Mixed Reviews After Opening Weekend

The first weekend of Spring Training games is complete, which means the first games under MLB's new "speed-up" rules are complete.  And, not surprisingly, most of the talk surrounding those games is about the pitch clock.  Manny Machado started his first at-bat of the Spring with an 0-1 count, and a Braves-Red Sox game ended on a walk-off automatic strike, but overall, there were fewer violations than I expected.  Only a little more than two per game.

Violations early in Spring Training were inevitable as pitchers and hitters alike get used to the new rule.  Especially since veterans have their routines that they'll have to break.  But, as much as Spring Training is for getting ready for the season physically, it's also time for players to get experience playing under the new rules before we get to the games that matter.  It's an adjustment for sure.  And this is the time to make that adjustment.

That's why I'm actually impressed by how low the number of violations was.  The Red Sox-Braves thing got most of the attention (and justifiably so), but would you rather that happen now or in the regular season?  And, other than the Machado one, did we even hear about any of the others?  That alone is an indication that pitch clock violations won't really be as prevalent as some feared.  There'll still be some, to be sure, but I have a feeling they'll be few and far between.

Machado had a funny take after his violation.  After the game, he said, "I guess I'll start with an 0-1 count a lot."  But, in all seriousness, he admitted that he'll have to cut out some of the stuff he usually does when he steps up to the plate in order to be ready with eight seconds left on the clock.  For example, he used to greet the home plate umpire, which is something he probably won't do anymore, simply because of the extra few seconds it takes.  He also lamented that he may as well not even bother with a walk-up song, since he may not get to hear much of it anyway.

Meanwhile, Max Scherzer's view from a pitcher's perspective was very interesting.  He loves the new rules.  Not because he works quickly (if he was still pitching, Mark Buehrle would love them for that reason alone), but because he believes it gives the pitcher the advantage.  The batter gets his timeout, which is fine with Scherzer.  Because he only gets one per at-bat, and if he burns it, he burns it.  Scherzer also said he clarified with umpires between innings what's legal and what's not, and it was confirmed that he can stand there ready waiting for the batter if he wants.

There have also been some comments about the size and location of the pitch clocks behind home plate.  It was one of the first games on Friday, A's-Rangers I think, where the pitch clock was very close and in the shot from the center field camera.  However, that'll likely just be an issue in Spring Training, with smaller ballparks and not really a lot of places to put them.  MLB has reassured fans that you won't be able to see the pitch clock on the center field camera during the regular season.

TV networks have been experimenting with where and how to put in the pitch clock on their graphics, too.  I'd imagine we'll see several different variations throughout the Spring as the networks try to hammer out what's best.  What YES did for the Yankees-Tigers game was simply replace the number of pitches with the pitch clock, which I liked.  I'd imagine we'll see a lot of that.  Pitch count/pitch speed is already built into most graphic templates, so adding the pitch clock to that rotation of "pitcher stuff" sure seems like the easiest, least obtrusive option.  (I've heard ESPN might want to try putting it on the back of the pitcher's mound like TNT does with the shot clock at the free throw line in NBA games, which I think would look terrible.)

Some fans don't like the pitch clock and are never going to based simply on principle.  Their biggest issue is less the attempt to speed up the game than it is the making decisions like this based on the opinions of non-baseball people.  The big criticism (which is somewhat of a joke, but also somewhat true) is that they asked people who don't watch baseball, made changes based on what they said, then those people will go back to not watching baseball.  So why are they the ones you're listening to?

You know what, though?  The pitch clock is having the desired effect.  It's a very small sample size.  I get that.  And Spring Training games are usually quicker anyway, so they're not necessarily a reliable indicator.  But the biggest reason for the pitch clock was to have faster games, and so far, that's exactly what we've gotten.  Last year, the average Major League game lasted 3:06.  Most games in the first weekend of Spring Training were around two-and-a-half.  So, yeah, the pitch clock has seemingly made that much of a difference!

My biggest concern with it was that it would make players rush.  That doesn't seem to be the case at all, though.  I'll compare it to the serve clock in tennis.  You're so preoccupied with it at first, then, once everybody gets used to it, you don't even notice it anymore.  I have a feeling something very similar will happen here.

As for the players, they aren't as worried about the pitch clock itself as they are about the enforcement.  The violation triggers seem pretty straightforward.  The batter has to be facing the pitcher ready to hit with eight seconds left, and the pitcher has to start his delivery before the clock's at zero.  But there's still some interpretation.  What one home plate umpire views as "engaging" the pitcher or a pitcher starting his motion might not be the same as another home plate ump.  As a result, what's a violation to one may not be to the other.  All the players are asking for in that area is consistency.

While the pitch clock has drawn the most attention, and will likely continue to as Spring Training progresses, last weekend also marked the debut of the shift ban and larger bases.  As I expected, you hardly even realize the bases are larger while watching.  Sure, you notice it when they're held up next to the 15-inch bases side-by-side, but when they're on the ground while a game's being played?  No.  And the shift ban probably won't be as noticeable until later in the Spring when lefty power hitters who were most affected by it begin getting their at-bats.

Faster games weren't the only reason for the offseason rule changes, though.  They also wanted more exciting games with more action.  And, I must say, it's so far, so good on that front.  Again, it's a small sample size and the beginning of Spring Training features very few (if any) veterans who we'll be seeing throughout the season.  But there were more runs being scored and the games were finishing quicker, so it sounds like both of those objectives have been achieved.  At least so far.

It's obviously way too early to form an opinion one way or the other about the pitch clock and MLB's other pace-of-play initiatives.  The early returns are certainly promising, though.  Whether it'll continue as Spring Training progresses and into the regular season is anybody's guess.  But, after an encouraging first weekend of Spring Training, I've got faith it will.

Now Streaming...MLS

The MLS season starts this weekend.  You'd be forgiven for not knowing that in a normal year, but you're especially forgiven this year.  Because, chances are, you probably won't watch many MLS games this season even if you want to.  That's all thanks to the league's decision to sign on with Apple TV+ as its primary broadcast partner.

Each major league has dipped its feet into the streaming waters to varying degrees.  Thursday Night Football, of course, is on Amazon Prime, and the NHL has a bunch of ESPN+ exclusive games.  Major League Baseball, meanwhile, has two separate exclusive streaming deals with Apple TV+ and Peacock.  But MLS is the first to have the majority of its games only available on streaming.  And I'm curious to see how it'll work out.

Not every game is exclusive to Apple TV+.  MLS has a secondary TV deal with FOX, which will see 34 regular season and eight postseason games, as well as the MLS Cup (although, only until 2026) broadcast on linear television.  That's it, though.  Every other game will only be available on the MLS Season Pass subscription package, which is separate than Apple TV+.  MLS season ticket holders will receive free access to the package, but everybody else has to pay $99 for the season ($79 if you're already an Apple TV+ subscriber).

If you don't want to pay the $99 (in addition to a regular Apple TV+ subscription) or you want to watch your local team on whatever your local RSN is, though, you're out of luck.  MLS specifically told teams not to sell local broadcasting rights past the 2022 season because they were all being rolled into the Apple contract.  So, there are no more local broadcasts for any team.  You can either watch it on Apple (or FOX) or not at all.

MLS obviously sees some benefit in this.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have signed a 10-year deal with Apple.  Each team has its own dedicated page, but there won't be any blackouts, so fans can watch any game they want.  The league has also taken over production, which gives them complete control over the product.  It also gave them the opportunity to create a more-uniform schedule, with most games on Wednesday and Saturday nights.  (In the past, the schedule was based on TV windows as much as stadium availability.)

All games are being called on-site in both English and Spanish (games involving the three Canadian teams will also have a French-language broadcast).  And, since there are no local broadcasts anymore, a lot of the teams' broadcasters have signed on with Apple, which should bring a little continuity for viewers.  They've even announced that, while no team will have dedicated announcers, broadcasters will work only in specific areas, mainly to cut down on travel costs.  So, there'll at least be some consistency there, since broadcasters will see mainly the same teams and fans will hear mostly the same announcers.

League-specific content is now prominently displayed on the Apple TV app, and, in addition to all league games, there's an MLS 360 whip-around show with highlights and live look-ins.  None of this would be available if MLS hadn't gone to the centralized model, and it certainly wouldn't be available on another platform.  So, all of that is good for the league, too.

But I'm still left wondering whether this will end up being worthwhile.  With the World Cup coming to the United States in 2026, MLS should be doing everything it can to get people excited and expand the sport.  And I'm not sure limiting the availability of its product is the way to do that.

I understand that streaming isn't going anywhere and is the future, but I'm not sure how many people are big enough MLS fans that they'll pay $99 a season to watch it.  Especially since the fans who would, season ticket holders, are being given free access.  Soccer's growing in popularity, but it's still a niche sport.  And MLS is an even smaller niche within that niche.

This isn't the NFL with Amazon Prime or the Olympics with Peacock or even the NHL with ESPN+.  Even if you signed up for Amazon Prime just to watch Thursday Night Football, you've still got access to everything else on Amazon Prime.  Ditto with Peacock and ESPN+.  With MLS, though, you have to specifically seek it out, and that's all you get.  It doesn't include all of Apple TV+'s other content, which would make it significantly more valuable and might also make some fans more inclined to sign up.

