Hey Idiot NBA "Fans," STOP IT!

When teams started letting fans back into stadiums and arenas, it was a wonderful moment.  It showed that we've gotten past the worst of it, things are slowly getting back to normal, and people can once again watch the teams they love live in person.  That's what it was supposed to be, at least.  

What I don't think anybody had in mind is what has unfortunately become all too common in the NBA.  There have been four incidents during the playoffs alone where "fans" (and I use that in quotes intentionally) have thrown things at opposing players.  Behavior like this has got to stop.  One incident is unacceptable.  But four?  I can't even begin to try and understand how four happen in less than a week.

Apparently, according to these "fans," buying a ticket to the game entitles you to act however you want, even if that means dumping your popcorn on Russell Westbrook, spitting on Trae Young, yelling homophobic slurs at Ja Morant or throwing a water bottle at Kyrie Irving.  It does not!  The ticket provides you with entrance to the arena.  It doesn't give you the right to be an idiot.  And for what?  It's not like you're gonna get away with it!

That's the one element of rampant stupidity that I'll never understand.  It's like the guy who decides it'll be funny if he runs out on the field during an MLB or NFL game.  Has that ever ended any other way?  Same thing with these morons.  Do they not realize they're gonna get caught?  And do they not realize what the consequences will be when they do?  But, hey, I hope it's worth it.

To their credit, the home teams in each of these incidents moved immediately to find and identify the culprits, all of whom have been indefinitely banned from those arenas.  They've all worked with local authorities, as well, so these individuals may also face charges, too.  Which they should.  Because if they did something like that on the street, it would be assault.

As I write this, I see the news that there was another "fan" incident at an NBA playoff game.  This time, a man ran onto the court and touched the backboard during play at the 76ers-Wizards game in Washington.  So, if you're keeping track, that's now five.  Sadly, it's becoming a daily occurrence.  Something clearly needs to be done.  But what?  And how?

After the first incident (the one with the popcorn), Russell Westbrook made that exact point.  He pointed out the double standard of how the players need to "behave themselves" and not react when they're the targets of unruly behavior in the stands.  If they do react, they'll face heavy consequences.  They'll be fined and/or suspended.  Probably both.  The parties responsible should be held accountable, too, though, and they aren't always, which leads to bigger idiots doing something even stupider and even more dangerous.

It's not all fans.  I want to be very clear about that.  The vast majority of people who attend a game are there for the right reason.  They want to enjoy themselves, root for their team and root against the other guys.  Some booing and getting on the other team is expected.  That's part of the game.  Players know that and welcome it, as long as it doesn't cross the line. 

Each one of the incidents over the past week has clearly crossed that line.  Anybody with a functioning brain and common sense knows that!  There's a big difference between saying "hey Kyrie, you suck!" and deliberately throwing a water bottle at him!  Taunting is completely acceptable within reason.  The other is something else entirely.

Also, why does this only happen in the NBA?  Is it the proximity of the fans to the court?  I can't completely blame alcohol for it, since there's no way these morons are anywhere near as drunk as 90 percent of the fans at any football game.  Or, and I hate that I'm even thinking this, is it racially motivated?  What's the ethnicity of the players targeted in these incidents?  (Which, again, would help explain why this seems to only happen in the NBA.)

I'm actually really impressed with how the NBA and each team has handled the aftermath of these situations.  They were quick to identify the culprits, quick to act, and quick to issue a statement condemning what happened.  The players appreciate those efforts, too.  But an arena ban and a statement after the fact doesn't get to the root of the problem.  How and why does this keep happening?

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver probably doesn't want to address it, but we've reached the point where he doesn't really have a choice.  The league needs to make it clear that this type of "fan" behavior is unacceptable and hold the teams responsible.  What they should do is take a page out of European soccer's book.  UEFA isn't shy to force teams to play games behind closed doors because of misbehavior by their supporters.  If the NBA did that, I think it would get the message across.

Nobody wants that, especially since it would be tough to say the home team is at fault for any of these situations.  No one wants to go back to the way things were over the past 14 months.  People in the stands is an integral part of sports.  It's what creates the atmosphere.  That atmosphere is something that cannot be replicated, which we learned the hard way in 2020 (as much as they tried, everyone would admit it was nowhere near the same).  That's why I want them to allow fans at the Olympics.  They won't be the same otherwise.

Regardless of how the NBA decides to handle this, I think we can all agree that enough is enough.  Fortunately, none of these have risen to the level of the Malice at the Palace, one of the ugliest things ever to happen at a professional sporting event.  But it's gotten out of control and it needs to stop.  Now!

Back Home Again In Indiana

Last year's Indy 500 was just weird.  Well, everything about last year was weird, but it really felt that way with the Indy 500 especially.  For starters, it was held in August instead of May.  It was the fact that it was held without spectators that really felt wrong.  No one even knows what the capacity for the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is.  We just know it's a lot.  And that quiet was just eerie.

This year, however, Indy is back where it belongs.  On Memorial Day Weekend.  And, while it won't be a full house, they're allowing 135,000 fans, which is more than enough to create an atmosphere.  Most importantly, with the Coca-Cola 600 is back in its normal place on the calendar, too, we once again have 1100 miles of racing on Memorial Day Weekend (Monte Carlo was last week, so no tripleheader).

There's one driver who'll be in Indy instead of Charlotte this year--Jimmie Johnson.  Although, it's as a part of the NBC broadcast crew, not as a driver.  Frankly, I'm a little surprised by that, since he's driving Indy Cars part-time and has indicated in the past that he wanted to be a part of the Greatest Spectacle In Racing.  Maybe that's something to look forward to for next year.

Imagine if he was in the field though!  Another big name in a race that's becoming more and more star-studded by the year!  We've got nine former champions among the 33 starters, nearly a third of the field, and three of them have won the race more than once, including defending champ Takuma Sato.

Sato's looking to become the first back-to-back winner in 20 years, and his would, of course, be even more unique since those victories would be just nine months apart.  A second straight win would also move Sato into that exclusive group of three-time winners, a group that has included Helio Castroneves since 2009.  Helio has been synonymous with Indy since his debut in 2001, and this year he's got his best starting position since 2018.  He'll be a contender.  He always is.  But it'd be a stretch to call him a favorite.

The favorite mantle I've gotta give to Scott Dixon.  He dominated most of the race last year until Sato passed him in the end, and he's dominated the entire month.  Dixon's starting on the pole for the fourth time in his career, and his Indy win in 2008 also came from the pole.  I'm not saying a win is guaranteed.  Far from it.  Any number of things can happen to screw you up during a 500-mile auto race.  But if Dixon can carry the form he's shown all month into race day, he'll be very tough to beat.

While I'd consider Dixon the favorite, there are plenty of other former winners who have a chance to claim the checkered flag.  Anytime Tony Kanaan is in the field, you've gotta know where he is.  Especially when he's starting in the middle of Row 2.  This is the first time he's been one of the Fast Nine qualifiers since 2017, when he finished fifth.

And, for some reason, I've got a good feeling about Simon Pagenaud.  I don't really know why.  He's starting 26th and hasn't really shown the same type of form as Dixon.  Pagenuad drives for Roger Penske, though.  And Penske literally owns the place!  None of his drivers qualified well, but they always show up on race day.

I'm also curious to see how Pagenaud's Penske teammate Will Power fares.  The 2018 champ had a terrible run in qualifying and almost missed the field.  He did make it, though, in the 32nd starting spot.  And now that he's in the race, anything can happen.  Charging from the back row into contention isn't easy, but it's been done before.  And if anyone in the field can do it, Will Power can.

Joining him in the back row is Simona de Silvestro.  It's her first time racing in the Indy 500 since 2015, and she's the first woman in the field period since Pippa Mann in 2019.  The coolest part about de Silvestro's Indy return, though, is the fact that she's driving for Paretta Autosport, Indy's only female-owned and run team.  Simona's chances of winning aren't that great, but her story is.

If there's gonna be a first-time champ, there are four guys I'm looking at.  The first is Colton Herta, who's just 21 and would be the first Indy 500 winner born in the 2000s.  He's been nearly as fast as Dixon all month and will be starting right next to him.  Ed Jones, meanwhile, is back after skipping last year's race.  He's starting 11th, the same starting position he had in his 2017 Indy 500 debut, when he finished third.

Josef Newgarden's another Penske guy.  This will be his 10th Indy 500, and he's finished in the top 10 in five of the last six years.  He's another one of those drivers who's proven he'll stay in contention the whole way, and if things break in his favor, who knows?  James Hinchcliffe is perhaps best known for his off-the-track stuff, but he's also a hell of a race car driver!  Hinch was seventh last year when he was driving part-time for Andretti.  Now he's with Andretti full-time, which can only be a good thing for him.

Still, I like Scott Dixon to win.  His consistency has been remarkable.  He was the fastest in practice, in qualifying and on Carb Day.  That race car is clearly set up perfectly for the 500.  So, unless something quirky happens, I don't see anybody beating Dixon.

