, why are you having everybody play a single game in everybody else's arena?  It just seems silly.  And for what?  The playoffs are still conference-based, so it makes even less sense to play nearly as many interconference games as intraconference games.

By comparison, look at how the NHL did it.  You're only playing the teams in your own division, and you're limiting travel even more by playing back-to-back in the same city.  Meanwhile, the NHL, which finished two weeks earlier than the NBA, started three weeks later and is playing 56 games, a much more reasonable number in that time frame that's still a representative schedule.  With no All-Star Break!

Taking a page out of the NHL's start and eliminating the 30 interconference games would've been a good start.  Then they could've done four games against each of the other 14 teams in their conference for a 56-game schedule.  Or, if they wanted to make it 60 and add a fifth game against each division opponent, that would work, too.  And it'd be a whole lot easier to cram 56 or 60 games into four months than 72 plus an All-Star Break!

We all know the reason why the NBA started the 2020-21 season less than two months after the 2019-20 season concluded.  Christmas is their holiday, and they didn't want to lose their full slate of Christmas games.  As a result, the best teams--those who were gonna end up getting scheduled on Christmas--had a ridiculously short offseason, followed by a ridiculously condensed season!  So, of course, stars were gonna sit out more games than they typically would!

Likewise, it was almost certainly because of TV that they decided to (A) play so many games and (B) play the same number of interconference games as usual.  We know that's definitely the reason why they had an All-Star Game.  And it's fine if that's why.  But that also means you've got very little reason to complain about it.  Since this is what you signed up for!

Regardless, we've nearly reached the end of the NBA season, which is a remarkable achievement if you think about it.  They took a big risk cramming so many games into such a short amount of time while also needing the flexibility to make up postponements.  And it looks like that risk will pay off.  So, the argument about whether 72 games was too many or just right will turn out to be irrelevant.

No More NHL On NBC

If you think about it, all the signs were there that NBC wasn't renewing its hockey contract.  They didn't announce a replacement when Doc Emrick retired.  Now it makes sense why.  They announced that they were shutting down NBCSN at the end of the year.  Would they have done that if they were planning on keeping the NHL?  The answer is almost certainly "No."

So we really shouldn't have been surprised, then, that the NHL announced the second half of its new TV deal would go to Turner.  As it turns out, NBC wasn't even a serious bidder.  They did the NHL a favor by putting in a token bid to drive the price tag up, but both sides knew it wasn't a serious offer.  The cost of its new NFL deal, combined with what it pays for the Olympics and Premier League, probably put keeping the NHL out of NBC's price range, especially since, either way, they weren't gonna be the exclusive rights-holder any longer.

It'll definitely be weird to not see the NHL on NBC next season.  They've been the exclusive rights-holder for 15 years, and their coverage is outstanding!  ESPN, of course, has history with the NHL, but that was a long time ago (before Lockout 1.0), and TNT has no experience with hockey to speak of.  But hockey fans' expectations of both will be high, which is 100 percent because of the quality of NBC's production.

Of course, this won't be the first time that ESPN and TNT are working together.  They've shared the NBA rights for years.  That I think will actually make things a little easier for both networks.  Because they'll be able to schedule around each other and work to make sure there aren't any major conflicts.

Since the Turner portion of the deal was announced, a lot of the conversation has centered around what night each network will dedicate to the NHL.  TNT's NBA days are Tuesday and Thursday, and they have wrestling on Wednesday nights.  ESPN's big NBA night, meanwhile, is Fridays, and they also have games on Monday and Wednesday nights, as well as ABC games on the weekend (as I've said numerous times before, ESPN is pretty obsessed with the NBA).

ESPN also has its college basketball nights to consider, too.  There's no way they touch Big Monday, and I doubt they'd touch their Tuesday night college basketball doubleheader, either.  They also have their marquee college basketball game on Saturday nights, but they also do a lot of Saturday night NBA games on ABC, so it's unlikely they would consider Saturdays for the NHL anyway.

They also have significantly fewer games on linear TV, which was likely intentional.  I just hope it means the NHL doesn't get lost in the shuffle, which seems like a real possibility with all of ESPN's other properties.  They could take a page out of NBC's book and have a weekly Sunday afternoon game on ABC, although that would cut into their Sunday NBA doubleheaders.  Maybe one game from each league is the solution?  Or they go with more Saturday nights for the NBA?

A weekend game is important, but I'd also think ESPN would want to establish its own Game of the Week on a weeknight.  And Thursdays seem to make sense.  They've had a weekly Thursday night college football game for years, so it would be easy to simply switch that to a weekly Thursday night NHL game once college football season is over.

My guess is that TNT's big NHL night will be Mondays.  They'll have the Winter Classic (I wasn't sure how ESPN would fit it in with all 35 of their New Year's Day bowl games, so I'm glad it'll be on TNT), and that seems like a natural starting point for a weekly doubleheader.  I also think it would be smart to keep NBCSN's Wednesday night rivalry games.  If that means they have to move wrestling to Fridays, so be it!

I also hope that TNT develops an NHL version of "Inside the NBA," which might be the best show on the network!  An "Inside the NHL" obviously wouldn't have the star-power of a Shaq and Charles Barkley behind it, but I think it'd be important to show their commitment to the NHL.  They'd be smart to hire some of NBC's hockey talent to give themselves credibility with hockey fans, too.

That's perhaps the biggest issue facing Turner as it takes over half of the NHL package.  ESPN has plenty of hockey people among its stable of announcers.  Turner has none!  So why not grab Kenny Albert and Pierre McGuire?  I wouldn't be surprised if they make a push for Eddie Olczyk, either!  Or how about Ray Ferraro?  They'd be fools not to go after AJ Mleczko, too!  And, I don't know the details of Liam McHugh and Kathryn Tappen's NBC contracts, but landing one of them as the host for "Inside the NHL" would be an incredible get!

Splitting the Stanley Cup Playoffs should actually be the easiest part of the whole deal.  For both networks.  They can simply alternate nights.  Whichever doesn't have the NBA on a given night will have the NHL and vice versa.  And their NBA model of alternating which conference finals each network covers seems to work well, so mirroring that in the NHL would make sense.  (It would also make sense for one to carry both Easts and the other both Wests to guarantee no arena conflicts.)

All of those details still need to be hammered out, and I'm sure they will be.  My big concern about the NHL's new TV deal, though, is that they'll end up playing second fiddle to the NBA.  TNT has covered the NBA for years and it's no secret how much ESPN loves the NBA.  So they'll still clearly be the priority on both networks.  With NBC, that wasn't the case.  NBC wasn't just the NHL's exclusive rights-holder, they really didn't have anything else going on during hockey season, which I think is part of what made their coverage so good.

NBC and the NHL will be "mutually going their separate ways as friends," suggesting the contract had simply run its course after 15 years.  What a wonderful 15 years they've been though!  ESPN and TNT will sure have a lot to live up to over the next seven years.

The No-Hitter That Wasn't

In 1990, the Yankees' Andy Hawkins threw a no-hitter against the White Sox but lost the game 4-0.  In 1995, Pedro Martinez took a perfect game into the 10th, only to lose it on a leadoff single.  Perhaps most famously, in 1959, Harvey Haddix threw 12 perfect innings in a game his team eventually lost in 13.  None of those officially count as no-hitters in the Major League record book.  And neither does the no-hitter Madison Bumgarner tossed on Sunday in Atlanta.

That's because Bumgarner's no-no came in the second game of a doubleheader, and doubleheaders this season, just like last season, are seven-inning games.  And, since MLB rules state: "An official no-hit game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) allows no hits during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings."  So, because MLB changed the rules last season, Bumgarner's no-hitter doesn't count.

For the record, I completely agree with the rule as it applies to Hawkins, Martinez and Haddix.  The Yankees were the road team, so Hawkins didn't have to pitch a bottom of the ninth.  Martinez and Haddix, meanwhile, both eventually gave up a hit, even though it was in extra innings.  Beyond that, Hawkins and Haddix both took the loss, and Martinez didn't even throw a complete game (Mel Rojas came in for him right after he gave up the hit)!

I have absolutely no problem with MLB's definition of a no-hitter, either.  In fact, I'd add a provision that it must be a complete game shutout, because you can give up a run, potentially lose the game, and still have it count as a no-hitter, which I think is incredibly dumb.  However, it's also incredibly dumb that Bumgarner won't officially get credit for throwing a no-hitter.  Because he met every other provision of the rule.