And, let's face it, even though MLS is the domestic league, it's far less popular than the European leagues.  And the Premier League is far easier to watch. Games are on regular TV every week on either NBC or USA, and the rest are on Peacock.  The difference, though (and it's a big one), is that if you subscribe to Peacock just to watch the Premier League, you get everything else on there, too.  So, it's well worth the $50 annual rate for Peacock Plus (or even the $100 ad-free version).

Which, again, makes this all seem counterintuitive with the U.S. hosting the next World Cup.  They should be making it more accessible.  Not less!  That means have more games on regular TV, not just a limited selection.  I'm not saying don't have streaming.  That's a necessity these days.  But don't hide it behind a paywall!  (Evidently, they're exploring an option that will also see some games broadcast for free, similar to what they did with MLB, which is a very good idea.)

While I understand what MLS is trying to do here, I still think not showing games on linear TV in teams' home markets is a mistake.  That would be a very easy solution, too.  MLS still controls and produces all the content, and it's still available as part of the league package.  The only difference is it's also shown on the home team's RSN (which would also mean MLS collects 28 sets of rights fees).  Or, at the very least, they could offer team-only packages for, say $50 a season.

That would be the best of both worlds, actually.  They still have the league package on Apple TV, but also sell the rights to individual games to broadcast on regular TV (similar to what ESPN does with its extensive college basketball inventory and what the NFL does with Thursday night games, which they're required to make available in home markets).  That way fans can still watch just their team if they want without having to sign up for the full league package.  And, who knows?  Maybe that would even make them more inclined to subscribe to the whole thing.

France's Last Olympics

With the Olympics set to return to Paris next summer, I've been thinking a lot lately about the last Olympics held in France--the 1992 Winter Games in Albertville.  Specifically how the Albertville Games were widely criticized for how spread out they were.  Really, though, they were ahead of their time.  Because now, 30 years later, that's exactly what the IOC wants!

The 2026 Olympics will officially be co-hosted by Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo, two cities that are 250 miles apart.  But only hockey, figure skating, short track and the Opening Ceremony will be in Milan, while only curling, biathlon, men's alpine skiing and the three sliding sports will be in Cortina.  The rest will be spread across northern Italian villages between the two cities.  So, they will truly be a regional Games.  There's even talk of having speed skating at the 2006 Olympic rink in Torino, which is only 90 miles from Milan, but 330 miles from Cortina.

But, as I said, this is exactly what the IOC wants.  They want host cities to use existing venues whenever possible, even if they're a significant distance outside the city.  We saw it in Tokyo.  We saw it in Beijing.  We'll see it in Paris (where surfing will be in Tahiti).  We'll most definitely see it in Milan-Cortina.  (There are so many existing sporting venues in the Los Angeles area that the 2028 Olympics will be mostly contained.)

In 1992, though, that wasn't the case.  Only 18 events in figure skating, short track and speed skating, as well as the Opening and Closing Ceremonies were held in Albertville.  The rest were spread throughout the Savoie region.  It really was a regional Olympics, 34 years before Northern Italy's.  Which was actually the biggest complaint at the time.  A lot of athletes and media said it felt more like a bunch of separate World Championships rather than an Olympics.

What's crazy, though, is that everything Albertville did 30 years ago fits exactly into the current Olympic model.  Every venue, except for the Ceremonies Stadium, which was always intended to be temporary, is still in use today.  Some of them have different uses now, and many had their capacities reduced.  In fact, most of them regularly host World Cup competition.  There's not a single white elephant.

For a while, it's seemed like the Albertville Games are the overlooked Olympics.  I don't want to say the "forgotten" Olympics because I think that would be a stretch.  But I think the good things about Albertville sometimes get lost because of that venue plan, which was seen as a negative at the time.  In hindsight, though, it proved to be visionary.

That's not the only reason the Albertville Games have become somewhat overlooked, though.  Albertville's unique place in Olympic history is certainly a factor, as well.  Although, I'd argue that the Albertville Games deserve to be remembered precisely because of that unique place in Olympic history.

Albertville was the last Winter Olympics held in the same year as the Summer Games.  Going to that off-year cycle is one of the best things the IOC has ever done.  It raised the profile of the Winter Games exponentially!  They no longer play second fiddle to another, bigger Olympics a few months later (with the exception of the COVID-created six-month Tokyo-Beijing gap, where the Winter Games were actually second).  Which is exactly what happened in 1992, when Albertville gave way to Barcelona.

A lot happened in the world in the three-and-a-half years between the 1988 Summer Games in Seoul and the 1992 Winter Games in Albertville.  Most notably, the Soviet Union fell and the Berlin Wall came down.  So, it was in Albertville where a unified Germany returned to the Olympics as a single team.  And it was in Albertville where the former Soviet republics, all of which were still so new they didn't have National Olympic Committees yet, first competed as the "Unified Team."

It was also the last Winter Olympics for Czechoslovakia, which split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia a year later, and the last Olympics period for a Communist Yugoslavia, which was already in the process of being broken up (Croatia and Slovenia were already independent and sent their own teams to Albertville).  The Yugoslav Olympic Committee was suspended shortly after the Games, so the country wasn't allowed to send a team to Barcelona, and, by the time it returned in Atlanta, "Yugoslavia" only consisted of Serbia and Montenegro.

From a sporting perspective, Albertville marked the last time the speed skating competition was held outdoors.  That actually caused tremendous problems.  There were several delays caused by weather or sun glare, and if temperatures got too high, there was water on the track.  As a result, the IOC insisted that the speed skating oval at all future Winter Olympics be indoors.  (The initial plan for Milan-Cortina featured an outdoor oval with a temporary roof, but concerns about the cost of the roof is what's led to the talk about moving speed skating to Torino.)

They also marked a change with regards to Olympic coverage in the U.S.  CBS had the U.S. TV rights to all three Winter Olympics in the 90s, of which Albertville was the first.  It was the first Winter Olympics not on ABC since 1972, and the first Olympics on CBS since 1960.  The coverage was, how do I put this?, not the best.  Tim McCarver and Paula Zahn were the primetime co-anchors.  That should tell you all you need to know.

There is one thing that CBS did, though, that would also prove to be ahead of its time.  They shared the rights with TNT, which broadcast events that weren't going to be shown on CBS during their daytime coverage.  This was, of course, pre-internet, so people in the U.S. got to see sports like luge and biathlon and cross country skiing extensively for the first time.  Nowadays, NBC shows everything live online and supplements its broadcast coverage with round-the-clock coverage on multiple cable channels.  But in 1992, it was revolutionary.

So, with the Olympics returning to France in just over 16 months, it's only fitting to look back on the 1992 Winter Games in Albertville.  Those Olympics, while unheralded then and even today, truly were ahead of their time.  In more ways than one.

Keep It at 80

It's been two months since the World Cup ended, and I'm only just now realizing that I never posted about a topic that I wanted to cover after the tournament.  So, I'm gonna do it now.  It's something that's only been talked about and they certainly haven't made a final decision on, but you can bet FIFA will have some pretty lengthy discussions about it soon--the schedule for 2026.

Since 1986, group play has concluded with simultaneous final games, both to up the drama and avoid shenanigans.  It has led to some memorable final days, most notably the last set of group games in Qatar, which were as manic as they were amazing.  Group standings changing by the minute, teams going from advancing to not advancing, fans cheering goals in the other game as if their own team just scored.  It made plenty of people in FIFA lament the fact that this would be the last World Cup with simultaneous final group games and wonder if there was a way to keep them moving forward.

With the World Cup expanding to 48 teams in 2026, the original plan was to do 16 groups of three.  That would obviously mean there can't be simultaneous final group games, which has led to FIFA rethinking the format.  Not only do they want to preserve the drama that comes with the simultaneous kickoffs, they're worried about the final games being meaningless for one or both teams, as well as possible collusion.

As a result, they're thinking about not doing 16 groups of three after all.  A number of different alternative formats have been thrown out there, all of which involve keeping groups of four (12 groups of four seems to be the most popular).  I'm not a fan of any of them.  I say they stick with what was originally proposed: 16 groups of three.

That means the simultaneous final kickoffs will be lost, but that's a necessary sacrifice.  And I don't think it'll be as big of a problem as FIFA thinks it will be.  After all, it wasn't even a "problem" until it suddenly became an issue at the end of the 2022 World Cup...even though they had already approved the 80-game format for 2026, knowing what three-team groups meant.

There are several reasons why I'd prefer keeping the 16 groups of three for 2026, but that's the biggest one.  The format was approved before the bidding started.  The three North American countries signed on to host an 80-game tournament.  Going from 16 groups of three to 12 groups of four would result in a 104-game tournament.  That's 24 additional games!  The U.S., Mexico and Canada can probably handle such an increase.  But what about any potential future World Cup hosts?  That's asking a lot. 

For comparison, the 2022 World Cup featured 64 games.  Instead of adding 16 more, they're talking about adding 40 more!  That would obviously mean a lot more money for FIFA, which, let's be honest here, is probably the primary reason why they're now pushing for 104 instead of 80.

One of the reasons they originally went with groups of three was precisely because they didn't want the simultaneous kickoffs.  The broadcasters don't like them.  Not only does it split the audience, they need to find a second channel to broadcast the other game (and make sure viewers know where to find it).  The appeal of the 80-game tournament was 80 dedicated kickoff windows.  They obviously wouldn't have that if the 24 games to conclude group play were to kick off at the same time.  It'd be 104 games in the same 80 TV windows.

