2022 Baseball Preview, Part III

Today was supposed to be Opening Day.  But, alas, it's not.  I know we only have to wait an extra week, but still.  The lockout was just so stupid and so unnecessarily long!  The season's getting so close we can taste it, though, so it's time to get excited.

Speaking of exciting, the AL West may be just that this season.  For the first time in a while, Houston shouldn't run away with the division title.  In fact, everybody but Oakland can realistically picture themselves being in the mix at the end of the season.  After all, the Astros have been to five straight ALCS and three of the last five World Series, the Angels have the two best players in the game, the Rangers spent half a billion dollars on two guys, and the Mariners, who won 91 games last season, are desperate to end the longest playoff drought in North American pro sports.

The extra wild card will be huge for the AL West teams, too.  Most people think the AL East could get four playoff teams this season.  But the AL West teams will certainly have something to say about it.  The question is which one?  And will they all win enough games with cannibalizing each other?

There are also a lot of question marks regarding every AL West team, though.  They've all got tremendous potential and could be really good.  Or, they could tremendously underachieve in the way the Mariners and Angels have become famous for.  In which case, congratulations Astros on winning the division once again!

1. Seattle Mariners: It's been 21 years since the Mariners last made the playoffs and they're clearly getting frustrated.  Especially after last season, when they had more wins than the World Series champions.  So, what did they do this offseason?  They went out and got better.  They're all in on 2022, and they proved it with that big trade with the Reds, giving them two huge bats to add to the lineup.  That lineup will only get stronger when Kyle Lewis returns from his injury and if/when they get a full-time DH.

Not only that, they signed reigning AL Cy Young winner Robbie Ray, who suddenly makes their rotation that much stronger.  They haven't had a bona fide ace since Felix Hernandez was in his King Felix heyday.  Is that enough to get them over the top?  It just might be!  Although, it's also entirely possible that the Mariners do what they usually do and follow up a 90-win season with a 90-loss one.  Hopefully I'm wrong, though.  Hopefully they're buyers at the deadline.  If they are, then seeing them back in the playoffs for the first time in two decades is a real possibility.
Projected Lineup: Adam Frazier-2B, Jarred Kelenic-LF, Eugenio Suarez-3B, Jesse Winker-DH, Ty France-1B, Mitch Haniger-RF, J.P. Crawford-SS, Julio Rodriguez-CF, Tom Murphy-C
Projected Rotation: Robbie Ray, Marco Gonzalez, Chris Flexen, Logan Gilbert, Matt Brash
Closer: Ken Giles
Projected Record: 90-72

2. Los Angeles Angels: I love it how the Angels felt the need to announce that Ohtani would be both the starting pitcher and DH on Opening Day!  Well, seeing as they made up a rule just for him (which is actually the same as the NCAA rule), I'd freakin' hope so!  He's literally the only guy who'll be affected by this new rule, which will probably give him an extra at-bat or two per start.  Over the course of 30 starts, that could be 60 more at-bats this season.  Imagine what he could do with 60 more at-bats!

What's mind-boggling about the Angles is how they manage to suck year after year despite having both Ohtani and Mike Trout.  Of course, the two of them haven't been on the field together much, but still.  They're too good on paper to be so mediocre.  One of the reasons for that is because they keep forgetting that they need to have the pitching to go along with their hitting.  This year they finally did something about that by signing Noah Syndergaard, who'll make a great starter 1A provided he stays healthy.  That's a big if.  Which always seems to be the biggest concern for the Angels.  If everyone can stay healthy, can they finally play to their potential?
Projected Lineup: Shohei Ohtani-DH, Mike Trout-CF, Anthony Rendon-3B, Jared Walsh-1B, Justin Upton-LF, Max Stassi-C, Taylor Ward-RF, Matt Duffy-2B, David Fletcher-SS
Projected Rotation: Shohei Ohtani, Noah Syndergaard, Patrick Sandoval, Jose Suarez, Michael Lorenzen, Reid Detmers
Closer: Raisel Iglesias
Projected Record: 88-74

3. Houston Astros: This has been the Astros' division to lose for the last several years.  Partially because they were good, partially because the other four teams were not.  (Kinda like the Patriots in the AFC East for all those years.)  That may change this season, however.  Houston still has plenty of weapons, but not nearly as many as they used to.  Plus, with the Mariners, Angels and Rangers all getting better, they'll actually have to fight for it this season.

Much like the Patriots, you know the run has to end sometime.  And they've continued their trend of losing at least one big-name free agent a year.  First it was Cole, then Springer.  Now it's Greinke and Correa.  Of course, they still have Altuve and Bregman, as well as Yordan Alvarez and Kyle Tucker.  So it's not like they'll be hurting offensively.  And their young pitching really came up big during the playoffs last season.  Plus, they'll be getting future Hall of Famer Justin Verlander back, which is a huge addition.  Don't forget who their manager is, either.  Dusty Baker just has a way of getting the most out of his team.
Projected Lineup: Jose Altuve-2B, Alex Bregman-3B, Michael Brantley-LF, Yordan Alvarez-DH, Kyle Tucker-RF, Yuli Gurriel-1B, Aledmys Diaz-SS, Chas McCormick-CF, Martin Maldonado-C
Projected Rotation: Framber Valdez, Justin Verlander, Jake Odorizzi, Luis Garcia, Jose Urquidy
Closer: Ryan Pressly
Projected Record: 86-76

4. Texas Rangers: How do you completely rebuild your infield overnight?  Plop down $500 million on two of the most sought-after free agents on the open market.  Seager and Semien alone will make the Rangers' lineup significantly deeper than last year.  They also traded for Mitch Garver to be their starting catcher, so that's three more quality hitters than they had last season.  The problem is they need a few more.  So, while Texas should be much improved, they still have a long way to go.

For as good as their offense could be, their pitching staff is a disaster.  Which could make for a lot of 10-8 losses in Texas.  They made a run at Clayton Kershaw (who was never going to leave the Dodgers, despite what a lot of people might want to believe), but, alas, he shockingly decided to stay in LA!  So that leaves it up to Jon Gray and Martin Perez if the Rangers will have any chance of contending in 2022.  The good news is Seager will be around for a while, so they should be good at some point during his tenure.  The bad news is it probably won't be this year.
Projected Lineup: Marcus Semien-2B, Kole Calhoun-RF, Corey Seager-SS, Mitch Garver-C, Willie Calhoun-DH, Adolis Garcia-CF, Nate Lowe-1B, Brad Miller-LF, Andy Ibanez-3B
Projected Rotation: Jon Gray, Martin Perez, Taylor Hearn, Dane Dunning, Spencer Howard
Closer: Joe Barlow
Projected Record: 76-86

5. Oakland Athletics: While they obviously can't confirm or deny anything, it sure looks like the A's are preparing themselves to make a move to Las Vegas.  Why else would they sell off their entire team and set themselves up for what sure looks like it'll be a 100-loss season?  Matt Olson.  Gone.  Matt Chapman.  Gone.  Chris Bassitt.  Gone.  And it seems likely that Sean Manaea and/or Frankie Montas will be gone before the season's over.  Maybe Stephen Piscotty, too.

So, no, I don't have high expectations for Oakland.  Which probably means they'll win 100 games.  That's usually what happens when I could them out.  Does that seem likely, however?  No!  What does seem likely is that they're staring a 100-loss season in the face.  It's almost certain that the A's will be one of the six teams in the inaugural MLB Draft lottery.  Which may actually be what they're aiming for.  Strip it down, then build it back up in time for their arrival on the Strip.  It's the only thing that makes sense.
Projected Lineup: Cristian Pache-CF, Elvis Andrus-SS, Stephen Piscotty-RF, Stephen Vogt-DH, Eric Thames-1B, Chad Pinder-LF, Sheldon Neuse-3B, Tony Kemp-2B, Sean Murphy-C
Projected Rotation: Sean Manaea, Frankie Montas, Cole Irvin, Brent Honeywell Jr., Daulton Jefferies
Closer: Lou Trivino
Projected Record: 58-104

2022 Baseball Preview, Part II

Last year, the AL Central was not very good.  The White Sox were, but everybody else wasn't.  What resulted was a division "race" that was decided by the All*Star Break, which I think actually ended up hurting Chicago once the playoffs came around.  That's where the sixth playoff team will make a huge difference.  Had there been the extra playoff team, the White Sox would've had a ton to play for in the second half last season...instead of just sitting there waiting for the playoffs to start.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) for the White Sox, the rest of the division is better this season.  Well, most if it anyway.  Cleveland is actively not trying, and Kansas City may have brought Zack Greinke back, but that's about it.  But the Twins and Tigers are at least looking to be competitive, so Chicago's march to the division title won't be as straightforward as it was in 2021.

With that being said, however, the White Sox are the clear favorites to repeat as division champions.  Although the Twins have definitely gotten stronger and could give them a run for their money.  Don't forget, Minnesota won 100 games in 2019 and is clearly determined to get back to the playoffs after the moves they've made since the lockout ended.  Then there are the Tigers, who suddenly had all this money to spend in free agency!

Which is more than I can say about the Indians (sorry, "Guardians"...such a dumb name!) and Royals.  They'll be battling it out for last place, and I wouldn't be surprised if either (or both) loses 100 games.  They aren't the worst teams in baseball, however, so they've at least got that going for them.

1. Chicago White Sox: The White Sox are looking to do something this season that they've never done before--win back-to-back division titles.  And there's no reason to believe they won't.  Because, even though everybody else has gotten better, Chicago's still better than the rest of the division.  By a wide margin.  They've got an outstanding lineup and an outstanding pitching staff.  Simply put, this is one of the best teams in the American League.