According to MLB's definition, it's not possible for a pitcher to throw a no-hitter in a doubleheader this season because he won't pitch nine innings, even though the regulation length of that game is seven innings.  That's absurd!  It's not the pitcher's fault MLB decided doubleheaders would be two seven-inning games instead of two nine-inning games!

They were discussing this during the Yankee game tonight, and Michael Kay made another good point about how the 2020 rule changes impact no-hitters.  While the doubleheader rule makes it impossible to throw a no-hitter, the extra inning rule also makes it possible to throw a perfect game and lose!  Because of the free runner at second, a pitcher could theoretically allow a run while still not having anybody reach base.  Which is equally ridiculous!

When they decided on these rule changes last season, no-hitters were probably the furthest thing from their minds.  Yet they almost had to deal with it last year when Ian Anderson took a no-no into the seventh of a seven-inning game against the Yankees, and now they really do have to deal with it.  Because it's a technicality.  That's the only thing keeping this no-hitter from being official. 

Some people actually like the seven-inning doubleheaders, but the vast majority of baseball fans do not.  For any number of reasons.  But, if you were on the fence and you needed one, this is it.  (As you know, I also hate the extra-inning rule, but that's a rant for another day.)

This has a very 1961 feeling about it.  That was the first year of the 162-game schedule in the American League, and Commissioner Ford Frick decided that if Roger Maris and/or Mickey Mantle were to break Babe Ruth's single-season home run record, they'd have to do it in 154 games (the same number that teams played in 1927) for it to be official.  Maris didn't break the record until the Yankees' 162nd game, so the record had an asterisk next to it for 30 years until MLB finally removed it in the early 90s.

Back then, most people agreed that it was ridiculous Maris had an asterisk applied to his record.  He played the number of games on the schedule.  It wasn't his fault that there were more of them.  Likewise, it's not Bumgarner's fault that Sunday's game was only scheduled for seven innings.  And he shouldn't have his achievement taken away because of that.

Especially if MLB moves to make seven-inning doubleheaders permanent (which I hope never happens), they need to reconsider the wording of the rule.  That would actually be pretty simple, too.  All you do is take out "which consists of at least nine innings" and change it to "over the scheduled number of regulation innings." 

There's no reason why they can't change that definition immediately, either.  After all, seven-inning doubleheaders weren't even a thing until a week into last season.  They also adjusted the roster size in the middle of the season last year.  So, if they can change rules on the fly, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to adjust their interpretations of those rules, too.  And they should start with giving MadBum his no-no.

Those who argued why it shouldn't count as an official no-hitter (including some pitchers who've thrown no-hitters themselves) used the eighth and ninth innings as part of their reasoning.  In their opinion, it's harder to get those final six outs, especially with the pressure of a no-hitter mounting, so throwing one over seven innings can't compare.  I'm not going to argue with that reasoning.  There have been a number of pitchers who've lost no-hitters in the eighth or ninth over the years.  BUT...those games weren't scheduled to end after seven innings.  That's the difference.

Bumgarner did what was required of him.  He threw a complete game and didn't allow any hits.  The fact that the game was scheduled for seven innings should be irrelevant.  Maybe he would've lost it in the eighth or ninth.  We'll never know.  Because there wasn't gonna be an eighth or ninth (and if there was, they would've started with the stupid runner on second base anyway)!

If MLB wants to have seven-inning games and treat them the same as if they were nine, then the same rules have to apply.  It also makes very little sense that seven-inning games can still be considered shutouts or one-hitters, but not no-hitters.  If the pitcher goes all seven, he still gets credit for a complete game.  How come?  Under the same interpretation they use for no-hitters, shouldn't he have to go nine for it to count as a complete game?

Or, I have a better solution to the problem.  Get rid of the seven-inning games!  Either that or count seven-inning no-hitters!  Because Madison Bumgarner threw one on Sunday.  Even if he technically didn't.

Lots of Championships, Little Time

When the NCAA announced that it was moving all of its Fall 2020 Division I Championships to the spring, it made complete sense, but I also wondered how they were gonna pull it off.  There's a lot that goes into an NCAA Championship, and the spring is the busiest season already.  Now they were adding fall sports on top of it!  Well, now that they're about halfway through the Fall Championships, they haven't just pulled it off, they've done it spectacularly!

There have definitely been bumps in the road and self-inflicted problems that were not a good look.  The weight room situation at the women's basketball tournament was just the start.  Then word got out about the conditions at the women's volleyball tournament (which I agree looked more like an AAU tournament than an NCAA Championship). 

That somehow wasn't even the worst part.  That was ESPN's tone-deaf and, frankly, stupid decision to not have announcers for the first three rounds.  Which was absurd on so many levels, especially when you consider the fact that all of their announcers have been calling events remotely all year.  Whether it was a response to the (justified) criticism or common sense prevailing, they quickly backtracked and broadcast every match of the tournament with announcers.

I also wasn't sure having the Cross Country Championships literally two days after the Indoor Track & Field Championships would work.  A lot of teams had to choose between one or the other, while some distance runners did both and actually did pretty well in cross country (which was both second and the longer distance).  In fact, I actually think it helped some teams!  The BYU women, for example, won the DMR at the Indoor Championships, then turned around and won their first-ever cross country National title.

However, those hiccups aside, I think the NCAA has, for the most part, done a good job with its supersized Spring full of Championships.  And it's especially impressive when you consider how packed the schedule is trying to cram all of the fall sports in while not disrupting the Spring Championships, which, of course, were all cancelled in 2020.  Then throw in all the COVID testing and all the other logistical changes they've basically had to make on the fly.  Sure, there have been games cancelled because of positive tests.  But there hasn't been the outbreak that would threaten an entire event.

Frankly, I think the smartest thing the NCAA did was the single-site concept.  It started with men's basketball, which they determined pretty early on would be held exclusively in the Indianapolis area.  They quickly followed suit with women's basketball, holding that entire tournament in the San Antonio region.  I'm not sure either of those tournaments would've been as successful without those bubbles.

The bubble concept quickly expanded to most team sports, a move that seemed even more prudent after how well it worked in basketball.  Women's volleyball was held entirely in Omaha, while both men's and women's soccer will be in Cary, North Carolina, a frequent College Cup host with a ton of fields.  Field hockey, meanwhile, will be primarily at North Carolina, with one regional taking place at Penn State.

Of the sports that have already held their tournaments, only men's hockey and football maintained their traditional structures.  While the entire eight-team women's hockey tournament was held in Erie, Pennsylvania, the men's tournament had its standard four regional sites, with the four regional winners advancing to the Frozen Four in Pittsburgh.  Likewise, the FCS football tournament will, as usual, have home games through the semifinals.

Other considerations likely factored into the NCAA's decisions regarding men's hockey and football.  The men's hockey Regionals were all held in states where fans were allowed, so there was some opportunity to get ticket revenue.  But, with the amount of time required to surface the ice between games (and how much it would deteriorate with so much use), not to mention the potential of multiple OTs lasting all night (which happened with Minnesota-Duluth and North Dakota), having all 16 teams play at one site wouldn't have been practical.  Another thing hockey had going for it was the fact that there's a week in between the Regionals and Frozen Four, so there was plenty of time for the four remaining teams to travel and quarantine.

Meanwhile, in football, there are simply too many players to do a bubble.  I'll use 100 just because it's a round number, even though most of the travel parties would be more than that.  That's 1600 people they'd have to account for.  With games being played on campuses, however, you only have to worry about the team that's traveling.  And, it's a week between games, so that would've been a long time to keep teams in a bubble.

After finishing all of the Fall Championships within the next few weeks, the NCAA then has to turn right around and hold the Spring Championships.  It's especially important that those go well after they were all cancelled last year.  And, from what I can tell, every Spring Championship with the exception of men's volleyball (which is small enough to be held in a bubble), they'll all be held with the standard number of teams in their traditional formats.

It does make some sense to hold the Spring Championships in the way we've all grown accustomed.  The number of teams and the size of those teams, as well as the format, makes a bubble impractical.  The COVID situation is also much different now, with more and more people getting vaccinated and more and more fans being allowed to attend games.  Perhaps most importantly, too, spring sports are played outdoors, where social distancing is much easier and there's less risk of the virus spreading.

They're also taking a big risk with the Spring Championships, though.  Having games on campus is great.  It creates a tremendous atmosphere, and it's a reward for the top teams that earn those home games.  But having games on campuses means you're not having them in the controlled environment of a bubble.  And, despite all the problems within them, there's no denying that the bubbles were a big reason why they were able to successfully complete the Winter and Fall Championships.