I also have no idea when they plan to play these additional 24 games.  The mock schedule in the United 2026 bid had either three or four games on every day of group play and the entire tournament taking five weeks.  Four games is probably the max you can play in a day without crazy start times or simultaneous games, though.  Even with simultaneous final games, they could cram a 104-game tournament into 36 or 37 days, so it would still fit within the window, but that would involve four games on every day of group play and six on the final four days (three double-game windows).  Would the TV partners really sign on for that?

Now let's talk about what the groups of four would mean for the teams.  Another reason why they opted for the groups of three was because it means that, even with the addition of the round of 32, the four semifinalists will still play seven games.  (The third group game is simply being replaced by the round of 32.)  There's no plans to not have a round of 32, so groups of four would mean the four semifinalists end up playing eight games instead of seven.

In the 32-team field that FIFA used for 24 years, qualification was nice and easy.  Eight groups of four, with the top two in each advancing to the round of 16.  If they go to 12 groups, then you've got third-place teams qualifying for the knockout stage (which brings the potential for shenanigans back in play).  Or, if they were to opt to keep the number of games down by not adding the round of 32, then you've only got four of 12 second-place teams advancing.  And that's not good, either.

Then there are the European teams, who I'm sure don't like this idea at all.  When they allocated the additional 16 berths to the continents, UEFA was only given three, bringing their total from 13 to 16.  That's all they wanted.  They wanted 16 teams so that European teams wouldn't have to face each other in group play.  Sixteen groups, 16 European teams.  One per group.  Nice and easy.  If you're suddenly placing 16 teams in 12 groups, now you've got four groups with two European teams.  Which is specifically what they didn't want in an expanded tournament!

FIFA's newfound concerns about the competitiveness and possibility of collusion in the final game seem to be a little unfounded, too.  There won't be a Germany-Austria 1982 situation or even a France-Denmark 2018.  They really shouldn't have anything to worry about.  Because the final game will only be the second game, and nobody will have either already advanced or already been eliminated after just one game.  Which means it'll matter to both teams either way!

Think about it.  If you lose your first game, you need to win your second no matter what.  If your first game is a draw, you don't want another one just to be safe.  Really the only teams that can feel comfortable are those who win their first game in a blowout, but do you really want to take the chance on having your second game end up in a draw that potentially knocks you out of the top spot and giving you a stronger opponent in the round of 32?

Because of the odd number of teams in each group, one team's second and final game will be their opponent's opener.  I'll admit that this is one thing about the 16-group format I don't like.  You'll have teams sitting around for a long time waiting to either start the tournament or between games.  But there's also no way around that.  My point, though, is that this game between Team A and Team C will be Team A's second, meaning they need a result, and Team C's first, meaning they need a result.  And, say Team A goes 2-0-0 (or 0-2-0), then the game between Team B and Team C matters a great deal to both of them!

So, hopefully the talk of changing the 2026 format to 12 groups of four ends up being just that.  Talk.  Because the "problems" they envision with the already-approved 80-game tournament simply aren't.  Not to mention the fact that the United States, Mexico and Canada were expecting 80 games.  Not 104.

Sweden to the Rescue?

About a month ago, I did a post about the IOC's problem with the 2030 Winter Olympics.  Specifically, how nobody wants to host them.  The problem has gotten so bad that they've delayed the selection of a host possibly until next year while they look for potential hosts who may be interested.

There's been some talk about having a few "permanent" hosts who rotate the Winter Olympics between them.  What that would look like is anybody's guess, but it would probably include at least one site on each of the three continents that can host the Winter Olympics (likely PyeongChang in Asia, Vancouver and Salt Lake City in North America and a European city or two).  While there are positives and negatives to that idea (I, personally, don't like it), that rotation, if it ever comes to pass, won't be in place until 2038 at the earliest.  So, the lack of candidates for 2030 is still a problem.

However, that 2030 problem may not be a problem much longer.  Because there's suddenly a front-runner.  Sweden.  The Swedish Olympic Committee is currently conducting a feasibility study and will present its report in April.  But, it's widely assumed that if the Swedes do decide to put forth a bid, it'll be a winning one.

A 2030 bid from Sweden wouldn't look much different than its bid for 2026, when the IOC chose the Italian bid instead.  Events would be held at existing venues across the country, with the indoor events centered in and around Stockholm.  And, since there are no sliding tracks in Sweden, the bobsled, luge and skeleton competitions would be held across the Baltic Sea in Sigulda, Latvia, a unique element that's in line with the IOC's preference of not building costly, potentially unnecessary new venues.

The 2026 bid was actually very well-received by the IOC.  There wasn't anything "wrong" with Sweden's bid.  In fact, they were very impressed by it, especially the idea of having the sliding events in Latvia.  They just preferred the one from Italy.  Part of that was because Milano-Cortina had more government support than Stockholm did.  With 2030 a virtual guarantee should they move forward, though, the Swedish Olympic Committee is hopeful that means they'll get the necessary support and guarantees this time.

It's not at all unheard of for a city that was unsuccessful in its Olympic bid to eventually land a Games.  Salt Lake City lost to Nagano for 1998 and hosted in 2002.  PyeongChang lost twice in a row to Vancouver and Sochi before its successful bid for 2018.  So, especially since they already had a bid that was technically strong, seeing Stockholm host in 2030 after losing its bid for 2026 isn't that crazy an idea at all.

Here's the crazy thing, too.  Sweden has never hosted the Winter Olympics!  One of the most successful winter sports nations.  One where you immediately think of hockey and cross country skiing and biathlon.  A nation of 10.5 million people, the fifth-largest population in Europe.  A nation that is eighth all-time in Winter Olympic medals.  Yet they've never hosted the Winter Games.  The Winter Olympics have been around for nearly a century and never been in Sweden.  It really is hard to believe if you think about it.

Sweden has hosted the Olympics once before.  The Summer Games of 1912, which are best known for Jim Thorpe's excellence in winning both the decathlon and pentathlon, as well as his humorous, "Thanks King" response to the King of Sweden's congratulations.  The 1912 Olympic Stadium is still standing, and was actually the proposed venue for the Big Air snowboarding and freestyle skiing competitions in the 2026 bid, which just sounds cool!

Stockholm would also join Beijing as the second city to host both the Summer and Winter Games.  In a unique piece of Olympic history, though, it would be the third Olympics in the city.  In 1956, Australian quarantine laws prevented foreign horses from entering the country, so the equestrian events at the Melbourne Games were moved to Stockholm (and held in July, months before the rest of the Olympics in the Australian summer).

Although, like at Beijing 2.0, the outdoor events would be held well outside the host city.  Are, which is 400 miles from Stockholm near the Norwegian border, is the only place in Sweden with the capability of hosting world-class alpine skiing.  Falun, about 150 miles away, is the location of Sweden's only ski jump (as well as the location of Sweden's national cross country skiing center).  And Sigulda, of course, is in another country.

In the past, an Olympics that's so spread out would be viewed as a negative.  In recent Winter Olympics, though, it's become the norm.  Beijing was spread out.  Milano-Cortina will be even more spread out.  The two official host cities are 250 miles apart, and the Games will be held throughout Northern Italy.  They might even use the indoor speed skating oval from the 2006 Olympics in Torino!  It's important to note, too, that all of the venues in Sweden are world class and regularly host stops on the World Cup circuit in pretty much every winter sport.

All of this was also true four years ago, when Stockholm's bid lost out in the final head-to-head Olympic bid race for the foreseeable future.  The 2030 Games will be the first Winter Olympics awarded under the new method where the IOC meets with interested cities an essentially hand-picks the host.  Which is why Sweden went from not even a candidate for the 2030 Olympics at the start of 2023 to the odds-on favorite.  That all changed when they met with IOC leaders in Switzerland in January, though, and they were basically told that the 2030 Games are theirs if they want them.

Should Stockholm step up, it wouldn't just solve the IOC's problem regarding a host for 2030.  They've even talked about doing a 2030-2034 dual-award next year.  Salt Lake City is the last resort backup plan for 2030, but has publicly declared its preference for 2034.  So, they could lock up Winter Olympic hosts for a decade by doing Stockholm 2030 and Salt Lake 2034 at once, then have an opportunity to reset before worrying about 2038.

So, Sapporo's virtually guaranteed-to-win 2030 bid falling apart, forcing the IOC to delay the host city election could end up being a blessing in disguise.  Especially if Sweden comes through with a last-minute bid.  Because a Winter Olympics in Sweden sounds incredible!  And is long overdue.

A Bailout for Bally?

When FOX decided to sell off all of their regional sports networks a few years ago, Diamond Sports stepped in and bought them, keeping teams on local TV on the same channel, which was simply rebranded "Bally Sports Network."  That was in 2021.  Barely two years later, Bally Sports is in serious trouble and could very well declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy, completely upending the RSN model in the process.

There are 19 different Bally Sports Networks, as well as seven affiliates (including MSG, MASN and the Chicago Cubs' Marquee Sports Network) that air some BSN content.  Across the NBA, NHL and MLB, 41 teams have their games aired on Bally.  Eight of those are the local TV carrier for at least three non-NFL teams in that market.  So, needless to say, losing the Bally Sports Network would have a major impact on both those teams and their home markets.

This is especially significant with the six-month-long Major League Baseball season about to get going.  Nearly half of MLB teams (14) are broadcast locally on their respective Bally Sports Network.  What happens if Diamond can't pay those teams their rights fees?  (The total debt is $8.6 million, more than $2 million of which is owed in rights fees.)  Will they be left scrambling looking for someone else to air their games--on incredibly short notice--in 2023?

