Where to Expand (If At All)?

With the A's finally set to move from Oakland to Las Vegas, that would seemingly take Las Vegas off the table as a potential MLB expansion destination.  Now, to be fair, Major League Baseball has given no indication that expansion is imminent or even on their radar.  But that hasn't stopped cities from making their interest known.

Although, there is a school of thought that MLB didn't even want to think about expansion until Oakland's stadium situation was resolved.  Now that it is, they can presumably move on to the expansion conversations.  There are even some who think the next round of expansion is already a done deal.  It's just a matter of when (which some suggest could be as early as 3-5 years).

So, assuming those expansion rumors are legitimate and that is the timeline we're looking at, you'd have to think there'll be significantly more movement as cities angle to be one of the two that's chosen.  We've heard about two cities so far--Nashville and Salt Lake City.  One of which seems more likely than the other.  Especially because you'd have to think that any future MLB expansion will include a serious look at Montreal.

We all know what happened with the Expos.  We also know that things are different now than they were 20 years ago, when MLB bought the Expos and moved them to Washington.  Part of the reason for that was MLB wanted a team in Washington.  There was no doubt about the passion of the fans in Montreal.  The Blue Jays exhibition games in the city in recent years have proven that.  It was really just a bad set of circumstances, mainly the stadium situation and the lack of an owner, that doomed the Expos.

However, the interest in bringing Major League Baseball back to Montreal is there.  There was even that ridiculous plan where the Rays would play half the season in Tampa and half the season in a new stadium in Montreal, which was presumably paving the way for an Expos return.  While that, fortunately, never happened, the fact that they were talking about a new stadium in Montreal is a good thing.  Because it would be an absolute requirement.  And it would have to have a (working) retractable roof.  Otherwise, Montreal would be a non-starter.

Should there be an interested ownership group in Montreal and they get the stadium figured out (both the financing and location), it would be very hard to foresee a situation where Montreal isn't one of the two expansion cities.  I'm not saying it would be guaranteed.  I'm just saying I would be extremely surprised if it didn't happen.  Just like how Washington deserved to have Major League baseball again, so does Montreal.

Now let's talk about Salt Lake City, another city that has been mentioned.  I don't know how realistic that is, though.  There's a Triple-A team in Salt Lake City, and they've unveiled plans to build a new stadium in the city's downtown area.  That would seem to be an obvious point in Salt Lake City's favor.  As would the fact that the Colorado Rockies, the only Major League team in that area of the country, are all for it.  But still, I'm skeptical if Salt Lake City would be the call.

There is one advantage to a potential team in Salt Lake City, though.  You'd have to assume that a 32-team MLB would split into eight divisions of four.  And Salt Lake City would be easy enough to plop in there as the fourth team in the AL West without having to either split the Texas teams (which almost certainly won't happen) or make the Diamondbacks switch leagues (although, it would leave the Rockies without an obvious division since the NL West would then be Arizona and the three California teams).

For now, I'm thinking Salt Lake City would be a "No."  Same with Portland.  Other than being a natural rival for the Mariners (and do you really need two teams in the Pacific Northwest?), I'm not sure what Portland brings.  Yes, it's one of the largest media markets in the country without an MLB team (No. 22), and it's a bigger market than Salt Lake City (No. 29), but, for some reason, I feel Salt Lake City would still be considered above Portland.  And if I'm not high on Salt Lake City's chances, I'm obviously not high on Portland's then.

Two other cities that haven't been mentioned but maybe will if expansion talks get more serious are Charlotte and Indianapolis.  Rob Manfred has specifically mentioned Charlotte as a potential expansion location in the past and it makes sense, since it's one of the fastest-growing cities in the country.  Indianapolis, meanwhile, would probably be hurt by its location in the Midwest, right in the middle of a bunch of other teams.  They've got a Triple-A team there, but it might be tough building a Major League fanbase when a lot of people there likely already support either one of the Chicago teams or Milwaukee and live close enough to go to their games.

New Orleans have never really shown much interest in landing an MLB team, and I'm not entirely sure why.  They haven't even had a Triple-A team since the Baby Cakes (yes, that was their actual team name) moved to Wichita after the 2019 season.  So, I think that reason alone means New Orleans would be out.

That doesn't mean the entire Southeast would be out, though.  Because Nashville does make a lot of sense as Montreal's expansion partner.  They just approved the funding for a new, retractable-roof stadium for the Titans, which will presumably land Nashville a Super Bowl somewhere down the line.  There are plenty of potential ownership groups interested in bringing an MLB team to Nashville, and some have even entered into discussions with the city about areas for a downtown ballpark.

Nashville doesn't just have the Titans.  There's obviously the Predators, too, but also Nashville FC in MLS, and the WNBA is reportedly considering a Nashville expansion team.  It's the 21st-most populous city in the country, so there's definitely room for an MLB team, as well.  Plus, the soundtrack of baseball IS country music, which obviously makes Nashville a perfect fit for that reason alone.  And, if you've never seen it, the Nashville Sounds have the coolest scoreboard in all of Minor League Baseball.

Placing a team in Nashville (or Charlotte, for that matter) would also put an MLB team in an area that's completely without one.  Atlanta and Cincinnati are the closest MLB cities to Nashville.  Both are more than three hours away.  St. Louis is a 300-mile trip.  More significantly, though, there are no MLB teams in that entire area between Atlanta/Cincinnati and St. Louis.  Granted, Nashville is sort of in between Atlanta and Cincinnati, but that still covers an entire area of the country that doesn't have an MLB team.

And, just like my earlier point about divisions, Nashville would make for a very tidy NL South with the Braves, Marlins and Nationals.  Or, if you didn't want to make the Diamondbacks switch leagues, the AL South could just as easily be Houston, Tampa Bay, Kansas City and Nashville (Dallas is further west than Houston, so the Rangers would have to stay in the AL West in this scenario).

It does seem like Major League Baseball expanding to 32 is inevitable somewhere down the line.  (The new schedule format actually lends itself pretty easily to two additional teams, which furthers the argument that it's gonna happen sooner or later.)  When and if it happens, those are my two choices.  Montreal and Nashville.

NFL Events

It probably won't surprise anybody reading this to hear that I have absolutely no interest in the NFL Draft.  I did enjoy the movie Draft Day.  But the real one?  No.  I can't remember the last time I watched any part of an actual NFL Draft, let alone the hours and hours over three days it has become.  (Seriously, why is it so long?!)

Part, if not all of the reason, is because I'm not a fan of top-level college football.  And, since I don't care--at all--I have little to no idea who even the best players are, let alone the random offensive lineman from Missouri who the Lions might take in the fifth round.  And I'm certainly not spending hours creating and updating my mock drafts (which has somehow turned into a full-time job for draft analysts).

I also have a really hard time getting amped up for guys who may or may not even make the team.  They're just way too much of an unknown.  I don't even watch the NFL preseason.  Once the season's ready to start and we know who's actually on the team, then I'll care.  Until then, I'm good.

For the record, I couldn't give two hoots about the NBA Draft, either...for the opposite reason!  I enjoy college basketball (and I sure see enough of it live during the season), but I don't care at all about the NBA.  Nor do I have any idea who all of the international players that get drafted are.  So, while I at least somewhat care where the NFL rookies end up, I'm completely indifferent when it comes to the NBA.  But that's just me.

And, even though the NFL Draft isn't my cup of tea, I do realize that some people live for it.  Whether it's because they're fans of a particular college team (or college football in general) and want to see where their guys go or they're desperate to see their NFL team improve or a combination of both, they're all about the NFL Draft and will intently watch all three days.  Or even go to the Draft in person.

After holding the Draft in New York for years, the NFL started taking it on the road in 2015.  Which is one of the smartest things the league has ever done!  Since the 2020 Draft was held virtually because of the pandemic (I might've watched a little bit of that one just to see how the virtual draft would work out), it's been to Cleveland and Las Vegas.  This year, it's in Kansas City, and next year's NFL Draft will be in Detroit.

Moving the Draft around gave the NFL an opportunity to bring it to the people instead of making the fans go to New York.  It's also a chance to showcase different cities.  Because of when the game is played, the Super Bowl rotation is limited to the same handful of places.  But the NFL Draft is in late April, not mid-February, so they don't need to worry about making sure it's in a warm-weather location or dome.  It can be held anywhere!

Literally any team in the NFL can host the Draft.  Which means that between the Super Bowl and the Draft, every team gets the opportunity to host one of the league's two major events.  More importantly, every NFL city will get the chance.  Not just to benefit from the exposure the event brings, but the revenue that is generated from all the fans coming into town.  And that's really the biggest impact.

The NFL Draft has become an event.  It's probably the second-biggest day on the football calendar, behind only the Super Bowl.  And I do get why.  It brings the fanatical college football faithful and the passionate NFL fans together.  It's something they look forward to from the second the final whistle of the Super Bowl sounds, and it fills the football fix during that months-long void between the end of the season in February and the start of the next season in September (the XFL and USFL don't count).

All credit for that goes to both the NFL and ESPN.  In the early days of ESPN, when they were just desperate for any sort of programming, Pete Rozelle said, "Sure, you can broadcast the Draft."  He thought they were crazy!  Now, the NFL Draft is on three different channels over three days, with the first round broadcast in prime time (to massive ratings).  And it's always highly anticipated.  Which says a lot about how much it's evolved since that first televised Draft in the early 80s.

What's crazy, though, is that the NFL Draft is no longer the only offseason "event" people look forward to.  The NFL has really turned into a year-round sport.  And it's all because of the way they've set up the offseason calendar.  There's basically made it so that there's something scheduled every month, which is a guaranteed way of keeping people talking about the NFL all year long.

