Putting the Athletes First

When I was in grad school, one of my first assignments for my Sport Leadership class was to write a paper about a sports executive and give examples of their leadership style.  I chose then-IOC President Jacques Rogge and subheaded it "Putting the Athletes First."  Which is exactly what he did during his 12-year tenure as IOC boss.

Rogge, who passed away over the weekend, took over the IOC at a very tenuous time.  After 20 years of Juan Antonio Samaranch's iron-fisted leadership and the Salt Lake bribery scandal, it was clear that it was time for a change.  That's exactly what they got.  Because Rogge was, in many ways, the polar opposite of Samaranch.

For starters, he was a former Olympian, competing for Belgium in sailing at three Games (1968, 1972, 1976).  His successor, Thomas Bach, is also a former Olympian, but they're just the second and third Olympic athletes to later serve as President of the IOC.  Rogge had been in the athletes's shoes and understood their perspective.  More importantly, it was important to him.

You could tell that right from the get-go.  His first Olympics as IOC President was the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.  Those Olympics had been plagued by the bribery scandal that led to sweeping changes in the organization, including Samarach's retirement.  Then, during the Games, there was another scandal regarding the judging in the pairs figure skating competition.  The Russians beat the Canadians, who most experts agreed were clearly superior, for the gold medal, only for the French judge to admit the next day that she had been pressured to vote for the Russians.  Rogge acted swiftly, throwing out the French judge's scores and awarding the Canadians an unprecedented second gold medal.

During the Games, he didn't stay in a swanky five-star hotel.  He stayed in the Olympic Village.  And ate in the dining hall, where he could talk to the athletes directly and listen to their concerns.  It should be no surprise, then, that the IOC Athletes' Commission is one of his lasting legacies. 

The Athletes' Commission had existed since 1981, but now, instead of being appointed, its members would be chosen in a direct election by the Olympians themselves.  And they'd be full IOC members, with the Chair serving on the IOC Executive Board.  Simply put, the athletes--the people who actually compete in the Olympics--have a greater voice in the Olympic movement than ever before.  That was Jacques Rogge's doing.

One thing about Jacques Rogge that I always remembered was his interview with Bob Costas during the Athens Games.  At one point Bob asked him, "What should I call you?  President Rogge?  Doctor Rogge?"  (He was also an orthopedic surgeon.)  His answer: "Call me Jack."  In Torino, Beijing, Vancouver and London, he didn't even ask.  He just called him "Jack."

I don't know why that stands out so much to me.  I think it's because it speaks to Rogge's personality.  Yes, he was President of the IOC, a very important and stressful job.  But he was also a down-to-earth guy you could talk to.  Quite the contrast from Samaranch.

His leadership style was also vastly different than Samaranch's.  Under Samaranch, the Olympics had grown to ridiculous and unsustainable proportions.  Rogge made them less expensive, capped the number of athletes and increased opportunities for women.  (He got it to a 60-40 split.  In Paris, it'll be 50-50 for the first time.)  He made cities want to host the Olympics again, marked by that incredible election in 2005 that saw five major world cities (London, Paris, Madrid, New York and Moscow) vying to host the 2012 Games.  It's only fitting that those London Games, his last as IOC President, were one of the best ever!

Another big part of his legacy is the Youth Olympics.  Those were his baby.  The Youth Olympics are for athletes ages 14-18, some of whom may be competing internationally for the first time (and some of whom may become stars of the regular Olympics very soon thereafter).  They've also become a testing ground of sorts for different sports and events.  Some of the newer additions to the Olympic program are a direct result of their success and popularity at the Youth Olympics.

Say what you will about the Youth Olympics, but they have achieved another major purpose.  They've brought the Olympic brand to cities and countries that aren't big enough to host the main event.  The three Summer Youth Olympics have been in Singapore; Nanjing, China and Buenos Aires, and the next edition in 2026 (postponed from next year) will be held in Dakar, Senegal, the first Olympic competition ever held in Africa.

There were, of course, some misses, too, which you'd expect from someone who held a leadership position for 12 years.  It was under Rogge that baseball and softball were voted out of the Olympics in 2005.  And in 2013, just before his tenure as President was set to expire, wrestling was voted out...only to be reinstated at the next IOC Session later that year.

He wasn't really able to do much about doping, either.  Granted, doping was a problem at the Olympics long before Jacques Rogge's Presidency and continued to be well after.  But the number of athletes who've been stripped of medals years after the fact because of banned substances in stored samples is absolutely ridiculous!  It's great that they're testing and catching the cheats, but the sheer number shows how big the problem was.  And I've never been a big fan of changing the results so long after the fact.  It's great that the new medalists eventually get their recognition, but there are athletes who originally finished like seventh in London who are now bronze medalists!  So you're telling me that five athletes who were allowed to compete were actually doping!  How is that possible!?

So, was Jacques Rogge's IOC Presidency perfect?  Definitely not.  No presidency is.  But, was it consequential?  Absolutely!  He was the leader the IOC needed at the time.  A former athlete who understood that change was necessary and wasn't afraid to make it, while also being relatable to the most important people in the Olympic Movement--the athletes.

Not Golden, But Maybe Still Grand

I was hoping that this year's US Open would be the tiebreaker.  The three of them have each won 20 Grand Slam titles (that's 15 years worth of Grand Slams won by just three guys), and the US Open was going to be either where Federer regained the lead or Djokovic or Nadal finally pulled ahead.  But, alas, it won't be.  It'll be like last year's US Open instead...except incredibly different!

Last year, Djokovic was also the only member of the Big Three there, and he was the overwhelming favorite.  That's the case again in 2021.  Except this time, there's history on the line.  Novak won the Australian Open.  He won the French.  He won Wimbledon.  He's the first man to enter the US Open with a chance at a calendar year Grand Slam since Rod Laver in 1969.  And if he can pull it off, he'll be the first player, man or woman, to complete the Grand Slam since Steffi Graf's incredible 1988 season.

In 1988, Graf also won the Olympic gold medal, for the even more rare "Golden Slam."  Djokovic can't do that after losing in the semis in Tokyo.  He had a bit of a meltdown in the bronze medal match at the Olympics, and he withdrew from mixed doubles before even playing in the mixed doubles match. 

Some people think that his failing to medal in Tokyo will impact his quest for the Grand Slam in New York.  I don't.  The Golden Slam was obviously the goal, and he's obviously disappointed he won't win it.  But, don't forget what happened last year after the US Open default.  He went to Paris and made the final of the French Open.

It's also worth noting that the conditions in New York will be a lot different than the conditions in Tokyo.  It was incredibly hot.  So hot, in fact, that Daniil Medvedev feared for his health and they had to move matches later in the day.  Beyond that, though, the Olympic tournament featured matches every day, and he was playing mixed doubles, too, so he was playing two matches every day in that heat.  He's had a month off to recover since then and will only be playing one match every other day.  So I don't think playing in the Olympics will cause any sort of an issue.

Which doesn't mean the pressure's off at the US Open.  Not by a long shot.  Not with a double shot at history on the line.  Because Djokovic doesn't just have a chance to complete the first men's Grand Slam in 52 years.  And he doesn't just have a chance to become the all-time leader in Grand Slam titles on the men's side.  If he wins seven matches, he'll accomplish both incredible achievements at the same time!

And let's not forget what happened the last time we had this scenario in play at the US Open.  In 2015, Serena Williams won the first three Grand Slams of the year and was the three-time defending US Open champion.  She lost in the semifinals to Roberta Vinci.  Can Novak avoid the same fate?  Or will he finish the job?

Unfortunately for him, the two names he would most not want to see--Pablo Carreno Busta and Alexander Zverev are his potential semifinal opponents.  Weird crap happens every time he faces Carreno Busta--like last year's US Open default and this year's Olympic meltdown.  Zverev, meanwhile, is the man who beat him in Tokyo en route to the gold medal, the biggest title of his career so far.  Either one will give Novak all he can handle in the semi.  Which could actually be a good thing if he survives (just like in Paris, where he still had something left after that four-hour semi against Nadal to come back from two sets down against Tsitsipas in the final).

So, yeah, it's Djokovic vs. The Field.  Although, much like last year, The Field sees this as their opportunity to final win a Grand Slam title after the Big Three have monopolized them for so long.  That includes Zverev (who lost to Dominic Thiem in a fifth-set tiebreak in last year's final).  And Daniil Medvedev (who lost in five to Nadal in the 2019 final).  And Tsitsipas (who lost in five to Djokovic in the French Open final).  And Andrey Rublev (who won Olympic gold in mixed doubles).

On the women's side, there are two reigning US Open champions in the field.  Naomi Osaka, of course, is defending her 2020 title, while 2019 champion Bianca Andreescu returns after missing last year due to injury.  That was her first US Open appearance.  Which means she's never lost a match at the US Open in her career!

They've got to be the two favorites, but they're far from the only contenders for the title.  I'm curious to see how Belinda Bencic does in her first Grand Slam after winning gold in Tokyo.  Monica Puig has done nothing (and frequently been injured) since her unexpected Olympic triumph five years ago, but Bencic already had an established pedigree before winning Olympic gold.  In fact, she was a semifinalist in 2019, the last time she played the US Open.

