Another Worlds, Another Semifinal Loss

The IIHF World Championships concluded over the weekend with Finland defeating Canada for the gold.  The United States finished fourth, losing to the Czech Republic (sorry..."Czechia") in the bronze medal game after falling to Finland in the semis.  It was a remarkable 11th consecutive semifinal loss at the World Championships for the Americans, who haven't finished better than bronze since 1950.  (Their last World Championship was in 1933.)

On the surface, it's hard to believe that the U.S. hasn't even been to the final at a World Championships in more than 70 years.  The Olympic gold medals in 1960 and 1980 are the only global championships the U.S. has won in that time.  And, what's even more unbelievable is that the Olympic silver medals in 2002 and 2010 represent the only times the United States has made a global final since the fall of the Soviet Union.

There are several reasons for this, of course.  The biggest of which is the timing of the World Championships.  Every year, they're held in mid-May, which is right in the middle of the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  As a result, players from teams that are still active in the playoffs are not available for Worlds.  Which impacts the U.S. and Canada more than anybody else.

Canada, however, has a much larger pool to choose from than the United States does.  So, even though many top Canadian players are unavailable due to the Stanley Cup Playoffs every year, there are still more than enough guys for them to field a team of entirely NHL players.  They also always seem to get reinforcements midway through the tournament when players from playoff teams that are eliminated in the first round join.

Team USA usually ends up with a fair amount of NHL players at the World Championships, but it's not an all-NHL roster.  Because of the availability issues, there's usually several minor leaguers and a handful of college players.  This year's World Championships squad featured a number of players who were on the Olympic team, which obviously had no NHL guys.

It actually goes to show how deep the talent pool in the United States is.  It's nowhere near the best team the country could field.  That one would feature Auston Matthews, Chris Kreider, Jack Eichel, Adam Fox, Connor Hellebuyck in goal, etc.  (Seth Jones did play at the World Championships and had 30-plus minutes of ice time in some games.)  But a team that clearly wasn't all the best players in the U.S. still made it the semifinals.

Then there's the fact that the World Championships aren't nearly as important in the United States as they are in the other participating countries.  The tournament is played in Europe every year, partially because of the Stanley Cup Playoffs taking place in North America, partially because the tournament matters much more to the Europeans.  The U.S. and Canada focus more on Olympic gold.  The Europeans want to win the World Championship.

All of the European leagues finish their season before the World Championships start.  So, the players in those leagues are all available for the tournament.  The only ones missing are the handful that play in the NHL.  That's obviously the best players in those countries.  I'm sure Germany wouldn't mind having Leon Draisaitl and Sweden would obviously want Mika Zibanejad and Gabriel Landeskog on the roster.  (Russia was barred from the tournament, so Tampa Bay's Russians wouldn't have been able to play at Worlds regardless.)  But those countries don't have all of their top players playing in the NHL, so they're still able to field a team with some of the best players the country has to offer.

More importantly, they're able to put their team together much earlier and actually practice together.  That chemistry can make a major difference.  Especially when the U.S. and Canada have guys flying in mid-tournament who they not only have to work in with everyone who's already there, they have to do it while throwing those players immediately into game situations.

While not as significant as some of the other factors, I think the fact that Worlds are always in Europe makes a difference, too.  The Europeans don't have to adjust to the time difference.  The North Americans do.  And that's made even more difficult for the guys who are eliminated from the Stanley Cup Playoffs, then immediately head to Worlds.  I'm not saying they're all jetlagged.  But would it really be a surprise if they were?

This is also hockey we're talking about here.  Hockey and soccer are probably the only two sports where you can go into a World Cup or World Championships or Olympic tournament and honestly have no idea who's gonna win.  That's because there isn't much separation between the top teams.  So, if everyone's healthy and at full strength, anybody can beat anybody.

When you consider all those things, then, it shouldn't really be completely surprising that the United States isn't a regular medalist at the IIHF World Championships.  At the five Olympics that featured NHL players (1998-2014), the U.S. won two silver medals, but also lost a bronze medal game and was eliminated in the quarterfinals twice.  So, even a team of NHL players isn't guaranteed victory (or a medal at all).

But still, 11 straight semifinal losses is a crazy stat.  It shows that the team the United States is sending to the World Championships is clearly good enough to be competitive.  Just not as good as whoever they run into in the semifinals.  And there probably isn't one specific reason why they can't get over the semifinal hump.  It's probably a combination of all those things.

Although, frankly, even winning the World Championship probably wouldn't resonate that much with American hockey fans who are preoccupied with the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Hopefully I'm wrong about that one and we'll eventually find out.  Because the U.S. has to win a semifinal eventually.  Right?

Back Home Again In Indiana

For the first time since, we'll have a "normal" Indy 500 this year.  It won't be delayed until September.  It won't be held in front of a limited crowd.  Nope, we'll have all the traditional pageantry and 100,000-plus people cramming into the Indianapolis Motor Speedway on Memorial Day Weekend for the Greatest Spectacle In Racing.  And the weather in the Indianapolis area is supposed to be beautiful, too!

Not that last year's scaled-down event wasn't history-making.  Helio Castroneves finally joined A.J. Foyt, Al Unser and Rick Mears on the Indy 500 Mount Rushmore with his fourth win, 12 years after his third and 20 years after his first.  Helio's first two were back-to-back.  If he does it again (20 years apart), he'll become the first-ever five-time Indy 500 champion.

Helio's one of eight former champions in the field, and those former champs are littered all over the starting grid.  Scott Dixon's on the pole and Tony Kanaan's on the outside of Row 2, while two-time champ Takuma Sato and Will Power are in Row 4.  Then there's Simon Pagenuad (Row 6) and Alex Rossi (Row 7) in the middle of the field, while Helio (Row 9) and Juan Pablo Montoya (Row 10) are in the back.

Those former champions don't even include a guy who's technically a rookie, but has won at the Brickyard four times.  That's right, seven-time NASCAR Cup champion Jimmie Johnson is making his Indy 500 debut.  And he's starting alongside two Indy 500 winners (Takuma Sato and Will Power) in Row 4.  So, while I don't think he'll win, it wouldn't shock me to see the number 48 car near the front at the end.

I'm not at all surprised to see Jimmie Johnson doing well in Indy Car.  You knew he wouldn't have made the switch if he didn't feel he could compete.  And his being in the race only adds to the intrigue.  Because of timing, it's impossible to try and do the 1100 miles of racing in one day at both Indy and Charlotte that Tony Stewart did a few times anymore.  But Johnson had been indicating for a while that he wanted to race the Indy 500 at least once in his career.  Now he'll get his chance.

While Johnson is the rookie most likely to sip the milk, he's far from the only driver capable of winning his first Indy 500 title.  In fact, there's a handful of drivers who've come awfully close in the past and have set themselves up well to have this year be the year.

That list starts with Alex Palou, the 2021 Indy Car Series champion who was second last year.  He'll be starting alongside Rinus VeeKay, who'll be making his third career Indy 500 start and has never qualified lower than fourth.  J.R. Hildebrand, meanwhile, famously led around the final turn in 2011 before crashing and finishing second, while Pato O'Ward has finsihed sixth and fourth in his two previous Indy 500 starts.  And Ed Carpenter, the local Indianapolis product, always starts in the front.  Will this be the year he finishes there, too? 

Or will it be one of the legacy drivers?  The Andretti family is Indy Car royalty.  Yet Mario's win in 1969 is still the family's only title.  Marco is back for the 17th consecutive time looking to finally get that second one.  Graham Rahal, meanwhile, seems to alternate top five finishes with DNF's.  He was third in 2020 and 32nd last year.  So that should mean 2022 will be one of his good years.

Stefan Wilson intrigues me, too.  He had trouble with his car on the day of qualifying and wasn't able to make an official attempt.  However, since only 33 cars were entered, he was guaranteed a spot in the race and will start at the back of the field.  But we have no idea how fast his car actually is!  Will he have a really good one and surge to the front or will he be in the back the whole time?

Speaking of qualifying, it was fast.  And I mean fast!  So fast, in fact, that pole-sitter Scott Dixon had the second-fastest qualifying run in Indy 500 history, and this is the fastest front row ever.  In fact, the first eight cars had qualifying speeds greater than 232 mph (and Romain Grosjean qualified ninth at 231.999).

Will the fast qualifying speeds translate into fast speeds on race day?  Not necessarily.  But I think the weather and track conditions mean it's definitely possible.  Beyond that, though, you've got a lot of drivers who know their cars are fast, so if they make the right decisions and things break their way, their hopes of winning are very realistic.