In March is the start of free agency and the Combine.  Then the Draft is in April.  The schedule used to be released before the Draft, but they've moved it to May and turned it into an event of its own.  Minicamps and OTAs are in June.  It's really only July where there's any sort of "dead" period, but don't be surprised if teams turn that into some sort of fan festival around the start of training camp.  And, of course, the preseason is in August, which resets the entire calendar for the next season.

Which is all a testament to how ridiculously popular the NFL is!  It's clearly America's No. 1 sport right now, and it's smart to capitalize on that by turning everything that happens in the offseason into an "event."  Some, admittedly, are bigger than others.  And the NFL Draft is the biggest of those.

If the interest in the NFL Draft wasn't what it is, the league never would've turned it into an event.  But that's exactly what it is.  They took the power of the NFL, the power of college football, and bored, rabid fans who've been deprived of football, and created a Super Bowl-type atmosphere at the end of April.  And fans just eat it up!  (Not me, but lots of other fans.)

Late Career QB Moves

Aaron Rodgers is finally a Jet.  More than a month after he told the Packers that the Jets were the only team he'd play for in 2023, Green Bay gave their disgruntled former quarterback what he wanted and traded him for draft picks.  The timing of the trade is actually not all that surprising, seeing as the Draft is later this week and both the Packers and Jets wanted to get it done before then so that they knew exactly which picks they'd each have.

The Rodgers trade comes exactly 15 years after the last time the Packers traded their future Hall of Fame quarterback to the Jets.  (Get ready for the next one in 2038!)  For Green Bay, it's a chance to move on and finally go in a different direction after the franchise was essentially held hostage by Rodgers and his whims over the past few seasons.  The Jets, meanwhile, are hoping a proven veteran will solve their long-standing QB problems (which are usually the result of high draft picks that just don't work out).

Of course, the Jets are also hoping that things work out a little better for them this time than it did with Favre.  I mean, 2008 was one of their better seasons in recent years, and Favre was great, so it wasn't exactly bad.  But they finished 9-7 and out of the playoffs after starting 8-3, then Favre was gone at the end of the season, and they'd make the next two AFC Championship Games without him.

Trading for Rodgers is a risk.  But it's a risk they were willing to take.  Just like trading for Favre was a risk they were willing to take.  Or, maybe it's signing a veteran QB as a free agent, hoping they've still got some magic left in them.  Sometimes that risk works out.  Sometimes it doesn't.  Just ask these other teams:

Peyton Manning to the Broncos: I'd call this the most successful late-career QB move ever.  After Manning missed the 2011 season due to injury and was released by Indianapolis, he signed with Denver.  In his four seasons with the team, the Broncos never won fewer than 12 games, won the AFC West every year, won two AFC titles, and won Super Bowl 50.  Eight years and five head coaches later, Super Bowl 50 remains their most recent playoff game.

Tom Brady to the Buccaneers: Brady's tenure in Tampa only lasted three seasons (so far).  That's why I rank it below Peyton's stint in Denver.  The Bucs, of course, played that home Super Bowl, then followed it up with two straight NFC South titles.  However, the NFC South was really bad last season and they had a sub-.500 record.  That's another mark agaisnt them.

Joe Montana to the Chiefs: When the 49ers decided to go with Steve Young at quarterback in 1993, they traded Joe Montana to Kansas City.  The Chiefs went 11-5 and made it to the AFC Championship Game that season.  They made it again in 1994, finishing 9-7 and earning a wild card before Montana retired after the season.

Matthew Stafford to the Rams: Last season wasn't good, but the 2021 season sure was.  The Rams and Lions swapped quarterbacks, with Stafford going to LA and Jared Goff going to Detroit.  Stafford stayed healthy, had one of the best seasons of his career, and led the Rams to a 12-5 record, then a home Super Bowl win.

Brett Favre to the Vikings: Favre "retired" after his season with the Jets only to resurface a few months later in Minnesota.  As it turns out, he really wanted to play for the Vikings that whole time.  And he had a great season in 2009, making his final Pro Bowl appearance after leading Minnesota to a 12-4 record and the NFC Championship Game.  He got hurt in that game, though, and the 2010 season wasn't so good.  Favre's career ended when he smacked his head and suffered a concussion during a December Monday night game.

Then there are the bad ones.  The QB trades/free agent signings that you think are that missing piece, but end up turning into a disaster.  And you can bet they regretted it.  Some of these tenures only lasted one year as a result.

Russell Wilson to the Broncos: Denver thought Russell Wilson was the answer to their offensive woes.  He was not.  Wilson was bad.  The offense was bad.  The team was bad.  What's worse is they traded so many draft picks to the Seahawks to get him, they're stuck.  All they can hope is that Sean Payton is able to find the Russell Wilson who was actually good in Seattle.  Otherwise, this will go down as one of the biggest trade busts in NFL history.

Matt Ryan to the Colts: Another one from last offseason that just didn't work out.  Indianapolis has turned into a kind of QB retirement home.  First it was Philip Rivers, then Carson Wentz, then Matt Ryan.  Rivers took them to the playoffs and Wentz just missed.  Ryan, however, was terrible.  So bad, in fact, that he got benched midseason.

Tim Tebow to the Jets: Mark Sanchez took the Jets to consecutive AFC Championship Games (OK, it was mainly the defense, but still).  Yet the Jets felt the need to get Tim Tebow anyway, even after signing Sanchez to an extension.  That season was an absolute mess!  They didn't know who they wanted the starter to be and it led to that weird platoon that ruined both of their careers.  In other words, it was a pretty typical Jets thing to do.

Andy Dalton to the Bears: Much like the Jets, the Bears haven't exactly had the best of luck when it comes to quarterbacks recently.  Case in point, 2021.  They signed Andy Dalton, who'd spent years as the starter in Cincinnati and stepped in admirably for Dallas in 2020 when Dak Prescott got hurt.  But, like most Bears quarterbacks before him, things didn't go well.  He was benched for Justin Fields, then became the starter again after Fields got hurt in Week 11.  The Bears, meanwhile, went 6-11.  Dalton rebounded nicely last year in New Orleans and is now in Carolina, a team that has its own recent history of quarterback problems.

Cam Newton to the Patriots: After Brady left New England as a free agent, the Patriots signed Cam Newton to be their starter for the 2020 season.  He wasn't terrible, but he wasn't great either (he had more rushing TDs-12, than passing TDs-8), AND he missed a game on the COVID-19 reserve list.  New England ended up finishing 7-9 and missed the playoffs.  The Patriots re-signed him that offseason anyway, but Mac Jones beat him out for the starting job and he was cut at the end of training camp.

Which list will the Rodgers trade end up on?  He forced the Packers' hand, so you can bet they're glad to be rid of him one way or the other.  But how will it work out for the Jets?  Will he finally solve their QB problem?  Or will this go down as another bust and leave them, once again, looking for the answer under center?

Coming Soon: The Las Vegas Athletics

Maybe Taylor Swift was talking about the City of Oakland.  Because, as the city prepares to lose its third pro sports franchise in less than a decade (leaving it with zero!), blaming it on the teams becomes harder and harder to do.  What they're asking for isn't unreasonable, especially since they were the ones with the leverage.  Especially after the Warriors and Raiders, the light bulb should've gone off in somebody's head.  Hey, maybe the problem is us!

The A's stadium saga appears to be reaching its conclusion, as the team has entered into a binding agreement with Las Vegas to purchase land with the intention of building a Major League ballpark.  Once that happens, it'll be official.  The Oakland Athletics will become the Las Vegas Athletics, and Oakland will no longer be a pro sports city.  Which, frankly, is entirely the city's fault.

It's been the same problem for years.  The Oakland Coliseum has long been one of the worst stadiums in the Majors.  And that was before the Raiders came back to town and ruined it further.  Those renovations to accommodate the football team took a bad venue for baseball and made it even worse!  Everyone knew it, too!  The stadium's a dump and they need a new one.  Yet the city's efforts to build one have been half-hearted at best.

Seriously, how many times have the team and the city tried to come to an agreement on a new stadium, only to run into one hurdle or another?  There were location issues, political issues, cost issues.  Whatever the reason, the result was always the same.  The A's and Major League Baseball got their hopes up that the stadium situation might be resolved, only for the deal to fall through and the A's having no choice but to go back to the Coliseum.

They tried.  Over and over again.  Yet every time the A's tried to get Oakland to build them the new stadium they so desperately need, something happened so that it wouldn't.  It eventually got to the point where they knew they were getting nowhere in Oakland, so they had to explore opportunities elsewhere.  Their focus turned pretty quickly to Las Vegas, which is offering them exactly what they're looking for (and they've tried, and failed, to get from Oakland multiple times).

If they didn't get what they wanted from Oakland, they were gonna get it somewhere else.  So why is everyone acting so surprised that they were considering moving?  Especially after what happened with the Raiders...for the exact same reason!  And, let's not forget, the Raiders were lured back to Oakland from Los Angeles because the city agreed to renovate the stadium.  But even they grew dissatisfied with the stadium, and the lack of progress on a new one, so they felt like they had no choice but to move.

There are some decrying the A's lack of loyalty to Oakland, but who are we kidding?  They have no loyalty to Oakland!  This is a team that started in Philadelphia, moved to Kansas City, then moved again to Oakland.  Both of those moves were because the new city provided them with a better opportunity.  Which is exactly what they'll be doing again when they move for a third time...to Las Vegas.

This all could've been easily avoided, too.  The city and the fans had to know what was potentially gonna happen if they didn't approve a new stadium, either the funding or the stadium itself.  So why are they surprised that it is?  They want to complain about the A's lack of "loyalty," but where's their loyalty to the team?  This is a two-way street.