Then there's Ashleigh Barty, the Wimbledon champion and world No. 1, who's never had much success at the US Open.  And how will Karolina Pliskova, a finalist here in 2016, follow up her Wimbledon final appearance?  Aryna Sabalenka made it to the semis at Wimbledon and also seems poised to make a run for her maiden Grand Slam title.  Elina Svitolina, meanwhile, won Olympic bronze.  None of those women has won the US Open before.

Let's not forget Vika Azarenka, either.  Last year, she had an incredible run in New York, winning "Cincinnati" before making her third career US Open final.  That launched her back to the top of the women's game.  She has to be seen as a factor.  Same with Simona Halep, who has a challenging draw with Svitolina in the round of 16 and Osaka in the quarters, but don't be surprised if she gives either of those a match.  Or pulls the "upset."

Of course, who's NOT here is also a notable story.  Because it's not just Roger and Rafa.  It's also Venus and Serena.  That's 70 combined Grand Slam titles, including 18 US Opens!  This is the first US Open without at least one Williams sister since 1996...which was the year before Arthur Ashe Stadium opened (and Steffi Graf won her last US Open title)!

There are some people who WILL be at this year's US Open, though.  The fans!  The fact that there was a tournament at all last year--especially at its regularly-scheduled time--was remarkable.  And, even without fans, it was an incredible atmosphere.  But it still wasn't the same.  So to have fans back, and not just fans, but at full capacity, means the US Open we know and love is back, too.

This is the first US Open of a new era in many ways.  With so many of the old guard missing, will the next generation finally get their chance to shine?  Or will the greatest player on the planet finish off the calendar-year Grand Slam and become the winningest man in Grand Slam tennis history?  Either way, what a story it'll be!

Selfish and Stupid

The Buffalo Bills have a problem.  They're one of the best teams in football, one year removed from an AFC Championship Game appearance and with very realistic Super Bowl aspirations this season.  That is if stupid, selfish behavior by some of their players doesn't get in the way.

We all know about Cole Beasley's shall we say "interesting" take on COVID and the vaccine.  He's made his feelings, misinformed and ignorant as they may be, very well known.  And, oddly, he takes pride in coming off like an idiot (as well as a number of more colorful terms).  Evidently, Beasley isn't the only Bills wide receiver who has a problem with the rules that were pretty clearly spelled out by the NFL.  Because Isaiah McKenzie tweeted out a picture of the letter he got from the NFL telling him about his $14,650 fine for not following the COVID protocols--as if he was bragging about it!

That right there is the problem.  These two are acting like selfish, spoiled children.  Plain and simple.  Just because they don't like the rules, they don't think they should have to follow them.  Then when they get caught breaking them, they don't just act like they didn't do anything wrong, they act like they're some sort of victim because the rule is "unfair."

Beasley ended his tweet where he whined about the fines by saying "Make it make sense!"  Hate to break it to you, Cole, but it does!  If you're vaccinated, you can go back to 2019 normal, or at least pretty close to it.  If you're not, you've still got to follow the restrictions that were put in place last year.  How does that not make sense?  It's your choice.  Either get vaccinated or don't.  The NFL can't and won't make you.  But if you choose not to, then you can't do as many things as those who are.  Is it just me, or is that pretty easy to understand?

It's also worth noting that 81 percent of the Bills team is vaccinated.  So, that means four out of every five players don't need to worry about the COVID restrictions.  Just because you're the most vocal doesn't make you the majority.  Or right.  And your selfishness directly impacts them.  Which obviously you don't care about at all.

Another point that Beasley made that he thinks supports his argument but actually proves the opposite is that the NFL didn't cancel any games last season.  That's true.  They were able to play all 256.  But that's mainly because the NFL was committed to getting every game in and wanted to avoid cancellations at any cost.  Which they were able to do.  But it wasn't easy.

How many games had to be rescheduled (some at the last minute, some multiple times) because of outbreaks?  The 2020 season was the first one in NFL history that had a game on every day of the week--which was not by choice.  In fact, it was a complete mess.  Multiple teams had multiple games moved around as the NFL tried to rearrange the pieces of a very elaborate puzzle basically on the fly.  Oh yeah, and they had to make sure broadcasting NFL games at completely random times worked for CBS, FOX and NBC, too!

Buffalo experienced all of this firsthand.  They played the Titans on a freakin' Tuesday, then had to play their Thursday night game in Kansas City on a Monday afternoon.  Meanwhile, at least three other teams lost their bye week because of schedule changes.  A Thanksgiving night showcase game was played almost a week later...at 5:00 on a Wednesday!  The Ravens had a four-week stretch of games where they played on Sunday, Wednesday (10 days later), Tuesday and Monday!  The Broncos had to play a game without a quarterback because of a positive test and contact tracing!

Last season was odd for many reasons, and everyone was willing to put up with all of the restrictions and schedule changes as long as it meant they were playing football.  And the vaccines weren't developed and approved until the very end of last season, so everybody was unvaccinated.  There was no distinction.

This season, of course, is much different.  Vaccines aren't just available, most of the population has already chosen to get the shot.  Teams are mandating it for their non-playing employees and even requiring proof of vaccination for fans to be allowed to attend.  Players are encouraged to get vaccinated, but the league can't mandate it since that requires negotiations with the NFLPA. 

If the NFL could require it of the players, they likely already would have.  Meanwhile, there will be some NFL stadiums where literally everyone except the players is required to be vaccinated before they can even enter.  How exactly is that fair?  So the players are already getting special treatment.  This is a fact that Beasley, McKenzie and Co. either choose not to understand or they simply don't care.  (It's most likely Option B.)

Most teams don't have this problem.  Their players are getting vaccinated at a rate well above the NFL's threshold.  Which is why the NFL isn't going to be as lenient with teams that suffer outbreaks this season.  Last year, there was some degree of bad luck involved.  This year, they're viewing it more of it being your own fault.  And, since it's your own fault, it's not the NFL's problem.  It's not your opponent's problem, either.  If you can't play, tough luck!  We're not rescheduling your games for you!

With that in mind, selfish and reckless behavior like this can have very real consequences for the entire team...not just the unvaccinated few!  But, of course, why would the impact their choices and actions have on their teammates matter to them when they've already proven that they don't care about anybody else?

So, the choice is really up to Beasley, McKenzie and every NFL player who thinks his own personal anti-vaccine stance is more important than his team's success.  Do you want to continue making your point (which garners very little sympathy and just makes you look bad)?  Or do you want to win a Super Bowl?  Because you can only win a Super Bowl as part of a team.  And that requires being a team player.  If you know what that is.

The Paralympics On NBCSN

I must say, as disappointing as a lot of NBC's Olympic coverage was, I've been impressed with their coverage of the Paralympics so far.  Granted, it's only been a day, but their Paralympic coverage has exceeded my expectations.  Hopefully that continues.  Because these athletes deserve it!

Just like during the Olympics, the coverage is live overnight.  NBCSN comes on at 9 pm and stays on straight thru 9 am, then gets into their regular daytime programming.  There's also a replay of the 3-9 am "prime time" coverage on Olympic Channel.  It should go without saying, but still needs to be said, that it's all live.  Which you can do when you're only broadcasting on cable and don't have a nightly prime time show on NBC to worry about!

The fact that they're primarily using NBCSN shouldn't be seen as a slap in the face to the athletes, either.  Just the opposite, actually.  Because if not for NBCSN, there wouldn't be 12 hours of coverage a night every night for 10 days.  It would just be a few heavily prepackaged hours on NBC that focus so much on Jessica Long and Tatyana McFadden that you'd think they're the only athletes there.  (Which I'm sure is exactly what the Paralympic coverage shown on NBC will be...not that too much Jessica Long is a bad thing though!)

They've actually shown a pretty good variety of sports, too.  Based on their press release, which only listed the broadcasters for about four sports, I wasn't sure how much more than that they'd actually show.  So it was a pleasant surprise to see track cycling and goalball.  They're using the world feed announcers for those sports, but so what?  Point is, they're showing them.

And goalball has quickly emerged as one of my new favorite sports!  I've seen it before, but only in bits and pieces.  This Paralympics is the first time I've ever watched a goalball game in its entirety, and it's fascinating to watch.  It's for blind athletes who have to wear blackout glasses to ensure they can't see anything.  The lines are raised so they can feel for them on the court, and the ball makes noise, so the game has to be played in total silence (which actually makes the no-fan thing a benefit).  They take turns trying to roll the ball past the other team and into the goal, which runs the entire length of the end line.  I seriously recommend checking it out!

Goalball is one of the two Paralympic sports without an Olympic equivalent, which also kinda cool.  So is how the sport came about.  It was invented in 1946 as rehab for British soldiers returning from World War II.  Now, it's the most-played sport by blind people worldwide.