Whether they're in a bubble or on campus or a combination of the two, it doesn't even matter.  The most important thing is that there will be NCAA Championships in spring sports this year.  And there's no doubt they'll be a success.  Just like the blitz of Winter/Fall ones over the last two months have been.

No Protests Allowed

After nearly a full year of discussion and consultation with more than 3,500 athletes from 185 countries, the IOC Athletes' Commission has recommended that IOC Rule 50, which prohibits any sort of protest or political message on the field of play or medals podium, remain in effect.  It wasn't really that close, either.  More than 70 percent of the athletes surveyed said the field of play and official ceremonies weren't the appropriate place for it, while over two-thirds had the same feeling about the podium. 

That sends a pretty clear message.  It's not just the IOC acting as Big Brother and "limiting athletes' individual freedoms."  It's quite the opposite, actually.  This is Olympic athletes themselves saying that protests and demonstrations and political messages don't belong on the podium.  And that's why this ruling should be respected.

Of course, that didn't stop the critics from immediately speaking out against Rule 50 being upheld.  Athletes' rights organizations across the globe released strongly-worded statements expressing their disappointment, and a German group has promised to provide legal support for any athlete who's sent home.

I'm almost certain that there are a significant number of athletes who are unhappy about this and still think they're unfairly being silenced.  I'm also willing to guarantee that some of those athletes will defiantly decide they don't care and protest anyway.  Those are the selfish ones who don't get it.  And, if they receive a ban or suspension for their actions, they'll deserve it.  Especially since the IOC has made it clear that they'll be subject to sanctions.

The easiest thing for athletes to do, obviously, is to follow the rules.  Whether they agree with them or not is beside the point.  Especially since they know the potential consequences should they decide to break them. 

Really, the rationale here is pretty simple.  It's the same logic that they applied when Rule 50 was put into place to begin with.  The IOC's job is to remain neutral.  They're dealing with 10,500 athletes from 205 countries, who'll obviously have different opinions about things.  The IOC doesn't want to be in a position to say one athlete's protest or political statement is OK while another's isn't.  So instead, they're keeping out of it entirely and not allowing anyone to do it.  When you look at it from that perspective, it really does make sense.

Or, I actually think it's easier to look at it another way.  Imagine you're an Olympic athlete and you come out wearing a Biden shirt.  Then your competitor comes out wearing a Trump shirt.  You probably wouldn't like it, would you?  Meanwhile, everyone else is thinking, "This isn't the place."  That's not why they're there.  That's why Rule 50 exists!  To keep the politics out of sports!

These athletes' rights organizations don't get it.  They're making the wrong point.  Their main argument is that this is a freedom of speech issue and it's their belief that athletes should be able to express themselves freely.  But, again, it's worth noting that freedom of speech is a completely foreign concept in many parts of the world!  And that's who the Olympics represent.  The entire world!

And, frankly, a demonstration on the field of play or medals stand is selfish.  It's not about the cause or the type of gesture.  It's 100 percent about the athlete.  That athlete knows what they're doing and choosing to do it anyway.  They're taking that moment and making it about themselves.  It's the only thing anybody will talk about afterwards, which is their entire reason for doing it. 

You want to talk about "unfair?"  That's unfair!  Taking somebody's Olympic moment that they've worked their entire life for and making it about you and you alone.  (Even if you're the gold medalist, there are two other Olympic medalists on the podium with you.)  I'm sure that's why so many of the athletes surveyed voted the way they did.  They want those special moments to be preserved.  Can you blame them?

When you take the blinders off and look at it from a whole perspective, you realize that there was really no other decision the IOC could make.  The only way they could remain neutral would be to leave things as-is.  Otherwise, they're put in a very uncomfortable position of determining what's appropriate and what's not.  And, again, what's deemed appropriate in one country might be inappropriate in another.

There's also a big difference between making a political demonstration and making some sort of social justice statement.  That's why the Athletes' Commission asked the IOC for clarity about what type of demonstrations would/should be allowed.  Because I think we can all agree that no one should be punished for bringing attention to a human rights issue.  It's more about the how and the where than the what.

In fact, the Athletes' Commission's report included several recommendations to address the how and where while preserving the field of play and medals podium.  One of those recommendations was to have a "moment of solidarity against discrimination" at the Opening Ceremony, which nearly half of the respondents said was important.  They also suggested allowing athletes to express themselves through their apparel and during press conferences, as well as creating an area for demonstrations in the Olympic Village.

Many, if not all, of these recommendations will be adopted in Tokyo and Beijing.  But, of course, that's not enough for the groups who wanted Rule 50 scrapped entirely.  For them, that was the only acceptable outcome.  That was never gonna happen, though!  Not when you have to take the different views of more than 200 countries into consideration. 

If these critics actually understood that, they'd understand that Wednesday's announcement regarding Rule 50 actually is progress.  This isn't the IOC saying, "Deal with it!"  They took the time to listen to the athletes and consider their opinions before making a decision.  They were never gonna satisfy everybody.  They knew that.  But the decision they did make, even if it seemed inevitable, is the one that the most people found appropriate/acceptable.

No one's saying athletes shouldn't be able to express themselves.  They're just saying that there's a time and a place.  And the Olympic field of play and medals stand aren't them!

European Super Greedy League

Twelve of Europe's top soccer clubs made headlines last night when they announced that they were forming the "Super League," a new competition featuring only the biggest, richest, most well-known clubs that would effectively render the Champions League meaningless.  It only involved teams from England, Spain and Italy, with three of the 15 spots for "founding members" left vacant (presumably for Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and either Leipzig or PSG).

The reaction was swift and, predictably, not good.  UEFA responded by saying that those teams would be banned from the Champions League, while FIFA said their players could be barred from participating with their national teams in the Euros and World Cup.  The Premier League hasn't signed on, either, and the remaining 14 Premier League teams are brainstorming ways to take action.  It's also notable that all of the German clubs are out.  In fact, they're committed to the Champions League and have no interest in breaking away from UEFA.

All of these responses pretty much called out the Super League for exactly what it is.  A money and power grab by the teams that are already the richest and most influential in Europe.  They don't like that they don't have control of the Champions League, so their solution is doing their own thing separate from UEFA.  It's very similar by all of the (so far unsuccessful) attempts by the Power 5 conferences to split with the NCAA.

Naturally, those not involved in the Super League didn't mince words.  La Liga called it a "selfish, egotistical proposal designed to further enrich the already super rich."  They're not wrong!  Sevilla, perhaps the most prominent Spanish team not included, shared the sentiments of the German clubs with their "complete rejection of a tournament based exclusively on economic parameters."  Porto and Ajax are among the other notable European clubs that are completely opposed to the idea.

Perhaps most significantly, so are the fans.  The fans have also had choice words for the billionaire owners, calling the Super League the "ultimate betrayal" and "cynical greed."  Fans are particularly unhappy that this was all done behind their backs, which is seen as further proof that the owners don't actually care about them.  The owners are acting in their own self-interest while ignoring what their supporters want and their own history.

This is 100 percent a case of the rich trying to get richer.  The President of Real Madrid (who also happens to be the President of the Super League) basically said as much in an interview with Spanish TV.  His argument was that they'll bring in more money by playing each other every week instead of the smaller clubs from smaller nations they face in the Champions League group stage.  What he conveniently didn't mention is that they wouldn't have to share any of it.

He didn't do himself any favors with that interview, either.  He blamed the pandemic and the resulting lost revenue as proof that they needed to do something about "this very bad situation that football is in."  He added, "We don't want the big clubs to be richer and the small teams to be more poor."  Except that's exactly what'll happen if the Super League actually comes to be.

Frankly, it's extremely arrogant.  The big clubs know exactly what they're doing.  It's no coincidence that they made their announcement the day before UEFA announced long-awaited changes to the Champions League.  Those changes will obviously be moot without the top English, Spanish and Italian teams in the competition.  And no one will even be talking about the Champions League when the Super League is still dominating the news cycle!

It's true that the bigger clubs bring in more money, and their argument that they deserve a bigger slice of the pie isn't completely unfounded.  But their "solution" doesn't fix any of the problems they claim to be concerned about.  In fact, it would make them worse.  Although, they don't actually care since they'd all get much richer.