I liken this situation to what happened with the New York Islanders a few years ago.  The Islanders needed a new building, Nassau County kept refusing to build it, so when the Nets built the Barclays Center, the Islanders moved in, too.  That ultimately didn't work out and the eventually did build their own arena (which is beautiful).  But Nassau County took the Islanders for granted and ended up losing them.  Which is exactly what Oakland did with all three of its teams.

With the Warriors, it's a little different.  They stayed in the Bay Area.  And the opportunity to play in a brand new arena in downtown San Francisco was too good to pass up!  Besides, they started in San Francisco, so moving back to the other side of the Bay (to a larger city that's one of the major cities in the U.S.), especially after the team got good, seemed inevitable once an arena was approved and constructed.

Let's not act like the Oakland Coliseum Arena wasn't also a dump, either.  It's literally located right next to the terrible baseball stadium in the same terrible area of the city.  When the coliseum and adjacent arena were built, they successfully achieved their goal of bringing major league pro sports to Oakland.  That was in 1967!  The fact that neither venue was ever really modernized is a big part of Oakland's problem, though.  It's a small market with an inadequate stadium.  That's a bad combination for keeping a team.

A's fans are apparently planning a "reverse walk out," where they plan to pack the stadium to show that there is fan support in Oakland.  Their argument is that the only reason they don't come is because the team is terrible.  That might be true, but it's not like they'd be packing the place even if the team was good.  Just look at the Rays.  They actually are good, and they have problems selling tickets, too...because of their venue!

So, yes, they're right that the A's can't expect people to buy tickets to watch a terrible team in a terrible venue.  But it's a catch 22.  Because the A's need a new stadium to generate the necessary revenue to improve the team.  And they'd almost certainly do better at attracting free agents if they had a better stadium.  Because it's a well-known fact around MLB that a number of players hate playing in Oakland, and some even have clauses in their contract that say they can't be traded there.  So, if they pretty clearly don't want to play there, they probably aren't even considering coming there as a free agent!

Meanwhile, in Las Vegas, the A's will get everything they're asking for and then some.  Oakland is doing everything it can to show it doesn't want pro sports.  Las Vegas is doing everything it can to prove that it does.  The Golden Knights showed that pro sports in Las Vegas works.  That's why the Raiders moved there, and that's why the A's are moving there, too.  Because Sin City has suddenly become a sports mecca (they've gone from zero pro teams to three in less than a decade, with an NBA team likely to join as soon as they decide they want to bring the Sonics back, plus have a Super Bowl, Final Four and CFP National Championship all coming up).

Will the A's start spending money and attempting to be competitive once they move to Las Vegas in 2027 (or sooner)?  Most likely.  Which will once again have the people in Oakland crying foul.  But their issue shouldn't be with the team.  It should be with the city.  Because the team tried.  The A's put in the effort.  They didn't think about moving until they were left with no other option.  Which isn't their fault.  It's the city's.

All Oakland had to do was find a suitable site for a stadium and agree to help finance it.  They didn't even need to pay for the whole thing.  The team was hoping the city would want to be their partner on the stadium project.  The City of Oakland evidently wasn't interested.  And will now pay the price for taking the A's for granted.  Because, in a way, Oakland will get exactly what it wanted.  You don't want a major league venue?  Fine.  Soon you won't be able to call yourselves a "major league city" either.  Which, frankly, is on you.

D-Ken

I'll never forget my final game at the old Yankee Stadium.  It was the final homestand of the 2008 season and they were playing the White Sox.  It was the first (and only) time I saw Ken Griffey, Jr., my favorite player growing up, play live.  But that's not the reason I'll always remember it.  I'll remember it because of who I went to the game with.

It was the week of my dad's 60th birthday, and I wanted to do something special for him (I also wanted to go to one last game in the old Stadium...and see Ken Griffey, Jr., but those weren't the primary reasons).  I told this to someone I worked with who was a season ticket holder.  He was gracious enough to give me his tickets, and I took my dad to the game for his 60th birthday.

We shared a special memory together at the new Yankee Stadium, too.  Garth Brooks had two concerts there in the summer of 2016 and I told him I wasn't taking "No" for an answer.  My mom, despite her cancer battle, decided that she wanted to come too.  So she did.  I saw Garth Brooks at Yankee Stadium with both of my parents.

My dad is also the reason I'm a fan of college basketball.  Particulary UConn.  One of my first real vivid memories is going to the 1990 Big East Championship Game with him.  It was UConn vs. Syracuse and we were way up top at the Garden.  The Big East final was still on Sunday afternoon then, and my mom dropped everyone else off at church before taking us to the train station.  That's the first time I remember taking the train into Penn Station (something I would obviously do a lot more frequently as I got older).

Four years later, we went to the Big East Championship Game again.  My sister was a freshman at Providence and they were playing Georgetown.  This time we went as a family, and we sat in the Providence student section.  He was still rooting for Georgetown (he'd called me "George" since I was a kid, which had something to do with Georgetown).

That was the second time we had really good seats for a basketball game at the Garden.  His boss (I think the same one who gave us the UConn-Syracuse tickets) couldn't use his Knicks tickets one night and gave them to us.  I don't remember the exact year or the opponent, or even whether they won or lost, but I do remember Derek Harper getting a technical foul.  Why that specific detail is the only thing from the game I actually remember?  I have no idea!

He went to Manhattan College, where I used to work.  One time, I had to go down to the Archives and look for some photos.  While I was down there, I came across the school yearbook from 1970, his year of graduation.  Sure enough, there he was in the senior portraits.  So, I asked my friend Amy, the archivist, if she would scan and email me his senior picture along with the ones that I actually needed.  I printed it, had it framed, and gave it to him for Father's Day.  He immediately put it on the bookshelf underneath all of our graduation pictures.

Over the past few months, as his health got worse, his memory got weaker.  What's crazy, though, is that, while he had no short-term memory, his could remember things from years ago like they were yesterday.  And it was actually pretty cool for him to tell me stories that I never knew.  Like when he told me about the time his grandfather took him and my uncle to the 1964 World's Fair, then they went to a Mets game in the first year of Shea Stadium.

Speaking of Shea Stadium, I was a member of the Mets Kid's Club when I was young.  (It was either the late 80s or early 90s, and the Yankees didn't have a Kid's Club.)  Every year, one of the perks of being in the Kid's Club was a special members-only clinic at Shea Stadium with Mets players.  Every year, my dad was the one who took me.  For an 8- or 9-year-old who loved baseball, that was the coolest thing ever.

Once he couldn't drive anymore, I became his chauffeur for family events.  Or sometimes, we'd just go to his house and have dinner or whatever.  After my sisters left and it was time for him to settle in for the night, it usually consisted of just him and me.  I'd just put whatever game on and go home when it was over.  We ended up watching more Rangers games together this season than we possibly ever have before!

Christmas was really the last time I got some real one-on-one time with him when he was coherent.  I figured he'd want to go to Mass on Christmas Eve, so I asked him what time he wanted to go, and he said 4:00.  Which was perfect.  Since the Giants-Vikings game started at 1.  So, we watched the Giants until it was time to go to church, then put on the rest of the late game when we got back.  (I've already claimed his "magic" Giants blanket that is guaranteed to make you fall asleep.)

Same thing on Christmas Day.  I picked him up in the morning to go to my sister's and do presents with the kids.  I was originally just going to drop him off at home, then join them for dinner.  I never made it.  Because I ended up spending the rest of the night with my dad and didn't leave until like 9-9:30.  I'm so glad I did.  Because, while I didn't know for sure it would be his last Christmas, I suspected it might be.  And I got to spend it with him.  Which is something I'll forever cherish.

These last few months haven't been easy.  We watched the man we knew and loved gradually slip away before our eyes.  But he'd been a shell of his former self ever since my mom died.  And now they're reunited.  (As he lost more and more weight, his wedding ring wouldn't stay on his finger, so my sister eventually just took it off.  Once he passed, she put it back on him.  She then heard something fall in my parents' bedroom.  She picked it up and underneath was...my mom's wedding ring, which we hadn't been able to find since her funeral!  He's getting buried with both of them.)

After having four girls, he finally got his boy on the fifth try.  I hope I made him as proud as he made me.  Whether I called him "D-Ken" or "Tony" or "Bob" or "Pa" (he had a lot of nicknames), he was always first and foremost "Dad."  And I couldn't have asked for a better one.  (PS-Tell Gracie I said hi.  And that we'll be OK down here.)

Time For An African Worlds

I just read an interesting article about the Oregon22 World Championships.  It was talking about the financials and the economic impact on Oregon.  But it also mentioned the TV demographics, which were really fascinating.  More specifically, the region that spent the most time watching the meet.  It wasn't Europe or North America.  It was Africa.

Nearly 40 percent of the worldwide viewing audience came from Africa or the Middle East.  The top five individual countries in viewership?  Japan, China, Great Britain, Nigeria and the United States.  That's right.  Nigeria was fourth.  Despite the fact that Western Africa is five hours ahead of the East coast and eight hours ahead of Oregon, meaning the evening sessions started at 2 a.m. local time in Nigeria!

What all of this illustrates very clearly is that now is the time for World Athletics to bring a World Championships to Africa.  It's no secret that they want to have a World Championships in Africa.  Just like it was no secret that they wanted a World Championships in the United States, which is one of the primary reasons Eugene was picked to host last year.  So, it's reasonable to think World Athletics will go to Africa at the next available opportunity, which is in 2027.