Then there's wheelchair rugby.  I'd completely forgotten how awesome that sport is!  The name is a bit of a misnomer.  Because it's not really like regular rugby at all.  It's a physical game that basically consists of four players on each team ramming their wheelchairs into each other while one tries to cross the line with the ball. 

NBCSN really likes wheelchair rugby.  They showed the entire USA game and the entire Canada game.  It's easy to see why.  It's actually fairly easy to follow and it's entertaining to watch.  And these are some big guys too!  Their arms are massive!  It's easy to understand why if you think about it, but it shows how much upper-body strength is required to play wheelchair rugby.

What I love about the Paralympics, too, is hearing all of the athletes' stories.  It really is incredible to find out what happened to these athletes and how they got involved in their sport.  Some were in the military, some have been disabled since birth, some had an accident or some sort illness.  Yet they're all elite athletes.

It's kind of ironic, actually.  In the Olympics, those feature pieces are nauseating.  They're so floury and usually pretty dumb.  Yet I haven't seen one yet for the Paralympics.  And those would actually be interesting!  (As overplayed as it was, I loved that Jessica Long commercial during the Olympics!)

Another cool thing is that if this wasn't the Paralympics, you'd never know there was any difference by watching some of these athletes.  Obviously there are the athletes who use wheelchairs or have missing or prosthetic limbs, but once they're on in the water or on the field, they're just athletes.  Elite athletes at the top of the sport.  And that's how they want to be seen.

Paralympic athletes are treated as equals, too.  That's why the USOC made a conscious choice to change its name to the USOPC.  That's why they're getting the same medal/performance bonuses as Olympians.  That's why Toyota is funding the training of every single athlete who makes the Paralympic team.  They're all a part of Team USA.

That commitment to the Paralympics is shared by the USOPC's broadcast partner.  It wasn't always that way.  In fact, it wasn't until very recently that NBC started covering the Paralympics as a separate sporting event instead of treating them as an obligation.  They went from showing the bare minimum number of hours they were required to broadcast as part of their Olympic contract to live coverage of the Opening Ceremony and for 12 hours every night.

Without that commitment, people might not know what a wonderful event the Paralympics are!  And the more you watch them, the more you appreciate them.  They'll never reach the same level of popularity as the Olympics, but that's OK.  The point is, these Paralympic athletes are getting the level of coverage and recognition they deserve.  Which is a wonderful thing.

Hall of Fame Hats

Miguel Cabrera hit his 500th home run this afternoon, and his 3,000th hit will likely come early next season.  We've known for a while that Miggy is a future Hall of Famer, and he's been with the Tigers so long that most people forget he actually started his career with the Marlins (and was on their 2003 World Series championship team).  So, it should be an obvious choice when it comes to which team's hat will be on his plaque in Cooperstown.

Over the past few years, that's become quite the topic of debate every time the Hall of Fame discussion comes around.  Greg Maddux couldn't decide between the Cubs and Braves, so he went without a logo on his hat (even though it should've been the Braves), and suddenly that became the "in" thing.  Roy Halladay also went in logoless, although I can understand why the Hall of Fame might've been reluctant to make that decision on their own when he didn't stipulate Blue Jays or Phillies before he did.

Nowadays, players move around so frequently that the "easy" ones like Derek Jeter and Chipper Jones are becoming fewer and fewer.  Sure, there are still a few players who'll end up playing either their entire career or the majority of their career with the same team, but the Yadi Molinas, Joey Vottos and Clayton Kershaws of the world are becoming less and less.

But, a decision will definitely have to be made when the likes of Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander (among others) get their Cooperstown call.  Some are more obvious than others.  Assuming that all of these players are eventually voted into the Hall of Fame, though, this is the hat they should don...

Albert Pujols: Cardinals-Whether he retires after this season or not is irrelevant.  The Cardinals vs. Angels decision is one that'll have to be made soon regardless.  Although, frankly, I don't think it's much of a discussion.  In St. Louis, he was one of the best players in baseball, a Rookie of the Year, a three-time MVP and a two-time World Series winner.  In Anaheim, he was a shell of his former self and got cut.  Like I said, no choice at all.

Madison Bumgarner: Giants-Just like with Albert, MadBum's Hall of Fame team selection isn't actually hard.  In fact, I shouldn't even really have him on here (and not because he isn't a Hall of Famer...because he definitely is).  He spent 11 years in San Francisco and won three World Series with the Giants (including one almost single-handedly).  No matter how long he ends up spending in Arizona (or anywhere else), nothing else he does in his career will match that.

Max Scherzer: Nationals-This one's still a little up in the air since we don't know where Max is gonna end up next season.  Based on his career so far, though, I don't think there's a question he'll be the first player with a Washington Nationals hat on his Hall of Fame plaque.  Two Cy Youngs (as well as a second and a third), an All-Star every season, and, of course, a World Series champion during six years in DC.

Justin Verlander: Tigers-What he's done since joining the Astros is nothing short of amazing.  Verlander's only played two full seasons in Houston, though.  He played 13 in Detroit, where, let's not forget, he won an MVP!  He also started Game 1 of the World Series as a rookie for the Tigers.  (Fun fact: Verlander has a ring but is 0-6 in seven career World Series starts, so shut up about Kershaw!)

Zack Greinke: Diamondbacks-Greinke's an interesting one.  Because he's more a "body of work" guy than an obvious you know it by watching him Hall of Famer.  That and the fact he's been on so many teams!  He spent the most time in Kansas City (seven seasons) and his best years were probably his three with the Dodgers.  Greinke followed that up with three and a half solid seasons as Arizona's ace.  He never had a losing season as a Diamondback.

Bryce Harper: Phillies-Bryce Harper's Hall of Fame case is definitely an interesting one.  This is his 10th season, so he only just now became Hall of Fame eligible.  And he probably isn't there yet.  But, seeing as he's only 28 and has plenty of prime years left in him, I think he probably gets there.  And, seeing as he's only three years into a 35-year contract with the Phillies, whatever milestones he hits, he'll hit them in a Phillies uniform.  When all is said and done, he'll also end up spending a lot longer in Philadelphia than he did in Washington.

Manny Machado: Padres-Same thing with Harper's 2018-19 free agent buddy Manny Machado.  He's in his 10th Major League season now.  But, if he keeps up his current pace over the second half of his career, a Hall of Fame plaque seems likely.  He was great in Baltimore.  But, like Harper, by the end of his career, he'll have been in San Diego so long that everybody only thinks of him as a Padre.

Aroldis Chapman: Yankees-Love him or hate him, there will definitely be a Hall of Fame case to be made for Aroldis Chapman when he retires.  He had three 50-save seasons in Cincinnati and won a World Series during his half-season rental with the Cubs.  While his career with the Yankees has been rocky, some of that might have to do with the fact that he's being compared to Mariano Rivera, which isn't exactly fair to anybody.  He career save totals are just about even for each team, though, and his next will be the 300th of his career.  With plenty of years still to go.

CC Sabathia: Yankees-Who said I was only doing active players?  CC is eligible in 2025 and, while he probably won't get inducted alongside Ichiro in his first year, I do think he eventually gets in.  And the hat decision will really come down to Yankees or Indians.  He won his only Cy Young in Cleveland.  However, it was with the Yankees that he won his only World Series ring.  CC also spent more years in New York (11-8) and won more games as a Yankee (134-106).

Adrian Beltre: Rangers-Beltre is so identified with the Rangers that this one should really be more in the "obvious" category.  I included him to illustrate my point about players moving around, though.  While we think of him as a Ranger first and foremost (for a number of reasons), he only spent eight seasons in Texas.  That's just one season more than Beltre played for the Dodgers, and he was also a Mariner for five.

Always a Ranger

Henrik Lundqvist called it a career today after 15 brilliant seasons with the Rangers.  He was technically a member of the Capitals when he retired, but he never actually played a game for Washington, missing last season with the heart condition that ultimately led to his retirement.  Frankly, I'm glad he never actually wore a Capitals jersey.  Because it just wouldn't have looked right.  It would've been Martin Brodeur on the Blues.

Instead, the only NHL jersey bearing the name "Lundqvist" is the blue #30, which will be raised to the Madison Square Garden rafters at some point during the 2021-22 season.  As it should be.  Because Henrik Lundqvist isn't just one of the best players in franchise history.  He was the Face of the Rangers for a decade.  He was their unofficial captain (which is why they annoyingly haven't had an official one since Ryan McDonagh left).  He's the guy they built an entire team around and were so desperate to win a Stanley Cup for.  They got close, losing the Final to the Kings in 2014.  But, unfortunately, he didn't get that Stanley Cup win to go along with his 2006 Olympic gold medal.

There's no doubt that Hank will be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame as soon as he's eligible.  There's also no doubt that place in franchise lore is secure.  Had the Rangers won that Cup in 2014, the argument could even be made that he's the greatest player in the 95-year history of the franchise.  However, without, it's hard to give him the No. 1 spot.

So who is the greatest player in Rangers history?  That's obviously a subject of debate.  And I'll definitely say Lundqvist is the greatest goalie in franchise history.  But where does he rank overall?  And, if he's not No. 1, who is? 