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has vowed not to let that happen.  Should it come to that, MLB is ready to step in and make games available to fans in their local markets, via both linear TV and streaming.  What that will look like is anyone's guess, but it's a prudent financial move by MLB, which has 35 different national streaming packages, but also knows how important those local rights fees are.  And, without those local rights fees, franchise values (and the size of free agent contracts the owners can offer) would go way down.

It's also significant that Manfred has committed to keeping teams' local broadcasts on linear TV.  All out-of-market games, of course, are already available on MLB.TV, but local games have always been blacked out (even the opposing team's broadcast if a local team is playing).  The blackouts are an issue that MLB wants to address, but that's a different issue entirely.  I wonder, though, if one of the ways MLB will step up to fill the void would be to no longer black out local games on MLB.TV.  (Although, that still wouldn't solve the problem of who would actually produce the broadcasts if Bally does indeed go under.)

One possible solution is using MLB Network.  MLB Network shows live games virtually every night picking up one of the teams' local feed, and they always do it regionally since the blackout rules still apply.  So, if say the Royals (a Bally team) are playing the Red Sox, they could show the NESN broadcast on MLB Network and not black it out in Kansas City.  MLB Network also produces some of its own broadcasts, so they could expand the number of those games, as well.

Streaming is the way of the future.  There's no way around it.  Virtually every network has its own streaming platform to accommodate the cord-cutters, and those that don't have either announced plans to launch one or have partnered with an existing streaming service.  There are even games that are exclusive to streaming, both nationally (Thursday Night Football on Amazon Prime, NHL games on ESPN+, MLB's deals with Apple TV and Peacock) and locally (the Yankees' package of Amazon Prime-only games).  And this is the first season of Apple TV's contract as the national broadcaster of MLS, which will see virtually all games only available via streaming.

We'll probably get to a point eventually where a team (or teams) decides to ditch the RSN model entirely and sign on with a streaming company for its "local TV" rights.  But we're not there yet.  And local TV rights fees are a huge source of revenue for both the teams and the league.  And, to put it simply, those rights fees won't be nearly as high coming from a direct-to-consumer source. 

Think about it.  With cable, you're getting the money whether people watch the channel or not.  If you go to the direct-to-consumer model, though, that won't be the case.  The only people paying for the content will be those who actually watch it.  Sure, you can charge whatever price you want and they'll pay it, but it won't make up the difference.  And, again, without an RSN to actually produce the content, someone else would need to pick up those production costs.  That someone would likely be the team.  There goes your entire profit margin!

Some teams, of course, have already done this.  The Yankees started the trend when they launched the team-owned YES Network in 2002, and a number of other teams have followed suit.  So, they don't have this problem.  For everybody else who still relies on RSNs to broadcast the majority of their games, though, they need a solution to the Bally bankruptcy problem.

Baseball teams aren't the only ones affected.  There are also 16 NBA teams and 12 NHL teams that would be impacted.  The NHL has made a similar statement as MLB, announcing that the league would step in if necessary to make sure teams' games are broadcast in their local markets.  The biggest difference with the NHL/NBA and MLB, though, is that those seasons are almost over, so they've got significantly more time to figure something out if need-be.  Because even if Bally Sports Network does shut down, it won't be until the summer at the earliest, when the NBA and Stanley Cup Playoffs will either be over or close to it.

Where it gets complicated is with the NBA.  Last summer, the NBA renewed its deal with Bally Sports+ for league-wide local streaming rights through the 2024-25 season.  That was before the bankruptcy filing, which obviously changes things.  How much is the question.  The NBA can obviously back out of the deal put its streaming rights back up for bid, but that would almost certainly kill off any chance Diamond Sports has at keeping the Bally Sports Network solvent.

As the details of the original contract from 2021 have emerged, it's become clear that this situation with Bally Sports Network was really kind of inevitable.  They didn't just buy some of the regional sports networks previously owned by FOX.  They bought all of them.  And they used credit to do it.  Credit that, unfortunately, has come due and they don't have the assets to cover.  Which has resulted in more than 40 teams in three major professional leagues being put in a very tight spot.

Ultimately, this will all get resolved.  Either someone will buy the Bally Sports Networks (and probably rebrand them) or teams will come together to create their own version of the YES Network or NESN, where they have more control.  And, who knows?  There could be a very positive outcome from this, too.  It could mean the end of local blackouts in MLB.  Something everyone hates and they've been looking for a way to get rid of anyway.

New Rules

The Super Bowl has come and gone, and pitchers & catchers start reporting to Spring Training this weekend.  That can only mean one thing.  Baseball season is right around the corner!  And the 2023 season will be the dawn of a new era for MLB.  Not just because of the new schedule featuring every team playing each of the other 29 for the first time, but because of several significant rules changes that will likely have a major impact on how the game is played.

One of the "new" rules isn't new at all.  And the news about it is unfortunate.  The tiebreaker rule, where a runner is placed on second base at the start of every extra inning, is here to stay.  Introduced in the pandemic-shortened 2020 season and kept in 2021 because of the shortened Spring Training, they used it again last season because of the lockout.  Fans hate it.  But players, owners and broadcasters like shorter games, and managers and GMs like how it places less of a burden on the pitching staff.  As a result, we're stuck with it.

While I don't mind the tiebreaker rule in tournaments like the World Baseball Classic or Olympics, I've never been a fan of using it in the Major League regular season and likely never will be.  I have, however, seen a suggested compromise that I think could work.  Don't start it until the 12th inning.  Let them play the 10th and 11th normal, then go to the tiebreaker after that.  That gives the players two innings to try and win the game the regular way before starting the inning with the free runner.  And the statistics back it up.  A majority of extra-inning games end in either the 10th or 11th.  So, if they go beyond that, then you speed them up.

Another existing rule that has been tweaked involves position players pitching.  The amount of times position players took the mound has actually increased significantly over the past few seasons since the rule was put in place, and neither the players nor the owners were happy about that.  So, they changed it.  Now you can only do it if your team is losing by at least eight runs or up by 10 or more in the 9th.  Position players can also pitch anytime in extra innings.

Neither of those rules is new, so neither should make much of a difference.  The three new rules being introduced this season certainly will, though.  I'm not saying the pitch clock, shift restrictions and bigger bases will have the seismic impact of lowering the mound in 1969 and the designated hitter in 1973.  But you'll definitely be able to tell whether a game was played in 2023 or earlier.

Let's start with the pitch clock.  Pitchers will have 15 seconds between pitches with the bases empty and 20 with runners on base, and hitters must be in the box with eight seconds left.  The penalty for taking too long is either an automatic ball or automatic strike.  Pitchers are also limited to only two step-offs or pickoff attempts per plate appearance.  A third must be successful or will result in a balk.

Because of the new rules, pitchers like the Astros' Luis Garcia and the Blue Jays' Kevin Gausman will have to adjust their windup or be at risk of being called for a balk.  Teams have been warned that balk enforcement will be a point of emphasis this season after it has been inconsistent over the past few years.  With the pitch clock, though, this is a good time to go back to the rulebook definition of a balk, the whole purpose of which is to prevent pitchers from deliberately deceiving baserunners.

In addition to reducing the length of games, the pitch clock should have a major impact in another area.  With pickoff attempts limited, the amount of stolen base attempts should increase.  The running game has become almost nonexistent in modern baseball, but stolen base attempts were up 26 percent in the Minors last year, where they were experimenting with these rules.  That doesn't mean every team will run more.  But some will definitely take advantage.

That's not the only reason stolen base attempts will go up.  The bases will also be three inches bigger, meaning they'll be slightly closer together.  While the difference between 15 inches and 18 inches doesn't sound like a lot, just think of the number of bang-bang plays that were outs previously, but would now result in the runner being safe.  It also makes the distance from home to first and third to home slightly shorter.

So, yes, expect teams to be more likely to run with the bigger bases, even if that wasn't the main purpose for the change.  MLB made the switch for player safety reasons.  They found that the larger bases reduced injuries on those close plays by 13 percent in 2022, since they give both the fielder and the runner more room and a collision less likely.

I've saved the best for last, because this final rule change is one that many fans have been clamoring for and are now finally getting.  Say goodbye to the ridiculous overshift where the second baseman is in short right field and there's nobody on the left side of the infield!  Now, teams will be required to have two infielders on either side of second base, and all four of them must have both feet on the infield dirt when the pitch is thrown.

Left-handed hitters are likely just as overjoyed as some fans about this rule change!  Now, those balls that were always hits until a few years ago will once again be hits.  Infielders will have to make plays based on their skill again.  Third basemen won't be trying to turn double plays at second.  More importantly, now that those hits will be hits again, batting averages will go up and strikeouts will go down.  In other words, there will be more action.

Players will have a chance to get some experience with the rule changes during Spring Training, but the World Baseball Classic throws a very interesting wrinkle into that plan.  The WBC is playing under 2022 Major League rules.  So, no pitch clock.  No bigger bases.  No shift restrictions.  Which means the players who are taking part in the WBC (some of whom are the biggest names in baseball) won't get as much of an adjustment period.  They'll literally be learning on the fly.

Another interesting dynamic is that the younger players actually have the advantage when it comes to the new rules.  These rules were tested in the Minors, so anyone who played in the Minors last year already has some experience with them.  In fact, since they're already used to them, they might not need an adjustment at all.  That certainly won't be the case for Major League veterans, some of whom are very deliberate with their rituals, which may or may not still be legal under the new guidelines.