Whether it's Dixon or one of the 32 other drivers, it'll just be great to see the winner of the Indy 500 once again kissing the bricks on the Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend.  When everything was getting shut down last year, the Indy 500 was the event I had earmarked as the one where things might begin to seem normal again.  What I didn't realize at the time was that I was talking about the 2021 Indy 500.  It's back where it belongs!

Back In May

For the first time ever, the Big Three are all in the same side of the draw in a Grand Slam.  Djokovic and Federer would play in the quarters, so they'd need to beat the other, then Nadal just to reach the final.  That's a tall order at any tournament.  At the Rafa Invitational?  Damn near impossible!

Remember last year, when the tournament had to be rescheduled and was played in October, and how we all wondered how much of an impact it would have on Nadal's dominance of the event?  Yeah, the answer was none (kinda like how changing teams made no difference on Tom Brady getting to the Super Bowl)!  If anything, he was more dominant.  He didn't lose a set, allowed Djokovic to win just seven games in the final, and earned his annual French Open win.

That was Nadal's 20th career Grand Slam title, putting him one behind Federer's record.  (There are 60 combined Grand Slam titles in the top half of the draw--59 of them by the Big Three--one on the bottom half!)  So, it would be somewhat fitting for Nadal to tie that record here.  After all, two-thirds of his Grand Slam titles have been in Paris.  (For those of you who still don't understand why I don't like Nadal, [other than my being a Roger guy] that's why!  We get it!  You're good on clay!  Both Roger and Novak are more well-rounded players.)

(Side note: how are they doing ranking points?  Tournaments normally drop off after a year and are replaced by the result of the same tournament, but there'll be two French Opens in eight months, so how's that gonna work?  Will Nadal have both wins count until last year's comes off in October?)

It's not that I'm conceding the trophy to Nadal.  It's just that if I've learned anything over the past 17 years, it's that picking against him at Roland Garros is a fool's errand.  However, if there was ever a year where somebody else has an opportunity, this may be it.  Especially if they're lucky enough to be in the bottom half of the draw!

Dominic Thiem has that one Grand Slam trophy from the bottom half of the draw.  He won it at last year's US Open before heading to Paris and losing in the quarters.  He's been Nadal's final victim twice, though, and would have to be considered the favorite on the bottom half.  Or maybe Stefanos Tsitsipas, who took Djokovic to five in the semis last year, will break through and reach his first Grand Slam final.  I've gotta make the two of them the favorites over Daniil Medvedev, who's ranked No. 2 and made the final in Australia, but has never won a French Open match in his career!

They may also benefit from the fact that virtually no one will care about what's going on in the bottom half of the draw until the final.  The story of the entire tournament will be on the top half, with the Big Three on a collision course and Nadal chasing history.  Meanwhile, the guys on the bottom half can just go about their business and play some tennis.  Because one of them is gonna make the final no matter what.

It's not just on the men's side where the top half of the bracket is loaded, either.  The top half of the women's draw features No. 1 Ash Barty, who actually left Australia!  She hasn't been to Paris since winning the title in 2019.  Last year's champion, Iga Swiatek is also on the top half of the draw.  So is the woman she beat in the final--Sofia Kenin.  Kenin's first round opponent?  Jelena Ostapenko, the 2017 champion.  And 2016 winner Garbine Muguruza is there, too.  So that's four of the last five women's champions (2018 winner Simona Halep withdrew) plus last year's finalist.  Yikes!

Unlike the men, the women still have plenty of stories on the bottom half of the draw.  Like Nadal, Serena Williams can tie the all-time record for Grand Slam titles here.  She hasn't won the French Open since 2015 and has been stuck on 23 since 2017, but a healthy Serena is always a threat.  Especially a healthy Serena who has a relatively easy draw.

Then there's Australian Open champ Naomi Osaka.  She made headlines earlier this week by saying she won't participate in any post-match news conferences.  Since those news conferences are a requirement, Osaka stands to be fined a significant amount, especially since she's made it very obvious she won't do them.  She's gotten some support for her stance, but it's also drawn a fair amount of criticism. 

Most other players are in agreement that nobody likes them, but understands that they're part of the job.  Osaka's also making it open season for anyone to write whatever they want, since she won't be there to set the record straight.  I also wonder how that's gonna play with the fans.  I'd imagine it'll be a mixed bag.  Plenty of support, plenty of people who don't agree, who now have ammunition to root against her.

I don't have an opinion on Osaka's stance one way or the other.  It's her choice and she's willing to pay whatever fine she receives.  And, let's not forget, she's one of the more outspoken players on the women's tour, so she already has her share of both supporters and critics because of that.  It didn't affect her game in New York or in Melbourne.  We'll see how much of an impact it has here.  Keep in mind that clay is her worst surface, too.

Fortunately, there will be enough going on that Naomi Osaka's press conference boycott shouldn't be a distraction.  It'll be a story after her first match and probably a day or two after that, but the media's attention will eventually shift to what's happening on the court.  Especially when the tournament figures to be wide open.

There have been five different champions and nine different finalists in the last five years, which goes to show how the French Open really is anybody's tournament on the women's side.  With how dominant she was on these same courts just a few months ago, though, I've gotta go with the defending champ Swiatek.  Her 2020 French Open title might've been her first, but it won't be her last.

Power to the People

When the pandemic hit, college sports were obviously heavily impacted.  Schools shutting down meant no athletics, effective immediately.  Most significantly, that meant the cancellation of the 2020 NCAA Basketball Tournament, which is their biggest source of revenue.  That NCAA then distributes that money among its members, so that left a number of athletic departments with a major shortfall in their budgets.

This is all (fairly) common knowledge, so why am I bringing it up?  Because those schools had to find ways to make up the difference.  Some did it through furloughs or layoffs and voluntary pay reductions.  But others did something more drastic.  They announced that they were dropping sports entirely.  And not just mid-majors.  We're talking about big-time Power 5 schools!

Stanford dropped 11 sports.  So did Brown.  William & Mary cut seven.  Dartmouth dropped five.  Iowa and UConn both dropped four.  Clemson eliminated three sports but only one program.  It was a big one, though...men's track & field.  According to this tracker, it's a total of 110 sports at 35 Division I schools that were cut during the pandemic.  (That doesn't include the University of Hartford, which recently announced that its dropping its entire athletic program to Division III.)

To be fair, not all of these were pandemic-related decisions.  Some were the result of years-long feasibility studies that determined it was the best course for the athletic department moving forward.  Nevertheless, the number of teams and the number of major schools involved was staggering.

It's also worth noting which sports.  None of the revenue-producers that often have the highest budgets.  Instead, it was the sports that are generally less expensive and have smaller teams.  Tennis was the biggest casualty, with 15 men's and 10 women's programs dropped.  There were also a good number of golf, swimming & diving and track & field teams.  Not surprisingly, it was disproportionately men's teams (Title IX still had to be considered).

Anytime a school drops sports, there's going to be the inevitable backlash.  You'll have the angry and disappointed alumni, supporters, parents and, of course, people on the team.  These groups are sometimes given the chance to fundraise in hopes of keeping the program alive, but, more often than not, those decisions are final.

Perhaps the best example of a successful fundraising campaign that saved a program was Cal baseball.  The 119-year-old team was supposed to be eliminated after the 2011 season.  Over the next nine months, more than $10 million in donations to save the program led the school to reverse its decision.  And, to give that story the ultimate happy ending, Cal advanced to the College World Series that year!  Ten years later, Cal baseball is still thriving.

The same thing happened at Bowling Green.  Their baseball team was one of the first pandemic-related cuts last May.  Less than three weeks later, the program was reinstated after alumni and donors raised $1.5 million, which is enough to keep it going for at least three years while they look for a long-term solution.

Throughout the course of this year, we saw plenty of the impacted teams react to their schools' decisions in different ways.  They wanted more immediate action than simply the time to fundraise.  Some demanded meetings with the president or the chance to see the exact financials.  The women's track team at William & Mary took it a step further.  They refused to compete until the men's team was reinstated.  The softball team at Hartford, meanwhile, blacked out the school's name on their uniforms in a picture that has gone viral.

Others have taken their battle to a different kind of court.  There have been numerous lawsuits filed on behalf of numerous teams asking to block or delay the moves.  Michigan State women's swimming and UConn women's rowing are seeking reinstatement based on Title IX grounds.  Both are currently pending.

Here's the crazy thing about some of those the protests, though: they worked!  They achieved their goal.  They forced school presidents and boards to listen to them.  They forced them to open their books and explain the financial motivation for these moves.  That allowed them to successfully prove their counterpoints.  The money being "saved" is nothing in comparison to the amount being spent on other teams or could be trimmed elsewhere.  For the programs with no or few scholarships, there's also the money that the school stood to lose by having these potential tuition-paying students choose to go somewhere else instead.

As a result, we've seen something remarkable happen!  Nine different schools have reinstated 35 sports.  Four of them have backtracked on their decision entirely!  The Clemson men's track team was saved.  So were all five teams set to be cut by Dartmouth.  And all seven at William & Mary.  And, perhaps most significantly, all 11 at Stanford.