Knowing how fast qualifying was has me really excited for the race itself!  Qualifying speeds are obviously faster than what we'll see in the actual race.  But I think there's a chance we'll see at least one more record fall.  Whether it's the fastest individual lap or the fastest race (last year's was done in just over two and a half hours), something special's gonna happen at the Brickyard.  How could it not when it'll be a full house for the first time in three years?!

So, who's the favorite?  Well, I'm not usually one to just go with the chalk, but in this case I think that's the safest bet.  Because Scott Dixon didn't just set a record with his 234.046 mph qualifying average, he's had the best car all month long.  It's his fifth career Indy pole and second straight (after starting second in 2020).  Last year, he ended up finishing 17th, so you know that will motivate him too.

It's more than that, though.  It's how impressive Dixon has been while dominating the Brickyard this month.  This reminds me of 2008, when he started on the pole, led 115 laps and won by almost two seconds.  Do I think his race performance will be as dominant as the one 14 years ago?  Probably not.  But he's absolutely the one to beat.

MLB Expansion Planning?

MLB's new playoff format this season and new schedule next season have gotten me thinking that something bigger might be at play.  After adding four teams in the 90s, it's been 25 years since the Diamondbacks and Rays began play.  And, while expanding beyond 30 teams isn't imminent, the way things will be set up moving forward sure makes it look like it's possible.  In fact, it would make going to 32 fairly easy.

Now, I'm not advocating for MLB expansion by any means!  While there are some markets that don't have MLB teams and would like one, Baseball hasn't really expressed much of a desire to add two more.  But, for the sake of this exercise, let's act like there is.  Because it'd be really tough to do the 32-team example with only 30 teams!

So where am I putting these expansion teams?  Well, the first location should be obvious.  Welcome back, Montreal Expos!  As for expansion team No. 2, I'm going with a city that everybody wants.  Assuming the A's don't move to Las Vegas first (which is a very realistic possibility), Las Vegas gets one anyway via expansion.

Montreal, obviously, would go to the National League.  Which means Las Vegas would go to the American League.  And, now that there's 16 teams in each league, I'm adding a fourth division, which is important for a couple reasons.  First, four divisions means four division winners, which means you don't have a wild card team with home-field advantage in the first round of the playoffs.  Second, four four-team divisions is necessary for the schedule I've devised.

Just like when they added the Centrals or when the Brewers switched leagues or, more recently, when the Astros switched leagues, the changes to the divisions wouldn't be too drastic.  There'd obviously have to be some moving, and some teams wouldn't be happy about their new division foes, but that's always the case with any realignment.  And the divisions I've come up with are the least disruptive possible.

The new divisions are the AL and NL South, which probably gives you at least a little bit of an idea who's getting put there.  In the NL, Braves, Marlins and Nationals are obvious.  The fourth team might surprise you, though.  It's not the Cardinals.  I didn't want to separate them and the Cubs.  So, instead, it's the Reds going to the NL South (even though Cincinnati isn't really "south"...but neither is Indianapolis!).

I have another reason for the seemingly odd fit of Cincinnati in the South.  All four of those cities are in the Eastern time zone, so it's less burdensome travel-wise, especially when you consider that the Rockies would obviously be the team moving from the NL West to the NL Central.  If I'd kept the Reds there, that division would have three time zones.  A division of Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers, Rockies, meanwhile, only covers two (Central and Mountain).

What about Pittsburgh, you ask?  The Pirates have wanted back into the NL East pretty much ever since they were placed in the Central.  Now they finally get to.  They join the Mets, Phillies and Expos in the NL East.  (The NL West, obviously, would be Dodgers, Giants, Padres and Diamondbacks, the four teams in the Pacific time zone.)

In the American League, Tampa Bay is the outlier team.  The East (Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles) and West (Angels, A's, Mariners, Las Vegas) are fairly straightforward.  So is the Central, really (White Sox, Tigers, Twins, Guardians).  And Kansas City's close enough to the two Texas teams for it to make sense.  The Rays join those three and take the last spot in the AL South.  (And the distance from Tampa to Houston is roughly the same as Tampa to Baltimore.)

Next year's schedule drops the number of division series from six against each opponent to four against each opponent.  That's 16 total series against your division.  Or, looking at it a different way, you're reducing the number of series you play against one opponent from four to two.  Which frees up two series for you to play against Montreal/Las Vegas.

Teams will be playing 16 interleague series a year starting next season.  Having 16 teams in each league would make that really easy.  One against everybody, eight at home, eight away.  Then you flip it.  Of course, the only issue with that (and one I haven't been able to figure out how to resolve) is that you wouldn't have a home-and-home against your partner, which wouldn't sit well and likely wouldn't fly.  That issue aside, though, as you can see, it would otherwise be fairly easy to add two teams.

Although, I'll be the first to admit, the divisions I came up with only work because of where I put the new teams.  If MLB actually were to expand and go somewhere like Nashville, it could lead to more drastic adjustments (Arizona to the AL West and Nashville in the NL South?).  Likewise, if Oakland actually does move to Las Vegas or the Rays leave Tampa Bay, that would obviously change things, too.

But, assuming nothing changes and the 30 existing teams remain in their current home markets, it's easy to envision a scenario where MLB decides to expand and puts the new teams in Montreal and Las Vegas.  And if they were to do that, I can see a divisional alignment that's pretty close to the one I just outlined.

With all that being said, however, I sure hope we don't see MLB expansion and/or realignment anytime soon.  I wouldn't be surprised if it happens, though.  Because, with next year's schedule and playoff format, they've set themselves up to do it. 

Punishing Wimbledon? Or the Players?

As soon as Wimbledon announced that Russian and Belarusian players would be banned from this year's tournament, you knew the ATP and WTA would have a reaction.  Both tours said that the unilateral move was a breach of contract and threatened to pull Wimbledon's raking points if they went through with it.  Well, they did.  And they did.

Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament in tennis.  The lack of ranking points won't change that.  They don't award ranking points for the Davis/Fed Cup or Olympics either, and that doesn't stop the top players from representing their country in those events.  The difference with Wimbledon, of course, is that as a Grand Slam, it offers the most points of any tournament on tour.  Not this year, though.  Barring a last-minute change, Wimbledon 2022 will effectively be an exhibition tournament.

After her first-round loss at the French Open, Naomi Osaka indicated she wasn't sure if she'd play Wimbledon or not.  The lack of ranking points was essentially the sole reason why.  (Although, Osaka didn't play Wimbledon last year, so she has no points to defend.)  I'm sure she won't be the only one.  The prestige of winning Wimbledon and the prize money will be enough to still draw the type of field you'd expect, but that might not be enough incentive for some, especially with no ranking points at stake.

What makes the ATP and WTA's decision to strip Wimbledon of its ranking points even worse is that last year's Wimbledon points will still come off once the tournament is over.  So, everybody will lose their Wimbledon points from 2021 and replace them with 0.  And, since Grand Slam points are automatically included for every player, they're stuck with that 0 until Wimbledon 2023.

So, in effect, the players will be penalized for playing Wimbledon.  Novak Djokovic will lose the 2000 ranking points he got for winning last year.  As a result, he'll lose the No. 1 ranking.  To Daniil Medvedev.  One of the Russian players who's not allowed to even play Wimbledon!

While Djokovic is the easiest example, he isn't the only one who'll see a precipitous ranking drop after Wimbledon.  What about finalists Matteo Berrettini and Karolina Pliskova?  Or out-of-nowhere men's semifinalist Hubert Hurkacz (who beat Federer in the quarters in Roger's most recent match)?  None of them will have a chance to defend their Wimbledon points.

That's what has the players so upset with the ATP and WTA over their decision to turn Wimbledon into a glorified exhibition tournament.  They did it without getting any input from the players, so that rubbed them the wrong way to start.  But mainly, the players are wondering whose side the tours are on.  Because stripping Wimbledon of ranking points doesn't penalize Wimbledon.  It penalizes the players. 

It also sends mixed messages.  Who do you actually support?  I get that the tours don't think the actions by the Russian and Belarusian governments should be held against players from those two countries, which is why they're allowing them to continue playing while not having a national flag next to their name.  But what are you saying to everybody else who isn't Russian or Belarusian?  And what does that say to the Ukranian players on tour?