Although, one injury could really derail everything.  Losing Carlos Rodon in free agency isn't that big a deal since Michael Kopech just slides into his spot in the rotation, and they have enough relievers to slide Kendall Graveman in as the closer if something happens to Liam Hendriks.  Their bench is not deep, though, so they can't afford to lose any starting position players.  And they're already down DH Yermin Mercedes for who knows how long?  That loss they can probably weather, but losing somebody like Jose Abreu, Tim Anderson or Yoan Moncada for any amount of time would be devastating and could derail their chances at repeating as division champs for the first time in franchise history.
Projected Lineup: Tim Anderson-SS, Adam Engel-RF, Jose Abreu-1B, Yoan Moncada-3B, Luis Robert-CF, Yasmani Grandal-C, Eloy Jimenez-LF, Leury Garcia-DH, Josh Harrison-2B
Projected Rotation: Lucas Giolito, Lance Lynn, Dylan Cease, Dallas Keuchel, Michael Kopech
Closer: Liam Hendriks
Projected Record: 91-71

2. Minnesota Twins: If anybody's gonna challenge the White Sox for the division title, it'll be the Twins.  They've sure been busy in the three weeks since the lockout was resolved, making that unexpected trade with the Yankees and unexpectedly being the team that landed Carlos Correa.  More significantly, rather than shopping Byron Buxton, they signed him to an extension.  That's further proof they view last season as an aberration.

This is a team that's all about offense.  Don't forget, they set a Major League record for home runs in 2019, and they're likely to hit a bunch again.  So, really, it could come down to their rebuilt rotation.  They're taking a major risk with Sonny Gray and Dylan Bundy.  Will they get the Yankee version of Gray or the Red version?  Likewise, will they get the Bundy who was the Orioles' top prospect or the one who struggled with the Angels?  Same thing with Chris Archer, who could be a major steal if he can revert to his form of a couple years ago.
Projected Lineup: Byron Buxton-CF, Jorge Polanco-2B, Carlos Correa-SS, Miguel Sano-1B, Max Kepler-RF, Gary Sanchez-C, Luis Arraez-DH, Gio Urshela-3B, Alex Kirilloff-LF
Projected Rotation: Sonny Gray, Dylan Bundy, Joe Ryan, Bailey Ober, Chris Archer
Closer: Taylor Rogers
Projected Record: 87-75

3. Detroit Tigers: After a few years hanging out with the Royals at the bottom of the standings, the Tigers went out and made a big splash, signing Javy Baez.  They were in on Carlos Correa, too, but ended up seeing him sign with a division rival instead.  Regardless, Detroit is clearly making an effort to be relevant this season.  And there's actually a decent chance that they will be.  Are they remotely close to the same level as the White Sox or the AL East teams?  No.  But they're getting there.  And in the AL Central that might be enough.

They're gonna hit.  Miguel Cabrera's a shell of his former self, which is why it was so important to add Baez and bring depth to the lineup.  Having Miggy at DH instead of first base will help, too.  And if Detroit can get the pitching to go with that lineup, they've got a real chance to make some noise.  The problem is there are a lot of question marks on that pitching staff, though.  Mainly regarding the health of some of their additions.  But if they can get the 2019 version of Eduardo Rodriguez and/or Michael Pineda, they might be in decent shape.  While they might be a year or two away from the playoffs, finishing .500 is definitely a realistic goal.
Projected Lineup: Akil Baddoo-LF, Javier Baez-SS, Jemier Candelario-3B, Miguel Cabrera-DH, Robbie Grossman-RF, Spencer Torkelson-1B, Riley Greene-CF, Jonathan Schoop-2B, Tucker Barnhart-C
Projected Rotation: Casey Mize, Eduardo Rodriguez, Spencer Turnbull, Matt Manning, Tarik Skubal
Closer: Gregory Soto
Projected Record: 80-82

4. Cleveland Guardians: How long will Jose Ramirez still be in Cleveland?  That's really the most pressing question regarding the Guardians heading into the 2022 season.  Because there's little to no chance he'll still be there after the trade deadline.  Especially since you know there'll be a contender looking for a third baseman.  I wouldn't be surprised if Franmil Reyes is traded at some point this season, either.  They're clearly rebuilding, so we'll see a lot of guys nobody's ever heard of wearing Cleveland uniforms at some point this season.

You know what though?  They have the pitching to give everyone else fits.  Provided they stay healthy and aren't traded, of course.  It's not like it's just Shane Bieber and that's it either.  Their top four (Bieber, Aaron Civale, Zach Plesac and Cal Quantrill) are all good.  So, if Cleveland has any chance at all this season, it'll be because of that pitching staff.  Still, I doubt they'll get enough offense behind Ramirez and Reyes.  And, like I said earlier, 100 losses seems more likely than playoff contention.
Projected Lineup: Amed Rosario-SS, Josh Naylor-LF, Jose Ramirez-3B, Franmil Reyes-DH, Oscar Mercado-RF, Bobby Bradley-1B, Sandy Leon-C, Myles Straw-CF, Andres Gimenez-2B
Projected Rotation: Shane Bieber, Aaron Civale, Zach Plesac, Cal Quantrill, Triston McKenzie
Closer: Emmanuel Clase
Projected Record: 68-94

5. Kansas City Royals: Bobby Witt Jr. is projected to make the Royals' Opening Day roster as their starting third baseman, which is incredibly exciting news!  The arrival of baseball's No. 1 prospect marks a bit of a transition in Kansas City.  They're working in some young guys who'll be the core of their next wave of competitive teams, while still leaning on some veterans, particularly franchise cornerstone Salvador Perez, who would've been an MVP candidate last year if not for the historic seasons by Ohtani and Guerrero (and the fact that he was on a team that wasn't good).

It's also a blast from the past with Zack Greinke back in KC.  I certainly didn't see that one coming.  Still, even with Greinke, Kansas City doesn't have the pitching to contend.  On paper, I'd say their lineup might be a little better than Cleveland's.  But the Guardians' pitching is so much better that I have to give them the "edge" in the battle for last place.  Neither team is bad enough to lose 100 games, but neither is good enough to contend with the top three teams (well, maybe the Tigers, but certainly not the White Sox and Twins).
Projected Lineup: Whit Merrifield-RF, Michael A. Taylor-CF, Salvador Perez-C, Carlos Santana-1B, Hunter Dozier-DH, Adalberto Mondesi-SS, Bobby Witt Jr.-3B, Andrew Benintendi-LF, Nicky Lopez-2B
Projected Rotation: Zack Greinke, Brad Keller, Brady Singer, Daniel Lynch, Kris Bubic
Closer: Scott Barlow
Projected Record: 66-96

2022 Baseball Preview, Part I

For the second time in three years, my baseball preview has been thrown out of whack!  Of course, in 2020 there was the pandemic and the 60-game season that didn't start until mid-July!  Then last year was normal.  Now, this season is starting a week late because of the stupid lockout.  But, I guess I should just be happy there is a baseball season about to start.  Which means, even if it is a little later than I'd like, it's time for my MLB season preview!

And, I'll admit, this is one of the hardest seasons to project that I can remember.  The lockout didn't just screw everything up, it pushed the Hot Stove League back.  It's quite possible that teams will still make moves between now and the start of the season, which could completely change projections.  (And who knows how many Fernando Tatis Jr.-like unreported injury situations will arise.)

The extra wild card is obviously an intriguing new element, as well.  What's it gonna take to get that third wild card spot?  I think it'll probably be something in the 87-88 win range, but it could easily end up being more.  Last season, the AL East had four 90-win teams!  And that could easily happen again!  In fact, I (and many others) wouldn't be surprised if all four AL East teams end up making the playoffs!

It's close between all four of them, but I give Boston the slight edge as the division favorite.  I've got Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays, Rays, but they really could finish in any order.  And you know Tampa Bay will do the exact same thing they always do and probably end up winning the division.  One thing I can say with some degree of certainty, though, is that the Orioles will likely finish last.  As for positions 1-4?  That's really anybody's guess!

1. Boston Red Sox: So why do I have Boston in the top spot?  Simply put, they have the fewest question marks.  If their starting pitching, particularly Chris Sale, can stay healthy, they're in good shape.  Of course, the chances of Chris Sale staying healthy are slim.  He'll start the season on the IL, and they haven't put a timetable on his return.  So, starting pitching will definitely be a key to their success.

They certainly have the lineup to outslug you if they need to, though.  And their offense could easily make up for any struggles the pitching staff has.  Adding Trevor Story was unexpected, and it only made their lineup longer.  I'm surprised Story was willing to move to second base, but he should handle himself fine on that side of the bag.  Bringing Jackie Bradley Jr. back was a smart move, too.  Especially since they no longer need to find a place for Kyle Schwarber to play!
Projected Lineup: Kike Hernandez-CF, Trevor Story-2B, J.D. Martinez-DH, Rafael Devers-3B, Xander Bogaerts-SS, Alex Verdugo-LF, Bobby Dalbec-1B, Christian Vazquez-C, Jackie Bradley Jr.-RF
Projected Rotation: Chris Sale*, Nathan Eovaldi, Nick Pivetta, Tanner Houck, Michael Wacha, Rich Hill
Closer: Matt Barnes
Projected Record: 96-66

2. New York Yankees: Am I the only one confused by some of the moves the Yankees have made (and haven't made) since the lockout ended?  They don't want Gleyber Torres playing shortstop.  OK, fine.  So they go and get a different shortstop who can't hit and still have their two starting second baseman problem.  They trade Gary Sanchez and now have no starting catcher.  Then, when they re-signed Anthony Rizzo and a Luke Voit trade was inevitable, instead of getting a catcher for him, they get...a case of baseballs?!  (Just kidding, they got a prospect.  But that's it.  One prospect.)

Yet, despite all of their issues, they still end up battling for the division title every year.  It should be no different this season.  When you've got Gerrit Cole, you've got plenty of reason to feel like you're gonna win at least every fifth day.  That's why they'll be right in the mix.  The Yankees' pitching is incredibly underrated.  Cole and the bullpen get all the attention, but the back end of the rotation is very strong.  And, if the bats can stay healthy (which is always a big if regarding the Yankees), you know they'll hit.  So, yes, even if they aren't the division favorites, a wild card berth seems likely.
Projected Lineup: DJ LeMahieu-2B, Anthony Rizzo-1B, Aaron Judge-RF, Joey Gallo-LF, Giancarlo Stanton-DH, Josh Donaldson-3B, Aaron Hicks-CF, Kyle Higashioka-C, Isiah Kiner-Falefa-SS
Projected Rotation: Gerrit Cole, Jameson Taillon, Luis Severino, Jordan Montgomery, Nestor Cortes
Closer: Aroldis Chapman
Projected Record: 93-69

3. Toronto Blue Jays: Having a better record than the team that won the World Series yet missing the playoffs has got to be frustrating!  So has losing the Cy Young Award winner and a top five MVP finisher in free agency.  So what did the Blue Jays do in response?  They went out and added two starting pitchers, giving them one of the strongest 1-2-3's in baseball!