What this shows, to me, is that cutting sports is not always the answer to financial troubles.  I applaud the groups that led the fundraising efforts to get these programs reinstated.  I also applaud the administrations that realized their decision wasn't necessarily the right one.  That wouldn't have happened if they weren't willing to listen.  It also wouldn't have happened if the supporters of these programs hadn't been so passionate and dedicated.

Unfortunately, not every program that's been cut by every school will be reinstated.  But it's great that so many are.  It shows the power of perseverance.  And it shows how much a team's supporters can make a difference.

Another Dumb Idea

Just when you thought international soccer was out of dumb ideas after the two-day existence of the European Super League (sorry, Real Madrid, but it's not a thing!), you're in luck!  Because, as it turns out, there are still plenty of dumb ideas to be had!  This one comes to us courtesy of Saudi Arabia, where, for some reason, they think having the World Cup every two years is actually a good idea!

This isn't the first time a biennial World Cup has been floated.  It was first discussed by former FIFA President Sepp Blatter more than 20 years ago, when it, obviously, didn't go anywhere.  Current FIFA President Gianni Infantino hasn't been shy with his plans to grow the game.  He's spearheaded the expansion of both the men's (from 32 to 48 teams) and women's (from 24 to 32) tournaments, as well as the creation of a 24-team Club World Cup.  And Infantino, who values his close relationship with the Saudis, has promised to give it consideration.

Hopefully "we'll give it consideration" is a polite way of saying "your idea is stupid."  Because it is.  Although, to be clear, Saudi Arabia hasn't directly asked for the World Cup to move to a two-year cycle.  All they asked for was a feasibility study.  That study will almost certainly conclude that it isn't feasible.  For a number of reasons.

The most obvious reason is the FIFA calendar.  It's constructed very deliberately using the four-year World Cup cycle.  So, going from every four years to every two years would require making a lot of changes to that meticulously drawn schedule.  They'd basically have to condense the same number of games and competitions into half the time, which all of the different national and continental federations would need to then work around (while also leaving room for full club seasons and the Champions League).

If that sounds like a lot of soccer, that's because it is.  World Cup qualifying is a year-and-a-half to two-year process, sometimes even longer.  So, if this proposal were to pass, nations would be in a perpetual loop of World Cup qualifying and the World Cup itself, then immediately doing it all over again.  No break.

Then there's obviously the continental tournaments.  The Euro is scheduled when it is on purpose.  It's in the even year between World Cups.  If the World Cup were to move to a two-year cycle, the two most important tournaments would suddenly be held in the same year. 

They could conceivably use the one-year delay to change the Euro cycle and hold it in odd years moving forward (2025, 2029, etc.), but that wouldn't completely solve the problem.  In fact, it would probably create a bigger one since teams would still have to qualify for both, and the qualifying would almost certainly have to overlap.  Plus, UEFA has that stupid Nations League that they're obsessed with and would need to work into the schedule.

It's not just the Euro, either.  There's Copa America, which is nearly as big, and all of the other continental tournaments.  Those wouldn't just go away.  They're too important.  Especially for the African and Asian countries that really have no chance of winning the World Cup.  But, instead of being the focal point in the off-year between World Cups, they'd be squeezed in with everything else and probably become an afterthought for a lot of larger nations.

I'd be willing to bet that broadcasters wouldn't be too keen on shelling out the extra rights fees that would come with the World Cup happening twice as frequently.  Especially since many of them probably also air the continental tournaments and/or Olympics.  The World Cup takes a month!  That's a lot of programming they'd have to rearrange.  Not to mention the fact that the Olympics and World Cup are the two biggest sporting events on the planet!  Talk about overkill!

How many countries would be lining up to host all of these extra World Cups, too?  Putting on the World Cup is not an inexpensive proposition.  Especially now that it's 48 teams and 80 games.  There's only a handful of nations that can afford that, even as a co-host with a neighbor.  (And, let's not forget, everybody's finances have taken a major hit over the past 15 months, so that probably limits the options even more.)

There's also the very real risk of oversaturation.  It's true that soccer is the world's game and the World Cup is the biggest event in the sport.  But part of what makes the World Cup so special is the fact that it only happens once every four years.  That adds to the prestige of winning.  Only one country can, and they get to call themselves "World Champions" for the next four years.  Cutting that in half would mean they get virtually no chance to enjoy it, since they'd immediately have to start their qualifying campaign for the next one.  It would also water-down the achievement, since it would be almost immediately forgotten.

Of course, there are the people who are in favor of this plan.  They like the idea of players getting more opportunities to represent their countries in the World Cup.  That would be true in most cases, but I can also see the situation where players, after a long club season, decide to skip the World Cup, knowing that there'll be another one in just two years.

Being a world class soccer player is already a 12-month job.  Many of them end up playing more than 50 games a year between club and country.  And it's not like they ever get a year off, since the national teams always have a major tournament to either play in or qualify for throughout the four-year cycle.  Condensing that cycle into two years might not even be possible, but even if it is, you're asking a lot more of these players than you already do.

So, simply put, if it ain't broke, why fix it?  The World Cup is great.  But it doesn't need to be every two years.  Hopefully FIFA's "feasibility study" makes that clear.  Because there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.  And twice as many World Cups would definitely qualify.

My Girls Are Going Dancing

When I worked at Manhattan, I worked with pretty much every team at some point, to varying degrees.  But I always had a favorite.  I technically wasn't supposed to have a "favorite" team, but everyone knew I did, and everyone knew who it was.  Softball.

I'm not gonna get into all the reasons, but softball is when I was most in my element and I enjoyed myself the most.  And they were always good too!  I obviously wanted every team I worked with to win, but that was the one I really wanted.  And the one I thought had the best chance.

We got close a few times.  There was the year we tied for the regular season title, then won a 16-inning elimination game in the MAAC Tournament.  There was the year we were in first place pretty much all season, only to end up third and lose in the tournament.  There was the year we won 30 games, got the 2-seed and felt great going into the tournament...only to lose twice on the same day and go home.

Then there was 2014, which was, without question, the craziest and most exhilarating season I've ever personally been involved in.  That was probably our best team, too.  The Killer B's, Kate Bowen and Elena Bowman (I gave them that nickname).  Jenn Vazquez.  Amy Bright in the circle.  We were the 6-seed in a six-team tournament and lost the first game.  Then, after a ridiculous amount of rain over the next two days, didn't play again until Saturday morning...and won in extra innings!  Right after that we played Marist, the No. 1 seed, and beat them 1-0 to move into the finals!

Even though we'd already played twice that day and the weather the next day was supposed to be beautiful, they decided that they were gonna play the championship on Saturday as scheduled and make us play a third game.  Well, Dani-Girl Gabriel ended up pitching the game of her life!  She retired the last 17 batters she faced, we won, and everybody had to come back on Sunday anyway.  Unfortunately, that's when the magical ride ended.  The NCAA Tournament was not in the cards that year.

After getting so painfully close, we all wanted it that much more.  We kept getting close, but every season ended the same way.  Without a ring.  It was as frustrating as it was disappointing.  I felt for each senior class who had given their all to the program, but graduated without that chance to play in the NCAA Tournament.  Most importantly, I felt for my friend Tom Pardalis, who has built a tremendous program and deserved a championship.

One of the last events I covered as a full-time Manhattan College employee was the 2017 MAAC Softball Tournament up the road at Iona.  It wasn't just my last chance to get a ring with softball.  It was my last chance to get a ring period.  (I traveled to a few NCAA Tournaments with Manhattan, but never for one of "my" teams where I was the direct contact.)

Last year at their fundraiser dinner (back when you could still have that sort of thing), Tom boldly predicted that they would win the MAAC that season.  We, of course, know what happened to derail that prediction, so we'll never know if the Jaspers would've won the MAAC in 2020 or not.  With most of that team coming back, though, (including Chrissy Gebhardt and Nicole Williams, who were seniors last year but decided to take advantage of the extra year of eligibility the NCAA granted everyone to come back and play as grad students) he was just as confident heading in 2021.

This season, through a series of circumstances, I ended up back working Manhattan softball games again.  They had six home doubleheaders, and I was there for all six of them.  It was like I had never left!  Obviously it was vastly different than it had been in the past, but that didn't even matter.  I'd forgotten how much I loved working with that team, even if my role was vastly different than it had been in the past.

The MAAC Tournament was different, too.  Since so many teams had their schedules impacted by COVID postponements and cancellations, they expanded it to eight teams, with a best-of-three quarterfinal round.  Manhattan was the 6-seed and went up the road to Iona, a team they had just gone 1-3 against to end the regular season, for the quarterfinals.  They split on day one, but Nicole was her Nicole Best in Game 3 to advance.

Up next was the MAAC Tournament proper at Canisius.  A win over Fairfield, a win over Marist, and suddenly Manhattan wasn't just in the championship round, it was the Jaspers who had the advantage as the undefeated team.  That buffer wasn't even necessary!  They were a team possessed.  They kept adding tack-on runs and won 6-3.  And suddenly, the wait was over.  Manhattan was going dancing for the first time since 1999 and Tom finally had his championship!