UEFA makes most of its money from the Champions League.  It then distributes that money to the national associations, who run the domestic leagues.  More importantly, they also use those funds for, among other things, grassroots programs that grow the game, while giving the clubs their share, too.

Now imagine a Champions League that doesn't include any of the biggest clubs in England, Spain or Italy!  (It's also hard to imagine the Super League succeeding without the German teams, so for argument's sake, let's have them and PSG join the Super League as well.)  Who would want to watch that?  Which means significantly less revenue for UEFA.  Which means significantly less money for them to distribute.  No worry for the Super League clubs, though, since they'd have their own independent revenue stream!

What struck me the most about the Super League was the idea that it'll be a 20-team competition, but the 15 founding clubs would be "permanent" members, with some sort of qualifying system for the other five spots each year.  So, even though they claim it's not, the Super League isn't merit-based.  It's a closed system more similar to American sports.  But isn't that their main complaint about MLS?  That there's no promotion and relegation?

That's perhaps the biggest criticism they've received from the clubs that wouldn't have that protected status.  They see it as incredibly elitist.  Beyond that, though, they're offended by the idea of teams having automatic berths without having to do anything.  It's the complete opposite of how every other competition works, where you have to earn your place through your results.

I have a feeling they knew this would be the reaction.  Which is why I don't think this is a completely done deal.  They've said they want to start the Super League "as soon as possible," but they need to get a lot of people on board first.  Starting with their own fans.  Because otherwise, the Super League is bound to fail.  And possibly take all of European soccer down with it.

The Double Hook

For the past few years, MLB has been using the Atlantic League as a sort-of petri dish to experiment with some potential new rules.  Among the rule changes that have been tried in the Atlantic League are automated umpires, limiting infield shifts and banning mound visits, as well as two that have made their way to the Majors: the between-inning clock and the three-batter rule for relievers.

Earlier this week, they announced the experimental rules they'll be using in the Atlantic League during the 2021 season--moving the mound back one foot (only in the second half of the season) and the "double-hook" designated hitter rule.  Personally, I'm not a fan of either one.

I'll start with the "double-hook."  The whole idea behind it is to incentivize teams to keep their starting pitchers in longer.  Under this rule, when a team takes out its starting pitcher, it will also lose the DH for the remainder of the game.  Once they go to the bullpen, they'll either have to use a pinch hitter or make the reliever hit every time the DH spot comes up for the remainder of the game.

So, in a way, it combines both the AL and NL styles of play into one.  At the start of the game, you'll have an AL-style lineup with the DH.  Then, once you get into the bullpen, it turns into a National League game with pinch hitters and double switches.  What it doesn't make clear is what happens when a starting pitcher has to be taken out because of injury or when a team uses an opener (although, in that case, I'd imagine it'd apply the same as it would later in the game).

In a way, I get what they're trying to do here.  The number of relievers teams carry and how frequently they go to the bullpen has gotten out of control!  Way too many teams decided to take advantage of the 26th man this season to add another arm to the bullpen, giving them NINE! relievers and, depending on which league they're in, either three or four bench players (one of which obviously has to be the backup catcher).  So the bench options are ridiculously limited, which is less of a problem in the AL with the DH.

There are a few reasons why I take issue with this rule.  The biggest is that you can't combine styles!  AL lineups are built with the DH in mind.  It's typically a power hitter in the middle of the lineup.  It's somebody you're very unlikely to pinch hit for over the course of a game.  Pitchers, meanwhile, bat ninth and are widely considered to be guaranteed outs who you pinch-hit for regularly later in the game.

Then there's the universal DH.  It's likely coming to the Majors full-time next season.  Once that happens, pitchers won't be batting in either league.  At all!  Knowing this, why would you even think about a rule that requires teams to drop their DH and put their pitcher in the lineup?  It doesn't make any sense!

Now, I'm sure teams will find creative ways around this.  They'll make pitching changes in innings when the DH is due up eighth or ninth.  They'll double-switch the DH into the field and have the pitcher hit for somebody else.  Or, if the DH is due up second, they'll do what some National League teams do (and I think is the point of this rule) and nurse the starter through that last inning, just so they don't lose the DH until after his next at-bat.

But the "double-hook" is also very limiting.  If teams need to keep guys available to pinch hit for the pitcher, they may not be able to pinch run or put in a defensive sub when they otherwise want to.  The whole point of the DH is to replace a weak hitting pitcher in the lineup with a much stronger hitter!  That's been the case ever since the DH rule came into existence in 1973.  Now all of a sudden, the DH and starting pitcher are being linked together as if they're one in the same!

At some levels, you can list the starting pitcher as both the pitcher and DH, allowing him to stay in the game if he's no longer pitching.  In the pros, of course, that's not even really worth considering.  These guys are paid way too much money for their arms.  It's simply not worth the risk to have them stand at the plate and risk potential injury.

That risk of injury is why I don't like the idea of moving the rubber back.  The rubber has been 60 feet, 6 inches from since 1893.  There's a reason that distance hasn't changed over the past 128 years.  In fact, the only major change to the mound that's ever been made was in 1969, when they reduced the height from 15 inches to 10.  Again, there's a reason for that.

When they lowered the mound, it was in response to the ridiculous pitching stats put up in 1968.  They felt they had to do something to help the hitters.  And it feels like that's exactly what they want to do here.  The research they cited noted that the average fastball velocity has risen from 91.6 mph to 93.3 mph over the past 10 years.  Their theory is that a hitter's reaction time to a 93.3 mph fastball from 61 feet, 6 inches is the same as it would be to a 91.6 mph fastball from 60 feet, 6 inches.

It's obvious to see what their goal here is.  They want fewer strikeouts and more balls put in play, and they think moving the rubber back is a way to achieve that.  The MLB release said that the change is "expected to be meaningful without being disruptive" (although I'd argue that it would be disruptive to pitchers) and that one foot "would be the minimum interval needed to evaluate a change in mound distance."

We're only talking about one foot here, which might not seem like that big a deal.  It is.  MLB's analysis indicated that there's no increased risk of injury throwing from 61'6 as opposed to 60'6, but I'm not sure I agree with that.  Yes, it's only a foot, but there's no doubt pitchers would put a little extra on their fastballs so that they didn't lose that extra 1.5 mph on the way to home plate.  Likewise, they'd have to adjust their arm angles to make sure their breaking balls still move the way they want them to over those extra 12 inches.

Whether or not it actually does make a difference in terms of velocity or spin rate or movement, there's no doubt it'll have a psychological impact on pitchers.  I'm also skeptical about the conclusion that it wouldn't lead to more injuries.  I simply can't see how that's true!  Pitchers get injured because of the repeated stress they put on their pitching arms.  Adding even a foot to the pitching distance puts that much extra stress on their arms!

Frankly, both of these experimental rules feel like change for the sake of change.  And fortunately, I don't either of them making their way to Major League Baseball anytime soon.  Although, I also said that about the dumb free runner in extra innings.

No Olympics, No World Cup, No Olympics

For the third straight Olympics and fourth time in the last five Games, the U.S. men's soccer team won't be participating in the Olympic tournament.  If they don't qualify for the Paris Games, they'll have gone a full 20 years between Olympic appearances.  Of course, the Olympic men's soccer tournament isn't nearly as important as the World Cup, but that streak is still concerning.

In fact, I'd be willing to say that the failure to qualify for Tokyo is as close to rock bottom as things could be for the U.S. Men's National Team program right now.  Because the U.S. is and should be better than this.  But now, after the embarrassment of missing the 2018 World Cup, missing out an yet another Olympic tournament means that the U.S. men's team will go--at best--eight years without playing in a major global tournament.  That simply should not happen.

Qualifying for the Olympics out of CONCACAF isn't easy.  There are only two spots available, which means you need to win your semifinal at the qualifying tournament.  When you consider the countries in CONCACAF, you'd figure that unless something crazy happened, those two spots should go to Mexico and the U.S., the two strongest, best-financed nations in the region.

Yet in back-to-back Olympic cycles, the U.S. has lost that "win and you're in" game to Honduras.  In 216, there was at least a safety net.  The U.S. won the bronze medal game and a chance to face Colombia in a home-and-home playoff, which they subsequently lost.  But there was no such second chance for Tokyo.  The U.S. lost, and Honduras joined Mexico as CONCACAF's two representatives for the third straight Olympics.

Is failing to qualify for the Olympics an unmitigated disaster?  In most situations, no.  But when this was supposed to be your rebound after the disaster that was the 2018 World Cup qualifying campaign, it doesn't help.  Especially when you consider these are the guys who'll be on the Senior National Team very soon.  Some already are.