There are some things that won't be changing, though.  There's no word on expanded replay, although I wouldn't mind seeing some changes to the replay system.  Specifically on the types of plays that can be challenged.  And, fortunately, we'll still have the home plate umpire calling balls and strikes.  The automated strike zone is probably coming at some point relatively soon, but not this year.

Even without the automated strike zone, we're entering a whole new baseball world in 2023.  Three significant rule changes will take effect.  Rule changes that are designed not only to make the games shorter, but to create a better product on the field.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm not always a fan of change.  I am, however, optimistic that these changes will have the desired effect and truly mark the start of a new era for Major League Baseball.

Next Season's Opening Game

The confetti hadn't even stopped falling at State Farm Stadium when talk shifted to next season.  Specifically, it shifted to one of the NFL's more-recent traditions.  The one where the Super Bowl champion opens at home on Thursday night in the first game of the NFL season.  The Royals are home that day, but playing an afternoon game, so the Chiefs won't have a problem continuing that tradition.

And, in an interesting little twist, the 17th game next season is NFC East at AFC West.  Which means we'll have a Super Bowl rematch in Kansas City next season.  So, it's probably a good bet that we'll see that one as the opener, which would mark the second time that the season started with a Super Bowl rematch (Carolina at Denver in 2017 was the first).

However, there's another interesting wrinkle to all of this.  The Chiefs are the "home" team in one of the Germany games next season, and you know the NFL will want a good matchup in that one, as well.  So, I'm very curious to see which game ends up getting chosen for both the opener and the Germany game.  Because Kansas City's home schedule next season is full of marquee games.

Their three non-division AFC home games are all against playoff teams.  Somehow, they ended up with both Buffalo and Cincinnati scheduled to come to Arrowhead, along with Miami.  Plus, the Chargers made the playoffs last season, too (although, I think it's highly unlikely they choose a division game for either).  The only games that I think we can count on definitely NOT opening the season are against the Bears and Lions.

My guess is the Germany game and season opener will come down to Buffalo, Cincinnati, Miami and Philadelphia.  Two will get those marquee spots.  One of the other two will be a Sunday night game, and the last one will be protected by CBS as a national late game.  Here's which games I think it'll be, ranked in order of least likely to most...

9. Bears: Absolutely no chance!  Under no circumstances will the NFL have the Super Bowl champion play the team that had the worst record in the league in a marquee game on a national stage.  This will be a regional Sunday 1:00 game.

8. Raiders: Chiefs-Raiders games are fun and always intense.  But that's not enough of a reason to bump this game up from the 8-spot.  Especially since the Raiders probably won't be very good in 2023.  And since there are much better matchups available to choose.

7. Lions: Early prediction: Detroit will be a playoff team in 2023.  The Lions weren't in 2022, though, and they won't waste a Chiefs' national game on them.  Not when the NFC North teams that Kansas City visits are Green Bay and Minnesota, and it's far more likely one of those ends up in primetime.  

6. Broncos: They gave Denver a ton of primetime games at the beginning of last season because of Russell Wilson.  That turned out to be a bad idea.  The Broncos didn't just suck.  They were also boring.  So, there's absolutely no chance they play the Chiefs on opening night.  I only rank it above the other three games because Sean Payton is the Broncos' coach now, so there'll be at least some interest because of that.

5. Dolphins: For some reason, I think this one's headed to Germany.  I just don't see them setting either the Buffalo-Kansas City or Cincinnati-Kansas City games for a 9:30 AM kickoff on NFL Network.  Besides, the German fans won't care.  The game will be a sellout regardless.  So, Tyreek Hill's return to Arrowhead will have to wait.

4. Chargers: Last season, Chiefs-Chargers was the first Thursday night game on Amazon Prime.  I wouldn't be surprised if they pick that matchup again, but probably the one at SoFi.  (They can't put all of the Chiefs' marquee home games on national TV!)  Although, if the rematch at Arrowhead gets scheduled for Week 18, which I'm betting it will, it could end up on national TV, too.

3. Bills: This one was a CBS national doubleheader game last season.  Which is why I think this year it'll be on a Sunday night.  It wouldn't be completely out of left field if they made it the opener.  And I doubt anyone would complain if they did.  I just don't think they will.  Not with Cincinnati and Philadelphia also available as choices.

2. Bengals: No one would have an issue with an AFC Championship Game rematch to open the season.  I have a sinking suspicion CBS will want this one for a national doubleheader game, though.  Last year, Bills-Chiefs was the doubleheader game and Bengals-Chiefs was on a Sunday night.  That's why I think they reverse it in 2023.

1. Eagles: When they added the 17th game to the schedule, this is what they had in mind.  Last season, the Rams' 17th game was at home against the Bills...and they made it the season-opening Thursday night game.  Throw in the fact that it's a Super Bowl rematch, and I don't see how they can resist!  It would be incredibly shocking if the 2023 season doesn't begin with the same matchup that ended the 2022 season.

My 2022-23 NFL Picks (Super Bowl LVII)

It's actually pretty crazy that it took 57 years for brothers to go against each other in a Super Bowl (although, they technically won't be going against each other since they both play offense).  Anyway, I'm willing to bet Mrs. Kelce has been enjoying the last two weeks much more than she'll enjoy the game.  Sure, one of her sons is going to win the Super Bowl for the second time.  But one of her sons is also going to lose the Super Bowl!

Of course, there are plenty of stories other than just the Kelce brothers, all of which have been told ad nauseum over the past two weeks.  It's Andy Reid vs. his former assistant, Nick Sirianni, and Reid vs. his former team.  He's the winningest coach in Eagles history and, if the Chiefs win, he'll tie Hank Stram for the most coaching wins (regular and postseason) in Kansas City history, too.  It would also be his second Super Bowl title in four years.

A lot has also been made, and rightfully so, about the fact that this is the first Super Bowl between two Black starting quarterbacks.  I'm willing to bet it won't be the last.  And, if the Eagles win, Jalen Hurts will become just the fourth Black quarterback to lift the Lombardi Trophy, joining Doug Williams, Russell Wilson and Mahomes.  Meanwhile, if the Chiefs win, Mahomes will be the first Black QB to win two Super Bowls.

We've also seen our streak of the home team winning come to an end!  After the Bucs and Rams had home field advantage and certainly benefitted from it, we're back to the Super Bowl being a true neutral site game, which really is fairer for both teams.  I know Kansas City would absolutely agree with that point after what happened to them in Tampa two years ago!

So, how will the game go?  I actually really like this matchup!  The Eagles were the best team in the NFL for most of the season, and they were dominant in their two playoff victories.  But the Chiefs are battle-tested, and I think the AFC was the stronger conference this season.  Philadelphia is favored, but not by much, and most experts agree that we've got a close one in store.

Chiefs (14-3) vs. Eagles (14-3): Kansas City-When the playoffs started, whenever someone asked me who I thought would win the Super Bowl, my answer was always "the AFC."  That's because I thought the three best teams entering the playoffs were Kansas City, Buffalo and Cincinnati, so I thought whoever emerged should be the favorite.  And I still feel that way.  The Eagles were impressive all season and have been impressive in the playoffs, but I just think the Chiefs are too good.

Talking about Kansas City's offense is too easy.  They've got an All-World quarterback in Mahomes and their Kelce is a future Hall of Famer.  There are legitimate questions about Mahomes and how healthy that ankle is.  But he wasn't 100 percent in the AFC Championship Game, either, and he was able to adjust his game.  In fact, it might've made him more effective as a passer!  And, don't forget, they've had two weeks to figure out a game plan based on whatever his mobility will be.  So, I think they'll be fine.

However, it's the Chiefs' defense that I want to talk about.  They don't get enough credit because of the headlines that the offense generates, but they're just as good.  Chris Jones and Fred Clark are absolute beasts!  That Chiefs defense came up big when it needed to against Cincinnati, and it could be a key again in the Super Bowl.  Because I think the Chiefs' offense against the Eagles' defense could be a wash.

Philadelphia's defense, of course, has been the story of the postseason so far.  They held the Giants and 49ers to just a touchdown each, and that defensive unit is so deep, they don't lose much when they take the starters out.  But the Chiefs also have a significantly better offense than either the Giants or 49ers.  And a hobbled Mahomes is still infinitely better than San Francisco's fourth-string quarterback.

I must admit, seeing them put up 31 points on the 49ers' No. 1-ranked defense in the NFC Championship Game was mighty impressive.  It wasn't the first time they've done that this season, either.  Which again puts the onus on the Kansas City defense.  Stopping that Eagles offense will be the key.  If they can't do that, we could see the same type of blowout we saw when Kansas City played Tampa Bay.

For some reason, though, I just don't think that's going to happen.  I see a close game where both quarterbacks shine.  And both defenses get a chance to shine.  There'll be big plays.  But there'll be big plays by both teams.  It's really just a matter of who makes the last big play.  Because this could very easily be a back-and-forth game that comes down to who has the ball last.  And, should that happen, we could very well have our MVP determined on the final drive again.

That's where we'll really see either Mahomes or Hurts shine.  Mahomes has done it plenty of times before, including Super Bowl LIV, when the Chiefs scored on three straight fourth-quarter drives to beat San Francisco.  Hurts has had it easy so far in the playoffs this year, so he hasn't had one of those high-pressure fourth-quarter drives.  So, I've gotta give the advantage to Kansas City there, too.  You know Mahomes can do it.  With Hurts, you're not sure.