Let's not forget that they were one of the biggest beneficiaries of Oakland's fire sale, too.  They swung a trade for Matt Chapman, one of the best third basemen in the game, and immediately signed him to an extension, giving them another big bat to go along with Vladimir Guerrero Jr. and Teoscar Hernandez.  Speaking of Vlad Jr., in another season, he's the runaway MVP.  Can he carry his incredible 2021 into 2022?  They also traded Rowdy Tellez and Randal Grichuk, which actually creates an opening at DH.  Not that I'm upset to see Grichuk in the National League though!
Projected Lineup: Bo Bichette-SS, George Springer-CF, Vladimir Guerrero Jr.-1B, Matt Chapman-3B, Teoscar Hernandez-DH, Lourdes Gurriel Jr.-LF, Cavan Biggio-RF, Danny Jansen-C, Santiago Espinal-2B
Projected Rotation: Hyun-Jin Ryu, Kevin Gausman, Jose Berrios, Yusei Kikuchi, Alek Manoah
Closer: Jordan Romano
Projected Record: 91-71

4. Tampa Bay Rays: How does Tampa Bay do it every year?  Especially in this division?!  They went to the World Series in 2020 and won 100 games last season.  And they've got essentially the same team back, so doing it again wouldn't be a complete surprise.  But, it also wouldn't be a surprise to see them finish fourth.  After all, they went 18-1 against the Orioles last season, which was essentially the difference in the division.  If they have anything resembling a normal record against Baltimore this year, that could bring them closer to the pack.

With the Rays, it usually comes down to their pitching.  And that's definitely a concern.  They have five actual starters this season, but there are questions about how many innings they'll be able to get out of their rotation.  And, as good as their bullpen is, they can't ask their relievers to get 15-plus outs every night.  It worked in 2020 because they only played 60 games, but the bullpen ran out of gas last season, which was especially evident against the Red Sox in the playoffs.  Still, they're a consistent 90-win team that knows how to do what it takes in the AL East.  Why would you expect this season to be any different?
Projected Lineup: Yandy Diaz-3B, Wander Franco-SS, Brandon Lowe-2B, Randy Arozarena-LF, Austin Meadows-DH, Ji-Man Choi-1B, Manuel Margot-RF, Kevin Kiermaier-CF, Mike Zunino-C
Projected Rotation: Corey Kluber, Ryan Yarbrough, Shane McClanahan, Drew Rasmussen, Luis Patino
Closer: Pete Fairbanks
Projected Record: 89-73

5. Baltimore Orioles: Adley Rutschman's Major League debut should be sometime this season.  The question is when?  My original guess would've been sometime in June, but now that the 1st & 2nd place finishers in Rookie of the Year voting will automatically get a full year of service time, maybe it'll be May instead.  Robinson Chirinos is keeping the seat warm for him in the interim, but, frankly, Rutschman's debut might be the only exciting thing to happen in Baltimore this season.

Although, I shouldn't be so quick to say that.  Because the Orioles gave us two great stories last season.  Trey Mancini's return from cancer and Cedric Mullins emerging as one of the best center fielders in the game.  They're actually building a decent foundation.  The problem is they play in the AL East and are completely overmatched against those other four teams.  Not losing 100 is a reasonable goal.  Whether it's achievable is a different question.  That could really come down whether any of the young guys has a breakout season.  That and how well the pitching staff behind John Means performs.
Projected Lineup: Cedric Mullins-CF, Jorge Mateo-SS, Trey Mancini-DH, Anthony Santander-RF, Ryan Mountcastle-1B, Austin Hays-LF, Robinson Chirinos-C, Kelvin Gutierrez-3B, Ramon Urias-2B
Projected Rotation: John Means, Jordan Lyles, Bruce Zimmermann, Zac Lowther, Tyler Wells
Closer: Dean Kremer
Projected Record: 56-106

A Vastly New-Look Schedule Coming in 2023

One element of the new MLB CBA that was most intrigued by was somewhat buried in the fine print.  Starting next season, the schedule will look completely different.  I wasn't exactly sure what that meant.  All I knew was that teams would no longer be playing 19 games against their division rivals.  Well, now I've seen some of the details and I've gotta admit, I didn't realize how drastic the changes will be!

Beginning next year, teams will play at least one three-game series with every other team in the Majors!  The number of interleague games will go from 20 to 46, while the number of division games will go from 76 to 56.  And you'll play everybody in the other league at home every other year, with the exception of your interleague partner (Mets-Yankees, Dodgers-Angels, Cubs-White Sox, etc.), which will continue to be four-game home-and-home.

This is apparently something that's been a topic of discussion for a while now.  The Pirates' President drew up a plan that's very similar to what they've adopted about 10 years ago.  However, they had to wait until there was a universal DH to implement it, so as not to disadvantage American League teams playing 23 interleague road games.  With the universal DH now part of the game, it was time to pull the trigger on the balanced schedule.

The timing was right to implement it because of the additional wild card team in each league.  One of the biggest complaints regarding MLB's unbalanced schedule in recent years is the strength of schedule.  Specifically, you had teams from different divisions fighting for the same wild card while playing vastly different schedules, some of which were easier than others. 

Take the Blue Jays, for example.  They won 91 games and finished fourth!  The White Sox won 93 games and ran away with the AL Central, where no one else was even above .500 (second-place Cleveland had 80 wins).  Those three AL East teams were fighting for a wild card with the Mariners, who got to play 57 games against Oakland, Texas and the Angels.

Interleague play was another issue.  More specifically, how frequent some interleague matchups were and how sporadic some others were.  For example, the San Diego Padres didn't play a series in Toronto until 2016...in the 20th season of interleague play!  Or how in Albert Pujols' decade with the Angels, he returned to St. Louis a grand total of once.  Speaking of the Cardinals, they went 14 years between series at Yankee Stadium (2003-2017).  That's such a long gap it was five years before one closed and eight years after another opened between visits.

I can understand how frustrating that might've been for some owners!  Love them or hate them, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers sell tickets.  So it makes sense that owners would want them to come to their stadium...especially owners in the opposite league who aren't guaranteed to see them every year.

For the last 20-so years, MLB has had the heavily unbalanced schedule where you play six series against each of your division opponents every year (three at home, three away).  That obviously meant a lot of Yankees-Red Sox and Giants-Dodgers and Cubs-Cardinals games.  But it also meant there were a lot of Pirates-Brewers and Tigers-Royals games.  And, frankly, fans can only get so pumped for a Pirates-Brewers game on a random Tuesday night in June, let alone a meaningless one in late September.

Under the current schedule format, you play 18 different teams at home every season.  Fifteen of those 18 are the same every year (your four division opponents, the other 10 teams in your league, and your interleague partner).  Under the new format, you'll play 22 teams at home each season, with every interleague opponent coming in every other year (instead of at some undetermined time in the future). 

So, it's not really a surprise that the owners pushed for a balanced (or, at least more balanced) schedule.  Frankly, I'm surprised it took so long.  Although, it makes complete sense that they wanted to wait until there was a universal DH to implement it, so I can understand why they waited to do it.

While I'm sure the traditionalists will make a stink about teams playing so many interleague games, they seem to have struck a good balance.  The incredibly disproportionate number of division games got redundant.  But, they didn't overload it on interleague, either.  One series against every team is fine.  And, the number of games you play against the 10 other teams in your league won't change.  It's been one series at home, one on the road, and it will continue to be.  That's important.

As for how the math works out, it's actually fairly straightforward.  You play 26 series at home, 26 on the road.  Two against your division opponents, one against each of the other 10 teams in your league, one against your interleague partner is 19.  That leaves seven at home and seven away.  Which adds up to?  Fourteen!  How perfect is that?!

It probably won't be completely "balanced" since they'll have to finagle it a little to get to 81 games, most likely by having a random four-game series against one of your non-division intraleague opponents.  But, all-in-all, this is as close as MLB is able to get to a schedule that resembles what they do in the NHL and NBA, where they play a home-and-home with every team in the other conference every season (I'm obviously talking about normal seasons here, not the pandemic-adjusted schedules).

Will it be odd to see every team from the National League on the Yankees' 2023 schedule?  Yes.  Will it take an adjustment to know that, moving forward, everybody will play each of the other 29 teams in the Majors every season?  Yes.  Does it have the potential to be exciting?  Absolutely!  Who doesn't want to see Yankees-Dodgers or Red Sox-Cubs every season?!

Quarterbacks On the Move

If the entire MLB offseason being crammed into a few weeks hasn't been crazy enough, the NFL is giving it a run for its money.  Between trades and free agency, there's been so much quarterback movement that it's enough to give you whiplash (and hard to keep track of).  I'm not just talking about Aaron Rodgers deciding to play another season or Tom Brady's retirement/non-retirement, either.

Some of the moves were predictable, even if you didn't necessarily know where they were headed.  You had a feeling that DeShaun Watson's time in Houston and Russell Wilson's time in Seattle were both ending.  Others were somewhat confusing.  Carson Wentz to the Commanders?  Matt Ryan to the Colts?  And there's sure to be more quarterbacks changing teams between now and the Draft, too.

Not every team has necessarily improved its situation with its quarterback change, though.  I can't say the Falcons are better with Marcus Mariota than Matt Ryan.  And do the Seahawks even have a starting quarterback currently?  The Broncos, on the other hand, finally have one for the first time since Peyton Manning retired.  In fact, we'll start our list of new QB winners with Denver.