Granted, sometimes the players you want are unavailable for whatever reason.  The Olympic qualifying tournament didn't fall into a designated FIFA international window, so European clubs weren't required to release players.  However, that limitation affected every team in the tournament, and you'd figure it would be less of an issue for a nation with a much larger population and talent pool.  (Canada opted to use some of its age-eligible guys in World Cup qualifiers [against those juggernauts Bermuda and the Cayman Islands] instead of the OQT, but that wasn't a concern for the U.S., which doesn't enter World Cup qualifying until September.)

So, frankly, there's no way to sugar-coat this.  It was bad that the U.S. didn't qualify for the 2012 or 2016 Olympics, but that was written off because of the Senior National Team's success.  That all changed in 2018, though.  After the U.S. didn't qualify for the last World Cup, attention turned to Olympic qualifying, which would be a chance to showcase the future of the National Team, players who'd prove that was simply a blip.  Except that didn't happen.  All it did was lead to more questions.

There's really one big question that they failed to answer: What's wrong with the men's National Team program?  If these players are the future and they can't qualify for the Olympics, what does that say about the future of the National Team?  Because everybody else's senior National Teams are much better than their U-23 teams.  And you know they'd love nothing more than to knock off the proverbial "big dog."

It's not like they didn't know what was at stake, either.  That may be the bigger issue here.  The U.S. won its first two group games.  That's great, but all it did was guarantee them a spot in the semifinals.  They lost the final group game to Mexico, which was for seeding, but otherwise irrelevant.  It came down to one game against Honduras...and they got outplayed.

The same thing happened in 2016.  Twice!  They lost the semifinal to Honduras, then, after earning a draw in the first leg, lost the second game to Colombia and didn't go to Rio as a result.  It's not just the U-23's in Olympic qualifying, either.  All the Senior National Team needed was a draw in Trinidad in the final game of 2018 World Cup qualifying.  And they couldn't do it!

If these repeated failures has proven anything, it's that CONCACAF isn't the cakewalk many people think it should be.  In fact, I think in some ways it's harder for the U.S. because there are so many players to choose from and the team is constantly changing, while some of the smaller Caribbean and Central American teams come up together and have been playing with each other for years.

None of which is to make excuses.  If the United States wants to be taken seriously as a soccer nation that can compete with the top European and South American countries, they can't fail to get out of CONCACAF.  If you want to beat the best, you first need to qualify for the tournament.  Even though you're the "better" team, you can't take CONCACAF for granted.  I think that's exactly what's been happening, and it's what's led to these problems.

Since the Olympics is a U-23 tournament, it would be easy to write this off and look ahead to the World Cup.  That would be a mistake.  Because it just exacerbated the problem.  It made the absence of the U.S. at the 2018 World Cup even more glaring.  And it left us wondering if, instead of a momentary blip, it was the start of a trend.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this.  Maybe they are completely unrelated and the Senior National Team will indeed rebound and make the field for Qatar.  But we can't be certain of that.  In fact, with back-to-back missed Olympics on either side of a missed World Cup, the future of the U.S. Men's National Team has never looked more uncertain.

100 Days, 125 Years

We've officially hit the 100-day countdown until the Tokyo Olympics!  The 100-day mark is one of the major milestones in the lead up to any Games.  It's when you know they're getting close, and, as if on cue, a number of countries had their own 100-day celebrations where they unveiled their national team uniforms.

The 100-day countdown to Tokyo is significant for another reason, too.  It just happens to coincide with the 125th anniversary of the first-ever Olympic Closing Ceremony on April 15, 1896 in Athens.  That's a pretty cool coincidence.  And it wouldn't have been possible had the Tokyo Games taken place as scheduled last year.  So, as horrible as the pandemic-caused delay was, it actually gave us that pretty cool symmetry.

Last week, on the 125th anniversary of the Opening Ceremony, Getty Images released a gallery of photos from those 1896 Games.  It really was remarkable to see some of those historic images, which really do help paint a picture of what those inaugural Olympics must've been like.  Especially the shots of a packed Panathenaic Stadium!

It's also crazy to think of how far things have come over the past 125 years.  I'm not just talking about the obvious advancements in technology, either.  Those 1896 Games were so small and simple.  They were the "most international" sporting event in history up to that time, yet almost all of the competitors were European, outside of the American team and an Australian who lived in London.  More than half of them were Greek!  There were just 43 events.  Only about 250 athletes (all men), and so many of them competed in multiple sports.

Those 1896 Games were also an unqualified success.  Had they not been, the Olympic Movement would've ended then and there.  Instead, they've turned into a global phenomenon.  The Olympics are the biggest sporting event on the planet, bringing together athletes from more than 200 countries with a worldwide television audience that reaches into the billions!  (I'd expect that TV audience to be even greater this year since foreign spectators won't be allowed to attend.)

None of that would've been possible if not for the 1896 Games.  That's why the 125th anniversary deserves to be celebrated.  And the delay of the Tokyo Games created the unprecedented and unique circumstance that we can celebrate the anniversary in the same year that an Olympics will actually take place.  It was completely coincidence, but there's something special about the fact that the Tokyo Olympics ended up 125 years after the first Modern Games.  125.  A nice round number.

Quasquicentennial.  That's what a 125th anniversary is called.  We've seen plenty colleges and various other organizations reach their quasquicentennials, and they normally do so with all kinds of events as part of year-long celebrations.  Now the Modern Olympics have reached their quasquicentennial (I didn't even know that word 10 minutes ago, now I've used it three times in the same paragraph!), and what better way to celebrate than by having an Olympics?!

Of course, that wasn't the way things were planned.  This year wasn't supposed to be an Olympic year...and it wasn't until 13 months ago.  But now that it is, they might as well embrace it.  Because not only is this unprecedented, it's also highly unlikely it'll ever happen again.  After all, anniversaries that people care about only come around every five years, so it's hard for them to line up with something that takes place every four years!

Obviously, the one major anniversary that the Olympic Movement previously celebrated in a Summer Olympic year was the Centennial Games in 1996.  It's crazy to think that those Atlanta Games were 25 years ago already!  And, in another cool coincidence, the new dates for Tokyo line up almost exactly with the Atlanta Olympics, so Olympic champions in some events can end up being crowned exactly 25 years apart!

That was actually the first thing I noticed when the Tokyo Games were rescheduled.  Then it dawned on me that it also meant this year's Olympics would be held 125 years after the first one!  So, while last year was screwed up for any number of reasons, and making us wait an extra year was excruciating, the fact that these will be the only Olympics to take place five, 25 and 125 years after previous editions adds another unique element to Tokyo 2020/21.

In 2024, we'll have another unique Olympic anniversary, as the Games return to Paris 100 years after the city last hosted.  Don't think that went unnoticed.  It was one of the main focal points of the Paris bid, and it's why they weren't budging on hosting 2024 when the idea of the dual-awarding with LA 2028 was first broached.

What's ironic about 2024 is that, while it's the 100th anniversary of the first Winter Olympics, there won't be a Winter Games that year!  I'm sure the IOC will do something in Chamonix to recognize those inaugural Winter Olympics (maybe have the torch relay pass through the town on its way to Paris?), but that's not quite the same as having a significant Olympic anniversary in an actual Olympic year.  (I'm also willing to guarantee that anniversary will be completely ignored in the U.S. since it'll fall during Super Bowl Week.)

Although, the Winter Olympics have had some of their own unique anniversaries as a result of the move to the opposite even-years in 1994.  Those Lillehammer Games were the first of three straight Winter Games that were held on the 10th anniversary of another.  Italy, meanwhile, has hosted the Winter Olympics twice, 50 years apart (Cortina 1956, Torino 2006), with another scheduled 20 & 70 years later (Milan-Cortina 2026).  Since 10 and 50 aren't multiples of four, that wouldn't have been possible without the schedule change.

So, let's celebrate the fun of these two dates colliding.  It's the perfect opportunity to both look back at where it all began, 125 years ago in Athens and look forward to the next Olympics, the long-awaited Tokyo Games.  An Olympics that, at long last, are now less than 100 days away.

Early Season Replay Controversy

Baseball umpiring is a very difficult job.  It's much harder than it seems.  That's the biggest thing I learned during my first year as an ump, when I blew my share of calls!  And, unlike professional umpires, I didn't have instant replay to help me out!