This isn't some random tournament, either.  If they're ranked high enough, players are required to enter the Grand Slams.  If they're injured or choose not to play for another reason, they get 0 ranking points and those stay on there for a full 12 months until the next year's edition of the tournament.  That's why you always hear about players having to "defend" points and the rankings fluctuate so dramatically after the Grand Slams.

In 2020 and 2021, both the ATP and WTA rankings were a little more flexible because of COVID.  Since so many tournaments were cancelled and some players chose not to or were unable to play in certain tournaments because of travel restrictions, the rankings weren't based on the standard 12-month rolling period.  If a tournament was played twice, only the player's better result counted towards their ranking.  A fair and reasonable solution.

Now that things are back to normal, however, the rankings are back to normal, too.  Your results stay on your ranking for a full year until the next edition of that tournament is played (assuming the dates are the same).  So, everyone's French Open points will be adjusted at the end of the tournament, with their 2021 points coming off and their 2022 points going on.  And those 2022 points will stay on their ranking until the end of the 2023 French Open.

Even though they've announced that ranking points won't be awarded for Wimbledon, they're still removing everyone's 2021 Wimbledon points.  That's the part that really doesn't sit well with me.  Especially because there's such an obvious compromise that can be reached.

Whether it's right or wrong, the ATP and WTA have every right to withhold ranking points from Wimbledon.  Just like Wimbledon has every right to follow British government regulations and not allow Russian or Belarusian players to enter the tournament.  And there's a way for both of them to make their point without the players paying the price.

All they need to do is do what they did when tennis was on pause and the rankings were frozen.  If they're determined to "punish" Wimbledon by not awarding any ranking points for the tournament, that's fine.  But then don't have everybody's points from Wimbledon 2021 drop off.  That way nobody has to replace whatever they earned last year with a 0.

While I'm sure there's a solution to be reached, that would be the fairest way to handle things from a player's perspective.  Yes, the prize money will be the same whether the tournament's "official" or "exhibition," and it would still be a Grand Slam title.  But the ranking points are just as important.  Especially for the lower-ranked players.  Most tournaments use the rankings to determine who gets direct entry, so being ranked high enough to get into some of the lower-level events is a very big deal to them.

None of this is ideal.  Obviously.  But there's a fair solution out there.  And it needs to be one that doesn't negatively impact the players who choose to play Wimbledon.  Which right now there isn't.

Just a Dumb Thing to Say

Tensions rose between the Yankees and White Sox this weekend.  It all started on Saturday when Josh Donaldson made what can only be classified as a stupid comment to Tim Anderson.  Anderson didn't take it well, so he made sure people knew what was said and that he didn't appreciate it.  Donaldson didn't deny it and offered a pretty weak explanation, which only made matters worse.  Ultimately, he was suspended one game by Major League Baseball, which seems appropriate.

The White Sox pitching coach doesn't think a fine and one-game suspension is enough, but that's what I think most people were expecting.  I'm not sure exactly what type of punishment he thinks Donaldson deserved, but it was never gonna be much more than two games.  And the fact that he was suspended at all speaks volumes.

For those of you who might've missed it, the incident I'm referring to happened in the first inning of Saturday's game, when Donaldson called Anderson "Jackie," in reference to Jackie Robinson.  He claims he was trying to make a joke, and it's something he and Anderson have joked about before, stemming from a 2019 Sports Illustrated article in which Anderson said he felt like "today's Jackie Robinson."

Whether they've joked about it in the past or not, Anderson didn't take it that way on Saturday.  He was offended, calling the comment "disrespectful" and "unnecessary."  Tony La Russa was the one who said it was "racist" in his postgame press conference, but it was clear Anderson felt that way, as well.

Aaron Boone didn't exactly defend Donaldson, either.  He acknowledged that there likely wasn't malicious intent (which is probably true), but still admitted Donaldson shouldn't have said it.  To his credit, Donaldson apologized.  It was too little, too late though.  The damage had already been done.

It's also worth noting that Donaldson and the White Sox have history, which probably came into play.  When he played for the Twins last season, he got into it with Lucas Giolito after homering off him in a game that was shortly after the MLB ban on sticky substances took effect.  And, earlier this season, there was a separate bench-clearing incident in Chicago when Anderson shoved Donaldson after a hard tag. 

That, evidently, is why Donaldson felt the need to "diffuse the tension" by making what he thought was a light-hearted joke.  It was, at best, a joke in very poor taste.  And just ask Chris Rock about how well telling a joke in poor taste that somebody else doesn't find very funny can go!  The difference, though, is that, in poor taste or not, Chris Rock's Jada Pinkett/GI Jane joke was obviously that.  A joke.  Anderson, meanwhile, had no idea if Donaldson was joking or not.

And, even if you gave Donaldson the benefit of the doubt, there's a time and a place.  Say you actually are friendly with an opponent and you want to joke around during batting practice.  No problem at all!  When you bring it into a game situation, though, you'd better be sure it'll be taken the way you intended.  Otherwise, things like this can happen.

What was even the point of saying it, too?  Because the chances of it blowing up in your face, like it did with Donaldson, are pretty freakin' high!  And, when it does blow up in your face, there's gonna be consequences.  So, like I said, malicious intent or not, it was just an incredibly dumb thing to say.  Especially in the middle of a game!

As soon as MLB said that they were investigating the incident, you knew a suspension was likely.  Especially since no one was disputing any details about what happened.  Both Donaldson and Anderson acknowledged what was said and told their side of the story.  That's why the investigation didn't take very long.  It took them all of two days to determine Donaldson's thoughtless comment warranted a one-game suspension.

Donaldson has appealed, which is his right under the CBA.  Since you can't reduce a one-game suspension, the only options MLB has on the appeal are to uphold the one-game ban or reduce it to just a fine.  Frankly, I don't think it will or should be reduced to just a fine.  Because that would send just as big of a message as the decision to suspend him did.  Only the opposite message!

Regardless of how the appeal plays out, Donaldson's suspension is MLB saying pretty clearly that racist comments are completely unacceptable.  Just like how Trevor Bauer's two-year ban also sent a pretty clear message.  I'm not trying to compare the two in any way.  Donaldon's comment and Bauer's behavior are in no way the same.  But they were both taken seriously, and MLB made similar conclusions.

In the grand scheme of things, one game is nothing.  Donaldson has already gotten plenty of days off over the first six months of the season, and he's currently on the COVID IL, so he'll miss a few days for that, too.  (The ironic thing is that if he had just accepted the suspension, the Yankees could've just waited a day to put him on the COVID IL and had him serve it on Monday.)  That's not the point, though.  The point is this is something that should not happen, and, if it does, there will be a price to pay.

So, I ask again...was it worth it?  The damage was done as soon as Donaldson opened his mouth, and, frankly, he was lucky to only get a one-game suspension.  Hopefully that's enough to get the point across.  Because it really is pretty simple.  As your mother always told you when you were little, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all."

Top-Heavy Men's Draw, Clear Women's Favorite

France evidently doesn't have the same type of COVID restrictions as Australia.  Because the unvaccinated Novak Djokovic is in Paris and ready to defend his title, as he tries once again to equal the all-time men's record for Grand Slam titles.  And, as we know, the man who currently holds that record--Rafael Nadal--has won just a few Coupes de Mousquetaires in his career.

Somehow Nadal is ranked No. 5, which meant one of the top four would be very unhappy when the draw came out and they saw his name as a potential quarterfinal opponent.  As fate turns out, that top-four seed was Djokovic.  They met in the semis last year and Djokovic won in four.  It was just the third French Open loss in Nadal's career.  Two of them are to Djokovic.

Although, I don't think the winner of that quarterfinal wins the tournament.  That's right!  For the first time in as long as I can remember, I'm not picking Nadal to win the French Open this year.  So, who am I picking?  The man who I see beating the Djokovic-Nadal winner in the semifinals.  Sixth-seeded Carlos Alcaraz.

Alcaraz just turned 19.  He was born in 2003, the same year his coach, Juan Carlos Ferrero won the title here.  That was also two years before Nadal's first French Open win.  And how old was Nadal when he won in 2005?  I'm glad you asked.  He was 19!

See where I'm going here?  Carlos Alcaraz is poised to become the next big thing in men's tennis.  His Grand Slam breakthrough came at last year's US Open, where he made the quarterfinals (and Brad Gilbert started calling him "Escape from Alcaraz" after the excellent Clint Eastwood movie!).  And that was just the beginning.  Alcaraz went on to win the 2021 ATP Finals.  Then, at the French Open warm-up tournament in Madrid, he beat both Djokovic and Nadal back-to-back en route to the title.