While I'm not actively a part of the program anymore, I'm just as proud and happy about this championship as if I was.  And I think I speak for the former players, too.  We're so happy for Tom, Cat and all the players.  We're proud to be a part of building the foundation, but I'll admit, also a little jealous that we don't get to be a part of it now!  Just a little bit, though.  Mostly, we're proud, happy, excited and thrilled!

Now they're off to Arkansas for the NCAA Tournament.  Whether they win or not doesn't even matter.  It was all about the journey.  Getting there was the hard part.  Now's the fun part.  Playing a big time program on the national stage, with the game televised on SEC Network. 

It sucks that I can't be there in person, but you know I'll be there in spirit.  And you can bet I'm not the only one.  All of the other alums will be watching, too, immensely proud of our team and relishing in the fact that they're playing in the NCAA Tournament!  LET'S GOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

How About Some Positivity?

Like it or not, the Tokyo Olympics are just over two months away.  It's going to happen, as much as some people may not want it to.  So, all of the doubters need to stop waiting for the other shoe to drop.  Because it's not going to!  So, maybe it's time to accept that fact, stop being Negative Nancys about the whole thing, and focus on how these Olympics can succeed instead of why (you think) they shouldn't even be held at all.

And, please, stop suggesting that they should be postponed again!  How many times do the IOC and Japanese government need to say that before people finally get it?!  (And I'm not just talking about random people, either, these are people who cover the Olympics for a living that are saying this!)  Do you know how many hoops they had to jump through to make a one-year postponement work?!  And how much additional money it's costing them, as well as all of the international federations?!  They can't do it again, either logistically or financially, so stop acting like they can! 

If, for whatever reason, the IOC determines the Olympics can't be held this year, they will be cancelled and the next Olympics will be the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing.  While I'm at it, stop suggesting countries should boycott Beijing, too!  As the 1980s showed us, Olympic boycotts accomplish NOTHING other than making some activists happy and depriving the athletes of their opportunity that may only come once.

They keep citing the negative reception to the Games in Japan as their reason for wanting the Olympics to be cancelled.  However, I always take the "results" of polls like that with a grain of salt.  Because they're all biased.  The conductor of the poll always has a clear opinion and doesn't publicize results that go against what they want.  It's also not at all unexpected.  Under normal circumstances, public opinion towards the Olympics in the host country dips in the weeks and months leading up to the Games before enthusiasm grows as they get closer.

I'm not going to dismiss the concerns that Japanese citizens have mentioned as reasons for their opposition.  The vaccine rollout in Japan hasn't been great and they're concerned about an influx of 15,000 athletes, coaches, staff and media members from around the world creating a surge.  Especially with Tokyo and Sapporo (which will host the marathons) currently under a state of emergency, they're questioning the wisdom of that and hoping the Olympics don't turn into a superspreader event.

Likewise, there are some who've said the money would be better spent combating the virus than preparing for the Olympics (I assume they're talking about the additional funds necessary for COVID testing, since a lot of the Olympic budget has already been allocated and spent).  I'm not sure that logic entirely makes sense, though, since the postponement is part of what has made the costs skyrocket, and if the Olympics are cancelled, they'll have spent nearly a decade and all that money with nothing to show for it.

Both of those concerns are legitimate.  However, the IOC has been diligent in making sure the Olympics can take place safely.  They've already banned foreign spectators and if Japanese spectators are allowed, it'll probably be at a reduced capacity.  (Which, by the way, doesn't help the money situation, since they won't recoup any of their expenses through ticket sales.)  Worst case scenario, they hold them behind closed doors, which they've been doing at all of the Olympic test events.

The Olympic test events have been overwhelmingly successful, a sign that the IOC's playbooks and COVID protocols work.  At the Diving World Cup, there was only one positive test...of a staff member who was immediately quarantined.  At the track & field test event (which had only a handful of foreign athletes), there were no positives.  Those events are obviously nowhere near the size and scope of the Olympics themselves, but the bubble environment that they used seemed to do its job.

This will be a vastly different Olympics than anyone has experienced before.  The athletes won't get to go out and explore the city.  A lot of them won't even be able to attend the Opening or Closing Ceremonies.  They'll fly in, compete, and fly out almost immediately afterwards.  And when they do compete, it won't be in front of a stadium full of flag-waving fans.  It'll be empty and quiet.

That's all in addition to the COVID protocols they'll have to go through while in Tokyo (which will start before they're even allowed to get on a plane).  They'll go from the village to the venue and back.  That's it.  But that's a trade-off they're all willing to make.

As the Olympic test events, as well as other sporting events all over the world, have proved, it's possible to do things safely during a pandemic.  And the public health concerns of the Japanese citizens, while not unfounded, are probably more about panic than anything else.  The IOC will essentially be creating an Olympic bubble, so they won't be exposed to people from other countries.  That'll especially be true if the Games are conducted without fans.

It's also worth noting that a lot of Olympians are either already vaccinated or will be before the Games start.  The IOC won't require vaccinations and the protocols will apply to everyone regardless of vaccination status.  But the point remains.  A lot of those foreigners who'll be entering Japan for the Olympics will be vaccinated (some countries are prioritizing their Olympians for that purpose), so the Japanese people will be protected, even if they aren't vaccinated themselves.

In a perfect world, everybody traveling to Japan for the Olympics will be vaccinated (well, in a really perfect world, COVID wouldn't have disrupted all of our lives for more than a year!).  That, unfortunately, won't be the case.  The virus is still ravaging Brazil and India, countries with two of the six largest populations on Earth, and larger, more affluent nations have more access to vaccines than smaller, poorer nations.  But, the IOC is also doing its part to help in the vaccination effort by purchasing doses and promising to provide two for somebody else for every one an Olympian receives.

Public health experts are in agreement about what most of us already suspected.  The vaccines work and don't just protect you.  They protect those around you, too.  That's why the IOC is pushing vaccines so hard.  Because they believe that with a combination of vaccines, strict protocols and a bubble environment, the Olympics can take place and can take place safely, even if they have to be a made-for-TV event.

A lot of criticism has been directed towards the IOC for its determination to hold the Olympics at all costs, which some have called tone-deaf.  They're aware of the feelings of the Japanese people, but that shouldn't be the only factor in determining whether the Tokyo Olympics take place or not.  And, as they've said numerous times over the past year, they're in the business of putting on Olympic Games.  Which is what they're trying to do!

So, can you blame the IOC for doing everything it can to make sure the Olympics happen?  Which they will.  There's no reason to think they won't.  The sooner everyone realizes that, the better.

No Bubble This Time

They say familiarity breeds contempt.  Never will that ring true than in this year's Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Teams only faced the same opponents all season...and now that we've reached the playoffs, they'll face those same opponents again!  If a series goes seven, they could end up playing 15 games against each other (more for the Canadian teams)!  So, I'm expecting to see that normal playoff intensity cranked up to about a 13!

This year's playoffs are also a bit of a throwback.  It's like we're going back to the 80s, with the division semifinals and finals leading into the Conference Finals and Stanley Cup Final.  Except this year, of course, there won't be Conference Finals.  There will be Stanley Cup semifinals instead.  They're not even awarding the Prince of Wales Trophy and Clarence Campbell Bowl!

Of course, one of the Canadian teams will be in those Stanley Cup semifinals.  Where they'll be playing their home games in that series remains to be seen, though.  The NHL wants an answer about whether teams will be able to go back-and-forth across the border by June 1.  They seem optimistic about their talks with the Canadian government, but who knows?!  I wouldn't be surprised if they end up saying no and we get playoff games in Detroit or Buffalo.

Another interesting aspect of this year's playoffs was the realignment.  I was curious about how much it affected the teams that made the playoffs, but, as it turns out, while the matchups would obviously be different, most of the playoff teams would be the same.  Nine Eastern Conference teams made it, so one would obviously have to be out, and that team is Montreal.  But, replacing the Canadiens with Arizona is it.  That would be the only change.  (And, frankly, I'm more than on board with Montreal being there instead, especially since they're playing Toronto!)

The matchups would obviously be different, but the other 15 teams would've made the playoffs under either format.  (And, yes, I know you can't do a direct comparison since they played different schedules than their regular division opponents this season.)  In case you were wondering, these would be the matchups using the regular format: Carolina-Islanders, Pittsburgh-Washington, Florida-Boston, Tampa Bay-Toronto, Colorado-St. Louis (the only one that's the same), Minnesota-Nashville, Vegas-Winnipeg, Edmonton-Arizona.

As for the actual matchups and what we can expect over the next two months, I think that's anybody's guess.  You've got two rounds where the teams are very familiar with each other, followed by two rounds where they haven't seen each other at all.  You've also got about a half-dozen teams that legitimately consider themselves Stanley Cup contenders.  But they've all got to get out of their divisions first...

EAST
Penguins-Islanders: When they met in the playoffs two years ago, the Islanders won in a sweep.  The Islanders then reached the Eastern Conference Final last season while the Penguins were upset in the qualifying round.  And, don't forget, that was only nine months ago!  Simply put, the Islanders aren't intimidated by the Penguins.  Not by a long shot.  In fact, if they make Pittsburgh play their game, which is something Barry Trotz is great at forcing other teams to do, I think they'll win this series.  Islanders in six.