This year's World Championships will be held in Budapest, with the 2025 edition scheduled for Tokyo.  There was a lot of speculation that the 2025 Worlds would go to an African city, most likely Nairobi, but they ultimately chose Tokyo because its Olympic facilities wouldn't need any renovation work.  Besides, it was a goodwill gesture to the city after all that they went through with the Olympics and building that beautiful new National Stadium, only to be forced to leave it empty during the Olympics.

By picking Tokyo for 2025, World Athletics was actually doing Nairobi a bit of a favor, too.  They essentially gave them two years to make stadium improvements in preparation for hosting in 2027.  That hasn't officially been announced, of course.  And there are plenty of other cities and countries that would be interested in hosting (Poland, for example, has never hosted Worlds).  But it seems they're Nairobi's to lose.  Which would finally bring elite, senior-level international competition to Africa for the first time.

The biggest major international sporting event ever to take place on the African continent was the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.  That was, in part, due to a FIFA directive put in place after South Africa lost the bidding for 2006 to Germany.  After that, they put in a continental rotation and only accepted African bidders for 2010.  South Africa ended up being the winner and hosted an incredibly successful World Cup!  South Africa has also hosted the Rugby World Cup once, in 1995, a tournament that will be forever celebrated for the hometown Springboks' victory and immortalized in the Morgan Freeman/Matt Damon movie Invictus.

Africa is the only continent to have never hosted an Olympics, something the IOC is very aware of and would like to rectify.  The first-ever Olympic event in Africa, the Youth Olympic Games, was originally set to take place last year in Dakar, Senegal.  However, after the Tokyo Games were delayed and they ended up having the Summer and Winter Olympics essentially back-to-back, the decision was made to delay the 2022 Youth Olympics until 2026.  Which could actually be a pretty good prelude to a 2027 World Athletics Championships in Nairobi.

Nairobi is the logical choice for an African World Championships for a number of reasons.  First and foremost, they already have the stadium and it's already hosted World Athletics events.  Both the 2017 World U18 Championships and 2021 World U20 Championships were held in Nairobi at the Moi International Sports Centre.  This is presumably the stadium that would be used for the senior World Championships.  All that would be required is some renovation work.

Kenya has also become one of the most well-rounded track & field nations.  The country is obviously best known for its distance runners, but Kenya had a World champion in the javelin and has been developing world-class jumpers, hurdlers and longer sprinters in recent years.  In fact, Kenya finished fourth in the team trophy standings at Oregon22, just two points behind rival Ethiopia for a place on the podium alongside the United States and Jamaica.

So, it's not like going to Nairobi would be a token trip to Africa, either.  Kenya has the competitive pedigree and has also shown the ability to successfully pull off hosting duties.  If there's any place in Africa that's capable, Nairobi is it.  And just imagine how much it would mean to the legions of track & field fans in that part of the world!

It took forever for Africa to get a Diamond League meet, but there's been one in Rabat, Morocco for a few years now.  The World Cross Country Championships were also in Uganda in 2017, and I've already mentioned the two age-group World Championships previously held in Nairobi.  So, holding a world-class track & field meet in Africa isn't a completely foreign idea.  And it's only natural to assume that the main World Athletics Championships will eventually make their way to Africa.

Is Nairobi the only place in Africa capable of hosting the World Championships?  Probably not.  There are National Stadiums in Abuja, Nigeria and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (they're actually currently building a new one in Addis Ababa), and Rabat hosts the Diamond League meet.  But Nairobi, with its previous hosting experience and Kenya's history of success, is the safest and best option.

To me, it's the natural choice.  I thought it was the natural choice for 2025, as well, but I get why World Athletics decided to go with Tokyo.  For 2027, though, there's no reason not to go to Nairobi.  Which would actually be the perfect place for the first World Athletics Championships in Africa.

Sooner or later, the World Athletics Championships are coming to Africa.  It's just a question of when?  My vote is the next available meet in 2027.  That's "only" four years from now.  Which seems like both a lot of time and not enough.  Give Nairobi the option, though.  Let them decide whether they want to host in 2027 or 2029.  If they'd rather wait, a European city (Bydgoszcz, Poland?) could easily sweep in for 2027.  But if Nairobi wants 2027, bring the World to Africa then.  It's time.

Happy Birthday Yankee Stadium

They've officially been playing baseball at the corner of 161st St & River Ave in the Bronx for a century.  Yes, there was that two-year span when the Yankees were playing at Shea Stadium.  And, yes, for the last 15 years, they've been playing in a new stadium across the street.  But it was 100 years ago today, April 18, 1923, that the original Yankee Stadium first opened its doors.

We all know the story by now.  The Yankees were the Giants' tenants in the Polo Grounds, but they were getting too popular, so Giants owner Charles Stoneham and manager John McGraw kicked them out.  So, the Yankees decided to build their own stadium...directly across the river from the Polo Grounds!  And it would be the grandest ballpark anyone had ever seen.  The first built with concrete.  The first with three decks (enough seats for 60,000 people).  The first to be called a "stadium."

And it's really all because of one man.  Babe Ruth.  Ruth's popularity is why Yankees owner Jacob Ruppert thought he could build a 60,000-seat stadium and actually fill it.  And was right!

Ruth, of course, went on to provide Yankee Stadium with its first memorable moment, a three-run homer in a 4-1 win over the Red Sox in the stadium's opening game, immediately giving Yankee Stadium its nickname, "The House That Ruth Built."  That's how they christened their new home.  They'd finish off that first year by winning the first of their record 27 World Series titles (by beating the Giants).

When the original Yankee Stadium closed in 2008, it had quite a farewell, too.  The Yankees missed the playoffs that season, but in a way, it was better.  Because that celebration prior to the finale, capped by Derek Jeter's wonderful speech, was perfect.  So was that season's All*Star Game, a 15-inning, five-hour epic.  I remember Joe Buck saying at some point late in the game, "This stadium does not want to say goodbye."  That's exactly what MLB was doing, though.  Saying goodbye to a baseball cathedral that had seen so much of the game's history.

On the Fourth of July in 1939, Lou Gehrig gave his "luckiest man" speech.  In 1956, Don Larsen threw a perfect game in the World Series.  In 1977, Reggie Jackson homered on three successive pitches in the World Series.  In 1983, again on the Fourth of July, Dave Righetti threw a no-hitter.  David Wells and David Cone pitched perfect games 14 months apart in 1998 and 1999 (both championship seasons).

The stadium was never louder than it was on back-to-back nights in 2001, when the Yankees had incredible walk-off wins in Games 4 & 5 of that epic World Series against the Diamondbacks.  Game 5 ended in the early morning hours of November 1, earning Derek Jeter the nickname "Mr. November."  Then, two years later, the original Yankee Stadium had its final classic postseason moment when current Yankees manager Aaron Boone won Game 7 of the ALCS against the Red Sox with a walk-off homer in the 12th inning.

There were the individual moments, too.  Ruth hitting his 60th home run in 1927.  The home run race between Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle in 1961, with Maris breaking Ruth's record on the last day of the season.  Chris Chambliss walking it off against Kansas City in the 1976 ALCS.  The place absolutely losing its mind when Don Mattingly went deep against Seattle in the only playoff series of his career--the 1995 Division Series.  Derek Jeter becoming the all-time Yankee Stadium hit leader during that final homestand in 2008.

One of the most amazing things about the original Yankee Stadium is that it was built in roughly six months.  Yet, when the stadium closed for renovations after the 1973 season, it took two years!  And construction of the current Yankee Stadium began in 2006, but wasn't complete until 2008.  Although, the new Yankee Stadium would be christened in the exact same way as the original...with a Yankees championship.

Prior to moving into Yankee Stadium, the Yankees had never won the World Series.  Over the next 85 years, they'd win 26.  And those 26 include some of the greatest teams in baseball history.  The Murderer's Row squad of 1927.  The 1939 team that won the last of four straight titles.  Casey Stengel's run of nine pennants (and seven championships) in 11 years from 1949-60.  The 1961 season.  Billy Martin's crazy 1977 team.  And the greatest team I ever saw--Joe Torre's 1998 squad that went 125-50.

It wasn't just baseball, either.  Boxing was big in the Roaring Twenties and into the 1930s, and many a championship fight was held in the 60,000-seat venue.  Ditto with college football.  Yankee Stadium was the site of the famous "Win One for the Gipper" game.  It was the (football) Giants' home venue from 1956-73, and the "Greatest Game Ever Played," the 1958 NFL Championship Game, took place at Yankee Stadium.  There were concerts, soccer games and Papal masses.  Babe Ruth's body even lied in state at Yankee Stadium after he died in 1948.

But still, Yankee Stadium (both incarnations) has always been, first and foremost, a baseball venue.  The Yankees played more than 6,500 regular season games at the original, with countless more in the postseason.  Yankee Stadium had this mystique and aura that couldn't really be explained, but were often cited as reasons why good things happened to them and/or bad things happened to their opponents.

While the mystique and aura haven't made their way across the street (save a championship in the first season at the current Yankee Stadium), other features have to make you still feel you're in the presence of that history and greatness.  Monument Park is in center field, with its monuments, plaques and retired numbers honoring Yankees legends.  That distinctive white frieze, which was part of that copper roof at the original, encircles the grandstand at the new place.  Thurman Munson's locker, which stood empty in the Yankees clubhouse until it was relocated to the museum when the new stadium opened.

A lot has happened on both sides of 161st & River over the last 100 years.  There are too many memories to count, and so many more to be made.  I can't wait to see what happens next.  Because, even though the original isn't there anymore and the Yankees play across the street now, there are plenty more memories to come.  Happy Birthday Yankee Stadium!  And many more!

Who Can Beat Boston?