10. Andy Bathgate: Andy Bathgate and Adam Graves were both No. 9, and it was retired for both of them.  So why does Bathgate get the nod over a key contributor to the 1994 champions?  A few reasons.  Bathgate's in the Hall of Fame.  Graves is not.  Bathgate won a Hart Trophy.  Graves did not.  Bathgate was named one of the 100 Greatest NHL Players.  Graves was not.  Bathgate's also fourth on the Rangers' all-time lists for goals, assists and points.

9. Harry Howell: No player in Rangers history has appeared in more games than Harry Howell's 1160.  He was a Ranger for 17 years and won the Norris Trophy in 1966-67, which happened to be the rookie year of a certain Boston Bruin who would go on to win just a few Norris Trophies during his career.  Since Howell was a defenseman, he didn't have the scoring numbers.  But, I must say, playing that long and having almost one penalty minute per game (1147 total) is mighty impressive!

8. Eddie Giacomin: For a long time, Giacomin's No. 1 and Rod Gilbert's No. 7 were the Rangers' only retired numbers.  And I don't think it's a stretch to say Giacomin is the third-best goalie in Rangers history.  He won the Vezina in '71 and was in the net for that Stanley Cup Final run the following season.  Giacomin is third in franchise history in wins (267) and second in shutouts (49), and he was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1987.

7. Mike Richter: The Rangers do not win the Stanley Cup in 1994 without Mike Richter in goal.  He had 42! wins that season, his first as the full-time starter after splitting goalie duties with John Vanbiesbrouck before that.  Richter was the first Ranger goalie with 300 career wins, and he held all of the team goalie records before Lundqvist came along.

6. Jean Ratelle: Like so many great Rangers, Jean Ratelle never won the Cup.  That doesn't mean he wasn't one of the best players in the NHL during the 60s and 70s, though.  In fact, he was the league's sixth all-time leading scorer when he retired, and his 336 goals for the Rangers are second-most in franchise history.  Ratelle's also third on the Rangers' all-time assists and points lists, and he won two Lady Byng Trophies (in 1971-72, he played in 63 games, had 109 points, and spent just four minutes in the penalty box).

5. Bill Cook: Ten Rangers have their numbers retired.  Bill Cook is not one of them.  Although, maybe that should be reconsidered.  He's often referred to as the "Original Ranger."  Cook was the Rangers' first captain, scored the first goal in franchise history, and spent his entire 12-year NHL career on Broadway.  Most significantly, he was the best player on two of the Rangers' four Stanley Cup championship teams (1927-28 and 1932-33).

4. Mark Messier: When Mark Messier was traded to the Rangers days before the 1991-92 season started, it was a franchise-altering move (for both teams).  It was the perfect marriage of player and team.  He was exactly what they needed to finally break through and end their 54-year Stanley Cup drought!  Messier ranks among the Top 10 in Rangers history in all of the major offensive categories, but his leadership is what made him a Rangers legend.

3. Henrik Lundqvist: Number 3 is where I ultimately settled for Hank.  Being the face of the franchise for a decade is one thing.  Being arguably the best goalie in the NHL during your prime is another.  Lundqvist was both.  Eleven straight 30-win seasons!  The most wins ever for a European-born goalie.  Two Olympic medals and a World Championship to go along with all of his NHL success.  And, in perhaps the ultimate sign of respect, a career that was even appreciated by Islanders fans.

2. Brian Leetch: I was gonna put Leetch at No. 1, but it felt more appropriate to give him his jersey number.  He's on the short list of greatest defensemen ever, and he was the first American ever to win the Conn Smythe Trophy, when he had a ridiculous 34 points in 23 playoff games.  Leetch also won the Calder Trophy in 1988-89 and two Norris Trophies.  He's the Rangers' all-time leader in assists, second in points, and would be the all-time leader in games played had he not been traded to Toronto at the 2004 trade deadline.  Those 15 games with the Leafs and his final season with the Bruins (which was after the lockout) just didn't feel or look right.

1. Rod Gilbert: He was the first Ranger to have his number retired and is still the franchise's all-time leader in goals.  He's also the only Ranger with more than 1000 points for the franchise.  And he never wore another uniform during his 19-year Hall-of-Fame career.  In fact, he still works for the team 40 years after retiring as a player.  That's why I've got Rod Gilbert in the top spot.  There are definitely (valid) arguments for others, but he gets my vote.

Hail to the Fill-in-the-Blanks

So, the Artists Formerly Known as the Washington Redskins are inching closer to announcing their new name and logo.  They unveiled eight potential names, three of which are finalists, but they didn't say which three.  They also unveiled some of the potential logos, which leads me to believe they've gone through the branding process with all of them.  Which means that it'll almost certainly be one of the logos they showed in their YouTube video making the announcement.

And, when they said they were considering making "Washington Football Team" the permanent name, they were evidently serious.  Because it's one of the options.  Should they pick it, their application to join DC United as Washington's second MLS team should shortly follow!

Anyway, my preferred nickname "Red Tails" is NOT one of the remaining options!  Too bad, because "Red Tails" is very similar to their former name, so they would've been able to keep the song while just changing the one lyric.  The Red Tail is also the World War II-era plane flown by the Tuskeege Airmen, so it would've accomplished Washington Head Coach Ron Rivera's preference to have the new nickname honor the military in some way.  The plane logo would've been pretty sweet too!

Some of the eight remaining candidates are better than others, but overall, none of the other seven are all that bad.  And, interestingly, while they're all plural, there are two that don't end in an S, which would make them the only team in the NFL and only one of a handful across the four major men's sports not to end in S.  They also, for the most part, did keep that idea of honoring the military.  Half of the remaining names have some sort of military affiliation.

Regardless of which name they choose, as long as they don't keep "Washington Football Team" whatever they pick will be better than "Guardians."  I still have favorites, though.  Here's how I rank them, from 8-1.

8. Washington Football Team: I think I've been pretty clear the whole time how I'm not a fan of their current name.  It's too bland and generic.  And the blank burgundy helmets with the gold numbers in the middle look like something a high school team would wear!  I do like the font they write "Washington" in, so if they do keep it, they should at least put the stripes back down the middle with a gold W on either side.

7. Defenders: This was the name of Washigton's XFL entry, so I have no idea how they'd even be able to get the trademark!  That team was also called the DC Defenders, which rolls off the tongue so much better!  Seeing as they aren't changing the "Washington" part of the name, "Defenders" just doesn't work.

6. RedHogs: The shout out to their offensive line in the 80s is a nice touch!  And going with "RedHogs" would also probably result in the return of the "Hogettes," those big guys who dressed up like Miss Piggy for every game, which would be awesome.  But, alas, there are better choices out there than "RedHogs."

5. Brigade: Frankly, there isn't much difference between "Brigade" and "Armada."  I just happen to like "Armada" a little better, so that gets the 4-spot while "Brigade" slots in at No. 5.  If this wasn't an NFL team, I'd like them a little more.  But the not-ending-in-S thing really bothers me for some reason!

4. Armada: Again, the difference between "Brigade" and "Armada" is so slight that they're basically interchangeable.  I really like the sound of "Washington Armada" though.  I also think a logo with some sort of ship imagery would look really cool!  Kinda like the Toronto Argonauts' logo!

3. Red Wolves: Apparently there were either no licensing issues with Arkansas State or they were resolved.  Because "Red Wolves," one of the early favorites, is still among the options.  As it should be.  Because it works.  My only issue is I'm not crazy about the logo.

2. Commanders: "Washington Commanders."  That just sounds like a football team!  And "Commander" can be taken several ways, too.  Every military, air or naval unit has a commander, and the President, of course, is the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces.  It's a very D.C. name, which is why I like it!

1. Presidents: Speaking of D.C. names, is anything more D.C. than "Presidents?"  Sure, it sounds like it could be the name of the football team at a high school named after George Washington, but it definitely works.  Plus, the logo is outstanding!  That logo alone is enough of a reason for them to go with "Presidents."

There's another reason why I like "Presidents," too.  It goes so well with Washington's other teams.  You could only have a Nationals or a Capitals in Washington.  Same with the Presidents.  Sure, they're keeping the burgundy and gold when ideally they'd be red, white and blue like the others.  But "Presidents" fits right into that patriotic theme and is so distinctly Washington.  Plus, what's the song they play when the President enters the room?  "Hail to the Chief!"  Another sign!  Hail the Presidents, the pride of all DC!

Seattle, Let's Get Kraken

Another sports topic that I didn't get a chance to blog about while I was mentally in Tokyo was the NHL Expansion Draft, which turned out to be an incredibly anticlimactic event after every one of the Kraken's picks was leaked online at some point during that day.  Every.  Single.  One.  And, I must say, while Seattle was still able to put together a decent roster, the rest of the league learned their lessons from four years ago.  Because they weren't gonna let the Kraken be anywhere near as good as the Knights were in their first season!

Where the Kraken have been really shrewd, though, is in free agency.  And they were smart to wait until after the Expansion Draft to begin signing free agents.  Otherwise, they would've counted as their selection from that player's former team.