In the Madrid final, Alcaraz beat Olympic gold medalist Alexander Zverev (the defending champion).  And, as fate would have it, the other quarterfinal on the top half of the men's draw could be Alcaraz-Zverev.  So, like I said, the first, second, third and fourth favorites are all in the top half of the draw!  Which means those quarters and semis will be incredible!

Even though the four guys who I think are most likely to win are all on the top half, that doesn't mean the bottom half of the draw is completely bare.  Stefanos Tsitsipas had a two-set lead on Djokovic in the final last year and probably should've won.  Meanwhile, the two men playing without a flag and who won't be welcome at Wimbledon--Daniil Medvedev and Andrey Rublev could meet in another quarterfinal matchup.  I'm not sure what the point situation is, but Medvedev took over No. 1 briefly a few months ago and Djokovic has champion points to defend, so it's possible that he could regain the No. 1 ranking with a deep run.

The women's No. 1 ranking, meanwhile, simply changed hands rather oddly when Ash Barty abruptly announced her retirement.  That meant No. 2 Iga Swiatek automatically took over the top spot.  And Swiatek, the newly-minted No. 1, is the overwhelming favorite to lift the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen for the second time in three years.

Of course, last year's champion, Barbora Krejcikova may have something to say about that.  She was unseeded during her run to the title in 2021.  This year, she won't be sneaking up on anybody.  She's the No. 2 seed.  And, frankly, she's got a pretty tough draw that includes 2016 champion Garbine Muguruza and fourth-seeded Maria Sakkari, who had a match point on her in the semifinals last year.

Another player who I'm looking out for is sixth-seeded Ons Jabeur.  Like her fellow No. 6 seed Alcaraz, Jabeur won the title in Madrid, making her the first Arab woman to win a tour title.  She's the highest-ranked Arab player in either WTA or ATP history, in fact.  And I wouldn't be surprised to see her make some more history as the first Arab woman to reach a Grand Slam semifinal (or beyond).

Jabeur also has a chance to keep up a kind of unique stat.  Each of the last six French Open women's winners were first-time Grand Slam champions.  She's not the only one who can continue that streak, though.  Third-seeded Paola Badosa was a quarterfinalist last year (where she lost 8-6 in the third), and fourth-seeded Sakkari has never won a Grand Slam title, either.

They aren't the only ones.  Of the top eight seeds, only Swiatek and Krejcikova, the last two champions here, have won a Grand Slam title.  So, this could finally be the opportunity for Karolina Pliskova or Anett Kontaveit.  Then there's Aryna Sabalenka, who's facing the same Wimbledon ban as Medvedev and Rublev.  She's welcome to play in Paris, though.  Will she be inspired?

There's also an American who I think has a halfway decent chance.  Jessica Pegula made the quarterfinals at the Australian Open and lost to Jabeur in the Madrid final.  She's seeded 11th, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if she makes a run.  If she does go on a run, it's likely that Pegula will crack the top 10 for the first time in her career.

But, this is the French Open.  And, as that six-year streak has proven, it really is anybody's tournament on the women's side.  I have a feeling that streak is about to come to an end, though.  Iga Swiatek is the best player in the world, she's on a roll, and clay is her best surface.  If she doesn't win, it will be a massive surprise.

NILs Already A Mess

So, as it turns out, schools are taking advantage of the Name & Image Likeness legislation to "steer" recruits in their direction, which, while not directly an NCAA violation, certainly toes the line.  Who could possibly have seen this coming?  Oh, that's right!  Everybody!   

This all came to a head over the past couple days and the tit-for-tat between Alabama Head Coach Nick Saban and Texas A&M Head Coach Jimbo Fisher.  Saban singled out Texas A&M specifically in his criticism of the NIL system, which he feels could ruin college sports as we know them, especially if NIL deals are being used as a ruse to effectively pay high school players (which, again, is probably the biggest NCAA violation possible).

We've come a long way from the incredibly corrupt mid-80s, when the SMU football program was famously shut down for two entire seasons because of its egregious (and out in the open) NCAA violations that included regular payments to players, as well as other gifts to entice them to sign with SMU.  SMU's "death penalty" is one of the darkest moments in NCAA history.  But it was also necessary.  Now, 35 years later, we're looking at situations similar to SMU all over again.  All because of the NIL legislation.

To be clear, this isn't entirely the NCAA's fault.  They weren't proactive, which is true.  And they only agreed to come up with NIL guidelines after their hands were forced by various states that implemented their own laws allowing them.  So, they had to quickly cobble something together in response that applied to all NCAA athletes.

Even after being adjusted to allow for NIL deals, NCAA rules are still pretty simple and pretty clear.  Student-athletes cannot be paid directly for their participation in athletics.  Unfortunately, the NCAA has taken a hands-off approach and left enforcement up to the individual schools.  Which meant that there would inevitably be some that found ways to buck the system.

It came in the way of "collectives," which began popping up over the summer almost immediately after the NIL legislation passed.  These collectives all operate a little differently, but they pretty much serve the same purpose.  They take money from boosters and/or fans and redistribute it to student-athletes through NIL deals...some of which are contingent on attending a particular school.

Jackson State, another school Saban mentioned specifically by name, is another one of the big culprits here.  Deion Sanders is the head coach at Jackson State and he landed one of the top recruiting classes in the nation, including one player who flipped his commitment from Florida State after allegedly receiving a seven-figure NIL offer to attend Jackson State instead.  He's evidently not the only one, either.  None of which technically violates any rules, however.

That's another quirky thing about NIL deals.  Boosters are considered representatives of a school or that school's interests, and accepting anything from a booster is still a no-no.  However, these collectives are technically third-party entities, and they ARE allowed to accept money and endorsement deals from third parties.  And that line is incredibly blurry.

Ten days ago, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors published new guidelines reiterating its rules about boosters.  Boosters should not have any contact with potential student-athletes, their families or their representatives.  That includes collectives.  Any booster or collective who reaches out to a prospective student-athlete or signs them to an NIL deal that only applies if they attend a certain school is an NCAA violation.

Being paid directly to play a sport makes you a professional athlete.  Even though the definition of "amateur" is becoming more and more vague, that's the biggest difference between NCAA sports and pro sports.  The pros are paid to play.  NCAA athletes are not.  NIL laws haven't changed that, either.  They, as well as NCAA rules, still specifically state that athletes cannot be paid for their participation.  That would make them a professional.  Which they are not.

Since this was the first full recruiting cycle in the NIL era, coaches wanted clarity before hitting the recruiting trail.  Because if one school can offer you something extra that somebody else can't, but only if you play for them, that's obviously a huge recruiting advantage.  And that's not the purpose of the NIL either.  The NIL is supposed to benefit the student-athlete, not the school.  (Although, the argument could be made that deals to attend a specific school benefit both parties equally.)

I think that was Saban's point.  His argument was that the model is both out of control and not sustainable, especially when representatives of high school players are calling these collectives for the sole purpose of shopping around for the school that will offer the best NIL (and making sure that they get their cut).  While he shouldn't have singled out Texas A&M and Jackson State, his point is a valid one.  Especially since you know more and more money is gonna be poured into these NIL deals as the years go on.

Now, whether his criticism of Texas A&M is justified I don't know, but Saban wasn't the first coach to call out the Aggies.  Mississippi Head Coach Lane Kiffen joked that they'd have to pay a luxury tax on their signings.  So, two coaches of conference opponents (who are almost certainly recruiting some of the same players) saying effectively the same thing leads me to believe that there's at least some truth to it.

Will the NCAA's new clarification make a difference when it comes to NIL deals and football/basketball recruiting?  Only time will tell.  But Nick Saban was right about one thing.  Something needed to be done before it got completely out of control.  If it isn't already.

Stanley Cup Second Round, 2022

Wow!  The first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs were something else!  Five Game 7's!  Two Game 7's that went to overtime on the same night!  Of a possible 56 games across the eight series, 51 were played, and there was only one sweep. 

Compare that to the NBA, where the first round was the opposite of competitive.  All eight of the higher-seeded teams advanced.  Yes, two second-round series in the NBA did reach Game 7.  And both Game 7's were blowouts!  That certainly wasn't the case in hockey!

Not only did five of the eight series go seven, they were incredibly evenly-matched across the board.  Calgary outscored Dallas 15-14 in the series.  The Penguins actually outscored the Rangers by one, helped by those back-to-back seven-goal performances in Games 3 & 4.  The Leafs outscored the Lightning by a goal, too.  Only Colorado-Nashville wasn't close, and even that series had an overtime game!