As you can probably imagine, I'm strongly in favor of instant replay in baseball.  If there's a call on the field that the replay clearly shows is wrong, they should be able to correct it.  After all, that's the whole point of replay.  Getting the call right.  (Trust me, I've gotten plenty of calls wrong and would've loved to have replay to correct them.) 

What happens then when they go to replay and still get the call wrong?  The only hope then is that it doesn't affect the game.  Yet that's exactly what we've seen twice already this year...in the same division...in a season that isn't even two weeks old!

The first game, of course, was the Mets-Marlins game at Citi Field on Thursday.  The Mets' Michael Conforto was hit by a pitch with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, allowing the winning run to score.  The replay clearly showed that he leaned into the pitch, and Rule 6.08(b) of the Official Baseball Rules states that the batter shall not be awarded first base when he "makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball." 

Ignoring the fact that Conforto clearly leaned into it, the pitch was over the plate and should've been strike three.  The other part of Rule 6.08(b) says that if the pitch is a strike, it doesn't matter if the batter gets hit.  In that case, the strike supersedes the hit by pitch.  Home plate umpire Run Kulpa was ready to punch Conforto out before saying the ball hit him and changing his call.  To his credit, Kulpa owned up to his mistake after the game and admitted he should've called him out.

Then there was Alec Bohm's winning run in the nationally-televised Phillies-Braves game on Sunday night.  This one was a bang-bang play at the plate, so I can see why Lance Barrett called him safe on the field.  Watching the play in real-time from Barrett's angle, Bohm did look safe.  But on the replay, it appeared that his foot never actually touched the plate.  Yet, after reviewing the play for several minutes and looking at it from several different angles, the call stood and the Phillies won, prompting an embarrassing display by Braves fans, who showed their disapproval by throwing garbage on the field.

It's worth noting that the umpires on the field only make the initial call.  All reviews are handled by the MLB Replay Center in New York, where another umpire watches the video and determines whether it should be overturned or upheld.  When the umpires at the game go to the headsets, they're just communicating with the Replay Center.  They're not actually making the decision themselves.

Although, it's also worth noting how few calls actually get overturned by the Replay Center.  It really is remarkable how often managers come out to challenge, only for the call to be upheld.  Which just shows how good MLB umpires are.  They're the best in the business, and they show you why every time they get one of these bang-bang plays right, which is more often than not.

Of course, we only hear about it when they get it wrong.  No one talks about it when they get the call right, except to break down why they got it right.  There was no controversy about Cody Bellinger's home run on Opening Day being turned into an RBI single after he passed Justin Turner on the bases (which I maintain was 100 percent Turner's fault).  Because they got it right!

Part of the problem with replay may be that only certain things are reviewable.  On the Conforto play, for instance, the only thing they could review was whether or not he got hit (which he clearly did).  Even though it was obvious on the replay that he stuck his elbow out, that part of the play wasn't subject to review.  Why not?  Once it goes to New York, every element of the play should be subject to review.

I'm not saying that anything and everything should be reviewable.  In fact, there are some things that are reviewable that I wish weren't.  Like stolen bases.  Since replay's been introduced, how many times have we seen a successful stolen base overturned because the guy's hand came off the base for a split second and the infielder kept the glove on his back.  Sorry, but that's not what replay's for!  If you can only tell by using the super slow-mo and zooming in, that's not clear and obvious!

Likewise, balls and strikes are judgment calls.  That's the reason managers aren't allowed to argue them, and that's also the reason why they shouldn't be subject to review.  Same thing with check swings.  Check swings are entirely subjective, so there's nothing about them that you'd be able to change even if they were subject to review.

Overall, the addition of instant replay has been a wonderful thing for Major League Baseball.  The whole point is to get it right, and replay does just that.  It helps umpires correct obvious mistakes.  But when "obvious" mistakes aren't corrected even after the use of replay, it understandably leads to controversy.  It even leads some people to wonder "what's the point of using replay at all?"

That's really the issue here.  It's not a unique problem to baseball, either.  How many times have there been questionable replay reviews in football or basketball?  The controversies are more the result of those replay decisions than the original calls themselves.  Especially when they cost somebody the game!

A Whole Different World

Every now and again, I go to YouTube and play NBC's awesome intro from the Seoul Olympics.  The theme, which they only used for that Games, was also composed by John Williams, and I actually like it better than the John Williams theme they've used for every Olympics since.  (I also love how very 1980s the entire title sequence is!)

I've also watched the NBC 1988 Olympic highlight video on YouTube more than once.  (These are the sort of things that happen when you aren't able to leave your apartment for the better part of a year!)  But it wasn't until somebody posted a few days of NBC's full coverage, none of which I'd ever seen before, that the vast differences between now and then became really clear.

The biggest difference between the Seoul Games and every Olympics and followed is obvious.  Seoul was the last Olympics prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, so it marks a transition for the Olympic movement as a whole.  It was the last time the Soviet Union and East Germany dominated the medal table.  But it wasn't just them.  Their Communist allies like Bulgaria and Romania were also featured prominently.  Meanwhile, the countries that have topped the medal table since the fall of Communism, not just the U.S., but countries like Great Britain and Australia, were hardly mentioned at all.  The Soviet/East German domination was THAT great.

But the biggest difference is the quality of NBC's production.  Let's just say they've gotten a lot better at this over the past 33 years.  Criticizing NBC's Olympic coverage is a right of passage for Americans every two years (or three, thanks COVID!).  But there's no denying that their coverage from Seoul was downright bad.  Even they admitted as such after the fact, and the 1992 Olympics were a much-improved product.

They do deserve some credit for their coverage in Seoul.  The Opening Ceremony was held on Saturday afternoon, so it was live on Friday night in the U.S.  Likewise, they got the organizers to put the track & field and gymnastics finals in the afternoon so they could be shown live in prime time...and they showed the evening swimming finals during their morning coverage, which took the place of the Today Show.  

However, that's where the compliments stop.  Because outside of hosts Bryant Gumbel, who was the prime time host that year, and Bob Costas, who did the late night show before taking over as the prime time anchor in 1992, the coverage left a lot to be desired.  Simply put, you could tell they were new at this.

Their other hosts were awful.  I can see why they used Jane Pauley, who was on the Today Show at the time, during the morning show, but she's not a sportscaster.  Likewise, many of their reporters, and even some of the analysts, weren't particularly strong.  The sideline interviewers weren't much better, often asking the most basic, simple questions.

NBC also spent a little too much time covering baseball, which wasn't even a medal sport!  There was a whole segment one night where Bob Costas interviewed Jim Abbott and another guy on the team, and they had the nightly update of MLB scores.  In a way that makes sense, since baseball was NBC Sports' big property at the time and they covered the 1988 World Series less than a month later.  But it felt out of place, especially since they did it every night!  And the amount of time they dedicated to the exhibition baseball tournament took away from actual medal events (the highlight video also does this, doing an entire segment on taekwondo, which was also an exhibition sport).

People didn't care about tape delay in 1988, so it's something they actually would've been able to use to their benefit.  (Their use of tape delay would be THE major source of contention 12 years later in Sydney.)  But the only portion of the day where they actually used tape delay was the afternoon show (which is the middle of the night in Asia).  And the "events" they covered during the daytime show were mostly highlight packages covering that day for the entire sport.

It's good that they were able to show so much live, which is very impressive when you consider NBC didn't have the clout then that it does now.  They stayed on the air pretty late, too.  The late night show usually ended around 2 a.m. ET most nights, even if the events they were showing were still in progress.  In that case, they tape delayed the rest of it until the morning.  Why not just stay on the air until those events were over?

Like most Olympics, the coverage focused primarily on a handful of marquee sports that U.S. traditionally performs well in.  Those sports really haven't changed.  In Tokyo, you'll see a heavy dose of swimming, track & field and gymnastics in prime time.  In 1988, their fourth featured sport was diving, which is less prominent now.  That spot has been taken by beach volleyball, which wasn't an Olympic sport until 1996.

However, they also tried to show everything else while still featuring those four sports, and, frankly, it didn't work.  That's not entirely their fault since it was the same model ABC used in 1984, but they did too much jumping around.  Their basketball "coverage" consisted of a couple live look-ins and a postgame wrap up.  But they still had time for plenty of those Olympic puff pieces they love and in-studio interviews that were too long.