Their biggest signing, of course, was goalie Philipp Grubauer, who was a Vezina finalist last season for Colorado.  When they signed Chris Driedger to an extension before the Expansion Draft, it was widely assumed that he'd be Seattle's starter.  It turns out that wasn't the case at all, as the Kraken got the one thing they knew they would need to be successful right out of the gate--a franchise goalie.

Vegas definitely found some diamonds in the rough like Jonathan Marchessault and William Karlsson in their expansion draft, but it was Marc-Andre Fleury who gave them instant credibility.  They knew the importance of having a franchise goalie, which is why they took Fleury first in the expansion draft and made him the face of the franchise for their first four years of existence.

It was the same thing in Florida when they first started.  The Panthers took John Vanbiesbrouck No. 1 in the expansion draft, built around their franchise goalie, and ended up in the Stanley Cup Final by year three.  (The top six picks in the 1993 Expansion Draft were all goalies, which leads me to believe they did it by position, but Vanbiesbrouck likely would've been the No. 1 pick in any case.)

Anyway, my point is the Kraken understood the value of the franchise goalie.  Frankly, it was the most important thing they needed to get if they wanted to have any shot of even being competitive in year one.  And the guy who led the league in wins and had a sub-2.00 GAA last season certainly qualifies!

There were two really interesting picks that they made in the Expansion Draft who I think could pay big dividends for them.  The first is former Flames captain Mark Giordano, who had spent his entire 15-year career in Calgary.  Not only do I think he'll be the Kraken's first captain (unless they decide to go the Vegas route and not have a captain until their fourth season), he can still play.  I think he'll be on their top defensive pair.  But beyond that, they knew they were gonna have an incredibly young roster, so they needed a veteran leader like the Knights had in Derrek Engelland.  Giordano is a much better player than Engelland, however.  

Giordano anchors a very strong defensive unit for the Kraken.  They could easily pair him with former Star Jamie Oleksiak, giving them a pair of veteran top-line defensemen or split them and pair them with the Fleury brothers (assuming Cale is ready for the NHL).  They also took Adam Larsson and Jeremy Lauzon in the Expansion Draft, and I'd expect those six to be their Opening Night defensemen.

The other Expansion Draft selection that intrigued me was Yanni Gourde.  You knew they were gonna get someone good from Tampa, who obviously couldn't protect everybody.  Gourde's production for the Lightning as a third-line center was ridiculous.  But he was also only on the third line because Tampa was so stacked at forward.  While he's clearly better than a third-line center, can he be the anchor of a top line?

As for who'll join him on the top line, there's another Stanley Cup-winning stud who they signed as a free agent--Jaden Schwartz.  Frankly, I didn't think Schwartz would ever leave St. Louis, but he committed to five years in Seattle and will immediately be the Kraken's No. 1 offensive option.  Which is vastly different than Vegas, where the Knights weren't sure who their top offensive guys would be until Marchessault and Karlsson emerged as the major scoring threats they quickly became.

They actually have a choice as to who'll join Schwartz and Gourde on the top line--Jordan Eberle or Joonas Donskoi.  Eberle has had 16 goals for the Islanders in each of the last two years, while Donskoi had 17 last season for the Avalanche.  Frankly, they can go either way.  And the other will form a pretty solid second line along with Brandon Tanev and Calle Jarnkrok.

For their third- and fourth-line centers, the Kraken have Mason Appleton and Colin Blackwell.  Jared McCann and Nathan Bastian should be the wingers on their third line, but I have no idea who the other two forwards on Opening Night will be.  Do they play one of the centers at wing?  Do they carry seven defensemen?  Regardless, Marcus Johansson is probably on the roster.  The 11-year vet signed a one-year deal with Seattle as a free agent.

I also completely forgot about Carson Soucy, who was +22 for Minnesota last season and has a chance to be the Kraken's breakout star.  So, he should be able to crack the top three defensive pairings, which knocks Cale Fleury either out of the lineup or into the seventh defenseman role, whichever Dave Hackstol decides to do.  Either way, injuries are gonna come into play, so they'll all get playing time.

So, looking at this roster, it's not bad.  The Kraken definitely have a chance to be competitive.  And, seeing as the Pacific is the weakest of the four divisions, I can definitely see them contending for the playoffs.  Will they have a magical Vegas-like run to the Stanley Cup Final?  Probably not.  But they won't be the 1974-75 Capitals, either.  I think they can easily be like the Florida Panthers, who turned two competitive expansion seasons into a Stanley Cup Final berth in their third.

What's Next for the Big 12?

The Texas-and-Oklahoma-to-the-SEC news sure came out of nowhere, didn't it?!  But then again, we probably shouldn't have been surprised.  It's a case of the rich trying to get richer.  On both the schools' and the SEC's ends.  And, also not surprisingly, it's all about football.

With the push to expand the College Football Playoff to 12 teams--with an unlimited number of qualifiers per conference--the SEC already stood to get 4-5 teams into the playoff each season.  Now, by adding the only two marquee football programs left in the Big 12, it's very conceivable that half the field could be made up of SEC teams.  And with that comes more revenue for the SEC to split among its member schools.

Texas and Oklahoma aren't idiots.  They saw this potential windfall and it really was a no-brainer (kinda like when Syracuse left the Big East for the ACC).  Combine that with the prestige that comes with playing the top programs, as well as the better TV contract (resulting in more reasonable kickoff times), and they stand to benefit in much the same was as Texas A&M has since they joined the SEC.

Don't discount the TV element of this, either.  ESPN has shown its commitment to the SEC, not just with the SEC Network, but with a new $300 million deal that gives the network exclusive rights to conference football and basketball games starting in 2024.  The value of that deal is only going to increase with the addition of Texas and Oklahoma. 

It's also far better than anything the Big 12 was gonna get.  The Big 12 is the only Power 5 conference without its own network, and its deals with ESPN and FOX are also nowhere near as good as the other conferences'.  In addition to the 11 am local time football kickoffs, the ESPN part of their deal puts a lot of the Big 12's content on ESPN+.  So, while everybody else has stuff both on TV and online, you can only watch the Big 12 online (and only if you pay for the stream).  It's a clear sign of where they stand in the Power 5 pecking order.

Of course, when there was talk about Texas and Oklahoma joining the Pac-12 a few years ago, one of the reasons it didn't happen was because of the Longhorn Network.  Frankly, Texas having the Longhorn Network is one of the reasons the Big 12 survived that realignment.  So I'm curious what'll happen with the Longhorn Network.  I actually get it, so I can tell you it's more than just University of Texas sports, but will the SEC make them share the revenue from it with everybody else?  Or will it disappear and all the LHN programming simply merges into the SEC Network fold once they're officially a member?

I'm sure those questions will be answered over the next few years as all the details are worked out between the four parties (Texas, Oklahoma, the Big 12 and the SEC).  There are plenty of other questions that will be tackled between now and then, too.  Starting with "What will happen to the Big 12?"

When Texas A&M and Missouri left the Big 12, they did nothing.  They decided to simply stand pat at 10 teams.  They can't do that this time.  Not when it would leave them with eight, which will be half the membership of the SEC and ACC (if you include Notre Dame).  That's if the Big 12 survives at all, of course.  Because it's very conceivable that the Big Ten and Pac-12 could take this opportunity to expand themselves by plucking from the remaining Big 12 members.

We'll consider that scenario first.  With Texas and Oklahoma gone, the Big 12 has lost its two marquee football programs.  Which means the biggest commodity they've got left is Kansas and Baylor basketball.  The Big Ten and Kansas have flirted with each other before, so you know that if the Big Ten decides it wants to expand, Kansas basketball will be the No. 1 target.  (And I don't think any of them will be complaining about the easy win against the Kansas football team, either.)  Of course, the Jayhawks couldn't leave for the Big Ten alone, and West Virginia is an awfully attractive option that's much closer to Penn State, Ohio State and Maryland than any Big 12 schools.

So, in this scenario, I've got Kansas and West Virginia heading to the Big Ten, which would also bring them to 16.  That leaves just the Pac-12, which would need to add four members to have the same number as the other three.  Baylor and Oklahoma State would seem to be the obvious choices to join the Pac-12 in this case.  I'd imagine Texas Tech would also be part of the package, leaving Kansas State and Iowa State to fight for that other spot.

Those scenarios, obviously, would mean the end of the Big 12.  TCU would likely go back to the Mountain West in that case, while the remaining Kansas State/Iowa State school is left out in the cold (and possibly joining the American as their marquee program?).

I'm not sure this is the end of the Big 12, though.  In fact, I can see them expanding and maintaining their Power 5 status (albeit as the clear No. 5).  At the very least, they'd add two more to get back to 10.  (I can actually see them making a much larger push and going after four schools, but, for argument's sake, I'll limit it to two for now.)

Depending on how everything shakes out, I think Houston to the Big 12 will be a done deal.  There's been talk of that for several years.  Houston's always been the most likely candidate for any Big 12 expansion, and the Texas-Oklahoma news only makes it more likely.  A Big 12 without those two is obviously not as attractive as a Big 12 with them, but it's still an upgrade for Houston, which would also get to go back to playing its old Southwest Conference rivals instead of South Florida and Memphis.