Winners
Broncos: Whenever Denver has a good quarterback, they're good.  John Elway took them to five Super Bowls.  They went to two in four years with Peyton Manning under center.  It's clearly the biggest thing they've been missing since Peyton retired.  No more.  Now they have Russell Wilson.  And when the Broncos have a quarterback, look out!  The AFC West is gonna be loaded next season!

Saints: Technically the Saints don't have a new quarterback.  They re-signed Jamies Winston, who was their starter last season until he got hurt.  Which was really the smartest move they could make.  Because they were good at the start of last season when he was under center.  After he got hurt, they weren't.

Colts: Matt Ryan will be their fifth different starter in five years.  After Andrew Luck's abrupt retirement, it's been Jacoby Brissett, Philip Rivers, Carson Wentz and now Ryan.  Rivers worked out.  Brissett and Wentz did not.  And, frankly, I can see Ryan going either way.  The change in scenery could reinvigorate him and they might get the MVP Ryan.  Or they might get the post-Super Bowl Ryan.  My money's on the former.

Commanders: Carson Wentz is back in the NFC East!  Frankly, I don't think the Eagles ever should've gotten rid of him.  Jalen Hurts isn't the great NFL quarterback they seem to think he is!  Anyway, back to Wentz.  He doesn't bring Washington to another level by any means.  But he doesn't make them any worse, either.  And, more importantly, it's possible that he may finally give them some stability at the quarterback position.

Mitchell Trubisky: After getting cut lose by the Bears (who, for some reason, think Justin Fields is an NFL starter), Trubisky spent last season as Josh Allen's backup in Buffalo...and played all of six games!  He somehow turned that into being Ben Roethlisberger's successor in Pittsburgh.  Trubisky actually had TWO suitors that wanted to make him the starter!  The Giants were ready to have a QB competition between him and Daniel Jones.  Not too bad for a guy Chicago didn't want anymore!

Losers
Baker Mayfield: He requested a trade and the Browns said no.  Then they went and traded for DeShaun Watson.  So, it looks like Baker may get his trade after all.  Because it makes no sense for Cleveland to keep both of them!  Especially since Mayfield has made it clear he has absolutely no desire to stay.  Could he be on his way to Seattle?

Seahawks: I get it.  Russell Wilson didn't want to be there anymore.  Especially since it looks like the Seahawks are headed into their first rebuilding period in quite a while in a very competitive NFC West.  And, unless they can swing a Baker Mayfield trade, it's slim pickings.  Whoever they get isn't gonna be the perennial Pro Bowler who's been the face of their franchise for a decade that they just traded away.

Falcons: Sorry, but I don't get the Matt Ryan trade.  I don't get the Marcus Mariota signing, either.  Do they really think Mariota is an upgrade?  Because he isn't!  And, keep in mind, I absolutely loved Mariota coming out of Oregon.  His NFL career, however, has indicated he's better suited as a backup at this level.  So, of course, the Falcons signed him to be their starter.

Panthers: Carolina came into the offseason needing a quarterback.  They still do.  The Panthers have, so far, missed out on everybody, so, unless their plan is to enter the 2022 season with Sam Darnold as their starter, they need to make some sort of move.  While I think Mayfield to Seattle is much more likely, I can see Carolina as the backup plan.  Otherwise, they'd better go get a QB in the draft.

Browns: Mayfield kind of forced their hand with his trade request, so I get the Watson trade.  He sure comes with a lot of baggage, though.  And he hasn't played in more than a year!  Of course, the Browns have never shied away from players with baggage, so this could end up working out very well.  Or...Watson's legal troubles will follow him to Cleveland and the Browns regress.

There's likely to be some more movement between now and when the season starts in September.  Will the 49ers keep Jimmy Garoppolo?  Will the un-retired Brady stay in Tampa?  Who will leverage draft picks into a quarterback?  Who'll go for one after they don't get who they want in the draft?  So, these rankings are very likely subject to change.  Stay tuned!

The MAAC's Biggest Wins

Saint Peter's is in the Sweet Sixteen!  Who saw that one coming?!  I sure didn't.  But as a MAAC guy, I absolutely love it!  Those of us who know and love the MAAC know how good and competitive a league it is.  Unfortunately, the rest of the country doesn't always get to see it.  Which is why an unexpected March Madness run by a MAAC school is such a wonderful thing!

Every once in a while, there are flashes.  The Marist women's dynasty was frequently ranked in the Top 25, and Monmouth sure got the nation's attention a few years ago when it should've gotten an at-large bid but didn't.  That would've been the third at-large bid for a MAAC men's team, joining the 1993 Manhattan Jaspers and 2012 Iona Gaels.  There have also been MAAC women's teams that have gotten at-large bids, most recently Fairfield in 2001.

This isn't the first time a MAAC team has made it to the Sweet Sixteen, either.  While Saint Peter's is the first men's team to do it, it's happened three times on the women's side (twice by Marist, once by Quinnipiac).  

As someone who's been involved with the conference in one way or another for more than 20 years, I feel so much #MAACPride every time somebody goes on a run and makes everyone else take notice.  That's why I was losing my mind the other night as Saint Peter's was beating Kentucky!  Usually, just keeping it competitive with a blue blood in the NCAA Tournament is cause for celebration.  The thought of beating Kentucky is, well, I'm not even sure that is a thought that entered the minds of too many.

While it had been a while since a MAAC team won an NCAA Tournament game, it's not like it hasn't ever happened before.  In fact, including the two wins by Saint Peter's this season, MAAC men's teams now have nine NCAA Tournament victories (six in the tournament proper, three in the First Four).  Throw in nine wins by MAAC women's teams, and that's a pretty solid showing for a mid-major conference that's typically a one-bid league.

But not all wins are created equal.  So, which one would truly be considered the signature win (or moment) for the conference?  When you started reading this, you had to know I was working my way towards a Top 10 list of some sort.  So here it goes...

10. 1989: La Salle (W) over UConn-The MAAC's first-ever NCAA Tournament win came courtesy of a school that hasn't been a member of the league since 1992, hence this game being ranked so low.  Although, maybe it should be higher based simply on who La Salle beat, even if UConn wasn't UConn yet.  Don't worry, things worked out OK for them after that loss.

9. 1990: La Salle (M) over Southern Miss-La Salle was really good in the late 80s!  They had All-American Lionel Simmons and won three straight MAAC titles from 1988-90.  The 1989-90 team was by far the best.  They were ranked for most of the season and had a 22-game winning streak.  La Salle got a 4-seed, so their first round win over Southern Miss wasn't an upset.  But I'm including it because that 1989-90 La Salle team is still probably the best one in MAAC history.

8. 2012: Marist (W) over Georgia-Marist was an NCAA Tournament regular during this stretch and had beaten Iowa State in the first round a year earlier.  This one was different, though.  It wasn't just that they won.  It was how they won.  They completely dominated a Georgia team that was 22-8 and finished third in the SEC.

7. 2008: Siena (M) over Vanderbilt-You wanna talk about a dominant win by a 13th-seeded MAAC team?  I give you Siena-Vanderbilt in 2008.  This was the first of three straight tournament appearances by the Saints, who were coached at the time by current Iowa Head Coach Fran McCaffrey.  Against Vanderbilt, they never trailed.  Siena blew them out, 83-62.

6. 2004: Manhattan (M) over Florida-In 2003, Luis Flores and the Jaspers were the first victim of Carmelo Anthony, Gerry McNamara and Co. on Syracuse's march to the National Championship.  In 2004, they drew a Florida team that had been ranked No. 1 earlier in the season.  So what?  Manhattan was clearly the better team that day, knocking off Billy Donovan's Gators 75-60.

5. 2017: Quinnipiac (W) over Marquette & Miami-Quinnipiac's Sweet Sixteen run started with a really good 5-12 game against Marquette.  The Bobcats ended up winning by three, 68-65.  Two days later, they played Miami...on the Hurricanes' home court.  Their second upset might've been even more impressive.  Quinnipiac won 85-78 to advance to the Sweet Sixteen.  As a 12-seed.

4. 2009: Siena (M) over Ohio State-It might've been the best game of the entire 2009 NCAA Tournament.  Siena and Ohio State played a double overtime thriller in the 8-9 game, where the winner would go on to face No. 1 overall seed Louisville.  Ohio State actually missed a shot at the buzzer that would've sent it to a third OT.  Siena gave Louisville quite a game in the second round, too, only losing that one by seven.

3. 2007: Marist (W) over Ohio State & Middle Tennessee-Marist's era of dominance in the MAAC was still in its infancy when the Red Foxes went on a Cinderella run to the Sweet Sixteen, becoming the first team from the conference (men or women) to get that far.  First, they upset fourth-seeded Ohio State, defeating THE Buckeyes 67-63.  Then, against fifth-seeded Middle Tennessee, the result was never really in doubt.  Marist won by 14.  Their Sweet Sixteen opponent was Candace Parker and Tennessee, which would go on to win the first of back-to-back National Championships, so the run ended there.  So what?  Because that run was something else!

2. 1995: Manhattan (M) over Oklahoma-No, I don't have this one ranked No. 2 simply because of my affiliation with Manhattan!  I have it ranked this high because of what it means.  Manhattan got an at-large bid, the first in MAAC history.  It obviously surprised a lot of people, and there were, of course, the haters who said they shouldn't be in.  Well, they certainly did deserve to be there.  With a 10-point win over the No. 4 seed, they proved the committee right on that one.

1. 2022: Saint Peter's (M) over Kentucky & Murray State-I didn't want to get caught up in recency bias and put Saint Peter's No. 1 simply because it just happened.  But then I thought about it some more and two things stood out to make me change my mind.  No. 1, Saint Peter's is a 15-seed!  No. 2, Kentucky isn't just Kentucky, they were considered a legitimate favorite for the National Championship.  Then when they went wire-to-wire against Murray State to become the MAAC's first-ever Sweet Sixteen team on the men's side, it made the decision even easier.  Run Baby Run!

What a Crazy Week

We all knew that with the lockout not being settled until so late and so many top-level free agents still unsigned that it was gonna be a crazy few days.  But, thanks to the Reds and A's trading everything except the baseballs, it's been even crazier than we imagined!  It's not done yet, either!  It's three weeks until Opening Day, Spring Training games are starting, and we still don't know where some pretty good players will be playing!