Then there's the coaches.  Twenty years ago, when John Gruden faced his old team in the Super Bowl, Tampa Bay completely dominated Oakland.  Andy Reid hasn't coached the Eagles in a decade, so this situation isn't remotely close to the same as that one.  But he does know Nick Sirianni.  And that could be the difference.  Who will win?  The teacher or the student.  Can Andy Reid, who never did win the Super Bowl in Philadelphia, win one over the Eagles?

Kansas City began its 2022 season with a win at State Farm Stadium.  And the Chiefs will end their season the same way in the same place.  The team wearing white wins the Super Bowl again!  (Fun fact: this is the first time the Chiefs are wearing white in the Super Bowl since Super Bowl I.)

Conference Championships: 2-0
Playoffs: 8-2
Overall: 174-107-2

NFL Award Picks

This year's NFL Honors are the first under the AP's new voting system.  In the past, voters put down just one name--their winner for that particular award.  It led to some very anticlimactic vote totals when awards were unanimous.  This year, though, they've changed it to a voting system similar to what the BBWAA uses for MLB's postseason awards.  The voters select their top three or top five, with final point totals determining the winner.

We've already seen one of the benefits of the new system.  Because the voters had to rank their candidates and put down at least three names, the NFL was able to announce the finalists ahead of time.  I'm sure it's like in MLB where the top three finishers in the voting were named the "finalists," and whoever wins won't exactly be a surprise.  But it's nice to know who all of the top vote-getters were.

They're also showing the NFL Honors live this year.  Frankly, I never understood why this was taped ahead of time for so long (2021, of course, doesn't count).  Because there was absolutely no reason for it not to be!  And, this way, we won't get any of the award winners spoiled ahead of time.

In addition to the Hall of Fame announcement and all that other filler stuff they use to stretch it out into a two-hour broadcast, they present the AP's eight major awards, as well as the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year.  I'll get to Man of the Year at the end, but here's who I think wins each of the AP awards:

Assistant Coach of the Year: DeMeco Ryans, 49ers-Probably the easiest vote of them all.  That defense was the biggest reason why the 49ers reached the NFC Championship Game.  San Francisco led the NFL in virtually every defensive category.  Which is a big reason why Ryans is no longer the 49ers' defensive coordinator.  He's now Head Coach of the Texans.

Coach of the Year: Brian Daboll, Giants-Five great candidates, all of whom have a very solid case.  I think it comes down to a choice between Brian Daboll and Doug Pederson, though.  After the hot mess that was Urban Meyer's coaching tenure and back-to-back No. 1 overall picks, Pederson led the Jaguars to the AFC South title in his first season with Jacksonville.  However, I give the nod to the Giants' Brian Daboll.  Also in his first year, Daboll engineered quite a turnaround with the Giants, who snapped their streak of 10-loss seasons and returned to the playoffs for the first time in six years...as one of three playoff teams in the NFC East.  Not only that, he took an anemic offense and turned it into a strength.

Comeback Player of the Year: Christian McCaffrey, Panthers/49ers-Geno Smith was a regular starter for the first time in eight years and made his first Pro Bowl while leading the Seahawks to the playoffs.  Saquon Barkley returned to All-Pro form after missing the better part of two seasons with injuries.  But my call for Comeback Player of the Year is Christian McCaffrey.  After playing in a grand total of 10 games in 2020 and 2021 combined, McCaffrey played in all 17 this season, six for Carolina before a midseason trade to San Francisco, and 11 with the 49ers.  And he was once again the dual-threat that fantasy owners love.  He had over 1,000 rushing yards, caught 85 passes, and even threw for a 34-yard touchdown.

Defensive Rookie of the Year: Sauce Gardner, Jets-Aidan Hutchinson made a late run for it, but not enough to surpass season-long favorite Sauce Gardner.  He was the first rookie corner named First Team All-Pro in 40 years, and he led the NFL with 20 passes defended.  It was very reminiscent of a certain other Jets cornerback who'll also be taking the stage at the NFL Honors when they announce the Hall of Fame class.

Offensive Rookie of the Year: Brock Purdy, 49ers-From Mr. Irrelevant to potentially the Offensive Rookie of the Year.  This was a very weird season in that there wasn't the dynamic offensive rookie who made the immediate impact.  Which is how Purdy could very well sneak in and win it despite not making his first NFL start until Week 13 and only starting six games.  The 49ers went 6-0 in those games, and he threw for at least two touchdowns in all of them.

Defensive Player of the Year: Nick Bosa, 49ers-Bosa was the best player on San Francisco's outstanding defense this season.  He led the league with 18.5 sacks and also had 51 tackles, including 19 tackles for loss.  The fact that San Francisco had the league's No. 1 defense is an important thing here, too.  For me, that's what sets Bosa apart from Micah Parsons and Chris Jones (who I'm glad to see is a finalist...that guy is a beast!).

Offensive Player of the Year: Patrick Mahomes, Chiefs-It seems that Offensive Player of the Year and MVP are now treated as completely separate awards after seeing the same person win both so many times in the past.  Three of the four finalists are also up for MVP, so it's certainly possible we will see it again.  In fact, I think we will.  Because how can the Offensive Player of the Year not be Patrick Mahomes?  He had one of the best seasons of his career, setting an NFL record with more than 5,600 total yards and leading the league with 41 touchdown passes while leading Kansas City to another Super Bowl.

MVP: Patrick Mahomes, Chiefs-Jalen Hurts was the frontrunner for most of the season until missing two of the Eagles' final three games.  Although, the fact that they lost both actually enhances his MVP case in my opinion.  Unfortunately, his numbers pale in comparison to Mahomes, though.  Hurts was great.  So was Josh Allen.  So was Joe Burrow.  But none of them came anywhere near the production of Mahomes.  In 2018, he was both MVP and Offensive Player of the Year.  Four years later, he'll win both again.

Last but not least, we've got the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year.  Last year's winner was Andrew Whitworth, who fittingly played for both the Bengals and the Rams before retiring after Super Bowl LVI.  This award, of course, is unique in that it recognizes players as much for what they do off the field as what they do on it.  And, as usual, there are plenty of deserving candidates.  However, I'm going with...

Man of the Year: Dak Prescott, Cowboys-Dak's on-field exploits are well-documented.  He's much less heralded for what he's done off it.  Dak's foundation helped get the National Suicide Prevention hotline number changed to a three-digit number, making it easier for anyone to call.  He's donated more than $40,000 to childhood cancer research and is the co-chair of a childhood cancer gala in Dallas (that was started by Roger Staubach).  In addition to giving back in hurricane-affected areas of Louisiana and Texas, making grants to first responders and for research programs, and finding various ways to be hands-on in his community.  I could go on, but you get the point.  So many deserving candidates, but for me, Dak gets the nod.

Canton Calling Class of 2023

Last year, they moved NFL Honors from the night before the Super Bowl to the Thursday of Super Bowl week.  I'm not entirely sure why they made the change (my guess is it's ratings-related), but they're doing it again this year, so it seems to be permament.  Which is fine, I guess.  It actually makes my blogging schedule a little easier since I can spread out my Super Bowl Week posts now.

We've got the awards on tap as part of the NFL Honors, of course, but we've also got the announcement of the new Hall of Fame class.  This year's finalists include three first-year eligible candidates, and I think two of them are locks.  It wouldn't even be a surprise to see all three get in.  As for the other two or three spots, I've got no idea!

I think this year we might see some clean up done.  By "clean up," I mean doing what they did last year with Tony Boselli, taking a perpetual finalist and finally giving him the nod.  They knew they had to get Boselli in before Thomas became eligible since Thomas was the superior tackle.  So, we may see some of that "clean up," too.  There's a lot of similar guys who played the same position, so they may clear out some of that backlog.

If there wasn't a limit of five, I could easily see 11 or 12 of the 15 finalists making the cut this year.  But that, of course, can't happen.  There can only be five.  So, with that in mind, here are the five I'd select...

Joe Thomas, Tackle (2007-17 Browns): The fact that Joe Thomas was a First Team All-Pro multiple times playing for some really bad Browns teams says all you need to know.  He was widely accepted as the best offensive tackle in football throughout his career, made 10 straight Pro Bowls, was an All-Pro eight years in a row, and was named to the All-Decade Team of the 2010s.  They like to put in at least one offensive lineman a year, and he's clearly the best offensive lineman of the group.

Darrelle Revis, Cornerback (2007-12, 2015-16 Jets, 2013 Buccaneers, 2014 Patriots, 2017 Chiefs): Revis Island was a place you did NOT want to visit if you were a wide receiver!  His numbers actually aren't that high...because nobody threw the ball anywhere near him!  He shut down No. 1 receivers 1-on-1, so opponents just gave up and went to their No. 2 and 3 options instead.  He was a First Team All-Pro four straight years with the Jets, and they went to consecutive AFC Championship Games during that span.  Then he went to the Patriots and won a ring.

Reggie Wayne, Wide Receiver (2001-14 Colts): Simply put, Reggie Wayne is the greatest No. 2 wide receiver in NFL history.  Which is by no means a knock on him.  It just tells you how good those Colts teams were when Peyton had both Marvin Harrison AND Reggie Wayne to throw to!  This is his fourth year of eligibility and fourth year as a finalist.  And, I hope, the year he finally gets in.  He's 10th all-time in receptions with 1,070.  Everybody ahead of him who's eligible is already in.