Capitals-Bruins: Washington and Boston get the honor of starting the playoffs on Saturday night.  This is obviously NBC's marquee series, and there's a good reason for that (beyond the fact that it's two major-market teams).  They don't like each other very much, as evidence by how intense their regular season meetings were.  They finished the season by playing each other twice, but I don't think much can be taken from that since they knew they were likely playing again in the playoffs.  Now it's time to get serious.  I like Boston's experience here.  Washington's got a rookie goalie, which is the other reason why I give the Bruins a slight edge.  Boston in six.

CENTRAL
Hurricanes-Predators: While nobody was paying attention, Central Division teams ended up with the third-, fourth-, and seventh-most points in the NHL.  And it was Carolina who hit the 80-point mark!  Although, we probably should've seen it coming after the Hurricanes' solid seasons in both 2018-19 and 2019-20.  They lost to Boston in the playoffs in each of the last two years.  This year, they won't face the Bruins until the semifinals at the earliest.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the Hurricanes there.  Carolina in five.

Panthers-Lightning: Tampa Bay begins its Cup defense with an all-Florida series against the Panthers.  Frankly, Florida finishing not just ahead of Tampa Bay, but with the fourth-best record in the entire league, might've been the most surprising result.  Of course, the Panthers have history working against them.  They haven't won a playoff series since their run to the Stanley Cup Final 25 years ago.  The Lightning, of course, have plenty of experience winning playoff games.  They're the defending champions for a reason, and they'll play like it!  Tampa Bay in six.

NORTH
Maple Leafs-Canadiens: For the first time since 1979, hockey's oldest rivals meet in a playoff series!  When they created the all-Canadian division for this season, this is the series most fans wanted and hoped would happen, and sure enough, the Hockey Gods gave us our wish!  The Leafs also know that this is their best shot of finally ending their long string of playoff disappointments.  They're the strongest Canadian team, and they proved it all season.  They'll prove it again in this series, although Montreal will make them work for it.  If only fans could be there!  Just imagine how electric the Air Canada Centre and Bell Centre would be for the most important Canadiens-Leafs games in years!  Toronto in six.

Oilers-Jets: Edmonton definitely has a legitimate shot of being the North Division representative in the semifinals, but this Winnipeg series won't be easy.  The Oilers and Leafs both knew that Winnipeg was likely gonna finish third, and they both wanted nothing to do with the Jets in the playoffs.  Edmonton's task is similar to Toronto's...finding a way to get past their playoff disappointment.  The Jets, meanwhile, have the playoff experience to make sure this series goes the distance.  Edmonton in seven.

WEST
Avalanche-Blues: Crazy stat about the Avalanche that they showed during their game last night--this is the SIXTH different division that they've won!  And it's easy to see why they won the President's Trophy.  They have very few flaws.  And an outstanding goaltender!  Frankly, it's very difficult to see the Blues winning this series.  Colorado is just that much better.  Colorado in five.

Golden Knights-Wild: Thanks to the regulation wins tiebreaker, Colorado ended up winning both the division and the President's Trophy over Vegas.  So, that series will end up starting in Denver if they both advance.  Which seems likely.  Because the Golden Knights are just as strong as Colorado.  They drew a much stronger opponent in Minnesota, but the Wild simply don't have the offensive firepower to get past Marc-Andre Fleury and/or Robin Lehner.  Vegas in six.

A Look at the Schedule

When the NFL announced that they were adding the 17th game this season, I was curious to see how it would affect the schedule.  Obviously it added 16 games, but they have to spread them over 18 weeks instead of 17 now and still give every team a bye, so it seemed like a guarantee that there would be some weeks that are better than others. 

That's not the case at all, though.  They had Jim Nantz, Al Michaels and Joe Buck on the NFL Network show last night, and all three of them were raving about their respective slates!  The Monday night schedule is solid, too!  So, as it turns out, an extra week and an extra game for every team didn't water down the schedule at all!

Week 1: At first, I was a little confused why they chose Bears at Rams for Sunday night and Ravens at Raiders for Monday night, seeing as those were the sites for the Sunday and Monday night openers last season.  Then I remembered there were no fans last season, so this is simply Take 2.  This time, they'll get to open the stadium to paying customers with a prime time game.  Which was the original plan all along!  And, since NBC likes to have the Cowboys in Week 1, I'm not surprised they were picked as Tampa Bay's opponent on Opening Night.

Week 2: If there's a "dud" week, it might be Week 2.  Giants-Washington is the Thursday night game, which is I guess to get them out of the way!  Lions-Packers is the Monday night game, which becomes a lot less interesting if Rodgers does indeed leave Green Bay.  The best matchup is clearly Ravens-Chiefs on Sunday night.  That was a Monday night game last season.

Week 3: The last time the Saints played the Patriots, it was Brady vs. Brees.  This time, it's a 1:00 regional game.  Green Bay-San Francisco is Sunday night for some reason and it can't even be flexed out.  Most watchable game of the week is probably the Bucs-Rams FOX doubleheader late game.

Week 4: This year's No. 1 pick, Trevor Lawrence, vs. last year's No. 1 pick, Joe Burrow.  That's literally the only reason anyone would possibly care about a Jaguars-Bengals Thursday night game.  The marquee game not just of Week 4, but of the entire season, is Brady's return to Foxboro, which will be a ratings bonanza on Sunday Night Football!

Week 5: Three weeks in a row where Sunday Night Football is lit!  This time, it's the AFC Championship Game rematch between Buffalo and Kansas City.  Thursday Night Football moves to FOX.  How can you tell?  It's actually a good matchup, Rams-Seahawks!  And we'll see the return of the NFL in London, with the Jets taking on the Falcons.

Week 6: Remember when the Bucs and Eagles met in the playoffs seemingly every year?  It's been a long time, but the NFL obviously has fond enough memories to put it on Thursday night.  Jacksonville's annual London game returns against the Dolphins, who were supposed to be the home team for one last year, so I guess this is the compromise.  All of the other national games are good ones: Dallas-New England, Seattle-Pittsburgh and Buffalo-Tennessee.

Week 7: Why the NFL loves the 49ers so much, I don't know, but Al Michaels gets a second Sunday night game in San Francisco in the first seven weeks.  This one isn't great, either.  They're playing the Colts.  And it's not like they have many options to flex in as a replacement on another of the lighter weeks.  New Orleans-Seattle is a good one on Monday night.

Week 8: Last season, Tampa Bay-New Orleans meant Brady vs. Brees.  Not nearly as interesting this year, but still a worthwhile doubleheader game, especially after that playoff game in January.  One of the things that got them really excited on the schedule release show was Cowboys-Vikings on Halloween night, but that seems like such a missed opportunity.  The Raiders aren't just not home on Halloween night, they aren't even playing!  That's their bye week!

Week 9: They built the whole marketing campaign for the 17th game around Rodgers vs. Mahomes.  But, now that Rodgers' status in Green Bay is unclear, this one doesn't get prime time treatment.  It is an outstanding national doubleheader game, though!  The other three AFC West teams are all visiting NFC East opponents: Broncos-Cowboys, Raiders-Giants and Chargers-Eagles.  Quirks of the 17-game schedule!

Week 10: Is Week 10 considered the midpoint now since that's when most teams will be playing their ninth game?  Semantics!  For some reason, San Francisco gets ANOTHER home prime time game against the Rams.  Sunday Night Football finally makes its first visit to Las Vegas for Raiders-Chiefs, and Seattle-Green Bay is the national game on CBS.  This is the first year where the Sunday afternoon games really have nothing to do with the conference affiliations, which will definitely take some getting used to!

Week 11: It's been five years and they have played since then, but you know there are still plenty of wounds that haven't healed for the Falcons, who have a Super Bowl LI rematch with the Patriots.  Cowboys-Chiefs is one you know FOX circled on the schedule as a game they hoped they'd get.  Sure enough, they did!  The Giants-Bucs Monday night game last season was so good, the NFL decided to do it again this year!

Week 12: First, we've got byes on Thanksgiving week, which is just odd!  Second, two of the Thanksgiving game are outstanding!  Raiders-Cowboys and Bills-Saints?  Yes, please!  I was surprised to see Buffalo-New Orleans since they normally go for a division game on Thanksgiving night, but that was a great choice!  Rams-Packers and Browns-Ravens on Sunday aren't too bad, either.

Week 13: As has been the case for the past several years, Dallas once again plays one of the other Thanksgiving teams on the following Thursday night.  I wonder if they'll keep doing that when Thursday Night Football becomes a streaming-only enterprise in 2022.  The Giants and Jets both play their added opponent (Giants-Dolphins, Eagles-Jets), and San Francisco gets yet another prime time game.  Am I the only one wondering why the 49ers are suddenly the darlings of Sunday Night Football?

Week 14: Week 14 and we're finally done with the byes!  I'm sure they spread them out because of something in the TV deals guaranteeing a certain number of games each week, but mid-December is incredibly late for a bye week!  The Bills were a popular choice as Tampa Bay's opening night opponent, but they've held that game until here.  Chicago at Green Bay on Sunday night, which I never mind.  They make sure to do that one every year for a reason. 