All credit to the big-name players too!  They really showed up, especially in the Game 7's!  Connor McDavid wasn't going to let the Oilers lose, and Johnny Gaudreau scored the OT winner for Calgary.  The Rangers got goals from Zibanejad, Kreider AND Panarin in Game 7.  And Tampa Bay, well, that's a team of superstars!

Let's not forget the performances of the goalies, either.  Specifically Pittsburgh's Matt Domingue, who began the series as the third-stringer, yet ended up starting five games, and Jake Oettinger of the Stars with that incredible Game 7.  It's long been said that a hot goalie can win you a series (or a Cup).  Both of them almost did exactly that.

After a first round that was so good, what could the second round possibly have in store?  Well, we've got the first Battle of Alberta in the postseason since 1991, two rematches of first-round series from last season, and a matchup that we saw in the 2020 bubble (albeit with a much different Rangers team than the one that got swept by the Hurricanes then).  We're also guaranteed a Canadian Western Conference finalist.

Panthers-Lightning: I knew Florida was good.  They won the President's Trophy for a reason.  Still, I didn't know how good until I watched that Capitals series.  The Panthers are very complete in all phases, and they've got incredible depth.  It's why they won their first playoff series since 1996, when they went all the way to the Stanley Cup Final.  

Winning another series will be tough, though.  Because they're playing an opponent that knows them well in the Lightning.  While that's important, it's not as important as what could be the real determining factor in this series.  Experience.  The Lightning have it in abundance.  They've won two straight Cups and have been to five of the last seven Eastern Conference Finals.  (Of course, the irony is the year they won the President's Trophy, they got swept in the first round.)  The Lightning have won nine consecutive playoff series.  In a variety of ways.  I just can't pick against them.  Tampa Bay in six.

Hurricanes-Rangers: When these two met in the Toronto bubble in 2020, the Rangers were completely overmatched against the Hurricanes.  That's most definitely not the case this year.  These teams are even on pretty much every level, which is why they were neck-and-neck atop the Metropolitan Division all season.  Of course, Carolina was the better team in both of those games at Madison Square Garden in April, so we'll see how much of an impact that has.

Igor Shesterkin was at times brilliant, at times terrible in the Penguins series.  If he plays well, the Rangers will be very tough to beat.  If he doesn't, it could be Games 3 & 4 in Pittsburgh all over again.  I don't want to simplify it down to how well the Rangers' goalie plays, but, frankly, that might be the difference.  They're so evenly-matched across the board that some little thing might end up having a huge impact.  And it could be what decides the series.  Carolina in seven.

Avalanche-Blues: Before the playoffs started, I said that nobody in the West could compete with Colorado.  After the first round, I'm still convinced of that.  The only team that can beat the Avalanche is the Avalanche.  The Blues definitely have a much better chance of being competitive with them than the Predators did, but will St. Louis beat them?  Definitely not.  Maybe one or two games, but not four.  

The craziest thing about this series is the fact that while everybody else was doing battle in Game 7, these two have been sitting around waiting to play each other.  The Avalanche haven't played since last Monday, and St. Louis-Minnesota was the second series done.  So, any advantage one might've had because of the extra rest (or, the playing vs. rust factor) is completely negated.  Colorado in five.

Flames-Oilers: This is the series I'm looking forward to the most.  Two teams that aren't very far and do not like each other, who are meeting in the playoffs for the first time in 30 years.  As exhausted as they must both be after those hard-fought seven-game series against LA and Dallas, that should all be gone once the puck drops for Game 1.  That's what playing a rival in the playoffs can do for you.

Both teams have talent in abundance, and they'll need their stars to show up the way they did in their respective Game 7's.  Of course, one of Edmonton's biggest weapons is Leon Draisaitl, who was injured in Game 7 against the Kings.  If he's not at 100 percent, that puts even more pressure on Connor McDavid and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins.  Although, the Oilers finally got over that hump and got their first series win with this group.  That should take a ton of pressure off.  Which should let Edmonton let loose and set up a Western Conference Final between Colorado and the only team that might have a chance of possibly beating them.  Edmonton in six.

2022 NFL Schedule Reaction

Like most things NFL-related, the schedule release has become ridiculously drawn out and overblown.  They had separate announcements for the international games, then the first Thursday night game, then one of the three Christmas games, then the first Monday night "doubleheader" (which isn't actually a doubleheader).  Then, once we finally got to the actual schedule announcement, they didn't even do that all at once!  We found out each team's home opener (which, by default, meant all of Week 1), but still had to wait for the entire thing.

They've also started doing the schedule later, although their explanation for that made perfect sense.  They wait until after the draft just in case interesting matchups emerge from that.  But they also had to go back to the drawing board after the Russell Wilson trade and Tom Brady's retirement, followed by Brady's un-retirement.  But, we've got a schedule at last.  And, as usual, there are some good matchups every week.

Week 1: I did not have the Bills pegged as the Rams' opponent to open the season.  I was sure it would be Dallas.  But the Cowboys will host Brady on Sunday night instead (in a game I thought would be on Thanksgiving).  Oh, and Russell Wilson's reunion with the Seahawks comes right off the bat in the Monday night opener.

Week 2: Chargers-Chiefs as the first Amazon exclusive.  Because it's not like people want to watch that game or anything!  Also, NFL, playing two Monday night games that are on different networks and overlap does not constitute a "doubleheader."  Bucs-Saints is also relegated to a 1:00 regional game.  Shows how little a draw New Orleans is now.

Week 3: In Week 3, Ravens-Patriots is cross-flexed to FOX.  Why?  I have no idea!  I still don't understand how the cross-flexing works and how they choose which games to flip networks.  We've also got what might be the last Rodgers vs. Brady matchup as the doubleheader game on FOX before San Francisco-Denver, which for some reason is the Sunday night game.  I'm also not sure why both Giants-Cowboys games are on national TV.

Week 4: NBC gets the first Kansas City-Tampa Bay game since the Super Bowl LV blowout.  They were so excited about it, they had Mike Tirico announce it on the Today Show.  The Monday night game, meanwhile, is an NFC Championship Game rematch between the West Coast rival Rams and 49ers.  We've also got the first of the London games in Week 4, Minnesota vs. New Orleans.

Week 5: Another four-game Sunday with Giants-Packers in London.  The best 1:00 game might be Chargers-Browns, while FOX has the doubleheader, and here's where we get Cowboys-Rams.  Meanwhile, they're going with division matchups on Sunday (Cincinnati-Baltimore) and Monday (Raiders-Chiefs) night.

Week 6: Green Bay plays back-to-back "home" games against the New York teams, but the matchup with the Jets is at Lambeau.  Neither they nor the Giants get the post-London bye that was once common.  CBS has the doubleheader, and they wisely made Bills-Chiefs their only late game, meaning the entire nation gets to see the rematch of that epic Divisional Playoff that led to a likely (and completely unnecessary) rule change.

Week 7: Kansas City will have rematches of both its recent Super Bowls in the first seven weeks of the season.  This time, it's a visit to San Francisco.  Week 7's primetime games, frankly, are duds.  Saints-Cardinals on Thursday night, Steelers-Dolphins on Sunday night, Bears-Patriots on Monday night.  But I guess that's what happens when the Bills, Rams, Vikings and Eagles all have the same bye week!

Week 8: Is it just me, or is it always either the Packers or Steelers playing in the Sunday night game opposite the World Series?  Meanwhile, there's not one, but two! games that are only available via subscription to a streaming service in Week 8!  Ravens-Bucs on Amazon is actually a decent game.  Broncos-Jaguars on ESPN+, though?  That should draw comparable ratings to some of the college games that are exclusive to ESPN+.

Week 9: We hit the midway point with six teams enjoying their bye week!  I hate the six-team byes for a number of reasons, one of them being the limited number of good matchups that week.  Yet they still managed to give us Rams-Bucs, which will be another nationally-exclusive doubleheader late game.  That's also the best game of the week, although Tennessee-Kansas City on Sunday night gives it a run for its money.  

Week 10: The NFL's first regular season game in Germany will have the same 9:30 am Eastern start time as the London games.  Which means Seahawks fans will have to get up awfully early for that 6:30 am local time kickoff!  There's also a New Orleans-Pittsburgh matchup that's pretty intriguing, as well as a pair of good late games on FOX--Cowboys at Packers and Cardinals at Rams.