Ronde Barber, Cornerback/Safety (1997-2012 Buccaneers): Will they actually put in two cornerbacks?  If they do, that's great news for Ronde Barber, the only member of that outstanding Bucs defense of the early 2000s who isn't in the Hall of Fame yet.  And, if they do the clean up I'm expecting, he'll get his long overdue call.  Ronde started 224 consecutive games (including the postseason) and was just as good late in his career as the beginning.  He holds more Tampa Bay franchise defensive records than I can count and is the only player in NFL history with 45 interceptions and 25 sacks.

Devin Hester, Kick Returner (2006-13 Bears, 2014-15 Falcons, 2016 Ravens): This last selection was really hard.  I went back and forth between DeMarcus Ware, Patrick Willis and Devin Hester before ultimately settling on Hester, who will become the first player who was primarily a kick returner to receive a bust in Canton.  Although, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the Ray Guy treatment and is a finalist year after year before ultimately getting voted in as a Senior candidate.  I don't think it'll come to that, though.  In fact, I thought he might even get the nod last year.  However, since it's only his second year on the ballot, I can see him having to wait and one of the defensive guys getting the nod instead.

Whoever gets elected out of the Modern Era candidates will be enshrined with the four Coach/Contributor and Senior nominees.  They technically need to meet the same 80 percent threshold as the Modern Era candidates, but that's really more of a formality once they reach this point.  So, it would be shocking if the Hall of Fame class didn't also include:

Don Coryell, Coach (1973-77 Cardinals, 1978-86 Chargers): After being a finalist so many times, this is the year when Don Coryell will finally get in.  His "Air Coryell" offense was revolutionary, but set the stage for the modern, pass-happy NFL.  And, man, those Chargers played an exciting brand of football!  They never made it to the Super Bowl, but so what?  Don Coryell changed the way NFL football was played with his dynamic offense led by Hall of Famers Dan Fouts, Kellen Winslow and Charlie Joiner.

Chuck Howley, Linebacker (1958-59 Bears, 1961-73 Cowboys): Still the only Super Bowl MVP from the losing team, the 86-year-old Chuck Howley seems poised to receive a bust in Canton at long last!  He played 15 years and finished with 25 interceptions and 18 fumble recoveries in 180 regular season games.  Howley joined the Cowboys in their second season and anchored their defense for more than a decade, as Dallas went from expansion team to powerhouse.

Joe Klecko, Defensive End/Defensive Tackle (1977-87 Jets, 1988 Colts): Two eras of great New York Jets defense will be represented on stage in Canton in August.  Revis, of course, represents the Rex Ryan teams from the early 2010s.  Joe Klecko represents the New York Sack Exchange from the early 1980s.  In 1981, he had 20.5 sacks, which was the single-season record for quite a while.  Klecko finished with 78 in his 12-year career, all but the last of which were spent along the Jets' defensive front.

Ken Riley, Cornerback (1969-83 Bengals): Perhaps the most surprising name on the list of finalists from either the Modern Era or Senior committees, Ken Riley wasn't that well-known.  He was only voted First Team All-Pro once--in the final season of his career--and was never named to a Pro Bowl.  Maybe it was because he played in Cincinnati on Bengals teams that usually weren't very good (although, he did play in Super Bowl XVI).  Although, Riley does hold the distinction of recording at least one interception every season during his 15-year career, and he finished with 65, still the fifth-most in history.

All*Star Stupidity

By all accounts, the reimagined Pro Bowl Games were a hit with both the players and fans.  So, it looks like the NFL is going to stick with this format, at least for a while.  Which is...whatever, I guess!  I think the whole concept is dumb, which is actually in line with all of the other All*Star Games, all of which now have some truly ridiculous elements.

Even the MLB All*Star Game, which has long been the standard-bearer because there are only so many ways to play a baseball game, has ventured into the land of the stupid.  Baseball, with its one-on-one, pitcher vs. hitter nature, lends itself best to the all-star format, and, despite being an exhibition, the MLB All*Star Game is closest to a traditional game of the four.  God forbid the game go into extra innings though!  

So, even though rules changes and roster expansion have made it so that teams have plenty of pitchers available for extra innings, they've done away with extra innings entirely and instead will have a home run derby if the game is tied after nine.  Fortunately, last year's All*Star Game in Los Angeles didn't go into extra innings, but it seems inevitable that we'll see this dumb home run derby tiebreaker happen at some point.

Then there's the NHL, which has actually gotten it right with its four-team, 3-on-3 tournament.  This came after a lot of failed formats, starting with the North America vs. the World thing they did when the NHL first started sending players to the Olympics.  After that format had run its course, they moved on to the "captain's pick" era, where the All-Stars chose their own teams.  The less said about that, the better.  And I think the 3-on-3 concept is great!

The NHL Skills Competition, though, which was once the best part of All*Star Weekend, has become a hot mess!  They keep changing the events every year, and I seriously don't know what some of that crap the other night was!  They've even found a way to screw up the traditional events they have all the time!  I get the idea behind incorporating the host city with some of the special events, but they're so odd and out of place!  (And what are they gonna do next year in Toronto?  You can't really do stuff outside like you could in Las Vegas and Miami.)  Kudos for including the women's players from the U.S. and Canadian National Teams, though.

With the NBA, I don't know where to start!  That whole weekend has become utterly absurd!  The NHL dumped the "pick your own teams" thing because they realized how dumb it was, but even that's not dumb enough for the NBA!  And this year, in a new wrinkle, the teams won't even be chosen until the night of the All*Star Game!  (We're on year six of this format, and LeBron has one of the captains all six times.)

As if that's not enough, the fourth quarter is untimed.  They use that "Elam Ending" from The Basketball Tournament, that single-elimination event ESPN uses as filler programming in the summer.  They add 24 (in honor of Kobe Bryant) to the leading team's score after three quarters and use that as the "target score."  Whoever reaches the target score first wins.  It's as ridiculous as it sounds!

They went to the team captain thing in 2018 and have used the Elam Ending since 2020.  Both were in response to the 2016 event in Toronto, where the final score was 196-173, followed by a 2017 game in New Orleans that finished 192-182.  Defense has always been optional in All*Star Games, but apparently the winning team almost scoring 200 points went a little too far on the no defense thing!

Meanwhile, the Pro Bowl is an event that Roger Goodell has been trying to kill ever since he became commissioner.  The Pro Bowl was never a display of high-quality football!  It's an exhibition game played after the season, so that's to be expected.  But there was never so much complaining about the quality and lack of competitiveness and how much it "needed to change" until Goodell took over.

Goodell's first two terrible moves came in 2010.  First, he took the game out of Hawaii, where it had been played for 30 years and moved it to Miami.  The idea behind this was that it would be played at the site of the Super Bowl as a kind of kick off to the week's festivities.  Except going to Hawaii was one of the things that actually made the Pro Bowl appealing to players!  The whole "Super Bowl rotation" lasted all of one year before they went back to Hawaii before moving to Orlando and, most recently, Las Vegas.

He also moved it from the week after the Super Bowl to the week before, which meant players from the two Super Bowl teams would be ineligible.  The number of players who are replaced (for whatever reason) has always been one of the Pro Bowl's biggest problems, and none of these recent changes have done anything to remedy that.  And I get the idea behind having it in the week off between the conference championships and the Super Bowl, but the idea of having an All*Star Game where players from the two best teams are automatically ineligible will never not be stupid to me!

Football has also tried the unconferenced pick your own team format with Hall of Famers serving as team captains for a little while.  Fortunately, that only lasted three years before they went back to AFC vs. NFC.  Then this year, they abandoned the idea of a traditional game entirely, opting for the new "Pro Bowl Games" format (which is still AFC vs. NFC).

While I'll admit to not watching any of the skills challenges and very little of the flag football finale itself, that was mostly on principle.  I think the format is stupid, so why would I support it?  And I will give them credit for trying something different.  The players and fans seemed to enjoy it, too, so maybe it'll end up being a good idea in the long run.  Likewise, the changes in the other sports don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

It might sound simple to just get rid of the Pro Bowl entirely, which I think is Roger Goodell's ultimate goal.  The players still want it, though, so he can't just get rid of it entirely.  So, the Pro Bowl Games is what we got!  Is the idea stupid?  Yes!  But it's not like the NFL is alone in finding a way to make its All*Star Game more stupid.  That's something all four sports have in common!

Not Simple How Exactly?

During NHL All*Star Weekend, Sidney Crosby said that he'd like to see the NHL change its playoff format (which something I've been advocating ever since they introduced the current dumb format).  He'd like to see them go back to the old way and just do the eight best teams in each conference seeded 1-8.  When asked about it, Gary Bettman said that's "not as simple as it sounds."  How?  Because it seems pretty simple to me!

Apparently, the biggest issue with changing the format, according to Bettman at least, is that moving away from a division-based system and going back to a conference-based system is the uneven number of games.  Teams play opponents in their own division three or four times and opponents from the other division in the conference three times.  However, the issue with that logic is the number of conference games they play is the same.  Everybody plays two games each against the 16 teams in the other conference, so they all play 50 conference games.  So, if anything, doing it conference-based is fairer.

Bettman also mentioned something about having to change the wild cards.  Although, I'm not really sure I understand where he was going with that.  It's currently the top three in each division and two wild cards.  Going to conference-based would just be the six best teams outside of the division winners.  The teams that qualify either wouldn't change at all or maybe one team would be different.  The seeds wouldn't be the same, but that's really the only major difference.  And, frankly, that would be better.