The last time an NHL team entered the Stanley Cup Playoffs after a record-setting regular season, the Lightning got swept by Columbus in the first round in 2019.  The last time Presidents' Trophy winner to even made the Conference Finals was the 2015 Rangers.  And the last to make the Final was a decade ago, when the Blackhawks lifted the Cup.  In fact, six of the last seven Presidents' Trophy winners, including the Bruins twice, have lost in the second round.

You know that Boston is well aware of that history.  The Bruins are also well aware of the fact that their ridiculous regular season guarantees them nothing (other than home ice advantage for as long as they're still alive).  However, they're also clearly the team to beat and as big a favorite to win the Stanley Cup as there's been in recent memory.

So who's the Bruins' biggest competition?  Well, there's obviously the Lightning, who've been to the Stanley Cup Final three years in a row.  And Toronto has put together the pieces to make a deep playoff run.  That is, of course, assuming the Leafs actually win a playoff series for the first time in nearly 20 years!  Don't count out a Ranger team that made the Eastern Conference Final last year, either.

Out West, Vegas is the No. 1 seed, but the Knights face plenty of competition themselves.  Colorado, of course, is the defending champions.  And Edmonton has the offensive firepower that would make any opponent nervous.  It also wouldn't be entirely surprising to see one of the lower-seeded Western Conference teams make a run.  Maybe even the playoff debutants from Seattle.

Bruins-Panthers: Boston doesn't need to look any further than its first-round opponent to know how difficult things have been for Presidents' Trophy winners.  The Panthers got swept by the Lighting in the second round last season.  This year, they get the pleasure of facing a Boston team that has few, if any flaws.  They split four games in the regular season, but the Panthers taking four out of seven in a playoff series seems like a much larger task.  Boston in five.

Maple Leafs-Lightning: Who we kidding?  We know exactly how this series is gonna go.  It'll be the same as what happened when these two met last year.  And every other year.  The Leafs have lost the decisive game of their first-round series five consecutive times.  That includes four Game 7's and Game 5 against Columbus in the 2020 bubble.  The last three of those have been on home ice.  So why would I predict anything other than Toronto losing Game 7 at home until it actually happens?  (Although, I do think that once the Leafs actually do get out of the first round, they'll go all the way to the Final.)  Tampa Bay in seven.

Hurricanes-Islanders: I can guarantee one thing about the Hurricanes-Islanders series.  Sebastian Aho will make it to the second round!  If I had to pick a Sebastian Aho, though, it'd be Carolina's.  Do I think the Hurricanes are a Stanley Cup contender?  Absolutely not!  But they didn't win the Metro Division by accident, and they've got a ton of talent on that team.  The Islanders will definitely give them a series, though.  This is a much better matchup for them than the Bruins would've been.  They'll make the Hurricanes work for it, and I wouldn't be completely surprised if the Islanders take the series.  Carolina in six.

Devils-Rangers: A few years ago, the Rangers went into a rebuild that resulted in the team they have today.  A squad that reached the Eastern Conference Final last season and has been built for another playoff run in 2023.  Their cross-river rivals, the Devils, will definitely have something to say about that, though.  The Devils did their own Rangers-style rebuild and it has paid dividends, resulting in their first playoff berth since 2018 and just their second since they beat the Rangers in the Eastern Conference Final (ahh...the old playoff system!) in 2012.  New Jersey has home ice.  But the Rangers have Igor Shesterkin.  That's the difference.  Rangers in six.

Avalanche-Kraken: Colorado begins its title defense against the Kraken, who made the playoffs for the first time in just their second season.  Although, Seattle has plenty of players with playoff experience, including a few Cup winners (one of whom is Andre Burakovsky, who was a member of the Avalanche last season).  They have a very tough task ahead of them, however.  I was very impressed with the way Colorado rallied to win the division, and they definitely look like they can make a return trip to the Final.  I can see Seattle taking a game or two, but not four.  Colorado in six.

Stars-Wild: Had the Avalanche lost their final game in Nashville, they'd be playing Minnesota and Dallas would be playing the Kraken.  For Colorado, I don't think it matters much.  They would've been the heavy favorite against either team.  Dallas would've felt much more comfortable against Seattle, though.  Because Minnesota is a very tough matchup for them.  The Wild have the advantage in a lot of areas, so I can definitely see this series going either way.  Game 7 would be in Dallas, though.  That's why I'm taking the Stars to advance.  Dallas in seven.

Golden Knights-Jets: Winnipeg really needs Connor Hellebuyck to get hot to have a chance.  And even then, the Jets still might not have enough.  Vegas is that much better than them.  The Golden Knights have extra motivation after missing the playoffs for the first time last season, too.  Believe it or not this will be the first playoff series of Jack Eichel's career.  It won't be the last.  The Knights might lose a game, but they ain't losing four.  Not to Winnipeg at least.  Vegas in four.

Oilers-Kings: This is the other rematch of a 2022 first-round series.  The Oilers won Games 6 & 7 last year en route to the Western Conference Final.  I don't see this year's series being much different.  Last season, it was Edmonton's superior talent that proved to be the difference.  The Oilers still have the superior talent.  McDavid and Draisaitl will be the best players on the ice, and they'll be the reason Edmonton beats LA again.  Edmonton in six. 

Tampa Bay vs. Boston in the second round would be a very compelling series.  The team that's dominated the Eastern Conference for the last three playoff seasons vs. the team that dominated the entire league this season.  Rangers-Hurricanes would be a rematch of 2022, a series that was won by the Rangers.  I see them doing it again, while the Bruins break that Presidents' Trophy second round jinx and guarantee that somebody else represents the Eastern Conference in the Final for the first time since Boston's 2019 squad (although, Montreal did make the Final out of the "North" Division during the temporary realignment in 2021).

In the West, the series I really want to see is Vegas vs. Edmonton in the second round.  They're so similar and they both have so many offensive weapons that it'll really come down to the goaltending, and the winner will be the favorite in the Western Conference Final.  Colorado vs. Dallas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mismatch.  I know the Avalanche finished only a point ahead of the Stars in the regular season.  And I know Dallas still has a bunch of guys from the 2020 Stanley Cup Final team.  I just think the Avalanche are so much better, though.

While I'd love to say the Rangers would hold their own against Boston in the Eastern Conference Final, I know what they'd be up against.  Linus Ullmark will probably win the Vezina, and he'll come up big to send the Bruins to the Final.  My Western Conference Final is a rematch of last year between Colorado and Edmonton.  The Avalanche swept the Oilers last season, but the series was much closer than that.  And this year, I can easily see the tables shifting as Edmonton, after those lean years that resulted in the high draft picks that are the core of the team, gets the chance to bring the Stanley Cup home to Canada for the first time in 30 years.

That's right.  My Stanley Cup Final is a throwback to the late 80s/early 90s.  Edmonton completely dominated two Stanley Cup Finals against Boston in 1988 and 1990, going a combined 8-1 in the two series.  Those were the last two Cups of the Oilers' dynasty.  The Bruins look to start a dynasty of their own and cap off their outstanding regular season with the first of what they hope will be many Cups, as Canada has to wait another year for the next Canadian Stanley Cup champion.

No Crosby, No Ovechkin, No Toews

As the NHL regular season wraps up and we get ready for the Stanley Cup Playoffs, it's truly the start of a new era.  All three New York-area teams made it, the Bruins will chase history and the Kraken will make their playoff debut in just their second season.  But, this year's Stanley Cup Playoffs will be just as significant for the teams that aren't there as those that are.  No Penguins.  No Capitals.  No Blackhawks.

Since the NHL returned from the lockout in 2005-06, those three teams have been constants.  Chicago's had some ups and downs, but, until recently, was a pretty consistent playoff team...and the Blackhawks did win three Cups in six years.  Pittsburgh and Washington, meanwhile, have been models of consistency.  You could pencil them in for the playoffs even before the season started.  Until this year, that is.

With Washington, you almost saw it coming.  The Capitals had to deal with so many injuries this season, and they were just too much to overcome.  They simply got too far back with too many games to go.  They knew it too, and started trading players at the deadline.

Different story with Pittsburgh, though.  Everybody was healthy.  Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin both played all 82 games as a matter of fact.  They just didn't get it done.  They lost a must-win game (against Chicago) and got passed by both the Panthers and Islanders for the Eastern Conference wild card spots, thus ending their 16-year playoff streak.

The last time Pittsburgh missed the playoffs was 2005-06, the season after the lockout ended and Crosby's rookie year.  Two years later, the Penguins were in the Cup Final before winning the Cup the year after that.  Then they won back-to-back Cups in 2016 and 2017.  With the exception of 2014-15, when they finished fourth, they placed no lower than third in the division during that span, too.  The Crosby/Malkin Penguins haven't just been one of the best teams in hockey over the past decade and a half, they've been one of the most reliable draws.

Speaking of reliable draws, may I present the Chicago Blackhawks.  They've appeared in so many Winter Classics that it became a running joke within the NHL offices.  "If there's an outdoor game, the Blackhawks are probably playing."  There was a good reason for that.  With Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews and Duncan Keith leading the way, they were as good and as popular as the Penguins. 

Chicago started trending downward after getting swept in the first round by Nashville in 2017, and the Blackhawks' only playoff appearance since then took place in the Edmonton bubble in 2020.  Even then, the only reason they got in was because they expanded the tournament to 12 teams per conference, and they were in 12th place in the West when the season was suspended.  Had that been a normal season with the standard playoff format, the Blackhawks wouldn't have made it then, either, and they'd be looking at a five-year playoff drought.