Week 15: Chiefs-Chargers on Thursday night, Seahawks-Rams in the doubleheader game, Saints-Bucs on Sunday night, Vikings-Bears on Monday night.  Can you tell we're getting to crunch time?  They've also got a bunch of those TBA Saturday or Sunday games that they love.  My early guess is that Raiders-Browns will be the choice for Saturday night.

Week 16: Christmas is on a Saturday, so we're treated to two games: Browns-Packers and Colts-Cardinals.  Then Pittsburgh-Kansas City on Sunday afternoon.  Like Bears-Packers, Dallas-Washington on Sunday night is an NFL rule.  Meanwhile, the Jaguars visit the Jets, which will have the top two picks in the draft squaring off, assuming they're both (a) healthy and (b) still starting for terrible teams.

Week 17: What was once the final game of the regular season is now just Week 17.  Although, that means there's a Week 17 Monday night game now (which was taken from Week 1, which is now just a single game instead of a doubleheader).  And we've got Cleveland at Pittsburgh in the Monday night finale!  Happy New Year indeed!

Week 18: January 9: the latest date for regular season games in NFL history.  (For context, Super Bowl XI was played on January 9!)  They, of course, didn't change the all-division finale that's been in place for more than a decade.  First glance at the schedule and there's three I'd really like to see chosen as Game 272 (also weird to adjust to that number): Steelers-Ravens, Chargers-Raiders or Seahawks-Cardinals.  Hopefully the standings cooperate.

25 Years, 25 Players

The WNBA season begins this week, and it's a historic one.  It's the WNBA's 25th season!  It really is a remarkable achievement when you think about it.  No women's professional league in North America has ever lasted nearly as long, yet the WNBA hasn't just reached the milestone, it's still going strong!  And we've even reached the point where the players in the league weren't even born yet during that inaugural season in the summer of 1997.

As a part of the celebration, they'll release a 25th Anniversary All-time Team at some point this season.  I'm curious to see who ends up on the final list.  Because there are definitely more than 25 players who are deserving!  But if I had a vote (which I obviously don't!), here's who I'd go with (the players are arranged alphabetically):

• Seimone Augustus: A four-time champion and eight-time All-Star, she's now in her 16th WNBA season.  She's tied for ninth on the WNBA's all-time scoring list.
• Sue Bird: Duh!  She's 40 and still going strong.  The No. 1 overall pick in 2002, Bird is the WNBA's all-time leader in assists.  She's been All-WNBA eight times and led Seattle to a fourth championship last season.
• Tamika Catchings: She played 15 seasons for the Indiana Fever and was named All-WNBA in 12 of them.  Catchings is a five-time Defensive Player of the Year and the league's all-time steals leader.  She was also a Rookie of the Year, MVP and Finals MVP during her career.
• Tina Charles: Charles is one of the few on my list who's never won a WNBA championship, mainly because she's spent most of her career playing for the Sun and Liberty.  That hasn't stopped her from being both a Rookie of the Year and an MVP, as well as an eight-time All-WNBA selection.
• Cynthia Cooper: The WNBA's first superstar, she led the Houston Comets to the first four league championships.  Cooper was Finals MVP each season and won the first two regular season MVP trophies.  She retired after the fourth title in 2000, then became coach of the Phoenix Mercury before returning to the Comets for a final cameo as a player in 2003.
• Elena Delle Donne: Delle Donne has been in the league eight seasons and been All-WNBA five times.  She's also a two-time MVP who led Washington to its first WNBA championship in 2019.  And there's still more to be written.
• Candice Dupree: There are two reasons why I selected Candice Dupree among my 25.  First is her longevity.  She's started 464 of 468 games played over 15 seasons.  Second is the fact that she's fifth all-time in scoring with 6728 career points.
• Sylvia Fowles: Name an award and Sylvia Fowles has probably won it.  Three-time Defensive Player of the Year, two-time Finals MVP, WNBA MVP in 2017.  More significantly, Fowles is the WNBA's all-time leading rebounder (3400).
• Yolanda Griffith: Another one of the WNBA's early stars, she averaged a double-double in each of her first three seasons.  Griffith was both MVP and Defensive Player of the Year during her rookie season of 1999 and was Finals MVP when Sacramento won the title in 2005.
• Brittney Griner: Her WNBA career isn't as accomplished as what she did at Baylor, but it's still pretty impressive.  Seven consecutive years leading the league in blocks while also leading in scoring twice.  A two-time Defensive Player of the Year and five-time All-WNBA performer.
• Becky Hammon: Hammon's made history as a coach, but her playing career was just as notable.  She went undrafted out of Colorado State...only to become a six-time All-Star and four-time All-WNBA selection.  Hammon ended up playing 16 years in the league and is sixth all-time in assists.
• Lauren Jackson: Without question, the greatest foreign-born player in WNBA history.  She was taken No. 1 overall by Seattle in 2001 and played 12 seasons for the Storm.  Jackson won two MVP awards and two championships, as well as a Defensive Player of the Year.
• Lisa Leslie: Lisa Leslie was responsible for so many WNBA firsts.  She dunked in 2002.  She had a triple-double in 2004.  She was the first to reach 3,000 and 4,000 points.  She won two championships, three MVPs and was MVP of the All-Star Game three times.  Leslie played 12 years and was All-WNBA each season.
• Angel McCoughtry: After a decade with the Atlanta Dream, she signed with the Las Vegas Aces last season and led them to their first WNBA Finals appearance.  McCoughtry is a two-time scoring champion who was also on the All-Defensive Team seven consecutive times.  She's been to the WNBA Finals four times, but still hasn't won a title.
• Maya Moore: Maya Moore put her career on hold in 2019 to take up the case of the wrongful conviction of the man she ended up marrying.  She really had nothing left to prove in the WNBA.  Minnesota won a championship in her rookie year of 2011, and did a reverse San Francisco Giants, winning every odd year until 2017.  Maya Moore is the best women's basketball player I've ever seen.
• Candace Parker: Fresh off her second straight NCAA championship at Tennessee, she was taken No. 1 overall by the Sparks in 2008 and was both Rookie of the Year and MVP that season.  Parker spent 13 years in LA, leading the Sparks to the 2016 title, and is now a member of the Chicago Sky.
• Ticha Penicheiro: While Lauren Jackson is the best foreign-born player in WNBA history, Ticha Penicheiro was the league's first foreign-born star.  She led the league in assists in each of her first six seasons and trails only Sue Bird on the all-time assists list.
• Cappie Pondexter: Pondexter won two championships in her first four seasons and was Finals MVP in 2007.  She made four straight All-WNBA teams (2009-12), was a seven-time All-Star, and currently ranks fourth on the WNBA all-time scoring list.
• Katie Smith: Smith actually signed with the ABL at first and didn't join the WNBA until that league folded.  She ended up spending 14 years in the WNBA and is sixth on the all-time scoring list (she's the all-time leader if her ABL points are included).  Smith led the Detroit Shock to a pair of titles in 2006 and 2008.
• Breanna Stewart: Stewie's still just a baby.  The 2020 season was just her fourth, and she's already a two-time champion and Finals MVP.  Stewart was also league MVP in 2018 and Rookie of the Year in 2016.  The awards will just keep accumulating for the current Face of the WNBA.
• Sheryl Swoopes: Swoopes made history as the first player to sign with the WNBA, fresh off that 1996 Olympic gold medal.  She was the first three-time MVP in WNBA history.  Swoopes is also a three-time Defensive Player of the Year, winning both awards in the same season twice, and she was on that Houston dynasty that won the first four league titles.
• Diana Taurasi: The WNBA's all-time leading scorer, she'll reach 9,000 career points this season.  Taurasi is just as good now as she was when she debuted in 2004.  Her 16-year career, all with the Phoenix Mercury, has included three WNBA championships, two Finals MVPs and 14 All-WNBA selections. 
• Tina Thompson: Thompson makes three members of the original Comets.  Do you understand why they won the first four championships now?  She was the WNBA's all-time leading scorer until Taurasi overtook her, and is still second all-time.  Thompson is also sixth all-time in rebounds.  She played in nine All-Star Games, winning All-Star MVP honors in 2000, and was an eight-time All-WNBA selection.
• Teresa Weatherspoon: Another New York Liberty point guard who has turned into a successful NBA assistant coach.  T-spoon spent seven years with the Liberty and started the first 220 games in franchise history.  She won back-to-back Defensive Player of the Year honors in 1997-98 and led the Liberty to appearances in four of the first six WNBA Finals.
• Lindsay Whalen: Rounding out the list is Lindsay Whalen, who's last, but certainly not least.  She was the point guard on those Minnesota Lynx teams that won four championships in a seven-year span from 2011-17 (after playing in two Finals with the Connecticut Sun in her first two seasons).  Whalen's third all-time in assists, behind only Bird and Penicheiro and spent the 2018 season playing for the Lynx while also preparing to take over as head coach at the University of Minnesota.
  

A good number of these women will likely be on the actual WNBA 25th Anniversary Team.  A number of them will probably be on the Olympic team this summer, too, as the U.S. goes for its eighth consecutive gold medal.  That streak started in 1996...with the USA squad that was so successful it spawned not one, but two, professional leagues!  The WNBA is that legacy.  And what a legacy it is!