Since NBC didn't have its slate of cable channels in 1988, people's options were limited to what was shown on the broadcast network.  So imagine if you were tuning in with the hope/promise of seeing the U.S. basketball game and all you got was five minutes?  And that's all you would get, since it's not like you could watch the entire event later or online.

That's actually one of the best things about the evolution of NBC's Olympic coverage.  They have cable channels now, and they use them all.  If something you want to watch isn't on NBC, chances are it'll be on one of the cable channels.  Likewise, you can watch every event live in its entirety online.  I can't imagine not having that freedom, but we didn't until very recently.

Some of the sports were so vastly different then, too.  Basketball still had the ridiculous setup where the U.S. had a team of collegians against "amateurs" from the Eastern Bloc countries.  Volleyball still had side out scoring, where it could sometimes take forever for either team to score a point!  Track & field had rounds in the longer events!  Swimming only had heads and finals, no semis.  Gymnastics still had the perfect 10, but scores also carried over from qualifying into the finals.  It was all normal then, but it was definitely weird while watching 30-plus years after the fact.

A lot has changed since 1988, both with NBC's coverage and the Olympics themselves.  The polished product we see this summer will look nothing like those broadcasts from 1988, when the Soviet Union dominated, the United States was the best of the also-rans, and China was there, but nowhere near the force it would become.  It was a different time, indeed.

An All-Star Business Decision

By now, I've sure you've all heard about MLB's decision to move this year's All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver in response to Georgia's controversial new election law.  I'm not gonna wade into the politics of it, but Baseball was really put into a no-win situation here.  Somebody was gonna be unhappy regardless, and the decision was gonna be criticized by that side as much as it was gonna be celebrated by the other.  The ultimate catch-22!

Once the bill was signed into law, there were also calls for the Masters to be moved out of Georgia, but that was never going to happen...for entirely different reasons!  Keeping the politics out of it, the logistics of relocating the Masters would've made it too difficult.  The tournament is taking place now, so they only would've had three weeks to find a new site, which is nowhere near enough time.  (Yes, last year's Masters was moved to November, but we all know the reason why, and, more importantly, the venue didn't change.)

While the likelihood of moving the Masters ranged somewhere between slim and "not gonna happen," the MLB All-Star Game is a much different story.  As soon as the law went into effect and the chatter about moving the game started, it felt inevitable.  It was no longer a question of if they would pull it.  It was a matter of when and where they would move it to.

Frankly, it probably wasn't that difficult a decision for MLB, either.  Again, they knew there would be plenty of people who disagreed with whatever they decided and that they were gonna get criticized no matter what.  But, when they weighed the two options, it was pretty clear which side they'd fall on.

Not to oversimplify it, but one side views the Georgia law as nothing more than a step to preserve election integrity.  The other views it as discriminatory.  Specifically, they see it as discriminatory towards minorities.  So, again, not to oversimplify, but it became a choice between supporting discrimination or taking a stand against it.  With the current political climate in this country, it's obvious which side of that debate would win out.  And because of that, MLB really had no other choice but to relocate the All-Star Game.

Had MLB decided NOT to move the game, the financial implications would've been massive.  Corporations have been extremely critical of the law, including some MLB partners.  They wouldn't want to give any indication that they condoned it, which is exactly what could've happened by associating themselves with an organization/event based in Georgia.  It's a very real possibility (likelihood?) that sponsors would've pulled out, leaving MLB scrambling to make up for that lost revenue.

So, can you say they caved to the pressure?  Sure, I can see that argument.  But it wouldn't be the first time that's happened, either.  That's why the Redskins became the Football Team last summer, and it's why the Indians will become the Cleveland Fill-In-the-Blanks next season.  The potential loss of corporate sponsorship dollars are very real and very legitimate reasons for making these tough decisions.

There's also the idea about what type of message they would've been sending.  Especially in a city like Atlanta, a predominantly Black city where civil rights pioneers Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis are revered.  The city where Hank Aaron became an icon.  How can you say you want to honor their legacies while at the same time holding your marquee event in a state that just passed a law many people view as a direct assault on those civil rights?  They're completely contradictory positions!

Let's not forget about another very important group whose opinion on this subject certainly matters, too--the players.  I'm sure MLB didn't make this move unilaterally.  They wouldn't have done it without Union input.  And, it's worth noting, that only 60 percent of MLB players are white.  What are you saying to that other 40 percent if you don't move the game?

I have no idea how those discussions went, but it's definitely plausible that the players might've threatened to boycott the All-Star Game if it wasn't moved out of Atlanta.  The players had to wrestle with many of these same issues, after all.  Some may agree with the law and/or would've had no issue playing in Atlanta.  But in the era of the athlete activist, there's just as many (if not more) who would've been vocal in their opposition.  And they're the ones whose voices would've been heard.

This isn't the first time an All-Star Game has been moved on short notice because of outside reasons, either.  That precedent was set way back in 1965, when the AFL All-Star Game was relocated from New Orleans to Houston because a number of Black players refused to play after they were refused service in New Orleans.  Then in 2017, the NBA All-Star Game was moved from Charlotte TO New Orleans after the passage of North Carolina's "bathroom bill."  So it has happened before.  Heck, the NFL even once pulled a Super Bowl from Phoenix because Arizona didn't recognize Martin Luther King Day!

It's obviously a tough blow for the Braves, who had nothing to do with any of this.  They were gonna get the chance to showcase their new ballpark and reap all the other benefits of hosting the All-Star Game.  All the time and money that has gone into the preparations is gone and they won't get it back.  Volunteers were already lined up for all the All-Star events.  Likewise, vendors and stadium workers will lose out on the extra income.  So will the hotels and restaurants.  (All of this, of course, assumes the state of the pandemic has improved by the summer.) 

They're all collateral damage in this, which is both unfair and unfortunate.  But if they're looking for someone to blame, they need to look beyond Major League Baseball and the MLBPA.  Because it's not MLB's fault the 2021 All-Star Game will no longer be played in Atlanta.  It's Governor Brian Kemp and the Georgia State Legislature's.

All MLB did was make a business decision.  They knew it wasn't going to be popular with everybody, but they also knew that it was a move that would have plenty of support, as well.  And, ultimately, they determined that the best business decision was to move their business from Atlanta to Denver.  So that's what they did.

The Single-Site Tournament Worked

When the NCAA announced that the entire men's and women's basketball tournaments would take place at one site, I wasn't sure how it would work out.  It was 100 percent necessary, especially after seeing how well the playoff "bubbles" worked in the NBA and NHL last year.  And it was the smart move.  You didn't want teams flying all over the country, so the controlled environment was really the only way to go.  But I still wasn't sure if they'd be able to pull it off.

Not only did the NCAA pull it off, they pulled it off with flying colors!  It went so well, in fact, that the NCAA is now talking about potentially doing the single-site thing again for the later rounds of future tournaments.  That won't be happening anytime soon.  Tournament sites thru 2026 have already been awarded, so it wouldn't happen before then.  But, now that we've seen it done (and done well), it is an intriguing possibility.

Frankly, Indianapolis was the perfect place for a single-site men's tournament.  It helped that the NCAA headquarters are in Indianapolis, but that was really just a coincidence.  The reason Indianapolis was chosen was because the Final Four was already scheduled to be there.  And because they had the venues.

I'm not sure the first run for a single-site tournament would've worked as well anywhere else.  The proximity of all the venues helped, but the fact that they're all historic and hadn't hosted the NCAA Tournament in a long time (or ever) certainly added to it.  They were playing NCAA Tournament games in Hinkle Fieldhouse!  THE Hinkle Fieldhouse!  The same arena where the actual Hoosiers game took place all those years ago!

Even though all of the venues were in the Indianapolis area, they still had their own feel.  Since crowd sizes were limited, they could use smaller venues than they normally would, which was actually perfect.  They even made Lucas Oil Stadium seem less cavernous by using two courts and putting a curtain between them.  And, personally, I think the curtain looked significantly better than an elevated floor at the 50-yard line!

Likewise, the women's tournament was centered around San Antonio since that's where the Final Four was scheduled.  While some of the criticism about the venues on the women's side was a little unfair, they made it work, even if it wasn't ideal.  I think it's silly that the Spurs had home games during the tournament, making their arena unavailable and forcing the NCAA to have more games than they probably would've liked at St. Mary's, a Division II school, and more than an hour away at Texas and Texas State.