This season, it hit rock bottom.  The Blackhawks tallied just 59 points, which put them at the bottom of the league along with Anaheim and Columbus.  And they really moved on from the glory days.  Keith, who was traded (at his request) to Edmonton prior to last season, retired.  Kane was traded to the Rangers at the deadline.  And they announced that they wouldn't be re-signing Toews, a pending free agent and their captain for all three Stanley Cup runs.  All three future Hall of Fame pillars of the Blackhawks' dynasty are gone.

In Pittsburgh, that's not the case.  Crosby and Malkin aren't going anywhere.  So it's very possible that this is a one-year blip.  Especially since the Penguins aren't just a consistently good team.  They're one of the best-run franchises in the NHL.  Which leads me to believe that there'll be some changes, but it's still entirely possible that we'll see them right back in the playoffs in 2023-24.

What's so remarkable about the Penguins' run (other than the length of it) is how it started.  They were really bad and incredibly mismanaged.  Prior to Mario Lemieux's group buying the team, there were even some questions about whether they'd stay in Pittsburgh.  That's how they ended up getting the generational talent that is Sidney Crosby, who completely turned the franchise around.

Crosby was the No. 1 overall pick in 2005.  The No. 1 overall pick in 2004 was Alex Ovechkin.  Who had the same type of impact on the Washington Capitals as Crosby had on the Penguins.  It took the Capitals until 2007-08 to make the playoffs, and they also missed out in 2013-14.  After that, though, they won five straight Metropolitan Division titles and lifted the Cup for the first time in 2018.

Like the Penguins, the Capitals' time out of the playoffs may not end up being particularly long.  They didn't just have a lot of injuries this season, they had a lot of key players miss significant time.  They get full seasons T.J. Oshie and Nicklas Backstrom and John Carlson to go along with Ovechkin's usual greatness, they could very easily be right back in the postseason in 2024.  Or, this could be the beginning of the end.  Ovechkin is 37 years old, after all.  If nothing else, he'll still have that pursuit of Gretzky's all-time scoring record, though.

Regardless of whether they return to the playoffs next season or not, this is the end of an era in the NHL.  Crosby and Ovechkin were transformational players who defined the post-lockout era.  They both led their team to the playoffs every year, and they both won the Stanley Cup.  Which is something Jonathan Toews did three times as captain of the Blackhawks' dynasty.  None of them will be in the 2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Which is just an odd thing to even think about.

So, yeah, this year's Stanley Cup Playoffs will look a little different.  There will be plenty of stories and plenty of intrigue.  We just won't be seeing some of the usual suspects.  No Crosby and Malkin.  No Ovechkin and Backstrom.  No Toews.  And, while we will see Kane, he'll be in a Rangers uniform.  The NHL has turned the page on the Penguins, Capitals and Blackhawks.  Will this be the year a new dynasty to take their place begins?

Regular Seasons to Remember

As the Rays continue their ridiculous start (seriously, are they ever gonna lose?), the Bruins are wrapping up the winningest regular season in NHL history.  Boston has 64 wins and 133 points, both NHL records, with one game left in the regular season.  Of course, none of that will mean anything if the Bruins don't win the Cup.  Just ask the Boston-area football team about that!

That's the thing about a great regular season.  That's all it is.  A great regular season.  Who cares that the 2007 Patriots went 16-0?  The one game they lost just happened to be the Super Bowl.  Or how about the last NHL team to flirt with the wins record?  The 2018-19 Lightning had 62 wins and 128 points.  They got swept in the first round by Columbus (then would go on to win the Cup the next two years and make the Cup Final the year after that).  Then there's last year's Dodgers, winners of 111 games...and Division Series losers.

The truly special teams are the ones that take a great regular season and back it up by winning the championship.  Your 1995-96 Bulls.  Your 1998 Yankees.  Your 1985 Bears.  Can the Bruins join their ranks?  Or are they destined to continue the Curse of the President's Trophy?

Should the Bruins win, though, they'll be right up there among the single greatest seasons among all sports.  But they need to win the Cup to join the exclusive ranks on this list, which only includes teams from the last 50 years.  So no 1972 Dolphins.  (It also does not include the 2020 Dodgers, who did win the World Series after going 43-17, but that season has an asterisk because of how short and unique it was, so it doesn't seem like a fair comparison.)

10. 1986 Mets: They went 108-54.  They won an epic NLCS against the Astros and an epic World Series against the Red Sox.  They had Keith Hernandez and Gary Carter.  Doc Gooden and Darryl Strawberry were in their primes.  The '86 Mets could've been the start of a dynasty.  Instead, they were a one-and-done champion.  After one of the most memorable seasons in baseball history.

9. 1999-2000 Lakers: This was the start of the Shaq-Kobe dynasty, and is widely considered one of the greatest teams in NBA history.  They went 67-15 and had three separate winning streaks of 16, 19 and 11.  Their record in February and March was a ridiculous 27-2!  Shaq had arguably his best season, and a 21-year-old Kobe was just starting to become a superstar.

8. 1993-94 Rangers: Did I rank the '93-94 Rangers a little high?  Maybe.  But this team will always hold a special place in my heart.  They ended the 54-year drought.  I can still hear Sam Rosen saying, "The waiting is over!  The New York Rangers are the Stanley Cup champions."  Then seeing an elated Mark Messier lifting up the Cup and skating it around the Garden ice.

7. 2018 Red Sox: Boston has won four championships in the 20 years since they broke the Curse of the Bambino, but the 2018 Red Sox are far and away the best team of the four.  In fact, they're one of the best teams in recent baseball memory.  They lost on Opening Day then won 17 of their next 18 before getting no-hit in Oakland.  That was a small blip on the radar for a team that went a dominant 108-54

6. 2016-17 Warriors: Golden State set the NBA record with 73 wins in 2015-16.  But that Warriors team lost to LeBron in the Finals.  The following year, they won "only" 67 games, then went an absurd 15-1 in the playoffs!  This was Kevin Durant's first season with the Warriors, who joined Steph Curry, Draymond Green and Klay Thompson on the All*Star team.

5. 1984 49ers: I'm not sure enough people appreciate how good the 1984 49ers actually were.  I don't really know why that is, either.  They became the first team in NFL history to win 15 games and are one of just two 15-1 (or better) teams to actually win the Super Bowl too!  Their offense, led by Hall of Famer Joe Montana in perhaps his best season, was absurd.  San Francisco scored 475 points and allowed just 227.  Fun fact about this team: their only loss, in Week 7 against the Steelers, was only televised in the San Francisco and Pittsburgh markets because NBC was airing the Tigers' World Series-clinching Game 5 victory at the same time.  (You wanna talk great teams?  Those 1984 Tigers also belong in the conversation.)

4. 1985 Bears: A loss to the Dolphins (who else?) on a Monday night is all that separated the 1985 Bears from perfection.  Their defense gave up less than 200 points in the entire season and had a three-game stretch in November where they outscored Detroit, Dallas and Atlanta by a combined score of 104-3!  In the playoffs, they posted back-to-back shutouts against the Giants and Rams before obliterating the Patriots in the Super Bowl.  Simply put, they were one of the greatest teams and authors of one of the greatest seasons ever.

3. 1976-77 Canadiens: It was Montreal's record of 132 points that the Bruins broke.  The Canadiens have won a lot of Stanley Cups, but this is widely considered their best team.  In fact, it's widely considered the greatest team in NHL history.  They went 60-8-12 and only lost one home game all season (in October)!  They outscored their opponents 387-171!  The roster is a who's who of Hockey Hall of Famers.  Guy Lafleur, Yvan Cournoyer, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, Bob Gainey, Ken Dryden.  To name just a few.

2. 1998 Yankees: One of the craziest things about the '98 Yankees is that they actually got off to a terrible start.  They opened the season on the West Coast and lost four of their first five games.  They sure made up for it the rest of the way!  Their 114 wins set a franchise and American League record (that would be broken three years later by the Mariners), and, if you include the postseason, their record was 125-50.  They led the Majors in scoring and the pitching staff allowed the fewest runs in baseball.  It felt like the Yankees were going to win every game that season.  And they just about did.  I can't believe it was 25 years ago!

1. 1995-96 Bulls: Michael Jordan came back from his little two-year baseball exodus at the end of the 1994-95 season.  Then, in 1995-96, when he was back with the Bulls first time, Chicago embarked on a magical journey that culminated with the start of their second three-peat.  They set the (since broken) NBA record for wins with 72.  They had the highest rated offense and highest rated defense.  They started 37-0 at home (and finished 39-2).  They went 13-1 in December and 14-0 in January.  They, simply put, might be the greatest basketball team ever assembled.  And the authors of arguably the best season, regular season and playoffs combined, of any team in the past 50 years.

Change Is a Constant...and Usually For the Better

Thru the first 10 days of baseball season, most of the talk has been about the pitch clock.  The pitch clock has achieved one of its main objectives.  Games this season have so far been about 25 minutes shorter on average than games last season.  There have even been a few games that ended in right around two hours.  Which has drawn a different type of complaint...from those who think games are now too short!

The pitch clock will always have its detractors.  Just like every change in every sport ever has.  But people will also get used to it.  And it'll eventually become something that's just accepted as part of the game.  Just like every other change that was once considered "radical" and some thought would "ruin" the sport that we now can't imagine the sport without.

Take the designated hitter.  In 1973, the American League introduced the DH.  The National League didn't adopt it.  There will always be the National League purists who consider the DH an abomination, but pretty much everyone else agreed that no one wanted to see pitchers hitting.  And now, unless their name's Ohtani, they don't.  The universal DH was used during the pandemic season of 2020 before becoming permanent in both leagues last season.