The Aaron Rodgers Situation

What is it about the Green Bay Packers and Hall of Fame quarterbacks reaching the end of their careers?  First it was Brett Favre whose Packers career ended unceremoniously.  Now it's the man who replaced him in Green Bay--Aaron Rodgers.  We still have no idea how this saga will play out, but Rodgers has been pretty vocal about his unhappiness and has demanded a trade, with Denver his preferred destination.

Of course, we probably should've seen this coming.  Rodgers made it known that he didn't agree with Head Coach Matt LaFleur's decison to kick a field goal late in the fourth quarter of the NFC Championship Game, giving the ball back to Brady up five instead of going for the touchdown and two-point conversion to tie.  As we all know, the Packers never got the ball back.  Tampa Bay ran out the clock, and Rodgers lost ANOTHER NFC Championship Game.  This time at home, adding to the sting.

That wasn't the first time he didn't agree with the team's decision-making.  He's been questioning personnel moves for a while now and clearly isn't on the same page as management about the direction of the team.  It's clearly started to take its toll.

Despite this, Rodgers is as great as he's ever been.  He had arguably his best season in 2020, when he won his third MVP.  However, it's been a decade since his only Super Bowl appearance.  The NFC Championship Game losses keep mounting, and that's clearly frustrating.  Especially since the Packers are still capable of being Super Bowl contenders.  As long as everybody's on the same page, that is.  Which they are not.

Whether Rodgers gets traded or not will be the conversation that dominates the next few months.  The Packers are the ones who hold the leverage.  They're under no obligation to trade him.  If they can work a deal that's favorable to all sides, great!  But if not, they can always call his bluff.  After all, Rodgers has limited options if the Packers don't trade him.

If they don't trade him, Rodgers can really only do one of two things.  He can return to Green Bay or he can pull an Andrew Luck and retire after training camp has already started.  Which is actually a plausible scenario. 

His Jeopardy! guest-hosting gig went well, and he hasn't been shy about his desire to get the job full-time.  He can't host Jeopardy! and play quarterback in the NFL at the same time, though.  Each job requires so much time that it would be impossible to do both.  Jeopardy! won't name the new host until the summer, though, and you'd have to think Rodgers is being seriously considered.  If he gets the job, it's very realistic that his frustration with the Packers will lead to him simply retiring from the NFL to become the new host of Jeopardy!

This is vastly different than what happened with Favre, though.  With Favre, it was the Packers who were frustrated.  They were tired of the annual "will he or won't he" regarding Favre's retirement, and they had Rodgers waiting in the wings.  This time, it's Rodgers who's frustrated.  And there is no heir apparent ready and waiting to take over.

Rodgers obviously figures into the Packers' plans for 2021.  They don't really have a Plan B at quarterback.  They didn't take one in the Draft and third-year pro Jordan Love is the only other QB listed on their roster.  Could they swing a trade to a team like San Francisco where they simply swap quarterbacks the way the Rams and Lions did with Stafford and Goff?  Sure!  But Aaron Rodgers is still their best option at the quarterback position in 2021.

Likewise, Rodgers should be careful what he wishes for.  This is a point Colin Cowherd made the other day, and I agree with him.  Because as much as he might like the situation in Denver, his best chance at getting to the Super Bowl still lies in Green Bay.  So, if he wants to get back to another Super Bowl (which he obviously does), it might be worth it to suck it up and stay a Packer.

It really could be a matter of whether the situation is fixable or not.  Is the relationship broken beyond repair?  If so, then divorce may be the only option.  And that divorce would have to happen via trade, since he doesn't become a free agent until 2024 (he does have an opt-out in 2022, but it's unclear whether that's before or after the season).  There's absolutely no chance they'll release him because of all the dead cap space it would create.

Another thing I can see happening is him playing for Green Bay this season, then them coming to some sort of agreement on a buyout that will allow him to become a free agent.  Then he can go wherever he wants, which obviously worked for that guy who just beat him in the NFC Championship Game!  And, speaking of Brady, we didn't know how unhappy he was in New England until he left.  With Rodgers, we at least know.  He's not happy!

One thing's for sure, though.  This isn't the end of this story.  Not by a long shot.  It'll likely consume most of the offseason until a decision's made one way or the other.  And it should.  Because it's not everyday the MVP is openly involved in active trade talks, the results of which will impact much more than just the Green Bay Packers and whoever their trade partner is.

Some people think it's telling that the NFL has stopped using the "Rodgers vs. Mahomes" Packers-Chiefs matchup as part of its promotion for the schedule release on Wednesday.  I don't.  Because my hunch is that Aaron Rodgers will still be a member of the Green Bay Packers next season.  Either that or the host of Jeopardy!

Where Does Albert Go From Here?

When the Angels announced that they were releasing Albert Pujols, I was surprised but not totally shocked.  After all, he hasn't been ALBERT PUJOLS in years and had been relegated to a part-time role (which, frankly, he should be at his age).  But, it was also the last year of his contract, so I figured they'd let this season play out, then go their separate ways.  Albert had indicated he was thinking about retiring after this season, and that scenario is what seemed most likely.

However, I can also see why the Angels didn't want to have a guy making $20 million who really can only DH at this point sitting on the bench taking up a roster spot, especially if he wasn't going to play.  After all, part of the reason Albert's numbers this season are so poor is because of how little playing time he actually got, and, even for a future Hall of Famer, it's hard to get into a rhythm when you don't play.

Did anyone expect his tenure in Anaheim to end like this?  Of course not!  But that contract has been weighing the Angels down for quite some time.  Simply put, he's hasn't been worth it in years.  He's not the same player he was during his prime in St. Louis and has gradually been seeing his playing time decrease over the past several seasons.  But, there was also very little they could do about it because he had 10-and-5 rights and nobody was gonna be stupid enough to take on that contract anyway!

Eating only one year of the deal, though?  That's a different story!  That suddenly made DFAing Pujols a viable option, especially for a major-market team like the Angels.  The only question then became whether it was worth it to pay a guy $20 million not to play for you.  They decided it was.  (In fairness, they were basically already paying him $20 million not to play for them, so this isn't really much different.)

So I do agree with the Angels' choice of words about their decision.  It does seem to be "mutually beneficial."  By DFAing him, it freed up the roster spot immediately.  Assuming he clears waivers, they'll release him, which makes Albert a free agent and gives him the chance to decide what he'll do next.  They won't decide for him (which they couldn't anyway since he has 10-and-5 rights).  A win-win.

Albert has indicated he doesn't want to go out like this.  He still wants to play and thinks he can contribute for somebody this year, even if it's just until the end of the season before he retires.  So, even though his options are extremely limited, I do think Albert will catch on with somebody for the final three-quarters of his final Major League season.

At first, the Chicago White Sox seemed like a very realistic option.  They've had a slew of injuries to regulars, and Albert would've been able to get regular at-bats at DH while also spelling Jose Abreu at first a few times a week.  However, Tony La Russa, Pujols' longtime manager in St. Louis, said that the White Sox unfortunately don't have the room for him.

There seems to be a consensus that he'd only be a fit for an American League team where he can get his at-bats as a DH, but I don't necessarily think that's the case.  National League teams need pinch hitters, so he could sign with an NL team and still be able to get plenty of at-bats hitting for the pitcher while also making an occasional start at first base.  So I'm including National League teams in my list of potential Pujols landing places.  Places like...

• Cincinnati: Joey Votto has a broken thumb and will be out for a month, so Pujols could get regular starts at first base in his absence, then move into a pinch-hitting role.  The Reds have a ton of power among their regular lineup, but not much off the bench.  He'd solve that problem.
  
  
• Dodgers: It sounds crazy, but hear me out.  I can definitely see Albert heading across the Freeway.  The Dodgers' title defense is off to a shaky start, mainly because of their numerous injuries.  They aren't as deep as last year, but they still have a ton of players who can play anywhere, so they'd be able to afford having him on the roster just to pinch hit once a game.  And what a weapon off the bench!  They're also very left-handed, so he helps there, too.  Plus, he wouldn't have to move.
  
  
• St. Louis: Maybe this is just me being sentimental, but how cool would it be for him to end his career where it began?  It'd be like Hank Aaron on the Brewers or Willie Mays (Happy 90th!) on the Mets.  No, he obviously wouldn't start over Paul Goldschmidt, but you know Cardinals fans would love to have him back!  He wouldn't be the first player to end a Hall of Fame career on his original team, either (most recently, Ichiro and Ken Griffey, Jr. both returned to the Mariners at the end).
  
  
• Texas: The Rangers aren't going anywhere this season.  Everybody knows that.  Which means signing a future Hall of Famer to DH for them in his final season would be a great way to sell tickets.  They had Shin-Soo Choo DHing last year, but he's playing in Korea now and they never really replaced him.  Albert's better than anybody they do have.  He could conceivably play a good amount of first base for the Rangers, too.
  