All of the movement has definitely had an impact on the upcoming season, too.  The AL East was already a beast, and the Blue Jays and Yankees both just got better.  With the third wild card, it's possible that the division could have four playoff teams.  Speaking of four, the Dodgers now have four former MVPs on their roster, which is even more ridiculous than it was now that they've added Freddie Freeman.  They're the World Series favorites because, well, duh!

Adding Freeman makes Muncy the DH and turns second base and left field into a Taylor/Lux/Pollock platoon.  And did I mention Kershaw re-signed too?  It's not like there was much doubt that Kershaw was going anywhere (as much as some people might've wanted to believe it), but it was also inconceivable to envision Freeman wearing anything other than a Braves uniform prior to a few days ago, so you never know.

And Kris Bryant to the Rockies?!  Where did that come from?!  I must say, I like it, though.  Both for him and for them.  Colorado's saying they're actually gonna try to win, and Bryant can play third base instead of signing with somebody who's gonna move him around.

Speaking of moving somebody around, I'm still not entirely sure what the Yankees' plan with Gleyber Torres and DJ LeMahieu is.  I also don't entirely get the Josh Donaldson trade, but I'll get to that in a second.  Gleyber and DJ are both starters, but they can't both play second base!  Yet, they don't want Torres at shortstop, which is why they also got Isiah Kiner-Falefa in the Donaldson trade.  Except, slight problem, Kiner-Falefa can't hit!

Of course, I don't think the Yankees are done yet.  That's especially true now that Anthony Rizzo is officially coming back to the Bronx (which was another Duh! free agent signing).  It seems likely that Luke Voit will be on the move, hopefully for a catcher, maybe to Oakland?

The A's have officially been eliminated from the AL West race, and the season hasn't even started yet!  I kid, of course, but they're making it pretty clear that their days in Oakland are numbered.  As they prepare to move to Las Vegas in a few years, their final seasons in Oakland project to be long ones, having traded both Matts (Olson and Chapman), as well as Chris Bassitt, with Sean Manaea perhaps to follow (in the Voit trade?).

Likewise, Cincinnati is showing little interest in winning this season.  The Mariners, however, are desperate to end their playoff drought.  Which is why they swung the trade to get Jesse Winker and Eugenio Suarez.  Dare I say that the Mariners might be the favorites in the AL West?

That may depend on the Astros.  Carlos Correa is the biggest name that's still unsigned, although you'll have to figure that'll change within the next couple days.  And, frankly re-signing with Houston makes the most sense.  Both for Correa and the Astros.  I've also seen him linked to the Phillies, which wouldn't surprise me.  Although, how many big contracts can you take on to still finish 84-78?

One thing that we've also seen is a direct result of the new CBA.  National League teams are signing DH's.  Nelson Cruz was the first, agreeing to a deal with the Nationals, while former National Kyle Schwarber is back in the NL East as the Phillies' DH.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a few other NL teams sign DH's, either.  Which only grows the market for Jorge Soler and Nick Castellanos.

Nick Castellanos is apparently the reason Derek Jeter is no longer with the Marlins.  Evidently, he wanted to go after Castellanos and the rest of the front office didn't.  Which is why I find it surprising that Castellanos, who's still available, is being linked to Miami.  After all that, Castellanos could end up with the Marlins anyway?  Really??!!

This is all stuff we shouldn't still be talking about three weeks before the start of the season!  But that's what happens when there's a three-month-long lockout and teams can't even talk to players during that time!  If they'd been able to, maybe the Padres and Red Sox would've found out that Fernando Tatis, Jr., and Chris Sale are injured and won't be able to start the season earlier.  (Although, with Sale, shouldn't they have just assumed that?  He's always injured!)

Those injuries will likely add another wrinkle to what's already been the craziest March Hot Stove ever!  Will the Padres make a run at Correa or Trevor Story, then figure out what to do with Tatis when he gets back?  The Red Sox will almost certainly do something after watching the Yankees and Blue Jays be incredibly active.  And I haven't even mentioned the Rays yet!  Will they do anything to counter the moves of their division rivals?

If there was a silver lining of the lockout, this may have been it.  An entire offseason crammed into a few weeks, and right before the start of the season, too!  And it was worth the wait!  This week has been wild.  In the best way!  The crazy thing is there's still three weeks until Opening Day, so there may be so much more ahead.

A Lot to Like

Now that I've had a few days to let MLB's new CBA sink in, I've gotta admit, there are a lot of things I like about it.  Even if it was incredibly frustrating that it took them significantly longer than it should've, the important thing is that we have a deal and there will be a full, 162-game season.  Anything less would've been disastrous, which I think both sides finally realized just in time.

Of course, blaming the owners and Rob Manfred for both the stalemate and the length of it would be easy.  Everyone knew what the owners were doing, including the players.  Once they imposed their "deadlines" (that proved to be entirely artificial), they expected the players to panic and accept their "last, best offer" or risk losing games and the full season salary that came with them.  Except they didn't.  The players called their bluff and ended up with a better deal as a result.

The last two CBAs favored the owners.  This one still does, but it definitely swings some important things in the players' direction.  Including some major wins for the players...

• Universal Designated Hitter: Sorry National League purists, but it was time.  The NL was the only level of baseball not using the DH.  We also knew it was coming after they used the universal DH during the pandemic-shortened 2020 season and the Earth didn't stop spinning on its axis.  The most important thing about this, of course, is that it creates 15 more DH jobs.  It also doubled the market for players like Nelson Cruz, who signed with Washington.  Suddenly a player who doesn't own a glove can play in the National League!  That's obviously a huge win for those veteran guys.
• Pre-Arbitration Bonus Pool: This was a creative way to settle one of the union's biggest concerns...getting younger players paid earlier.  And, after all of the back-and-forth, they ended up meeting right in the middle at $50 million.  Go figure!  I like that it'll reward performance, which means you have to earn it.  The owners are still gonna lowball these guys on their contracts, but they'll at least get paid what they're worth thanks to the bonus pool.
• Full Year of Service Time: I was curious how they'd end up settling the issue of service time manipulation.  Because there wasn't really anything the players could do to prevent it.  But, I must admit, I like what they come up with.  The top two finishers in Rookie of the Year voting get a full year no matter how long they're in the Majors.  That should, hopefully, incentivize teams to call up their top prospects earlier, especially if they can help them win.
• Limit On Options: Not sure which side came up with this one, but it doesn't matter.  Because it's great!  No more constant shuttling of relievers back and forth between Triple-A and the Majors!  Now you can only do it five times.  While this could result in some guys getting stuck in the Minors when they otherwise wouldn't be, it will also work the other way and keep some guys in the Majors instead of coming up, pitching once and immediately getting sent down.  Rinse and repeat.
• Draft Lottery: Will teams still tank?  Maybe.  But now they do so at their own risk with a six-team NBA-style draft lottery.  I like the other provisions they put in limiting the number of times a team can be in the lottery in consecutive years.  If anything, it should speed up the rebuilding processes, since the Cubs/Astros model is no longer a viable option.
  
• Minimum Salary: In 2021, it was $570,500.  In 2022, it'll be $700,000.  Then go up $20,000 each year for the duration of the five-year CBA.  While this likely means very little to the top players who earn millions per season, it's a huge deal for the majority of Major Leaguers, who play at or close to the minimum.  This is a significant raise, and it doesn't even include the bonus pool.
• International Draft: Who would've thought this would be the thing that got the deal over the finish line?  It's not a small thing, either.  The owners have wanted an international draft for years.  The players hate draft pick compensation for free agents.  So, they compromised.  If they can come to an agreement about the international draft and the structure of it, they'll take away draft pick compensation.  If they can't, draft pick compensation stays.  Considering how much the players hate draft pick compensation, it seems likely that they'll figure out the international draft.
• Competitive Balance Tax: There wasn't any doubt that the luxury tax threshold would go up.  Going up $20 million is huge, though.  Especially with so many teams treating it as a de facto salary cap.  Hopefully this leads to more spending.
• Rule Changes: Both of the stupid pandemic rules are gone!  No more seven-inning games or idiotic runners on second base to start extra innings!  Some people liked those rule changes.  I did not.  It's also likely that more rule changes are in store for the future.  They're gonna experiment with some in the Minor Leagues this season, and a committee (consisting of players, owners and an umpire) was formed that can implement any changes with 45 days' notice.

Then there's the biggest thing of all...the expanded playoffs.  The owners originally wanted 14 teams, which would've been too many.  So they settled on the 12 that the players wanted.  And there are so many good things about the 12-team playoff, the biggest of which is that there will be an additional wild card team in each league.  Which means more teams will be in contention and, theoretically, buyers at the trade deadline.

They've also expanded the Wild Card round to a best-of-three series.  The single Wild Card Game was fun, but the winner-take-all element of it did seem a bit harsh.  And they play three-game series all season, so it's much more representative than the one-game crapshoot.

My favorite part of the expanded playoffs, though, is that it creates races on both ends.  There obviously will still be that push for the wild card spots, but now being the No. 4 seed just became a whole lot more important since you're hosting all three games of a best-of-three.  Likewise, in the past, there wasn't much of a difference between No. 2 and No. 3.  Now it's huge.  No. 2 gets a bye to the Division Series and gets a chance to set up its pitching while No. 3 has to play a Wild Card Series and use at least its top two pitchers.  So, you can bet teams will fight for that No. 2 seed!

So, as I said, there's a lot to like in this new CBA.  Which is what's so frustrating about why it took so long!  None of that matters anymore, though.  The free agent frenzy is underway and it's almost time to play ball!

Joe Women's Bracket 2022

As bad as it was, last year's debacle with the conditions in the San Antonio bubble may have ended up being a good thing in the long run.  Consider: this year, the women's tournament will also use the "March Madness" branding and has been expanded to 68 teams.  Same as the men.  I'm not saying that stuff doesn't happen anyway.  But what happened last year certainly pressed the issue.