Week 11: San Francisco-Arizona at Azteca is set for Monday night.  I actually like that one since that was also the first-ever NFL game in Mexico City.  The second Chiefs-Chargers game, meanwhile, is a CBS late game, and so is Cowboys-Vikings for some reason (while Raiders-Broncos is on FOX).  Cincinnati-Pittsburgh is the scheduled Sunday night game, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets flexed out if the Bengals don't follow up last year's run.

Week 12: Bills-Lions on Thanksgiving!  Nailed it!  As much as I love the Giants, though, why are they also playing on Thanksgiving?  (Especially when FOX will have the Brazil World Cup lead-in.)  And Patriots-Vikings on Thanksgiving night came completely out of left field!  Meanwhile, on Sunday afternoon, we've got the Rams-Chiefs matchup that we missed out on in February.

Week 13: Buffalo is playing on three Thursdays this season!  They get the Patriots in the first post-Thanksgiving Thursday night game not involving the Cowboys in quite a while (which probably explains why New England is also playing on Thanksgiving).  The Chiefs-Bengals AFC Championship Game rematch is, surprisingly, not in prime time.  I'd be willing to bet that's one CBS wanted to make sure they got on their schedule.

Week 14: Another six-bye week.  In December!  Which makes even less sense than the six-bye week in the middle of the season.  And it gives us a week that's not just soft, it's also light.  Baltimore-Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay-San Francisco and Raiders-Rams are the three best matchups.

Week 15: Since Week 16 is Christmas, Week 15 is when we get the TBA Saturday tripleheader.  Of the five choices, my early guesses for the three are Dolphins-Bills, Ravens-Browns and Colts-Vikings.  There's also perhaps the best game on the entire Monday night schedule--Rams-Packers at Lambeau!  The Sunday night game, meanwhile, pits a pair of AFC playoff teams--the Patriots and Raiders.

Week 16: This isn't your typical NFL Christmas week by any stretch.  Jets-Jaguars is on Thursday night because no one cares.  They've still got the bulk of the schedule on Christmas Eve, but there's a Christmas Eve night game (Las Vegas-Pittsburgh) and three games on Christmas (Packers-Dolphins, Broncos-Rams, Bucs-Cardinals in the Sunday night game).  And the week wraps up with Chargers-Colts, a game that could have massive playoff implications that late in the season.

Week 17: My initial thought about Week 17 was when are they gonna schedule the Monday night game?  As it turns out, Monday night after the Rose Bowl.  They moved the Sugar Bowl to noon on New Year's Eve to make room for Bills-Bengals.  I also found it funny that they were making a big deal about the Rams ending the season with two road games when they really aren't since one of them is against the Chargers.

Week 18: Every gametime for Week 18 is listed as "TBD," a change from past seasons when they put 1:00 for every game other than those in the Mountain and Pacific time zones.  Three games will once again be picked for national broadcasts, two on Saturday and the Sunday night game.  Early favorites for those?  New England-Buffalo, Baltimore-Cincinnati, Kansas City-Las Vegas.

Another World Cup Coming to America

The U.S. will be hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2026 and the Summer Olympics in 2028.  Those are the two biggest sporting events on the planet.  The third is also headed to American soil for the first time.  In 2031, the United States will host the Rugby World Cup for the men, as well as the women's event two years later.  This is huge news!

There had been interest by World Rugby for quite some time in bringing its marquee event to the United States.  The Rugby Sevens World Cup was in San Francisco a few years ago, but it didn't seem like they'd be able to make the 15-a-side version work simply because of the timing.  The Rugby World Cup is held in early fall, which is a very busy time for sports in the U.S.  So, I thought in order for it to work, they'd have to move it to the summer.

Which, even if they had to do, should've been a no-brainer for World Rugby.  The powers of the sport are Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, as well as a few nations in Europe (England, specifically).  They've all hosted before.  France will host the next one in 2023.  Japan hosted in 2019, which was the first Rugby World Cup in Asia.  Yet the event has still never been to North America, a massive potential market for the sport.  That'll change in 2031.

And the timing evidently will not be an issue.  They didn't announce specific dates.  Just that the 2031 Rugby World Cup will take place during its normal timeframe.  In football stadiums.  Which will cause some scheduling headaches to be sure.

Several cities that have NFL teams have expressed interest in hosting, which should've been obvious.  There's no way they would've chosen the U.S. if large stadiums in major cities weren't even an option.  But still, I'm curious to see how they'll work NFL games and Rugby World Cup games around each other.

Regardless of how many stadiums they ultimately end up using and which ones, one does seem to stand out as an obvious choice for the final.  It seats 100,000 people and, more importantly, doesn't have an NFL team.  It's also in Los Angeles, which is significant considering the timeframe and what the autumn weather can be like in some areas of this country.  I'm, of course, talking about the Rose Bowl, which hosted the FIFA World Cup Final in 1994 and would join a very short list of stadiums to host World Cup finals in both soccer and rugby.

That'll be less of an issue for the women's edition in 2023, when you'd figure at least some smaller stadiums will be used.  I can easily see them using some MLS stadiums instead of NFL stadiums.  Although, that creates a different set of complications since the MLS Cup Playoffs normally start around then.

Fortunately, they've got nine years to figure it out (11 for the women).  And I'm sure they will.  (BTW, stadiums for the 2026 FIFA World Cup still haven't been chosen.)  Even if it means the NFL team has to go on a lengthy road trip or play a London game while their stadium is being used for rugby.  Either way, this event is too big for the U.S. not to pursue it.

Just think about what this'll mean for USA Rugby.  The U.S. is a second-tier rugby nation.  By that I mean the USA Eagles always qualify for the World Cup, but are rarely competitive.  In 2019, they lost all four of their games.  Same thing in 2015 (when they got embarrassed by South Africa's Springboks in the first game).  Their last win was a 13-6 victory over Russia in 2011.  And they still haven't qualified for next year's edition (they're playing a home-and-home with Chile in June for the second spot from the Americas).

Hosting the World Cup could go a long way towards changing that, though.  Look at the U.S. Men's National Soccer Team.  In 1990, a bunch of college kids went to the World Cup and got their butts kicked.  In 1994, the U.S. hosted the World Cup.  Two years later MLS was born, and the U.S. made the World Cup quarterfinals in 2002.
  
Likewise, when rugby sevens was added to the Olympics, it was huge for both USA Sevens teams.  Neither has reached the medal round in the two Olympics that have included rugby, but the USA men are one of the top teams on the World Series.  They both, in fact, qualified directly for the Tokyo Games as one of the top four teams in the 2018-19 point standings.

For 15-a-side rugby, hosting the World Cup could have the same effect.  Especially when you consider how easy it would be for a country like the U.S. to get good at rugby.  There are so many college club programs out there, so there's clearly already an interest.  There's also a pro league in the U.S.  And the game is so similar to football that there are already plenty of converted football players, and it wouldn't be hard to imagine others being convinced to switch to rugby.

Whether any of that will actually happen remains to be seen.  But the chances that it will are far more likely than if the U.S. were simply playing in the Rugby World Cup at some early-morning hour in a different country.  And, even if it doesn't lead to the grassroots growth of the sport, simply having the games played on U.S. soil in front of American fans will create a financial windfall for USA Rugby regardless.

It's not just the USA Eagles, either.  How many American fans have ever gotten to see the All Blacks play?  Or the Springboks?  Or the Walabees?  We'll get to see all of them.  Plus England, Fiji, Argentina, France, and all the others.  That alone is enough to get excited about.  And, frankly, I'm more excited about the possibility of seeing a New Zealand-South Africa or England-Australia game!

World Rugby sees the potential that a World Cup in the United States can bring.  That's why they were so eager to figure out a way to make it work for 2031 and 2033.  So eager, in fact, that the U.S. being officially awarded both tournaments was nothing more than a mere formality.  It's something everybody wanted to happen and has the potential of being a win for everyone.

So, yeah, things are gonna be busy over the next few years with all of the major international sporting events headed to the U.S.  But that also means we're gonna have an exciting next few years.  Because you won't need to go anywhere to watch the world's biggest and greatest sporting events.  And, personally, I can't wait for any of them!

Baseball's Best Stadium Quirks

Rangers manager Chris Woodward made headlines the other day when he called Yankee Stadium a "Little League park" after Gleyber Torres hit a walk-off home run to the short porch in right field (Woodward was oddly quiet, however, after the Rangers benefitted from two Yankee Stadium home runs in Game 2 of the doubleheader).  He claimed that the home run would've been an out in "99 percent" of Major League parks which, even if his math was correct, wouldn't have been true.  Which is part of the beauty of baseball.