The women's tournament, of course, is set up differently than the men's tournament.  The first and second rounds are normally on the campuses of the top 16 seeds, so playing the whole thing at a neutral site must've been a different experience for everyone.  But, just like Indianapolis did for the men, San Antonio worked for the women.  I'll be the first to admit that I wasn't sure it would, simply because of the lack of venues.

Next year's tournaments should go back to normal, with games being played all over the country with fans and students of each school filling the arenas.  And it should.  After one year of no tournament at all and a second where the tournament looked and felt very different, everyone deserves that.  But I don't think this is the end of some of the changes we saw this year, either.

This year's schedule got thrown off because of the necessary precautions and quarantines.  I wouldn't be surprised to see some elements of that new schedule become permanent, though.  Especially the prime time Elite Eight games!

Will they also make changes to the First Four?  This year's First Four games were the highest-rated ever, although that was certainly helped by the fact that two of the games were on TBS instead of truTV (and one of those games was UCLA-Michigan State).  They were also all played on Thursday night, which is traditionally the first full day of the tournament.

Moving forward, I think prime time Elite Eight games are more likely than an all-Thursday night First Four.  The Monday afternoon second-round games probably won't fly next year, when people are presumably going to work in the middle of the day again.  So, logically, it makes more sense that the NCAA would revert to the standard Thursday-Friday schedule for the first round, moving the First Four back to Tuesday and Wednesday.

However, the Saturday-Tuesday second week schedule may be here to stay.  They didn't have to do simultaneous Sweet 16 games, which they loved!  Ditto with the prime time Elite Eight games!  And, with the Final Four not until Saturday, the teams that play on Tuesday will still have plenty of rest between games.  (Speaking of rest, the gap between games at the same venue won't need to be as great moving forward, which will prevent early/late tip-offs.)

They also changed the schedule for the women this year, not starting until Saturday, then playing Saturday-Tuesday again in the second week.  With the Women's Final Four on a Friday-Sunday schedule, that won't work moving forward, so I'd figure they'll go back to the old Friday-Monday schedule for the first two weekends.  It also must be noted (because people were too busy complaining about nonsense to notice) that every game of the women's tournament was shown nationally for the first time this year, including several games on ABC, something that will presumably continue in the future.

And it's on the women's side where we'll see the biggest change to the NCAA Tournament moving forward.  Starting in 2023, there will be just two regional sites, with eight teams at each.  So, they're halfway to a single-site.  If that goes anywhere near as well as Indianapolis or San Antonio, it'll likely be huge successes.

What Does the NFL Have Against Labor Day?

There's really only one question I have about the NFL's newly-expanded 17-game regular season: What do they have against Labor Day Weekend?  The addition of the 17th game wasn't unexpected.  Everyone knew it was gonna happen.  It was really just a matter of how they were gonna do it and whether the extra game would be added at the beginning or the end.

They chose the end, scheduling Week 18 for the first Sunday in January and pushing the start of the playoffs back a week.  Which means the Super Bowl will be moving from the first Sunday in February to the second Sunday in February starting this season.  While that may not seem like that big a deal, it actually creates a tremendous ripple effect.  The NFL doesn't and shouldn't care about that.  But they could've made all of their TV partners' lives easier had they just moved Week 1 to Labor Day Weekend, where it was for years!

It's only been about 20 years since the NFL stopped playing on Labor Day Weekend.  (I even remember some seasons that had August 31 openers.)  Until they moved the Super Bowl to February in the 2003 season, Week 1 was always on Labor Day Weekend.  Since then, of course, the NFL's traditional opener has been the Super Bowl champion playing a home game on the Thursday night after Labor Day.  That'll still be the case, as the Bucs will open up on Thursday, September 9 (if I had to guess, I'd say there opponent will be the Saints).

I've never really understood why the NFL doesn't want to play on Labor Day Weekend.  The most common reason I've seen for this is that they think no one would watch or go to games then.  It's the "last weekend of summer," so, the thought is people will be taking vacations or enjoying those final days before the kids go back to school.  That, along with the national Thursday night opener now being a permanent part of the schedule, resulted in the move to the following week for the start of the season.

Personally, I've always found that argument a little weak.  College football starts on Labor Day Weekend, and the attendance/ratings for those games are just fine.  Just like they would be if the NFL had games that weekend.  And even if they don't, so what?  It's Week 1!  Besides, Week 1 ratings are typically lower anyway.

However, the NFL has made its choice, and it looks like Labor Day Weekend games won't be returning anytime soon (if ever).  Instead, they're pushing everything back a week and ending the season in January.  I'd assume that also means Training Camp will start later, seeing as they're playing one fewer preseason game.  (Unless they're giving everyone a bye week between the end of the preseason and start of the regular season, which actually wouldn't be a bad idea.)

While it's not official yet, there are elements of the new TV contracts that seem likely to happen that were only possible by putting the extra week at the end.  One of them is a Monday night game to conclude the Wild Card round.  This season, they had to do the back-to-back tripleheaders on Saturday and Sunday (which were awesome!) because the College Football Playoff National Championship was on that Monday night.  That's no longer an issue if the playoffs start a week later.  The CFP National Championship then, in effect, becomes the Week 18 Monday night game.

Of course, the biggest change that is a result of the NFL's additional week is the Super Bowl date.  The possibility of the Super Bowl being played on Valentine's Day doesn't just exist, it's inevitable.  (It won't happen for the first time until 2027, so you've got six years to come up with your excuses guys!)  Some people have pointed out that there could end up being a three-day weekend when the Super Bowl and President's Day line up, which is a good thing.  But that doesn't change how much of a ripple effect moving the Super Bowl creates.

The two biggest events that will have to adjust are the Daytona 500 and NBA All-Star Game.  In normal, non-pandemic-effected seasons, the NBA All-Star Game is usually the Sunday after the Super Bowl.  That can still be the case.  But that's now the third Sunday in February, not the second.  Daytona's a little more flexible.  NASCAR has moved its date around before, but they seem to have settled on the second Sunday in February, as well.  Not anymore.  They'll have to move it back a week now.

Then there's the Winter Olympics.  They only take place every four years, but when they do, they always take place in February.  The USOPC and NBC have a lot of pull with the IOC, but they don't control the dates of the Games.  Until now, the Winter Olympics and Super Bowl have always avoided a conflict.  That was going to change this upcoming season, when the Opening Ceremony of the Winter Olympics will be on February 4, two days before the original date of Super Bowl LV.

Now that conflict cannot be avoided.  There are only four Sundays in February.  The Winter Olympics take place on three of them, and those three obviously have to be consecutive.  So there's no way for them to NOT be on the second Sunday.  Which means there's no way for the two major sporting events NOT to conflict moving forward.

Fortunately, ABC has been added to the Super Bowl rotation in the new TV contract, which helps them avoid what could've been a nightmare scenario.  The networks have a gentlemen's agreement not to counter program the Super Bowl.  But NBC also pays an awful lot to broadcast the Olympics.  The new four-year Super Bowl rotation solves that potential problem...because NBC's turn will be the Olympic year.

How NBC will handle covering both the Super Bowl and Olympics at the same time remains to be seen, but we'll find out in February.  (I've heard suggestions that they might simply move their Olympic coverage to cable, but considering the Games are in Beijing, I think it makes more sense to simply start their "prime time" coverage at 10:30 when the Super Bowl is over.)  It's not like they haven't worked another major February sporting event around the Winter Olympics, either.  They've previously had both the NASCAR and NBA contracts, so they had a similar issue with the NBA All-Star Game in 2002 and Daytona 500 in 2006.

Don't think that the rescheduling of the already-awarded Super Bowls hasn't created problems, either.  The next Super Bowl in New Orleans was supposed to be LVIII in 2024.  Except, now that the game is scheduled for February 11 instead of February 4, it conflicts with Mardi Gras.  As a result, New Orleans is being pushed back a year (Mardi Gras isn't until March in 2025) and Super Bowl LVIII will be in a city to be announced (aka. Las Vegas).

Ultimately, none of this matters.  The NFL does what it wants, and the others will have to adjust.  (I haven't even mentioned the Oscars and Grammys.  They also want to take advantage of those Sunday nights during February sweeps and have to work around the sporting events.)  I just wonder if there was any thought to leaving the Super Bowl on its original date and starting Labor Day Weekend instead.

From what I've been able to gather, it doesn't seem like it.  So, instead of the NFL starting its 17-game schedule a week earlier and keeping the Super Bowl dates the same, it'll end a week later and push the Super Bowl back a week.  All just to avoid playing on Labor Day Weekend.  For reasons that are beyond me.