However, I think the lack of Texas and Oklahoma means the Big 12 would no longer hold any appeal to BYU.  I've been pushing that one for a while, too.  But it no longer makes sense.  BYU would see the value in regular matchups with Texas and Oklahoma.  The value in regular matchups with Iowa State and TCU?  Not so much!  Especially when they can play whoever they want as an independent!

There is one school that so far has been passed over in all of the conference realignment, though.  And this could finally be their chance to get into a Power 5 league like they've wanted for so long!  That school is the University of Cincinnati.  It would benefit the Big 12 to get their good football team and their obviously marquee basketball program, plus they're in a major market.  It would also give them another school somewhat near West Virginia, which could go a long way towards keeping the Mountaineers in the fold.

Texas and Oklahoma leaving for the SEC is obviously a gut punch for the Big 12.  They're programs that can't be replaced.  And the questions about whether the conference will survive their loss are all legitimate.  But, adding Houston and Cincinnati would be a good first step towards ensuring that survival.

Is This Heaven? No, It's Iowa

Some of Major League Baseball's ideas are either very dumb or simply don't work.  And sometimes they hit a home run.  Thursday night's game at the Field of Dreams was the latter.  Much like the beloved movie, everything about the night was perfect.

That's the common consensus among fans from all across the game.  Not a single negative word was said about anything involved with the event (even from Yankee fans who didn't particularly like the ending).  From the players walking out of the cornfield to the 1919-style uniforms to the manual scoreboard in right field, every single element hit all the right marks. 

It was a ratings hit, too, drawing nearly six million viewers, making it FOX's highest-rated regular-season broadcast since 2005.  Is it any surprise, then, that MLB has already committed to returning in 2022?  The Field of Dreams game sure has the makings of an annual event, so some of the novelty will likely wear off over time.  But that does nothing to take away from the magical night that was the first one.

These two teams were originally supposed to play at the Field of Dreams in 2020, but those plans, of course, had to change because of the pandemic.  Since the Yankees and White Sox didn't play each other last season, it became an interleague game between the White Sox and Cardinals instead.  When it became clear that fans wouldn't be able to attend, however, the 2020 edition was cancelled entirely, which was the right call.  Because playing this game in front of no fans would've completely defeated the purpose.

And they were absolutely the right two teams, too.  When they first announced plans for the Field of Dreams game, you knew the White Sox had to be the home team.  There was no other choice!  They're the team that the freakin' movie was about!  So, since the first team was obvious, it was really a matter of who the White Sox would play.

Yankee haters can complain all they want about the fact that the Yankees are "always" picked for these special events, but there's a reason for that.  They're the biggest draw and most recognizable name in baseball.  That's why they went to London two years ago (more on that later).  Beyond that, though, MLB wanted to make sure they got a good game, so picking the Yankees meant they'd have at least one good team.  As it turns out, they got two good teams, and the game itself was a classic!

Moving forward, of course, it can't be Yankees-White Sox every year.  Even that would get stale.  I'd even venture to say it can't be the White Sox every year, even though they'll always be the natural choice.  It might not even be the White Sox next year if they want to keep the same general date (although, they host the Red Sox in late May, so that would also be an intriguing option if the date is flexible).

I have a feeling the Field of Dreams game will become MLB's version of the Winter Classic...the game that everybody wants to play in.  Of course, the difference is that it wouldn't be in their home city.  Both teams would be headed to Iowa.  It'll be similar to the now-annual Little League Classic, which will for the first time not feature either the Pirates or Phillies this season (it's Indians-Angels).

If you want to talk about MLB special event home runs, the Little League Classic is another one.  You can tell how much it means to the Little Leaguers, especially the international kids who might see only one live Major League game in their lifetime--that one!  And you can tell the Major Leaguers love it too!  They get a chance to act like kids for a few hours, which is sometimes exactly what they need five months into a long season!

Thursday night's game was the same thing.  The players knew they were taking part in something special, and they soaked up the experience.  Even if the Field of Dreams game does become an annual event (and why wouldn't it?), there's still only one first time.  And they were the lucky ones who got to play in that game!

This was the second time in three seasons that the Yankees got to take part in something special.  They, of course, played the two-game London Series against the Red Sox in July of 2019.  MLB is planning on going back to London as soon as they're able too, but, much like the NFL London games, I have a feeling those are gonna lose their luster.  I'm not sure the Field of Dreams games will.

Because it was much more than just a baseball game.  It was an experience.  It made you feel everything you thought while watching the movie.  It's why Field of Dreams is still so beloved more than 30 years later.  It's that magic of your dream coming true.  It's the simple idea of just playing catch with your dad and all it represents.

When I first found out they weren't using the actual movie set for the game, I was a little disappointed.  But the fact that they didn't actually made it so much better!  Because, as Joe Buck said during the broadcast, you had kids playing catch on one field while a Major League game was taking place on the other.  Grown men and kids all playing a kid's game in basically the same place at the same time.  And, who knows?  Maybe some of those kids will become Major Leaguers themselves one day.

One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when Shoeless Joe asks Ray, "Is this Heaven?" and Ray responds, "No.  It's Iowa."  Well, with all due respect to Kevin Costner, it's both.  Because if that Iowa cornfield isn't Heaven for anyone who loves baseball, I'm not sure what is.

Tokyo Top 10

As promised, I'm finally gonna stop talking about the Tokyo Olympics (that ended almost a week ago) after this post.  But I wanted to make sure I did this last one showcasing some of my favorite highlights from the Tokyo Games.  And, believe me, there were plenty of highlights.

Every Olympics writes its own stories and has its own breakout star, and the Tokyo Games were no different.  A total of 93 countries won medals, by far the most ever, including San Marino, which had never won one in its Olympic history, yet left Tokyo with three.  San Marino's entire population of 33,000 people could've filled some of the Olympic venues (had spectators been allowed, of course).  Meanwhile, Bermuda, an island of just 63,000 people became the smallest country ever to claim an Olympic gold, and Tajikistan finally won its first Olympic medal--a silver--the last of the former Soviet republics to do so.

We also saw the introduction of four new sports and a slew of new events, which all seemed to draw a positive reception.  Skateboarding, sport climbing and surfing will all return in 2024, while 3x3 basketball is a permanent addition.  I'm curious to see what the reaction to each will be in Paris, but the IOC seemed pleased with each.

Anyway, on to my top 10.  And, yes, there were much more than 10 moments to choose from, so it wasn't easy to narrow down this list.  I also decided it wasn't going to be Team USA exclusive, even though choosing a USA Top 10 and an international Top 10 would've been easy.

10. Pictogram Men: Yes, the pictogram men made my Top 10 list!  It was such a cool, clever and creative way to celebrate Japan's contribution to all Olympics since Tokyo's first go-round in 1964.  It's also the last thing you'd expect to see at an Opening Ceremony, which I think is part of why it worked so well.  (It was Tokyo's own skydiving Queen moment.)  Some people didn't like it and found it a little weird.  Those people are wrong!  Because the pictogram men were wonderful!

9. Strong Showing By the Hosts: Host nations typically see a bump in their medal haul, but I don't think anyone expected Japan to do this well!  They won 58 total medals and 27 golds, both by far their most ever.  And they did it in a wide array of sports.  A dominant performance in judo (which could've been expected), as well as very strong showings in each of the new sports that they added for these Games.  I guess they chose wisely! 

8. USA-Australia Swimming Rivalry Renewed: It's long been dormant, but the USA's rivalry with Australia in the pool was back in full force in Tokyo!  Especially on the women's side, where Ariarne Titmus beat Katie Ledecky head-to-head twice and Emma McKeon won seven medals, the most-ever by a woman at a single Olympics.  Titmus is only 20, so she's not going anywhere.  Which means the battle in the pool should be just as hot in Paris!

7. Topping the Medal Table On the Last Day: People lost their minds when the U.S. didn't win a single medal on Day 1 (it should be noted that since there were morning swimming finals, the first ones weren't held until Day 2).  Then had to watch as Americans disappointed in a lot of sports the U.S. was expected to dominate and China build a seemingly insurmountable lead in the gold medal count.  However, with three gold medals on the last day, including one in women's volleyball and another by track cyclist Jennifer Valente, the U.S. ended up with a 39-38 edge to top the gold medal count for the third straight Olympics, while also once again leading the overall medal count with 113.

6. April & Alix Win Gold: April Ross now has a complete set of Olympic medals: silver in London, bronze in Rio, gold in Tokyo.  And she's done it with three different partners.  Alix Klineman, meanwhile, is a beach novice who was playing in her first Olympics.  You never would've known it.  The A-Team is arguably the best team in the world, and they showed it.  Incredibly, it was their first major championship.