Every football field, hockey rink and basketball court has the exact same dimensions.  Sure, sometimes there's a football stadium with an open end that makes one side winder than the other or the fans might be closer to the action in one venue or another.  But, for the most part, they're all the same.

In baseball, though, that's most certainly not the case.  Every ballpark is unique.  They all have different dimensions and distinct features.  It's the original Yankee Stadium with the monuments in play in center field.  It's the Polo Grounds and its ridiculously deep center field.  It's the LA Coliseum's left field wall that was less than 300 feet away.

There's something unique about each of the 30 current Major League parks.  That's why some are called "pitcher's parks" and others are classified as "hitter's parks."  Some are more distinct than others, but they all own their quirks as their own.  Some even have multiple quirks.  Here are the 10 best (and by "best," I mean most unique):

1. Fenway Park: Fenway's outfield has so many crazy features that they could all be counted separately.  There's the Pesky Pole in right, which is basically at a right angle from home plate.  Then there's the triangle in center.  But, of course, the most distinct thing not just in Fenway Park, but perhaps in all of baseball, is the Green Monster in left.

2. McCovey Cove: McCovey Cove might be my favorite feature of any ballpark.  Remember when Oracle Park first opened and they had the tracker for how many home runs Barry Bonds hit into the water?  They actually still have it.  It's up to 93.

3. Wrigley Field's Ivy: For all the renovations that have been done at Wrigley Field in recent years, two things have remained constant.  They still have the brick walls, and they're still covered in ivy.  While not necessarily the safest thing for outfielders, it makes for a beautiful sight.  Wrigley's also barely got any foul territory, yet they somehow managed to squeeze the bullpens down the lines.

4. Tampa's Catwalks: Tropicana Field is dark and ugly.  It's also one of the most unique parks in baseball.  The catwalks supporting the roof, for example, are in play.  If a ball hits one, it's either a ground-rule double, home run or out, depending on where (or if) it lands.  Which is, yeah, unique.  It has bullpens on the field, too, another distinctive feature of Tampa's stadium that was already outdated when it opened.

5. Oakland's Foul Territory: It was the last stadium to be home to both an NFL and MLB team at the same time, which explains why foul territory in Oakland is so vast.  It also explains why the A's have never had a batting champion since moving to Oakland.  Lots of room to catch foul popups and front row seats that are very far from the field.  The Oakland Coliseum (or whatever they're calling it these days) is one of the worst parks in the Majors.  Those are only some of the reasons why.

6. B&O Warehouse: Camden Yards was the first of the retro parks and it's as beautiful today as it was when it opened 30 years ago.  The B&O Warehouse beyond the right field wall is by far its most distinctive feature.  While it's not part of the field of play, it certainly impacted the dimensions.  It's just 318 feet down the right field line and Camden Yards has been considered a hitter's park since it opened.

7. Western Metal Supply: San Diego's got its own version of the warehouse.  There's is in left field.  Western Metal Supply is a 100-year-old building that was incorporated into the ballpark's design and a fun home run target.  I remember Giancarlo Stanton hitting one off the window during the 2017 World Baseball Classic.

8. The Crawford Boxes: When they built Minute Maid Park, they had "Tal's Hill" in center field, a small incline with a flagpole that, for some reason, was in play.  Fortunately, Tal's Hill is no longer a feature of Minute Maid Park.  The Crawford Boxes very much are, though.  They make for a very short left field before dramatically cutting back in left center, creating Houston's own version of the Fenway triangle.

9. Right Field at PNC Park: Roberto Clemente is the best and most famous player in Pittsburgh Pirates history.  He wore number 21 and played right field.  So, it makes sense that when the Pirates built PNC Park, they would want to honor Clemente.  As a result, they have a 21-foot wall in right field.

10. Field of Dreams: Yes, I'm cheating a little bit on this last one.  But can you blame me?  The whole point of playing an MLB game at the Field of Dreams was to recreate the magic of the movie.  So, of course, the outfield wall was gonna be made of cornstalks that the players would walk out of!  Heaven?  No.  It's Iowa.

Nostalgic Hockey Divisions

I saw something pretty cool the other day.  It was a 2022 Stanley Cup playoff bracket with vintage logos for all 16 teams.  For some teams, the logos they used were similar to something you'd see at a Winter Classic or Heritage Classic.  But they went way back with some of the others.  Dallas was the Minnesota North Stars.  For Calgary, they had an Atlanta Flames logo.  They even had those wonderful Quebec Nordiques and Hartford Whalers logos for Colorado and Carolina. 

That got me feeling a little nostalgic.  So did the fact that Edmonton and LA are currently playing in a playoff series...just like they did seemingly every year when they were Smythe Division rivals.  The Smythe Division, of course, is one of the NHL's classic divisions, but it was also the oddest.  It was the "Western" division...which, until San Jose joined the league in 1991-92, was the Kings and four teams from Western Canada!

The NHL ditched the four classic divisions in 1993-94, when they switched to geographic names.  There's been expansion, franchise relocations and several rounds of realignment since then.  But what if there hadn't been?  What if the NHL had still expanded and franchises had still relocated, but the four classic divisions still remained?  What would those divisions look like today?

For the sake of this exercise, we'll go back to what those four divisions looked like at the end of the 1992-93 season, which was the last of Adams, Patrick, Norris and Smythe.  There were 24 teams in the NHL then.  There's 32 now.  So, by adding two of them to each division, we'll still get to the current four divisions of eight.  The alignment would definitely look different, though.

Those division are pretty much intact to an extent.  The Adams is the Atlantic, the Patrick is the Metropolitan, the Norris is the Central and the Smythe is the Pacific.  But, again, I'm keeping teams in their original division even after they've moved, so that's definitely gonna change things.

As a reminder, here's what those four divisions looked like 30 years ago:

Adams: Boston, Buffalo, Hartford, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec
Patrick: New Jersey, Islanders, Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
Norris: Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Toronto
Smythe: Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Vancouver, Winnipeg

Quebec has since moved to Colorado, Hartford to Carolina, Minnesota to Dallas and Winnipeg to Arizona.  And, let's not forget, the current Jets relocated from Atlanta, so their division assignment will be based on where the Thrashers would've been placed.

We'll assign the remaining eight teams in order based on when they joined the league, starting with the 1993-94 expansion clubs--Anaheim and Florida.  The Ducks obviously go to the Smythe.  Where else would you put them?  The Panthers, meanwhile, I don't have going to the Norris, even though that would be the natural fit with Tampa Bay.  However, that would create uneven conferences, so the Panthers go to the Patrick Division instead.

Up next is the Nashville Predators, the first of that four-team expansion over three years in the late 90s.  Nashville's currently in the Central Division, and the Norris has an open spot, so they go there.  The only division missing a team when Atlanta joined the following season was the Adams, so that's where the Thrashers get placed.  And, since we're not changing divisions as teams move, they're still there in Winnipeg.

In 2000, it was Columbus and Minnesota's turn.  The Wild were a replacement for the North Stars after they moved to Dallas.  The North Stars were in the Norris Division, so it makes sense for the Wild to join them there.  Columbus, meanwhile, could really go in either the Adams or Patrick.  The Blue Jackets are currently in the Metropolitan Division, which is the only criterion I'm using to place them in the Patrick.

Now's where it gets interesting.  Both of the NHL's newest franchises are out west.  But I've gotta put one of them in the Adams Division and what is, effectively, the Eastern Conference.  I'm choosing Vegas because the Adams Division would already have Colorado, so that would give the Avalanche somebody at least somewhat near them in their division.  Which leaves that last spot in the Smythe for the Kraken.

So, that would create this modern-day alignment using the classic divisions:

Adams: Boston, Buffalo, Carolina, Colorado, Montreal, Ottawa, Vegas, Winnipeg
Patrick: Columbus, Florida, New Jersey, Islanders, Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
Norris: Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Toronto
Smythe: Anaheim, Arizona, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Seattle, Vancouver

While the Adams Division covering four time zones is obviously and totally ridiculous, the others are completely realistic.  I'd also be willing to bet that when the Knights joined the league, they would've insisted on being put in the Smythe.  And that likely would've meant the 32nd team was placed in Quebec, not Seattle, since that would make more geographic sense.

Take a look at those divisions, though.  Then take the three teams from the Norris Division in the Eastern time zone (Detroit, Tampa Bay and Toronto) and swap them with the three in the Adams that aren't (Colorado, Vegas and Winnipeg).  Those divisions look awfully familiar, don't they?  So, even though they have different names, as it turns out, we're looking at divisions that are awfully similar to the NHL's classic four.  Whether we realize it or not.