  
• Seattle: With the White Sox out, I'm including the Mariners as one of the five teams most likely to sign Albert.  Like the Rangers, they're not going anywhere.  Like the Rangers, he'd be an instant upgrade over whoever they've got playing DH on a given day.  Unlike the Rangers, he probably wouldn't get the chance to play much first base.

Of course, retirement is always an option, too.  I hope that's not what happens, though.  Because Albert Pujols doesn't deserve to go out like this.  He's one of the all-time greats, and he deserves to say goodbye on the field.  If this is it, though.  Wow!  What a career!

When the "Punishment" Doesn't Fit the Crime

Capitals forward Tom Wilson has gained a reputation as one of the dirtiest players in the NHL.  He's been suspended five times, including a seven-game ban earlier this year for boarding the Bruins' Brandon Carlo.  It sure looked like he was in line for his sixth suspension after he completely lost his mind against the Rangers on Monday night.

If you haven't seen what happened or need a refresher, it all started about halfway through the second period.  Pavel Buchnevich was on the ice next to the Capitals net when Wilson decided to punch him in the head.  Ryan Strome jumped in to get Wilson off, at which point Wilson punched him, starting a larger incident.  Wilson then ended the altercation by body slamming a helmetless Artemi Panarin head-first into the ice.  Panarin, who almost certainly has a concussion, didn't return for the third period and won't play in the Rangers' final three games.  

And just when you thought he couldn't get any classier, Wilson puffed out his chest like a rooster and flexed while in the penalty box.  Because, you know, he's such a tough guy!

So, sucker punching three guys, injuring one of them, warrants a game misconduct, right?  Apparently not.  Wilson received a double minor and a 10-minute misconduct, but returned in the third period and even scored a late goal.  That's alright.  At least he had another lengthy suspension headed his way, right?  Well, as it turns out, the answer to that one is also "No."

The only discipline Wilson got for his actions was a $5,000 fine, the maximum allowable under the CBA.  No suspension.  And, making matters worse, there's no appeals process, so the NHL considers the matter closed.  If only that were actually the case.

Needless to say, the Rangers are less than pleased about the whole thing.  They didn't mix words after the game, calling his actions "reckless" and "dangerous."  Head Coach David Quinn called it "totally unnecessary" and said he crossed a line.  Mika Zibanejad went so far as to say he doesn't think Wilson has any respect for the game. 

That opinion hasn't changed.  In fact, Tuesday's lack of accountability has only made the Rangers angrier.  The team's statement was very strongly worded and made their disappointment very clear.  In fact, the Rangers called on George Parros to be removed from his job as head of the NHL Department of Player Safety, citing his "dereliction of duty."

Parros' reasoning for only issuing a fine was that he didn't see anything egregious.  The Buchnevich punch is what drew the fine.  The rest was considered to be "commonplace within the context of a scrum."  Seriously?!  What a joke!  Did he even watch the video?!  Body slamming a guy to the ice is "commonplace?"  In the NFL, you get ejected the second you close your fist and swing.  But in the NHL, actually landing punches on three different opponents apparently only warrants 14 penalty minutes, a $5,000 fine and nothing else.

There seems to be an agreement, both within the Rangers and within the NHL as a whole, that he's going to seriously injure somebody someday.  All because of a stupid, selfish bully.  Who'll keep acting like this as long as they let him get away with it.

Wilson isn't just a dirty player.  He's a repeat offender.  That should definitely be taken into consideration anytime he's involved in another situation like this.  Because the way he plays the game is dangerous.  This isn't the first time somebody has gotten injured as a result of Wilson's antics, and it probably won't be the last.  And, frankly, that should also be taken into consideration.  Would Artemi Panarin have gotten hurt if not for Tom Wilson?  No!  And if Panarin has to miss time, Wilson should too.

I'm not saying that there isn't room in hockey for that type of player.  Hockey is a physical game and tensions can run high, especially when you face the same teams over and over again.  Every team needs that guy who isn't afraid to protect his teammates and mix it up with the opponents when necessary.  How many players have made a career out of being enforcers?

However, there's a big difference between physical play and illegal play.  Physical play is part of the game and completely appropriate.  Illegal play is dangerous, and that's what gets people injured!  Tom Wilson doesn't just toe that line.  He often crosses it.  And he doesn't seem to care, either.  In fact, I think he enjoys playing the villain.

Bottom line, Tom Wilson should've been suspended for what he did against the Rangers on Monday night.  It wasn't hockey.  It was disgusting.  It was dangerous.  It was unnecessary.  It was vicious.  It was dirty. 

Unfortunately, the NHL dropped the ball on this one.  Instead of the lengthy suspension that many expected and seemed inevitable, Wilson was essentially given a slap on the wrist.  Which means he's free to continue acting like a goon.  Which he will.  I just hope he doesn't injure anybody next time.  Because there WILL be a next time.

No USA, No Jamaica, No Problem

Ever since they debuted in 2014, the World Athletics Relays have always been a kind of fun early-season international meet.  It's just relays, so a lot of the pressure was taken off.  They were able to try new things.  It's at the World Relays where the mixed 4x4 debuted and where the now-common athlete introductions started.

They've tinkered with the events, trying to find the right mix.  Then they made the World Relays a qualifier for the five events that are also in the World Championships and Olympics, which added an extra competitive element.  In the end, though, it was always the same story...the United States and Jamaica atop the medals table, with everyone else happy to make the final or get a qualifier or set a national record.

This year, however, the U.S. and Jamaica didn't send teams to the World Relays.  (The United States didn't enter, while Jamaica entered, then withdrew.)  Neither did Australia or Canada or a lot of Caribbean nations.  Even strong European countries like Great Britain only had limited entries.  COVID concerns and travel restrictions were the obvious reason why, but it still meant that this year's World Relays were gonna look vastly different than the four previous editions.

Would a relay meet without any of the traditional powers still be worth watching?  As it turns out, the answer was "Yes!"  Because the countries that were there knew this was their opportunity, and they seized it.

Don't get me wrong.  Watching this meet was still very odd.  It was held in an empty (and eerily quiet) stadium because of the restrictions still in place in Poland.  And, while it was nice to see some different teams in finals, it wasn't hard to notice that the teams you'd otherwise expect to medal weren't there.  The fields that we see three months from now in Tokyo will be vastly different than the ones we saw this weekend.  But that's part of what made it so exciting!

Not having the U.S. or Jamaica there gave other countries the chance to shine.  Poland was the host, so you knew they were gonna send a full team, but they were one of the few countries that did.  Kenya did, as well, and was rewarded with a bronze medal in the mixed shuttle hurdles relay as a result!  Ireland made the final in the mixed 4x400 (and won silver in the women's 4x200)!

Perhaps most significantly, scores of countries took advantage of not having the heavyweights there to clinch qualifying places at the Olympics and World Championships.  The top eight finishers qualified for the Olympics, while the top 10 qualified for next year's World Championships in Oregon.  So, this was their chance to guarantee themselves a spot without having to worry about running a good time and hoping it was enough.  That's huge.

As Ato Boldon pointed out during the broadcast, runners from Ecuador or the Dominican Republic or Botswana probably aren't qualifying for the Olympics or Worlds individually.  Going in the relay was probably their only shot.  Now they know they're definitely going.

The World Relays typically only serve as a qualifier for that year's World Championships.  They only added the Olympic qualifier to this year's event when the Olympics were postponed (which was a smart change since countries had so few opportunities to race last year).  And that was a big carrot.  Only 16 teams qualify for the Olympics and World Championships in each relay, so the stakes were huge.

When those relay teams get to Tokyo, they will see the U.S. and Jamaica and all of the other top nations, all of which had already qualified for Tokyo by making the final at the 2019 World Championships.  That probably had as much to do with their decision not to travel to Poland as anything else.  The COVID numbers and travel restrictions and mandatory quarantines were certainly factors, as well, but those are things I'm sure the top teams would've been willing to deal with had it been necessary.  Since it wasn't, that made the decision to pass that much easier.

Even if they weren't already qualified, it's not like skipping the World Relays would've cost the U.S. or Jamaica their Olympic relay spots anyway.  There are still a few time qualifiers remaining, so they would've put together a relay team at some point during the qualifying period for the sole purpose of posting a good enough time.  (For example, Canada put together a men's 4x100 that ran a 38.49 two weeks ago at LSU.)

However, there are only a few time qualifiers remaining for Oregon 22.  It's not like the world's sprint powers have to worry.  They're likely to run fast enough to qualify on time, which also might've factored into that decision.  But not every country has that luxury.  So the World Relays represented their best chance.

And, frankly, it was nice to see some other countries win for a change!  We've come to expect the U.S. and Jamaica to dominate.  Sure, there's the occasional upset or DQ, but, for the most part, either the U.S. or Jamaica would be favored to win the gold medal in pretty much every event.  Which, with a few exceptions, they usually did.  Instead, this year we got two victories each for Italy, Poland and Germany, with South Africa, the Netherlands and Cuba also winning gold medals. 

It'll be nice to have the traditional powers back and fans in the stands at the next World Athletics Relays two years from now, but their absence didn't make the 2021 edition any less enjoyable.  In fact, I'd argue that seeing some other countries win for a change may have made them more enjoyable.