That has always been the biggest issue with the current playoff format.  It's a fixed bracket where the second- and third-place teams in each division face each other in the first round.  Even if they have the third- and fourth-best records in the conference.  Likewise, if the top two teams in the conference play in the same division (which happened often when Pittsburgh and Washington were dominating the league), there's no way they can play each other in the conference finals.  If you do it conference-based, though, there would be no chance of that happening since the best second-place team would be the No. 3 seed.

In the COVID-impacted 2020-21 season, this flaw was on full display.  Teams only played games in temporarily-realigned divisions that season, and the playoffs were division-based, as well.  Colorado and Vegas had the two best records in the league that season.  Unfortunately, they both played in the Western Division, which meant the two best teams in the league met in the second round of the playoffs!

Roughly around that same time two years ago, Bettman and Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly polled the general managers, and evidently two-thirds of them said they were fine with the current format.  Who knows if that's actually true!  Or if it's still true!  Regardless, there are coaches who agree with Crosby.  And there are definitely other players who do.  So it's worth revisting no matter what.  Especially because there's something else they need to revist, too.

When Seattle joined the league last season, they had to make room for the Kraken on everybody's schedule.  In order to keep it at 82 games, though, that meant taking away two division games for Eastern Conference teams, three division games for Central Division teams, and either three or four division games for the rest of the Pacific Division.  Which means they no longer play the same number of games against each division opponent.  They play a total of 26 division games, four against five opponents and only three against the other two.

The obvious problem here is that there's one division team that you only play at home once.  Worse than that, they rotate the two division teams you only play three times.  And this year, that resulted in only three Rangers-Islanders games and only three Flames-Oilers games.  The Rangers and Islanders were done with their three-game season series in December!  Needless to say, the fans and front offices of all four teams were not pleased about that situation.

There's a very easy way to fix the scheduling issue.  Add two games to the schedule.  Going to 84 games would allow them to go back to playing every team in their division four times each (and, more importantly, twice at home each), while also leaving room for those two games against Seattle.  It would also, obviously, give each team an extra home game, which you know the owners would love.

This is something that's already been discussed, so it wouldn't surprise me if the owners vote to expand the schedule by two games (which would also give them more opportunities for outdoor and international games).  Except they can't do that unilaterally.  They would need the NHLPA's approval for it.  Which opens up both issues to negotiation.

If changing the playoff format is important to the players and going to an 84-game schedule is important to the owners, I can easily see the sides coming to an agreement.  The owners get their extra two games, the players get their changes to the playoffs.  And, frankly, I don't see either as a negative.

Based on Crosby's comments, it doesn't look like he's budging on his desire to see the playoffs revert to their old format.  As hard as the regular season is, he'd like to see there be a reward for finishing with the best record.  Especially since the Stanley Cup Playoffs are always such a crapshoot. 

And that reward wouldn't necessarily be in the first round.  It would be in the second round.  Dallas and Winnipeg have the most and second-most points in the West right now, but, because they're in the same division, would play in the second round.  That's what changing the playoff format would avoid.  It wouldn't necessarily just be the 1-seed who benefits, either.  It's very plausible that Toronto and Tampa Bay could finish third and fourth in the East.  Fixing the format would mean that they no longer have to play in the first round, while the 5- and 6-seeds also play each other (which has happened before).

So, I don't get Gary Bettman's logic here at all.  They can't change the playoff format this season.  No one's asking for that, and it would be unreasonable to do so.  But changing it next season wouldn't be that hard at all.  Neither would going to an 84-game schedule.  As long as everybody agrees, doing both together would actually be pretty easy.

Top QB/RB/WR Tandems

So...Tom Brady retired again.  He says it's "for real" this time, but he said that last year too, when his retirement lasted all of six weeks!  Sorry, but I don't want to see another Brett Favre situation emerging here.  Let's not have the "will he or won't he" every offseason.  Hopefully Brady means it when he says it's "for real" this time.  I'll believe it when I see it, though.

Anyway, Brady's "permanent" retirement actually works well into the blog I was already planning on doing today.  It was inspired by something I saw on Facebook the other day asking who the best quarterback/running back/wide receiver combo in NFL history is.  It's an interesting question that's obviously incredibly subjective and doesn't have one "right" answer.  Especially because there are plenty of franchises that have their quarterback, running back and wide receiver from the same era enshrined in Canton.  It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that those teams either won or reached multiple Super Bowls during that span.

Some teams were spoiled in that they had multiple Hall of Fame receivers to go along with the Hall of Fame QB and running back.  There are also teams that had two of the three, and others, like Brady's Patriots, who continued to win with a continually changing cast.  All of which means coming up with a list of the top 10 QB/RB/WR trios gets a little tricky once you get past the easy ones with three Hall of Famers.

I'm also limiting the list to the Super Bowl Era.  Football wasn't really a passing game in the early years, so aren't many candidates from before then to begin with.  Although, the Cleveland Browns' dynasty from 1946-55 would certainly fit the bill.  They aren't on here, though.  Because this list begins with the 1966 season.  So, with that, here we go...

10. 2000s Patriots (Tom Brady/James White/Julian Edelman): One of the remarkable things about the Patriots dynasty is that Brady was the only real constant on offense.  White and Edelman were with him the longest, though, so they get the distinction of the No. 10 spot.  Edelman may end up joining Brady in Canton one day, but that's by no means a guarantee.  White almost certainly will not.  But it wouldn't have felt right to keep the Patriots off this list entirely.

9. 1990s Broncos (John Elway/Terrell Davis/Rod Smith): Every other team on this list has at least two players who are already in the Hall of Fame.  The Broncos teams that won back-to-back Super Bowls had one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time in Elway and a running back in Davis who was enshrined in Canton despite a brief career.  Rod Smith was the No. 1 receiver on those Denver teams and nearly as good as his Hall of Fame teammates.

8. 2000s Steelers (Ben Roethlisberger/Jerome Bettis/Hines Ward): Technically, only one of these three Steelers is in the Hall of Fame, but we all know Ben Roethlisberger will be there as soon as he's eligible.  Pittsburgh, incredibly, only won the one Super Bowl with Roethlisberger, Bettis and Ward.  Ward was the MVP of that game, which was the last of Bettis' career.  He and Roethlisberger won another three years later.

7. 1970s Dolphins (Bob Griese/Larry Csonka/Paul Warfield): While the Dolphins of the 70s were known mainly for their defense, they did have a Hall of Fame trio in Griese, Csonka and Warfield.  They were still a little run-heavy, with Jim Kiick and Mercury Morris, but they were one of the first with all-time greats at all three offensive skill positions.

6. 1980s 49ers (Joe Montana/Roger Craig/Jerry Rice): Joe Montana is on the short list of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time and Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver of all-time.  So why do I have the 1980s 49ers only at No. 6?  Because Roger Craig isn't (although, I've long said he should be and still think he eventually will be).  Craig was Marshall Faulk before Marshall Faulk.  Let's not forget, these 49er teams also had John Taylor.  They were really good!

5. 1990s Bills (Jim Kelly/Thurman Thomas/Andre Reed): The only trio on this list who never won a Super Bowl, but they went to four in a row, so I think we can let that slide.  They've also all have busts in Canton, which is something they have in common with all of the teams above them on this list.  Buffalo's K-Gun offense is nowhere near what it was without Kelly, Thomas and Reed, and the Bills certainly don't go to four straight Super Bowls without them.

4. 1990s Cowboys (Troy Aikman/Emmitt Smith/Michael Irvin): There are probably a lot of people who'd put The Triplets at No. 1.  And I wouldn't argue with them if they did.  After all, the Aikman/Emmitt/Irvin Cowboys who won three out of four Super Bowls in the mid-90s are usually the first team people think of when coming up with a list like this.  So, any of the top four spots would be OK with me.

3. 1970s Steelers (Terry Bradshaw/Franco Harris/Lynn Swann): Why do I have the 70s Steelers ranked ahead of the 90s Cowboys?  Because of John Stallworth!  So, Bradshaw was handing off to a Hall of Fame running back while throwing to not one, but two Hall of Fame wide receivers!  They were the first team to really utilize both the running and passing game equally.

2. 2000s Rams (Kurt Warner/Marshall Faulk/Isaac Bruce): They were called the "Greatest Show On Turf," and there was a good reason why.  Seriously, how much fun to watch were those Rams teams of the early 2000s?!  I still contend that Marshall Faulk is the greatest dual-threat running back in NFL history, we all know Kurt Warner's story, and it took much longer than it should have for Isaac Bruce to also take his rightful place in the Hall of Fame.  Hopefully, Torry Holt will join them in Canton soon. 

1. 2000s Colts (Peyton Manning/Edgerrin James/Marvin Harrison): Talk about an offense that was fun to watch!  I give you the Peyton Manning-led Indianapolis Colts.  Manning to Harrison was the most successful QB-receiver connection in NFL history.  They hold the records for most receptions, yards and TDs.  Then, when the Colts wanted to mix it up with the run game, they threw Edgerrin James at you.  (Fun fact: James was no longer on the team when Indianapolis won Super Bowl XLI.)  The reason why they get the No. 1 spot, though, is because of Reggie Wayne, the greatest No. 2 receiver in NFL history who'll hopefully be announced as a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2023 next week.  This wasn't a trio.  It was a foursome.