That's just one example.  There are plenty of others.  Batting helmets were introduced in the 1960s.  The pitcher's mound was lowered from 15 inches to 10 inches in 1968.  Intentional walks have gone from tossing four pitches nowhere near the strike zone to simply telling the guy to jog to first base.  Relievers are now required to pitch to three batters or end the inning.  And teams now start extra innings with a runner on second base.

It's not just baseball, either.  Imagine a basketball game without a three-point line.  Or a shot clock.  In the modern NBA, it seems like the three-pointer is the only shot some guys take!  Or to take it way back, the free throw lane used to be half its current size.  It went from 6 feet to 12 feet in 1951-52, then from 12 feet to 16 in 1964-65.  There wasn't a block/charge arc under the basket until a few years ago, either.

Or how about football?  Not only is modern football completely different than the game that was originally played.  And the NFL, of course, makes a slew of rules changes every year.  Some are dumb and not designed to have much of an impact.  Some they realize they don't actually like and are removed.  And some have fundamentally changed the game.

Until 1974, the goal posts were in the front of the end zone.  Moving them back wasn't just safer, it opened up so many more possibilities for offenses.  The AFL had the two-point conversion throughout its history.  The NFL didn't until 1994.  Overtime wasn't a thing until the mid-70s.  Since then, it's gone from sudden death to a touchdown on the first possession wins, but a field goal doesn't.  And in the playoffs, they've made it so that both teams get the ball in overtime no matter what.

Prior to the NHL's season-long lockout in 2004-05, it was possible for a hockey game to end in a tie.  Does anyone even remember those days?  Because we're going on two decades of 3x3 overtime, with games that are still tied being decided in shootouts.  It seriously was one of the best things the NHL ever did!

Is it even possible to picture a modern game being played without instant replay?  There isn't a professional league or international federation that doesn't use replay these days.  The NCAA and most college conferences require instant replay at their events, too.  It's a valuable tool that helps officials get calls right, which is what everybody wants.  

Playoff formats regularly change, too.  When the NFL added a 17th game to the season, they also added a seventh playoff team in each conference.  MLB added an extra wild card team in each league, and the Wild Card Game became a best-of-three Wild Card Series.  The NBA is about to embark on its now-permanent Play-In Tournament, which will determine the final two playoff teams in each conference.  And the WNBA and MLS change their playoff formats all the time!

None of the leagues has been immune to change within its ranks, either.  They've all expanded, and plenty of franchises have relocated, with those expansions and relocations bringing about realignment.  We've even seen the Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians completely change their franchise identities!

Simply put, rules changes are a way of life in sports.  That's just what happens.  Even if something doesn't necessarily need to be "fixed," that doesn't mean it can't still be improved.  Which is what Major League Baseball's 2023 rules changes are designed to do.  The goal was to make a more enjoyable product.  So far, they've been successful in achieving that goal.

They all had a purpose, too.  The pitch clock was to make games quicker.  The shift ban was because it had gotten out of control the other way.  The bigger bases were to promote the running game.  Just like all previous major rule changes had a purpose.  Fifty years ago, the DH and lower mound were to increase offense.  And just like all future rule changes will have a purpose.

So, despite the mixed early reviews, MLB is confident that it's on to something with its rule changes.  Changes that will eventually become accepted as just part of the game.  Changes that fans who hate them now may even grow to like.  Or stop caring about.  Which seems likely once there's a new set of rule changes for people to complain about.

America Northeast Conference

The Northeast Conference was riding high.  Fairleigh Dickinson had just pulled off one of the biggest upsets in NCAA Tournament history.  The Knights, who didn't even win the NEC Tournament and had already played in the First Four, beat Purdue to become just the second 16-seed to beat a 1-seed and the first NEC team ever to reach the Round of 32.  It was, without a doubt, the biggest win in conference history.

That high lasted less than a week.  On March 20, just days after FDU's incredible victory, fellow NEC member St. Francis Brooklyn announced that it was eliminating all varsity sports at the end of the current season.  Not just dropping down from Division I to a lower level.  Getting rid of varsity sports entirely!  Most St. Francis Brooklyn teams have already played their final season, and the Terriers' men's basketball team, one of just four programs to have played Division I men's basketball since the first NCAA Tournament in 1939 that has never made it (William & Mary, Army and the Citadel are the others), now never will.

St. Francis leaving is a major blow to the conference.  The NEC is already one of the lowest-rated Division I conferences.  Its champion often ends up in Dayton for the First Four.  Now, the NEC will be down to just eight members, one of which (Stonehill) is ineligible for the NCAA Tournament after moving up for Division II.  Next season, Merrimack will have completed its transition and become eligible, so the NEC will have seven tournament-eligible members in 2023-24.

As recently as 2020, the NEC had 11 members.  Then Robert Morris left for the Horizon League, Mount St. Mary's went to the MAAC and Bryant joined the America East.  Now the NEC is losing a charter member in St. Francis Brooklyn.  And it wouldn't be shocking if they aren't the last.

It would be easy to say that the NEC should look for expansion candidates to replace St. Francis and get the numbers back up.  There's one problem with that, though.  The NEC is one of the weakest conferences!  That's why its members keep leaving.  They're going to better leagues.  So, really the only place the NEC can go is to find Division II schools looking to move up to Division I.  That's how they got Merrimack and Stonehill.  But that wouldn't completely solve the problem, since any D-II school that does join the NEC would still have to go through the NCAA's four-year transition process.

Two years ago, a similar situation occurred in the America East Conference.  Hartford won its first America East Tournament and made its NCAA Tournament debut.  Just when everyone at Hartford was feeling great, the school announced that it was going from Division I to Division III.  The Hawks left America East at the end of last season and played as an independent this year, their final season as a Division I program.  In 2023-24, Hartford will officially be a Division III school.

Hartford wasn't the only school that left America East after the 2021-22 season.  Stony Brook did, as well, joining the CAA.  America East membership only dropped by one, though, since Bryant came over from the NEC, leaving the league with nine full-time members this season.  So, even with the two departures, America East membership essentially held steady.  And, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up poaching another NEC school.  Merrimack is already an America East associate member in men's lacrosse.

What happens if one or both of these leagues has its stability threatened, though?  Right now, everything seems to be calm, but this is college athletics we're talking about here.  Everything is always in a state of flux.  And it would be very easy to envision the outlier schools (Saint Francis U in the NEC, UMBC in America East) looking for a conference a little closer to home that they might see as a better fit.  There are only so many Division II institutions looking to move up to D-I that would be able to fill that void.

So, even though it's an admittedly crazy idea on the surface, I think an America East-NEC merger would be mutually beneficial.  It would be the opposite of the Big East and the American or the WAC and the Mountain West.  With the constant movement in college athletics, the stability of smaller conferences can be threatened.  That's especially true when you have two smaller conferences in the same general area that has schools other leagues might be interested in poaching (where the interest would likely be mutual).

I'm not saying a merger will or even should happen.  It's definitely something that's worth thinking about, though.  Because, again, constantly having to look to the Division II ranks for new members anytime somebody leaves is not sustainable.  It could also potentially impact the quality of the league, neither of which is very highly-rated to begin with.  In fact, they both rank towards the bottom among the 32 Division I basketball conferences.

Would a merger solve all of the problems?  Of course not!  But a merged league would be much more capable of losing a member or two without immediately having to scramble for a replacement.  There are currently nine teams in America East and eight in the NEC.  That would create a 17-member "America Northeast Conference" (working title).  While that number seems high, remember that the SEC and Big Ten will each soon have 16 members.  And, should it happen, a 17-team league can afford to lose a member or two while remaining competitive.

Increased competitiveness would be another benefit of a merged league.  Both the NEC and America East have a similar problem in that area.  Neither league is very balanced.  The good teams are significantly better than the bottom teams, with nobody really in the middle to level the playing field.  That's why neither league is viewed very highly nationally.  Beating a bunch of bad teams doesn't exactly help the tournament champion's resume, as the NEC's repeated trips to Dayton will attest.

Now, a merged league wouldn't necessarily be better top to bottom.  But the potential for it to be is definitely there.  There would be more good teams, and those good teams would get the chance to play each other, so it would have to help at least a little.  And, who knows?  Maybe playing more good teams in their conference would make some of the bottom teams better.  Which, in turn, would make the entire conference stronger.  And potentially raise its profile.

While I don't see an America East/NEC merger as imminent or even particularly likely, we all know how volatile college sports has become with all the realignment.  So I wouldn't be surprised if something does happen eventually.  Because it may reach a point where that's the only way to survive.

Don't Expand to 96

During the Final Four, Miami coach Jim Larranaga suggested that he'd be in favor of expanding the NCAA Tournament beyond 68 teams.  He based his argument around the number of upsets this year, which proves how much parity there is in college basketball.  Larranaga seems to be in favor of the 96-team field that was being floated around before they settled on a modest increase from 65 to 68 teams in 2011.  It was a bad idea then, and it's an even worse idea now.

Part of Larranaga's argument also seemed to revolve around the percentage of Division I teams that actually get into the tournament.  There were 353 teams that played Division I men's basketball this season.  Only 68 of them make the tournament.  That's less than 20 percent.  Which makes it exclusive.  It's for the best of the best.

Going to 96 teams would greatly diminish the value of an at-large bid.  There are only 36 of them!  Adding 28 teams to the tournament would suddenly mean there are 54 at-large bids available.  Sure, no "good" teams that were on the bubble would be left out.  But it would also reward way too many average teams in Power 5 (+ Big East) conferences that had mediocre regular seasons and really don't deserve to be in the field.  Because, let's be real here.  That's who'd be getting those additional bids.  Not mid-majors who are probably better.