5. Allyson Felix's Farewell: That ending couldn't have been more perfect had it been scripted.  Allyson Felix closed her Olympic career in style, winning a bronze in the 400 that shines just as brightly as her 200 gold from London.  Then she was on that star-studded 4x400 relay team that capped the meet with a dominant victory.  An Olympic career that spanned 17 years and saw her go from teenage prodigy to mom ended with 11 total medals, the most ever by an American woman.  Although, something tells me this isn't the final chapter of her Olympic story.  She's a native of Southern California, so expect her to be handing the torch to Michael Phelps seven years from now in LA.  Or maybe even lighting the cauldron herself.

4. Baseball & Softball's Return: After being unceremoniously dropped from the program in 2005, baseball and softball made a triumphant return 13 years after they were last played at an Olympics.  And they showed they belong!  Those were probably the two gold medals Japan wanted the most, and they got them both, beating the U.S. in a pair of dramatic finals.  Just imagine how electric the crowd would've been had those games been played in a full stadium!

3. Caeleb Dressel Inherits the Throne: With Michael Phelps now retired, "who will be the USA's new swimming star?" was a valid question to ask.  Caeleb Dressel was one of the leading candidates for that role, but he wasn't just gonna be anointed Phelps' successor.  He was gonna have to earn it.  And boy did he!  Five gold medals, two world records and two Olympic records.  And such beautiful raw emotion when he saw/got to talk to his family.

2. Two 400 Hurdle Races For the Ages: Going into these Olympics, we thought we might see something special in both 400 meter hurdle finals.  And that's exactly what we saw.  First it was Karsten Warholm and Rai Benjamin posting the two fastest times in history, with a silver medal Benjamin's only reward for running faster than the previous world record.  Then it was another Sydney McLaughlin-Dalilah Muhammad duel in the women's race.  They bring out the best in each other, and a world record is often the result.  Which is exactly what happened in Tokyo, with McLaughlin lowering the mark she set barely a month earlier at Trials.

 

1. The Dominance of the American Women: If the American women were their own team, they would've finished sixth in the medal standings.  None of this is breaking news.  The women have carried the U.S. team for several Olympics now, but that doesn't make their dominance any less impressive.  Particularly in team sports.  Basketball and water polo continued their gold medal streaks, while indoor volleyball finally broke through for its first Olympic gold.  There was also a silver in softball and a bronze in soccer, as well as all of success in the non-team sports.

Tokyo's Triumph

These weren't the Olympics Tokyo was expecting.  Not in 2010-11 when they first put their bid together.  Not in 2013 when they won the right to host the Games.  Not in 2016 when they took the flag from Rio.  Not even in 2019 when they were hosting test events.  But in 2021, these were the Olympics they got.

Here's the crazy thing, though...they pulled it off!  After everything they had to go thru from the time of the postponement to the Games themselves, everyone was wondering how/if the 2020 Olympics would go forward and worried those 17 days might never come.  Well, not only did the Tokyo Olympics happen, they were a success!

The Closing Ceremony of any Olympics is often a bittersweet moment.  All of that work for all that time, and just like that it's over.  But, I'd assume the organizers also feel a huge sense of accomplishment.  Never was that the case more than in Tokyo.  They overcame every obstacle that was thrown in front of them and put on an Olympics that nobody will ever forget.

Tokyo's legacy will no doubt be a complicated one.  They were the first Olympics to be postponed a year.  They were the first to take place without any fans.  They were the first to be held in the middle of a global pandemic.  But that's not why they were memorable.  They were memorable for all the right reasons. 

After everything the athletes had to endure in the five long years between Rio and Tokyo, how would anyone have been able to justify taking this experience away from them?  Make no mistake, this wasn't the type of Olympics the athletes were expecting either.  But, if their choices were an Olympics with all these restrictions or no Olympics at all, it's obvious which one was gonna be the pick.  And, I must say, the athletes definitely made the most of it and still put on quite a show!

For me, one of the coolest things about these Olympics was seeing so many athletes support their teammates.  They were only allowed to go back and forth from the Olympic Village to their training facility or competition venue, so the other sessions of their own sport were the only things they could attend as fans.  But they all did.  And, thanks to the other athletes, the venues weren't sterile at all.  They still had a cheering crowd.  It was just significantly smaller.  They still had that atmosphere.  It still felt and sounded like an Olympics, even if it might not have looked like it.

Just imagine how insane some events would've been had they had a raucous crowd, though?  The baseball final between Japan and the United States?  Miracle On Ice level insane!  It probably would've been the same for the softball final between the two.  And for the skateboarding finals that were both won by Japan.  And who knows how deep the crowds would've extended on the streets of Sapporo during the marathons?

However, the lack of fans also let us experience the Olympics in a very different way.  In much the same way as the NHL and NBA bubbles last year, we actually got to hear the Olympics.  And not in the crazy flag-waving, national-chanting way we usually do.  We got to hear the athletes and coaches, live and in real time during the biggest competition of their lives.  It was a different perspective that only increased our appreciation for their greatness.

Of course, there's a painful irony in the fact that the fanless Olympics took place in the most populous city on Earth.  The Japanese people were so excited for these Games, and you know the venues would've been packed.  Just as you feel for those Japanese fans, you feel for the athletes, who weren't allowed to go out and explore the city.  They weren't even allowed to stick around the Village after they were done.  They had to return home within 48 hours of their event ending.  But again, those are sacrifice they were willing to make.

And, while we won't know definitively for another couple of weeks, it looks like those fears that the Olympics would be a massive superspreader event proved to be unfounded.  There were positive tests, which they knew there would be.  But there was no COVID outbreak in the Village or anywhere else.  So, even with the delta variant running wild in Tokyo, the Olympic Village proved to be the safe, secure bubble it was intended to be.  And you didn't have Olympic visitors infecting the Japanese public either!

It isn't just the organization of these Games that should make Japan proud, either.  We all fully expected them to get the home team boost, but not to this extent!  They won 27 gold medals, third most of any country behind only the United States and China!  Their previous high was 16!  They won 58 total medals!  Their previous high was 41!  

A lot of those medals came in the new sports that were introduced for these Games.  They sure picked well, seeing as Japan won gold in both baseball and softball, as well as three of the four skateboarding events, with another in karate, plus a silver and bronze in surfing.  Although, while the new sports might've inflated Japan's total a little bit, so did judo, where they won a ridiculous nine gold, two silver and one bronze in 15 events (yet somehow lost the final of the mixed team event to France).

Speaking of France, they're up next.  And we can only hope that the 2024 Olympics in Paris take place in a world much more like the one we lived in until March 2020 than the one we've lived in since.  In fact, it could very well be the first worldwide gathering since the pandemic started that doesn't have the specter of COVID hanging over it.  And, if that's the case, it'll truly be a reason to rejoice!

But that doesn't mean there's any less of a reason to celebrate the Tokyo Games.  They'll always hold a special place in Olympic history simply because of all the obstacles that needed to be overcome.  But they did overcome those obstacles and still managed to put on an Olympics that were spectacular.  Subarashi, Tokyo!  Subarashi.

The Disastrous Streak Continues

At least there was the 4x4.  Without them, the Tokyo Olympics would've been a complete failure for the "track" portion of the U.S. men's track & field team (although it's not like the "field" team did much better).  A team that was touted as "possibly the best ever assembled" proved to be anything but.  Sure, they won the most medals of anybody.  But even they'll be the first to admit that they did not have a good meet.  Nothing close.  In fact, the overall performance was nearly as bad as Nike's never-ending selection of uniforms!  (Why were they pink?!  Or were they supposed to be red?!  And why did the relay teams have completely different jerseys...that made them look like the team from France?!)

Sure, there were some highlights.  Rai Benjamin finished second in the greatest 400 hurdles race ever and ran faster than the previous world record.  There's nothing negative that can be said about his performance.  He ran a great race and got beat.  Plain and simple.

And Ryan Crouser did exactly what was expected in the shot put.  He didn't break his own world record, but he still put on a show!  And it tells you all you need to know that he set the Olympic record and was disappointed.

Chris Nielsen added an unexpected silver in the pole vault, an event that was originally supposed to be a duel between Mondo Duplantis and Sam Kendricks until Kendricks turned up positive for COVID.  Everyone else, though, on both the track and field sides, failed to live up to expectations.  And, frankly, some of the performances were as embarrassing to watch as NBC's "coverage."  (Fortunately the world feed is what they showed online.)

It all culminated with the disaster that was the 4x100 relay.  The U.S. used to own this event, but, thanks to certain tall guy, it became Jamaica's domain while the Americans often struggled to just get the baton around the track.  With Bolt gone, the U.S. put together a veritable all-star team at the 2019 World Championships and won the gold medal in convincing fashion.  So, even without Christian Coleman (suspended) and Justin Gatlin (didn't make the team) from that squad, the U.S. was still among the favorites in Tokyo.

However, instead of contending for a medal, we got a team that didn't even make it out of the first round.  This wasn't one of the typical U.S. relay failures, either.  They didn't drop the baton or pass out of the zone.  Nope.  They found a completely new way to not qualify.  They got beat.  And they didn't just get beat.  They finished sixth.  Out of eight.  In a heat!