WNBA Roster Size Issues

The WNBA season started tonight, but not every team has a full 12-player roster.  What's worse, players who were just drafted were cut at the end of training camp by the teams that drafted them...and those teams aren't carrying 12 players!  The league proudly touts that it offers 144 players the chance to play professional basketball.  Except that number isn't actually 144.  And that's a problem!

I must admit, I didn't even know about this until the other day, when I saw an ESPN.com article where Breana Stewart was talking about it.  And the problem, in fact, is Stewart and the other star players who command higher salaries, and their teams' choice to pay more players higher salaries by sacrificing a roster spot.

It seems as if the root of the problem is the WNBA salary cap.  More specifically that the WNBA salary cap, unlike the NBA's is a "hard" cap, meaning teams can't go above that number.  So, they have to make up the salaries of veteran stars like Stewart, Sue Bird, A'ja Wilson, etc., somewhere.  And the easiest way to do that is to cut low-priced rookies (which sometimes even means leaving yourselves short-handed).

Now imagine something like this happening in one of the men's leagues.  You can't!  Because it never would!  And that, frankly, is the biggest problem of all.  Because as wonderful as the WNBA has been for women, it's still treated like a little sister.  This is just the latest example.

Of course, there's also an easy solution.  There are several easy solutions, in fact.  The WNBA could go from a hard cap to a "soft" cap, which would allow teams to carry an extra player at league-minimum salary, even if it means going over the upper limit.  They could also require teams to maintain a full roster while leaving it up to them to figure out how to pay all 12 players.

Or, as Stewart suggested, the WNBA could adopt a practice squad and allow teams to sign players off of it.  Which, frankly, is something that WNBA teams need regardless.  At home, they're able to have a team of male practice players.  On the road, they're not.  So, without a practice squad and without full rosters, it's very tough (if not impossible) to go 5-on-5 in practice....which doesn't even account for players who are being held out or limited due to injury!

Even if those practice squad players don't ever make it onto a gameday roster, just think about how many more opportunities that would create!  And, the WNBA doesn't have a built-in feeder system like the G League, so, if someone goes down with an injury, it's not anywhere near as easy to get a player who's ready to go and in game shape.  If every team was allowed to sign a handful of practice players, though, that problem would be solved.

Doing that would also allow teams to keep players they don't have room for on the active roster, but don't necessarily want to cut either.  Like all of those second-round picks in this year's draft who were the victims of the roster crunches.  It, frankly, would be a win-win.  Those players, while not actively participating in games, would still gain valuable experience practicing with and being around WNBA players, while their teams would be able to continue evaluating them and have players already under contract, who'll be available on short notice if the need arises.

There's another major issue with the WNBA's current system.  It's not a level playing field.  Some teams have 12 players, while others have 11.  Yes, that's by choice.  I understand that.  Seven of the WNBA's 12 teams have made that choice.  But it still puts those seven teams at a tremendous disadvantage, especially compared to the other five.  

Whether it's a cost thing or a quality think, frankly, isn't even relevant.  The point is seven teams are voluntarily carrying less than a full roster.  It's not like when baseball had the 40-man roster expansion in September and teams could carry any number they wanted between 25 and 40.  Here, we've got more than half the league playing with fewer players than the roster allows, not more!  (Eleven is the WNBA roster minimum.)

Having a hard cap helps the WNBA remain sound financially, but it's also probably the biggest reason for this current situation.  Let's not forget, too, that salaries in the WNBA, even for star players, are low by comparison.  That's why so many WNBA veterans play overseas in the offseason (which contributed to the unfortunate situation involving Brittney Griner right now).

This is an issue that should be at the forefront of the next CBA negotiations between the WNBA and WNBPA.  It's obviously important to the players, which is a good start.  And they'll certainly do what they can to make sure it's addressed, along with any other tweaks that would benefit the players as a whole.

Can it wait that long, though?  They're only in the third year of the current CBA, which runs until 2027.  The current CBA has a number of provisions that have been tremendously positive.  It also, unfortunately, helped create the current model that needs to be fixed.  And they need to figure out a way to fix it before 2027!

Hopefully there is a way.  Because with big names like Breana Stewart and Chiney Ogumwike (among others) behind it, you'd have to think change is on the horizon.  Which it needs to be.  Because the 144 players the WNBA proudly proclaims should actually be 144 players.  Not 137.

Talking Umpires

I've often been critical of Major League Baseball's changes that are made to "better" the game but actually end up making it worse!  Over the first month of the 2022 season, however, I've noticed one change that I'm very much on board with.  Umpires now announce when a play is under review, the reason why, and the result of the challenge.

When MLB first began using instant replay, that was the one element that was missing.  And it was very glaring.  People could figure out that they were going to replay because the game stopped and they put on headsets, but no one knew what they were actually reviewing, so fans and broadcasters were left to guess.  Then, the result of the play was simply a non-verbal "safe" or "out" signal with no other explanation.

For the most part, doing it that way got the point across.  It was obvious that the play being reviewed was the close one that just happened, and they'd show it enough on the video board in the stadium (or on the broadcast) that people were able to form their opinion based on seeing multiple replays from different angles.  So, no, it wasn't 100 percent necessary for them to add the verbal explanation to it.

However, adding the verbal explanation has brought so much more to it.  Now it's clear to everyone in the stadium that the play's under review and what element of it is being looked at.  The umpires can also make it clear whether a team is challenging or if they're reviewing it on their own.  Then, after the result of the review is announced, whether the team retains their challenge (for being successful) or loses it (for being wrong).

Fans watching at home could get that information from the broadcaster, but the fans in the stadium wouldn't necessarily know without the announcement.  And any extra information you can give the fans is a good thing.

Baseball was also the only sport that didn't have some sort of verbal communication from the official about a replay.  In football, the referee has been mic'ed up for about as long as wireless communication has existed.  And he needs to be.  Imagine trying to figure out penalties and coach's challenges if he wasn't!  As excellent as Mike Pereira and Gene Steratore are, they'd only be able to help out so much in those situations.

Likewise, in hockey, one of the referees has a microphone to announce penalties and replay results.  While it's not as necessary as it is in football, it still enhances the viewing experience.  Hockey has the hand signals and it's obvious who's going to the penalty box, but, with a microphone, the referee can provide any extra details beyond just the basic, necessary information.

Even in basketball, where they still just use the hand signals, what's the first thing one of the officials does after a review?  Go over and tell the broadcasters whatever their decision was!  In the Women's NCAA Tournament, they've taken it a step farther.  There's actually a headset set up for the official to just hop on and explain what's being reviewed, then whatever the result was.

You'd have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't think the official being mic'ed up in any of those sports is a good thing.  Likewise, I doubt there's anyone who thinks getting similar replay announcements in MLB games is a bad thing.  Granted, it hasn't even been a month, but so far, I've heard few, if any, complaints.

In a way, it lends even more credibility to the call.  Everyone in the ballpark knows exactly what's being challenged and why.  As a result, they know what to look for when they watch the replay.  It takes a lot of the guessing out.  Fans may still disagree with the final ruling, but they'll at least know how close the play actually was.  And, if the umpire was wrong, he'll hop on the microphone and say so.

The funny thing is that the only people who were hesitant about this were the umpires themselves.  It wasn't officially implemented until late in Spring Training, and there was some initial reluctance.  But even they quickly came around once they started doing it and saw how much better it made things.

Of course, instant replay in baseball has taken away one element, but that's got nothing to do with umpires getting on the microphone or not.  Once a team challenges a call, that's it.  The runner's either safe or out.  You can't argue or discuss it after the decision is made.  The umpires don't even watch the replay themselves.  The call is made by a different group of umpires at the MLB Replay Center in New York.

Although, those Earl Weaver/Bobby Cox-like arguments being a thing of the past isn't necessarily bad, either.  Managers are far less likely to get ejected if they can't get in an umpire's face about a call he got "wrong."  If you think he's wrong, challenge it.  The video will either prove you right or prove him right.  Either way, you're more likely to stick around until the end of the game when you're literally not allowed to argue the replay decision.

There was a time when we thought we'd never see instant replay come to Major League Baseball.  When it arrived, everyone agreed that it made the game better.  Now they've made replay better, too.  Just by doing something as simple as having the umpire tell everyone what was being challenged and what the final result of the play was.