The expansion to 68 teams is no small thing, either.  It's six extra at-large bids.  Which is obviously really good for the bubble teams.  Especially with the number of good teams that haven't gotten in over the past few years, there's really no downside to making room for six more of them in the tournament.

I have both First Four games feeding to 11-seeds, and the other two 11s are both at-larges.  So, those are the six extra teams. None of them would've been in the tournament last season.  And they all deserve to be in the field.

Meanwhile, at the top of the field, who's No. 1 overall may actually be more important than who gets the fourth 1-seed.  Here's why.  There's a regional in Greensboro and one in Bridgeport.  South Carolina and NC State both figure to be locks for 1-seeds.  So is Stanford, who'll obviously be put in Spokane.  For the sake of this discussion, who gets the fourth No. 1 between Baylor and Louisville doesn't matter, since they'll likely be the 1 and 2 seeds in Wichita in either order.

With NC State and South Carolina, however, who goes to Greensboro and who goes to Bridgeport is very important.  Because UConn's likely gonna be the No. 2 seed in Bridgeport.  Sure, it's been a "down" year for UConn with five losses.  But neither one of them wants anything to do with Huskies in what would essentially be a road game...against a team that's been to 13 consecutive Final Fours!

Of course, an easy way to solve that problem would be to not have UConn play in Bridgeport, but you know that's not gonna happen!  Not when they put the Regional in Bridgeport pretty regularly for the sole purpose of guarateeing the attendance figure that the UConn fans always produce.  And, especially after two years where they had no tournament, then limited attendance in a bubble, you can bet the NCAA will make sure the UConn fans get to see the Huskies in Bridgeport.

Whether that's fair is a discussion for another day, but it brings me back to my point about South Carolina and NC State.  They're both locks for 1-seeds.  Whoever the committee rates higher will have a much easier path to the Final Four, though.  Because not only will they have the easier travel to Greensboro, they, perhaps more importantly, won't have to deal with a potential Regional Final against UConn in Bridgeport.

In my opinion, that team should be South Carolina.  They have only two losses on the year, one of which came in the SEC Championship Game against Kentucky.  That was by two points.  Their only other loss was by one at Missouri.  So, they're three points away from entering the NCAA Tournament undefeated, as well as the consensus No. 1.  NC State is great.  But South Carolina is just a little bit better.  They get the higher overall seed.  They get the No. 1 overall seed, in fact.

That and who gets the fourth No. 1 between Baylor and Louisville are really the only pressing questions at the top of the bracket.  Things shouldn't be much different than the last Top 16 reveal.  Is it possible that someone like Oregon or Virginia Tech snuck into the Top 16 overall and will get first and second round home games?  Sure.  But I think it's more likely that the 16 home teams will be the exact same 16 home teams that the committee ranked a couple weeks ago.

Another interesting wrinkle involves the First Four.  Unlike the men's tournament where all of the First Four games are played in Dayton, the Women's First Four is played at the first round site that each winner will advance to.  Which should mean they don't need to finagle it to make sure they're sending them somewhere close enough or account for the schedule so that they get that off day in between. 

So, I'm curious to see not only who'll be in the inaugural Women's First Four, but how they set it up.  Will they go straight along the S-curve, giving 1 and 2 the two surviving 16 seeds and having the two at-large winners fill the "last" spot on the 11 or 12 line?  Or will they still take travel into account and have say Mount St. Mary's/Longwood at NC State since it's closer to both schools?

OK, I've gone on long enough.  Here, without further ado, is the 2022 Joe Women's Bracket, headlined by No. 1 overall seed South Carolina...

GREENSBORO REGION
16-Mount St. Mary's/SE Louisiana at 1-South Carolina (1), 8-Georgia Tech vs. 9-Kansas
13-UNLV at 4-Oklahoma, 5-Oregon vs. 12-Massachusetts
14-Fairfield at 3-LSU, 6-Notre Dame vs. 11-Washington State

15-Jackson State at 2-Iowa, 7-Central Florida vs. 10-Villanova

WICHITA REGION
16-Mercer at 1-Baylor (4), 8-Colorado vs. 9-Arkansas

13-IUPUI at 4-Maryland, 5-North Carolina vs. 12-Drexel
14-Charlotte at 3-Tennessee, 6-BYU vs. 11-Dayton/Boston College
15-American at 2-Louisville, 7-Nebraska vs. 10-Kansas State

SPOKANE REGION
16-Montana State/Longwood at 1-Stanford (2), 8-Florida vs. 9-Miami
13-Northern Iowa at 4-Indiana, 5-Virginia Tech vs. 12-Belmont
14-Hawaii at 3-Michigan, 6-Kentucky vs. 11-Creighton
15-UT Arlington at 2-Texas, 7-Florida Gulf Coast vs. 10-Gonzaga

BRIDGEPORT REGION
16-Howard at 1-NC State (3), 8-South Florida vs. 9-Utah
13-Stephen F. Austin at 4-Arizona, 5-Mississippi vs. 12-South Dakota
14-Buffalo at 3-Iowa State, 6-Ohio State vs. 11-Missouri State/New Mexico
15-Albany at 2-Connecticut, 7-Georgia vs. 10-Princeton

Joe Men's Bracket 2022

This is the two-year anniversary of COVID taking over our lives.  It's also the two-year anniversary of all the conference tournaments stopping in the middle and the NCAA cancelling March Madness.  Fortunately, that's not the case in 2022.  In fact, this is the first time in three years that we'll have an NCAA Tournament that looks and feels like the NCAA Tournament we all know and love.

Yes, that's right.  For the first time since 2019, we've got a true, nationwide NCAA Tournament.  Last year's event in a bubble environment in Indianapolis was necessary, and it's impressive how they pulled it off.  There was definitely something missing about it, though.  And that's back this year!  We'll have all the pageantry.  The bands, the cheerleaders, the crazy student sections.  It's all back!

The NCAA also went to a 68-team women's tournament this year and moved the women's selection show from Monday to Sunday.  As a result, I've got to do my men's bracket further in advance so that I can still do women's projections before that bracket's announced.  So, knowing that things are very likely to change between now and then, here's my current NCAA men's bracket...

WEST (San Francisco)
Portland: 1-Gonzaga (1) vs. 16-Texas A&M-Corpus Christi/Alcorn State, 8-Creighton vs. 9-Iowa State
Portland: 4-UCLA vs. 13-New Mexico State, 5-Houston vs. 12-Indiana/Xavier
San Diego: 3-Texas Tech vs. 14-Montana State, 6-LSU vs. 11-Rutgers
Indianapolis: 2-Purdue vs. 15-Delaware, 7-Alabama vs. 10-San Diego State

EAST (Philadelphia)
Greenville: 1-Duke (4) vs. 16-Bryant/Jacksonville State, 8-TCU vs. 9-Marquette
Buffalo: 4-Arkansas vs. 13-Akron, 5-Iowa vs. 12-Loyola Chicago
Pittsburgh: 3-Villanova vs. 14-Colgate, 6-Ohio State vs. 11-Texas A&M/San Francisco
Indianapolis: 2-Kentucky vs. 15-Saint Peter's, 7-Murray State vs. 10-Virginia Tech

MIDWEST (Chicago)
Fort Worth: 1-Kansas (2) vs. 16-Wright State, 8-Boise State vs. 9-Notre Dame
Buffalo: 4-Providence vs. 13-Vermont, 5-USC vs. 12-South Dakota State
Milwaukee: 3-Wisconsin vs. 14-Longwood, 6-Saint Mary's vs. 11-Wake Forest
Greenville: 2-Auburn vs. 15-Georgia State, 7-Colorado State vs. 10-Seton Hall

SOUTH (San Antonio)
San Diego: 1-Arizona (3) vs. 16-Norfolk State, 8-North Carolina vs. 9-Memphis
Milwaukee: 4-Illinois vs. 13-Princeton, 5-Texas vs. 12-Chattanooga
Pittsburgh: 3-Tennessee vs. 14-UAB, 6-Connecticut vs. 11-Davidson
Fort Worth: 2-Baylor vs. 15-Cal State Fullerton, 7-Michigan State vs. 10-Miami

Final Four: West vs. East, Midwest vs. South

We've actually got a bit of a unique situation this year.  No one will argue that Gonzaga is the No. 1 overall seed or that Arizona is also a 1-seed.  This is the first time I can think of, though, where two obvious 1-seeds are both from the West.  Only one of them can go there, obviously, which will be Gonzaga based on its overall seeding.  Which means Arizona will be on the move.

Fortunately, Baylor's early loss in the Big 12 Tournament solved the problem of where to put Arizona.  Some still think Kansas and Baylor will both be No. 1s.  I don't.  But even if they are, Arizona will be ranked higher than Baylor, which means they get San Antonio and Baylor can move.  That is, if Baylor's a 1-seed of course.

I, however, have Arizona and Baylor both going to San Antonio, with Baylor as the 2.  The fourth No. 1 I'm giving to Duke.  I honestly don't understand why Duke hasn't been in the discussion among the major bracketologists as a potential 1-seed.  I went into the week thinking the Big 12 would get one of the two available 1-seeds and the SEC would get the other.  So, what changed?  Well, Baylor and Auburn both lost in the quarterfinals of their respective conference tournaments, while Duke marched to the ACC final.  If Kentucky gets the 1-seed in the East over Duke, I wouldn't have any issue with that.  I just happen to think Duke is better than they're given credit for, even in a down year in the ACC.

Speaking of the ACC, I've seen a pretty solid five as the number of bids coming from the conference.  I've got them with six, though.  There are the four locks (Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Miami), but I think Virginia Tech and Wake Forest have both done enough to get in.

Same thing with Texas A&M and Indiana, although it's obviously close for both of them since I have them both going to Dayton.  I also have Xavier going to Dayton, but they're going the other way.  If any bid stealers emerge between now and the Selection Show, the Musketeers could very well be NIT-bound.  They should be rooting very hard for Davidson in the A-10 championship game.  Because the A-10 is surprisingly looking like a one-bid league this year...unless Davidson loses.  Because Davidson's in either way.