It also wouldn't increase the potential for upsets, which are what make the NCAA Tournament so unique and so great.  In fact, I think the potential for upsets would actually decrease!  Think about it.  Most (if not all) of the mid-major teams would end up being seeded 9-24, which would mean they have to play an extra game while the top 32 seeds get byes.  Would there still be some upsets in the first round?  Sure.  But how many 20-seeds are beating 5-seeds?

Now, Larranaga is a high-major coach, so that's likely exactly what he wants.  The high-major teams hate seeing good mid-majors in the Tournament.  Because they know there's a chance that they'll lose.  If it was up to them, the NCAA Tournament would consist only of teams from the Power 5 conferences and Big East, as well as Gonzaga and maybe a few others.  There'd be no Florida Atlantic or George Mason or Loyola Chicago Final Four runs.

I've even seen it suggested that they just make the NCAA Tournament one giant 300-something team event where everybody gets in.  You finished 4-24 in the MEAC?  You're in!  You went 7-23 in America East?  You're in too!

That had to have been a joke, right?  I forget who it was who first suggested it (I think it was Mike Krzyzewski, but I'm not sure), but he didn't seriously think that was a good idea, did he?  Talk about completely devaluing the regular season!  (And, not to mention, why would anyone think that last-place teams in low-major leagues deserve a chance to play for the National Championship?  How is that good TV?)

What it seems Larranaga wants is, essentially, to turn college basketball into college football.  There are 130 teams that play top-level college football and more than 40 bowl games.  That means 80 of 130 teams get to play in bowls.  Or, I should say only 50 teams that don't get to play in bowls.  As long as you finish .500, you're bowl eligible (and you don't even need to be .500 if they don't have enough teams to fill all the slots).  Need further proof there are too many bowls?  They had to cancel one this season because there weren't enough bowl-eligible teams!

Is it an apples-to-apples comparison?  Of course not!  But I think it does get the point across.  And expanding the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams would still only be about 30 percent of all college basketball teams getting in.  But it's about quality, not quantity.  Which is why 96 isn't the way to go.  It would be expanding for the sake of expanding.  It wouldn't improve the quality, which I think we can all agree is pretty good.

The upsets are part of what make the NCAA Tournament what it is.  People love the upsets.  They love seeing FDU beat Purdue and Princeton beat Arizona.  And Florida Atlantic making the Final Four.  Things that, while they could still happen if the field were expanded to 96, likely wouldn't.  So, expansion to 96 teams wouldn't add anything (other than an extra round and 28 more) teams.  But it would definitely take something away.

Hopefully this is much ado about nothing.  Larranaga was obviously sharing his own personal feelings, and I don't know how much it's been discussed, at all, among the decision-makers at the NCAA.  But now that it's out there, you know others are thinking about it, too.  So, if the topic hasn't been brought up yet, it soon will be.

When they first discussed expanding the field to 96 and settled on 68 in 2011, it coincided with the start of the NCAA's new TV contract with CBS and Turner that saw every NCAA Tournament game aired nationally in its entirety for the first time.  That was initially a 12-year deal, but was renewed in 2018 and now extends through 2032.  So, there won't be a new TV contract to dictate any decisions about possible expansion for the next decade.  That doesn't mean they won't expand between now and then.  It just means there wouldn't be a secondary reason to do it.

Of course, there's also the revenue potential of going from 67 tournament games to 95.  It would be more money for the NCAA and more money for the schools.  Probably a lot more money.  Which is why the topic, should it come up, won't be ignored.

Expansion of the NCAA Tournament beyond the current 68 teams is inevitable.  I think we all realize that.  But there's no immediate need to go all the way to 96.  Should it get to that point, hopefully cooler heads will prevail and they'll once again do a modest expansion.  Because there's a difference between adding a few bubble teams and opening it up to everybody.  The former, as we've seen, doesn't have much of an impact on the quality.  The latter, I fear, very much would.

Most Unlikely Final Four Teams

Florida Atlantic's incredible run has come to an end.  The Owls, who had never won an NCAA Tournament game prior to this season, came thisclose to making the National Championship Game.  It actually would've been a fitting ending for one of the craziest, most unexpected NCAA Tournaments in recent memory.  Three of this year's Final Four teams were first-timers, although Florida Atlantic was definitely the most unlikely (even though it maybe shouldn't have been).

The Owls are just the latest unexpected Final Four team.  In recent years, there have been some blue blood programs that reached the Final Four (or Championship Game) in seasons where they were given a lower seed and got hot at the right time.  But there have also been some lower-seeded mid-major teams, like Florida Atlantic, that came seemingly out of nowhere and took the college basketball world by storm.

Which of those runs is the most unlikely, though?  Had Saint Peter's beaten North Carolina in the Elite Eight last year, there's no question who would've been No. 1!  But this isn't the most unlikely Elite Eight teams!  It's the most unlikely Final Four teams.  So, who is it then?

10. LSU (1986): LSU was the original unlikely Final Four team.  The first (and, for a while, only) 11-seed ever to make it, they beat the top three seeds in their region, including a Kentucky team that had already beaten them three times that season in the Southeast Regional Final, before losing to eventual National Champion Louisville in the Final Four.  Also, fun fact about this team, they played the first two rounds of the NCAA Tournament at home, prompting the rule change requiring games to be played at neutral sites.

9. Syracuse (2016): I'll be honest.  I thought Syracuse had absolutely no business making the NCAA Tournament in 2016.  They were 19-13, only finished tied for ninth in the ACC, and lost their first game in the ACC Tournament.  Well, not only did they get in, they didn't even have to go to Dayton!  They got a 10-seed!  And they proceeded to prove me completely wrong by making it all the way to the Final Four, where they lost to North Carolina.

8. South Carolina (2017): One year after 10th-seeded Syracuse, it was a random team from the SEC that reached the Final Four.  Frank Martin's South Carolina Gamecocks entered the NCAA Tournament having lost five out of seven and were the 7-seed in a loaded East Region that included No. 1 overall seed Villanova and ACC champion Duke.  It was South Carolina that made it to the Final Four out of the region, though, defeating fellow SEC team Florida in the Regional Final at Madison Square Garden.

7. UCLA (2021): Something weird was gonna happen in the 2021 Tournament that took place entirely in and around Indianapolis.  And UCLA becoming the second team ever to go from the First Four to the Final Four certainly qualifies!  They beat Michigan State in the First Four, then got on a roll, defeating second-seeded Alabama and top-seeded Michigan to set up a Final Four meeting with Gonzaga, a game that would become an instant classic, with Gonzaga winning 93-90 in overtime.

6. Wichita State (2013): Wichita State earned an at-large bid and a 9-seed after losing to Creighton in the MVC Championship Game, then cruised past Pitt in the first round of the NCAA Tournament before upsetting top-seeded Gonzaga.  After wins over La Salle and Ohio State, they became the Missouri Valley's first Final Four team since 1979, as well as the first 9-seed ever to make the Final Four in a 64-team field.  They gave eventual champion Louisville a game, too, losing 72-68.

5. Butler (2011): Butler almost won the National Championship in 2010, coming a Gordon Hayward halfcourt shot at the buzzer short of knocking off Duke.  They were a 5-seed that year, and that run was unlikely in its own right.  Butler's return to the Championship Game a year later was even more surprising.  They were an 8-seed and nearly lost to Old Dominion in the first round.  Then they upset Pitt, beat Wisconsin and knocked off Florida in overtime to get back to the Final Four, where they topped VCU (more on them later) in the most unlikely National Semifinal ever before falling to UConn.

4. Florida Atlantic (2023): Maybe we should've seen it coming with Florida Atlantic.  They did, after all, win the most games in the nation this season.  But they had also never won an NCAA Tournament game prior to this year.  The only Conference USA team in the field, they won four to earn the league's first Final Four berth since Marquette in 2003.  And the magical run nearly ended with a National Championship Game appearance.

3. George Mason (2006): This George Mason team was talked about a lot this week since its coach, Jim Larranaga, returned to the Final Four this year with Miami.  What George Mason did in 2006, though, was truly memorable.  They got an at-large bid out of the CAA and were one of the last teams in.  They ended up beating Michigan State, North Carolina and Wichita State before topping UConn in a classic Regional Final to become the second 11-seed, and first team from the CAA, to reach the Final Four.

2. Loyola Chicago (2018): Sister Jean became a national celebrity during Loyola Chicago's surprise run to its first Final Four since winning the National Championship in 1963.  They hadn't even made the Tournament since 1985, went 28-5 during the regular season and won the MVC Tournament.  Then it was a bunch of close wins--two points over Miami, one against Tennessee, one against Nevada--before a comfortable victory over Kansas State in the 9 vs. 11 South Regional Final.  And suddenly the Ramblers were rambling their way to the Final Four.

1. VCU (2011): In 2011, they expanded the field to 68 teams and introduced the First Four.  That's the only reason VCU even made the tournament!  Well, the Rams sure took advantage of the opportunity, going on the unlikeliest Final Four run in history.  They beat USC in the First Four, then blew out Georgetown and Purdue.  After a one-point overtime win over Florida State, they knocked off top-seeded Kansas to, incredibly, make it to Houston and the most unexpected National Semifinal matchup ever against Butler.

Did the NCAA expect a team to go from First Four to Final Four in the first year of the First Four?  Of course not!  But it sure was proof that adding three more at-large teams to the field was a good idea.  And it's also proof that there are some pretty good mid-major teams out there!  The fact that a VCU or a Florida Atlantic can make the Final Four just goes to show you why the NCAA Tournament is one of the best sporting events around.  And, hey, they do call it "Madness" after all!