Unfortunately, it's also something that was easy to see coming.  It's a microcosm of the entire Olympic meet for the men's team.  With very few exceptions, they all underperformed, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the relay team would as well.  What was shocking was the degree to which they underperformed.  They got beat by China, Germany and Ghana.  And this was the team that consisted of the top four finishers at Trials, so it was theoretically the "A" team that would've run again in the final.  Except they didn't get there.

Carl Lewis, who knows a thing or two about running relays (and being a selfish athlete), summed it up perfectly in his tweet after the race.  USA Track & Field knows it, too.  The entire system is flawed, which explains why the U.S. has had relay failure after relay failure over the past several years.  They've often been able to mask these issues with superior talent, but even that's not enough anymore.  Especially since you need to make the final first!

So, in a way, maybe what happened in the men's 4x1 in Tokyo was a good thing.  Kind of like how the bronze in Athens forced a reset of USA Basketball, this may force a change in how USA Track & Field approaches the 4x100 relay.  Because it hasn't been working for a while.  This was just the latest, most embarrassing example.

As Ato repeatedly points out during NBC's broadcasts of the Olympics and World Championships, having a good relay team is more than just having the four fastest runners.  That's why countries that aren't generally considered "sprint powers" have consistently good relays.  They know who their four best runners are, so their team is consistent.  They all run the same legs and, more importantly, they practice together and are able to work on handoffs regularly.

In the U.S., that's most definitely not the case.  In their "interview" with Lewis Johnson (which basically consisted of Trayvon Bromell calling the whole thing "B.S." while standing nowhere near the microphone), the members of the relay team admitted as much.  They didn't even know who was running, let alone the order, until a few hours before the race.  And it showed!  There was absolutely no chemistry or cohesion on that foursome!

Of course, one problem that the U.S. will be unable to avoid is the lack of consistent personnel.  That's just a fact of life in this country, where there's so much talent and anybody can earn a spot on the team.  But that's why you have a relay camp once the entire team gets together!  Then they can actually practice passes!  What a concept!  Beyond that, it would also allow coaches to figure out the best order, which is just as important and choosing the right runners.

The fact that this phenomenon only affects the 4x1 isn't a coincidence, either.  The 4x1 is a blind handoff that allows very little margin for error and requires precision.  In the 4x4, meanwhile, it's a sighted pass, and you generally have time to recover after a slight mistake.  But even in the 4x4, you need the right personnel in the right order (unless you have a ridiculous foursome like Allyson Felix, Sydney McLaughlin, Dalilah Muhammad and Athing Mu).

Is this something fixable?  Yes.  The US has way too much talent in the men's 100 meters for it not to be.  Fixing it won't be easy, though.  But, no matter how hard it is, it's something that needs to happen.  Because, come Paris, it'll be 24 years since the United States last won gold and 20 years since the U.S. even medaled in the men's 4x100 relay at an Olympics.  And that's simply unacceptable!

No Surprise Ratings Down

It seems that every four (or, in this case, five) years, America's favorite Olympic sport is criticizing NBC's coverage.  Specifically, the media has had a lot of fun talking about how the ratings are down compared to Rio and how it's "disaster" for NBC, which is the U.S. rightsholder until at least 2032.  To which I ask the question: "Are you surprised?"

There are a number of reasons why the ratings are down, not the least of which the fact that the time zones in Japan and the United States are completely opposite each other!  More on that in a second, but there's another big factor that I think is likely a contributing factor to NBC's ratings for the Tokyo Games--all of the negativity surrounding them. 

For months, all you've heard is how these Olympics "shouldn't be held" and various other rationales for why they'd be "such a disaster."  The hard-core Olympic fans didn't care about any of that and were gonna watch anyway, but all that pessimism was sure to turn off some of the casual viewers who otherwise might've tuned in.  And even if they did still tune in, all of the excitement had been sucked out by the sheer volume of negative stories.

The one-year delay didn't help, either.  Everyone was planning on the 2020 Olympics actually taking place in 2020.  Then they were moved to 2021.  And even then, there was uncertainty about whether or not they'd happen.  That schedule threw everyone off.  An Olympic year happened without an Olympics.  Now there is one in a non-Olympic year.  Plus, a lot of people are still trying to get their lives back together after a very difficult year, so it's understandable that the Olympics might not've been on the top of their minds.

Then there's the obvious time zone situation.  Some events are scheduled in the morning so that they can be shown in prime time in the U.S. (and the middle of the night in Europe!), but a vast majority of them take place overnight and early in the morning.  As a result, it's impossible to avoid knowing the results in advance.  That generally hasn't been a problem for them before (their ratings in London were great!), when they've been able to use American success as a promo for the prime time coverage.  But the U.S. has had lackluster showings in several marquee sports, and people aren't gonna tune in to watch when they already know the Americans are gonna lose.

To a certain extent, they also rely on star power, so Simone Biles not competing really hurt them.  Same thing with swimming.  This is the first Olympics of the post-Michael Phelps era.  Yes, there's still Katie Ledecky and Caeleb Dressel, but neither one is the dynamic force of a personality that is Michael Phelps.  Ditto with track & field, which is still looking for Usain Bolt's heir as the face of the sport.

Frankly, there hasn't been a breakout star in any sport during these Olympics.  That's not NBC's fault, but it definitely had an impact.  They didn't have the Phelps or the Bolt (or the Biles), whose event was must-see viewing, whether you already knew what happened or not!  And those who had the potential to become breakout stars simply didn't deliver!

NBC loves their live coverage, too, which is why they successfully campaigned for the swimming finals to be held during the morning hours in Tokyo.  But track & field finals are held during both the morning and evening sessions, so they show some of them live and others 14 hours later.  It's enough to give you whiplash!  It's night in Tokyo, then all of a sudden it's daytime, then it's night again.  The little "Live" underneath the NBC logo helps a little, but you can't blame people for being confused.

They also pretty clearly have their favorite sports, which probably rubbed some people the wrong way, too.  Their coverage of track & field during the year on NBCSN and Olympic Channel is so good, but their coverage of Olympic track & field has been incredibly underwhelming.  I'd even venture to say it's been bad (which is nothing against their broadcast crew, all of whom are excellent).  Especially when compared to their coverage of swimming.  Likewise, they focused way too much on the new sports while relegating live USA men's basketball broadcasts to pay-per-view streams on Peacock (which were also free on NBCOlympics.com, BTW).  (I will give them credit for the smart decision to put the tennis tournament on Olympic Channel, where it was covered like a Grand Slam in the way tennis fans would expect, though.)

Although, I must call out those people who don't seem to understand the concept of time zones.  To everyone who was asking "Is this live?", do you not see the "LIVE" underneath the logo?  It's only there when something's live!  Also, if you're watching the daytime show, it's probably on tape...since that's the middle of the night in Tokyo!  Same thing if you're watching the prime time show, which starts at 9 am Tokyo time.  Since it's daytime, the stuff you're watching that took place at night isn't live.

Until Rio, NBC didn't have any prime time coverage on its cable networks, meaning if people wanted to watch the Olympics, they had to watch the broadcast network.  Not only is that no longer the case, they've got live prime time coverage going on four different networks at once!  And I'd argue that this approach may be affecting their ratings too.  Because if you don't want to watch what's on NBC, you can watch a different sport on USA or CNBC.  Or online.  (USA's daytime coverage, by the way, was very good.)

I wouldn't be surprised if people watching online is another big reason why NBC's linear ratings are down.  Especially since everything is done by noon, people could watch everything they wanted online before NBC's TV coverage even starts.  And, if they'd watched it already, they probably didn't feel the need to watch it again.

One of the good things about the 24-hour coverage on USA and NBCSN was that they basically showed everything live on one of the cable networks overnight, then later on NBC.  It also gave them the opportunity to show sports they otherwise never would have and additional games not involving the U.S. in some of the marquee sports.  And not just games that affected the U.S., either.

Unfortunately, it did lead to a lot of stuff being repeated multiple times (especially before the Opening Ceremony when all they had was the handful of soccer and softball games on loop).  They even had this problem on NBC itself!  They'd show something live (or live-adjacent) during the late night show, then again during the next day's daytime show.  I understand the rationale behind this, but it was far too frequent an occurrence.

Likewise, the criticism that people wanted to watch something but couldn't find what channel it was on and when was valid.  The depth of their coverage can definitely be overwhelming, especially during a Summer Olympics with its sheer volume of sports!  So finding something specific could definitely be a challenge.  Yes, everything was available online (with the sometimes better world feed commentary) and they had those "Around the Games" segments, but could they still have been clearer about what sports were on what network and when?  Absolutely!  (Although, the lady who claimed on Twitter that she "couldn't find" the Opening Ceremony is just an idiot!  It was on NBC twice!)

Whether NBC's lower ratings for the Tokyo Olympics are an anomaly or the start of a trend remains to be seen.  They can't be compared them to the Rio Games, though.  Those Olympics were shown primarily live and took place in a much different world.  Just like the Paris Games three years from now can't be compared to Tokyo (spoiler alert, all of prime time will be on tape in 2024).  Either way, NBC still isn't regretting its investment in the Olympics, even if its critics might want it to.