Most of the bracketologists have Michigan in, but I also have them in the NIT.  After they got their butts kicked by Indiana, I just can't justify it.  It's also close, but no cigar for SMU and Wyoming.  I thought about both of them, but I couldn't find a team to take out in order to put them in instead.

It's not just the A-10 looking at a surprisingly low number of bids.  I only have two coming out of the American and three from the Pac-12.  Overall, I've got just nine conferences earning multiple bids, led by the Big Ten's eight.

Bids by Conference: Big Ten 8, Big East 7, SEC 7, ACC 6, Mountain West 3, Pac-12 3, West Coast 3, American 2

Bellarmine Knew the Deal

Congratulations to Bellarmine on winning the Atlantic Sun Tournament in just its second year as a Division I program.  However, since this is Bellarmine's second year at Division I, that means they're ineligible for the NCAA Tournament.  Which, if you ask their fans and the media, is a "travesty" that immediately needs to be corrected because they're "screwing" the Knights.  There's even a petition going around about it!

Unfortunately, that's not remotely the case!  It's simply an NCAA rule.  Bellarmine knew that.  When they transitioned to D1, they knew that they wouldn't be eligible for the NCAA Tournament until 2025.  Just like every other school that reclassifies!  So, it's not like they changed the rules here!  Bellarmine was never going to the Big Dance this year.  Or next year.  Or the year after that.

This rule doesn't apply to just Bellarmine, either.  There are seven other schools that are currently in the same boat, and another three that will start the reclassification process next season.  Which is the same process that applied to every other school that's made the jump to Division I in recent years!  None of whom were crying foul about NCAA Tournament ineligibility!

Also, I know no one cares about this point, but it applies to every team at each of these schools!  Cal Baptist is also reclassiyfing.  They went 40-16 last season and won the WAC title.  They didn't play in the NCAA Tournament.  Because they were ineligible.  In 2020, Merrimack was the NEC regular season champions in men's basketball.  They didn't play in the conference tournament...because they were ineligible for the NCAA Tournament as a reclassifying institution.

So, you see, this isn't remotely close to an isolated case.  It's simply the most recent example.  The biggest difference, though, is that Bellarmine's conference, the A-Sun, played a big part in creating this situation.

The A-Sun created this situation by letting Bellarmine play in the men's basketball tournament...even though the conference also knew that they were ineligible for the NCAA Tournament.  Which meant that if they won the A-Sun Tournament, the automatic bid would go to regular season champion Jacksonville State.  That was the conference's choice.  And, unfortunately, that's exactly how it played out.

Had the A-Sun simply withheld Bellarmine from the conference tournament, this entire situation could've been avoided.  There's plenty of precedent for that, too.  Conferences regularly keep schools out of the conference tournament if they can't represent them in postseason play.  (Sometimes schools make that decision on their own, as well.)  Just last year, in fact, Arizona didn't play in the Pac-12 Tournament and Auburn didn't play in the SEC Tournament.  (Although, it should be noted, those were both self-imposed sanctions.)

Since Arizona and Auburn were self-imposed postseason bans, let's look at the other reclassifying teams instead.  Merrimack: fourth in the NEC, didn't play in the conference tournament.  WAC Tournament: only Cal Baptist is playing, Dixie State and Tarleton State are not.  UC San Diego: didn't count in WAC standings.  St. Thomas: tied for eighth in Summit and only eight make the conference tournament, so I'm not sure if they weren't eligible or just didn't qualify.

Only two other reclassifying teams were in the same boat as Bellarmine--North Alabama, who's also in the A-Sun, and Cal Baptist.  Should Cal Baptist win the WAC Tournament, they, too, will be replaced in the NCAA Tournament by the regular season champion.  It's not some big conspiracy to punish the new kids on the block.  It's an NCAA rule.  Plain and simple.

Whether people agree with the rule or think it's stupid is a completely separate debate.  It's also completely irrelevant!  This is the rule that's currently on the books.  All of these schools understand that.  They knew it was part of the deal when they made the move to D1.  So, no, nobody was "screwed" by it!

And, frankly, Bellarmine winning its conference in men's basketball in just its second season at the D1 level, while a great accomplishment, isn't going to give the NCAA any incentive to change it.  What exactly would that change be anyway?  They're ineligible for postseason play...unless they win their conference tournament?  And how about individuals from those schools in sports like track, swimming and golf?  Or does this exemption only apply in team sports?

Should they also get rid of the reclassification rules when schools go down a level?  Should the University of Hartford be immediately eligible to win Division III conference and national championships next season?  Or does it only count when you move up and face harder competition?

Something else that people seem to be forgetting here is that it isn't just Bellarmine's men's basketball team that can't play in the NCAA Tournament.  Their entire athletic program is in the reclassification process, which means none of their teams are eligible.  Further proof that Bellarmine men's basketball isn't somehow being singled out!  (It's also important to note that none of Bellarmine's other teams are Division I-caliber yet...another reason why the reclassification process exists.)

Winning your conference in your second season after moving to Division I is an incredible achievement to be sure.  But that's also the exception to the rule.  The reclassification process exists to give the school an appropriate amount of time to get its budget, facilities, etc., up to Division I standards, as well as giving them the opportunity to have a full complement of scholarship student-athletes on the roster.   Once they complete that process, they can apply for full Division I membership and become eligible for Division I NCAA Championships (and receive NCAA Tournament shares, which they don't get until they're full members).

It's also worth noting that Bellarmine's season isn't over, either.  While they're ineligible for the NCAA Tournament or NIT, they can (and likely will) be selected for the CBI or CIT.  Speaking of the CIT, they used to award an automatic bid to the Great West Conference, which, when it existed, had no NCAA automatic bid and was made up pretty much entirely of reclassifying schools that were ineligible for the NCAA Tournament.

Bellarmine men's basketball is ahead of schedule.  But that doesn't mean the NCAA reclassification process needs to be completely overhauled just because some people on social media think it's unfair that they can't play in the NCAA Tournament.  Especially since the players, coaches and administration knew that was never gonna happen!  Not until 2025 anyway!

No Shifts & No Robo-Umps

For two sides that can't seem to agree on anything that will actually end this dumb lockout, the MLB owners and players sure are talking about a lot of stuff that doesn't matter.  Actually, it's not fair to say it's stuff that "doesn't matter."  These issues are important.  They're just not gonna move the needle in CBA negotiations and aren't the things they should be talking about right now.

With that being said, however, it shouldn't be a surprise that pitch clocks, banning shifts and robo-umps were all discussed.  They've all been on MLB's radar for a while as ideas that can either speed up the game or improve the product (or both), and they've experimented with each of them in the Minor Leagues over the past few years.  So, you would've figured that they'd make their way into the new CBA, whenever it's completed.

I have no opinion about the bigger bases.  I don't really have enough info to be informed enough to feel strongly one way or another.  And, frankly, I don't really know how much of a difference they'll actually make, either.  So, if MLB wants to do it, I say go for it.  I'm not gonna get bent out of shape about it.

Likewise, I'm not gonna get bent out of shape about the pitch clock.  This is something we've all seen coming for a while now.  They've already adopted a pitch clock at the lower levels and the players seem to have adjusted fine.  That was the big concern before it was first implemented, but everyone seems OK with it now.  Or, at least, they've gotten used to it.

You knew the pitch clock was coming simply because it's one of their "pace of play" initiatives.  Rob Manfred has been obsessed with pace of play for a while, and he thinks a pitch clock will help make games quicker.  Of course, there are a lot of other ways to make games go quicker and/or improve the pace, but if they want to have a pitch clock, I won't freak out about that either.  (And, frankly, there are some pitchers who take entirely too long, so the pitch clock might actually be a good thing.)

One thing the players did reject (somewhat surprisingly) was robot umpires.  Now, just to clarify, the robot umpire would not "replace" the human umpire.  You'd still need a home plate umpire to manage the game, rule on check swings and plays at the plate, etc.  All the robot umpire would do is call balls & strikes, and even then the human ump would have the ability to overrule (on a ball that bounced, but ended up in the strike zone, for example).

So, instead of a "robo ump," we really should call it an "automated strike zone."  And, once they started experimenting with it in the Minors and the Atlantic League, the automated strike zone seemed to be just as inevitably headed to the Majors as the pitch clock.  But the players don't want it.  They'd rather keep it as-is and have the home plate umpire calling balls & strikes.

Of course, it's harder to argue with an automated system.  Just ask tennis players, who no longer have challenges now that linespeople have been replaced by an automated system at pretty much every major tournament.  And MLB still has replay on everything else, so I guess that's the trade-off.  The automated strike zone would, theoretically, be more consistent.  Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing would probably depend on who you ask, though.

Then there's the shift.  The shift has been a topic of conversation ever since the Rays started doing it few years ago.  And it's only become more and more prominent since then.  It went from a few teams doing it to everybody doing it.  And only against left-handed hitters, who saw their batting averages drop dramatically as a result.

Some people have absolutely no issue with the shift.  It's a strategy element.  Just like bringing the infield in or bunting.  If the lefties don't like it, they can learn to hit the other way.  And if they started doing that consistently, maybe teams wouldn't shift on them!

The other group had the completely opposite mindset.  The shift is part of what's killing baseball.  The game's boring because nobody gets on base...and guys aren't getting on base because line drives that should be easy hits are outs because there's somebody standing in shallow right field!  So they try to hit over the shift instead, which leads to more strikeouts.

My issue with the shift is all of the defensive maneuvering teams do on every pitch.  Talk about something that adds a ton of unnecessary time to games!  You've got the second baseman playing shallow right field and the third baseman playing second, then switching spots with the shortstop with two strikes.  I don't know how the players didn't get confused!  And not to mention the fact that you've got guys out of position trying to turn a double play or take the throw from the catcher on a stolen base.

While I don't think a full-blown ban on the shift is the answer, I'd definitely be in favor of regulating it in some way.  There are two ways I think that can be done.  The first would be requiring all four infielders to have both feet on the dirt when the pitch is thrown.  That would prevent the second baseman from lining up in short right field.  The other would be mandating that two fielders must be on either side of second base.  No putting three guys on the first base side and leaving the shortstop or third baseman all alone on the other side.

That, to me, is the most intriguing thing about banning the shift.  How exactly will it be "banned," and how will that ban be enforced?  I do think it's a good thing that they're doing something about it, though.  Both the players and owners identified it as a problem, and they both wanted to solve it.  Now if they could only do that with the bigger issues in the new CBA.

Ghost Games

One of the (many) sticking points in the unnecessarily long MLB lockout is whether to expand the playoffs to 12 teams or 14.  The players would prefer 12 teams, while the owners want 14 (mainly because they've already sold the TV rights to the extra games, as well as the incredibly dumb-sounding "pick your opponent" show).  Personally, I think both ideas are stupid, but 12 is definitely the less-bad option.

The concerns the players brought up about a 14-team playoff were spot on!  One of the best things about baseball's playoffs is how exclusive they are.  After a 162-game season, only 10 teams make it.  So you can't sneak in with a mediocre record.  Which is definitely something that could happen if there are suddenly four wild cards per league.  And the players are rightfully worried about that!

Their biggest worry is that it'll discourage spending.  If a team knows they only need 83-84 wins to get into the playoffs, they're less likely to make a move at the deadline.  Likewise, there's not really much incentive to win the division.  So why try to win 100 games when 90 will be more than enough to get into the playoffs?  The players don't like either of those scenarios.

Toronto and Seattle both just missed the playoffs last season.  They both had 90 wins, and they would've been the sixth and seventh teams in the American League.  The National League was so top-heavy, though, that the 83-win Reds and 82-win Phillies would've been the extra two wild card teams.  That's right.  There were a total of seven National League teams that had a winning record last season.  Under the owners' proposed playoff format, they all would've made the postseason.  The 82-win Phillies would've had the exact same opportunity to win the World Series as the 107-win Giants.

And who are we kidding?  The owners only want 14 teams because it's more postseason games to sell to FOX, TBS and ESPN, which means more money in their pockets (that they don't want to share with the players).  If it means you can be a mediocre team and still make the playoffs, so be it!  In fact, I think there are some owners who would prefer that.  Why spend Yankee/Dodger/Met/Red Sok money when you don't need to?  Especially when you can still get that playoff revenue?

Plus, the 14-team proposal doesn't actually help the No. 1 seed.  It actually kinda screws them.  While everybody else is playing the Wild Card Series, the No. 1 seed is just sitting around waiting.  Yes, they'd have the opportunity to set up their pitching, but that's literally the only advantage they'd have!  It'd almost be better to have 16 teams and let them play a best-of-three at home against the 8-seed like we saw in 2020.

With 12 teams, however, the owners still get their playoff expansion and the players still get their competitive safeguards.  Most importantly, it incentivizes winning the division.  Suddenly there's a big difference between the No. 2 seed and the No. 3 seed.  The 2-seed gets that first-round bye while the 3-seed has to use its top two pitchers to get by No. 6.  That's a much more significant advantage than just the extra home game should the Division Series go five.

It might just be enough incentive to go out and try to get the 94 wins to be the No. 2 seed, too.  We knew Brewers-Braves and Astros-White Sox were gonna be the 2 vs 3 Division Series for weeks last season.  None of the four teams really cared who got which seed.  But if the 2-seed doesn't have to play that extra round, they actually will care.  Thus, we'll have more competitive games down the stretch.  Sounds like a win-win to me.

Unfortunately, I can't describe the 14-team playoff scenario as a "win-win" for anyone.  Sure, more teams would be "in the race," but the best teams would all be locked in so far in advance that they'll have less incentive down the stretch.  They'd be more concerned with setting themselves up for the playoffs than their actual positioning.  And does anyone think teams will actually care about this dumb "choose your opponent" thing at all?

In the late-night negotiations before talks broke off, the players appeared to finally get the owners off their 14-team position.  It's evidently back on the table, though, with a little quirk that was suggested by Max Scherzer.  The ghost game.

They've used the "ghost game" in Korea for a few years.  It's essentially a free win for the higher-seeded team.  So, they're starting a best-of-three or best-of-five series with a 1-0 lead.  That's even more significant in a best-of-three, which would basically become a best-of-two where the lower seed has to win both (on the road) and the home team only has to win one.  Ask any team that's advanced to the championship round of a double-elimination tournament out of the loser's bracket how much more difficult that is!

While I'm not saying I like the idea of the "ghost game," I do have to admit I'm intrigued by it.  It's actually worked pretty well in Korea.  The lower seed has forced the deciding game about half the time, but the home team usually ends up advancing.  Which makes sense.  Because winning one home game is a much easier proposition than winning a two-out-of-three series.  And, frankly, the No. 2 seed deserves to have a bigger advantage over the No. 7 seed than just playing that series at home.

Of course, the "ghost games" would mean that each best-of-three series would essentially become a best-of-two, reducing the potential TV inventory by as many as 12 games.  But, it would also make scheduling a lot easier, since they'd only need to plan on two games instead of three.  And the fact that they're even talking about it when they won't even talk about things that could actually end the lockout is significant.

Will a 14-team playoff with "ghost games" ultimately end up being adopted?  My guess is probably not.  But it's actually not as crazy an idea as it sounds.  So, while it doesn't seem likely to happen, it's still an interesting thing to think about.

No London, You're Not Getting a Super Bowl

The next three Super Bowls will be in Arizona, Las Vegas and New Orleans.  (So, I guess congratulations Cardinals, Raiders and Saints on your championships?)  The next one available is Super Bowl LX in February 2026.  They should announce the location of that game soon, but I do know one place it won't be played.  London.

London has, of course, been hosting multiple NFL games per season for a decade now.  They've also made no secret of their desire to host more events, including potentially a Super Bowl.  Which is an idea the NFL hasn't completely shut down yet.  No matter how dumb and impractical it is.

Let's start with the most obvious reason why a Super Bowl in London would make no sense--the time difference!  London is five hours ahead of the East Coast.  The Super Bowl starts at 6:30 pm Eastern!  That's 11:30 pm in London!  On a Sunday night!  Not happening!  Likewise, to have the game at a more convenient time for Londoners would push it into the early afternoon Eastern time (and the morning on the West Coast).  That ain't happening either!

Now let's move on to the travel aspect.  London is far.  An ocean away.  The closest team to London is the Patriots, who play 3,275 miles away.  That's roughly the same distance from Seattle to Miami, which is the farthest distance between teams in the NFL.  So, the closest team to London is the same distance as the farthest between any two teams in the league.

It's obviously a much longer trip for any other team to get there.  Seattle is 4,800 miles from London.  And that's actually closer than the other West Coast cities.  San Francisco is 5,360 miles.  Los Angeles is 5,447.  Las Vegas is 5,227.  Phoenix is 5,276.  So, any West Coast team would be at an incredible disadvantage for a Super Bowl in London.  Not just because of the flight, but because their bodies will think it's eight hours earlier than it actually is!

Then there are the fans of the participating teams to think about.  Going to the Super Bowl is an expensive undertaking regardless of where the game is played.  Between the game tickets, the flight and the hotel, it's gonna cost you a few thousand dollars at the minimum to travel to one.  It might be a little less if you live close enough to drive or you can get a cheap flight the morning of the game, but you're still looking at a couple grand no matter what.

If the game were in London, however, that minimum is probably closer to $4,000-5,000.  The cheap options go out the window, and so does the ability to slip in and out on the day of the game.  Of course, the NFL probably doesn't necessarily consider that a bad thing.  They probably want people in the host city spending money and enjoying the Super Bowl Week festivities as long as possible.  But with London they wouldn't have a choice.

Of course, that wouldn't stop fans of the participating teams from going.  They won't want to miss their team playing in the Super Bowl, regardless of cost.  There were plenty of Bengals fans who made their way to Los Angeles last month for Cincinnati's first Super Bowl appearance in 33 years.  But going from Cincinnati to LA is far different than going from Cincinnati to London.

I know what you're thinking.  "The NFL has London games every year and the fans go to those."  The difference is those teams know they're going to London well in advance.  Packers, Saints and Jaguars fans are probably already planning their trips.  Which they can do when they find out in March they'll be playing there in October.  Finding out two weeks in advance is far different.  Especially for a trip that's gonna require more than a few days.

There's also the whole idea that the Super Bowl is the biggest event in AMERICAN sports.  Why would you take the biggest event in American sports and put it in a foreign country?  Football is also THE American sport.  (It's called AMERICAN football everywhere else for crying out loud!)  Super Bowl Sunday is kinda like the Fourth of July.  A purely American holiday.  Why would you take that away?  For what?  The Super Bowl and the Final Four are the two purely American events that you shouldn't ever even consider playing anywere else!

Since we're talking about London here, let's put it in their terms.  Would you ever consider playing the FA Cup Final anywhere else?  The thought of even playing it outside of Wembley Stadium is blasphemous to some.  Likewise, would there be any wisdom in taking the Champions League Final, the biggest event in European soccer, and playing it at MetLife Stadium just to "increase its international reach?"  Of course not!  (And if it were in New York, they'd play it in the middle of the afternoon to accommodate European television, which is not ideal for the players.)

And, frankly, the Super Bowl has plenty of international reach as it is.  It's already broadcast in more than 80 countries, which show the game live at not-so-convenient times.  So, it's not like having the game in London is gonna suddenly bring in more international viewers!  All it would do is make it easier for people in Europe to attend the game...at the expense of NFL fans who actually live in the home markets of the participating teams!

We're also seeing that renewed push for the franchise in London, which makes just as much sense as a London Super Bowl (meaning none).  For starters, there's 32 teams, a nice even number.  They're not adding one!  And, among the many other problems, a permanent London team would never be able to play at home on Sunday or Monday night.  Just imagine if they qualified for the playoffs, too!  It would be a logistical nightmare!

Fortunately, I don't see the NFLPA ever signing off on a franchise or Super Bowl in London.  It's a nice idea.  That is, until you start thinking about it and realize how little sense actually it makes.  A Super Bowl in London?  No.  Hard pass!