Too Much Two Summers In a Row

Victor Wembanyama will be playing in the Spurs' Summer League games.  He will NOT being playing for France at the FIBA World Cup in August and September.  He originally planned on doing both, but decided to focus on his upcoming rookie season with San Antonio.  Wembanyama still hopes to play in the Paris Olympics next summer, where the hosts will be one of the medal favorites.  Which is actually another reason why he's passing on the World Cup.

A rookie, especially a rookie expected to become a star like Wembanyama, wanting to play in the NBA Summer League makes complete sense.  But, playing in the Summer League, then the World Cup, then an 82-game NBA regular season, then potentially the playoffs, then the Olympics, then right back into another 82-game regular season grind is a lot of basketball in two years.  So it also makes sense that he'd want a little break in the middle.  And the World Cup is really the one event you can drop.

That's really the biggest issue with FIBA's decision to move the Men's World Cup to the year before the Olympics.  Because it's a lot of basketball for everybody!  And the top players will end up having to make a difficult decision.  As much as they may want to play for their country, it might not be the best thing for their bodies.  So they have to make a choice.  Either play approximately 200 games (regular season, playoffs, international), if not more, over the course of two years, or leave the National Team without one of its best players.

Some countries can handle not having their top players.  Most can't.  And the choice those NBA guys make could very well determine the medal chances of their home countries at the World Cup.  Which is a double-edged sword.  Because the World Cup doubles as Olympic qualifying, so if they don't qualify this year, they have to play in a separate Olympic qualifying tournament next Spring.  Which is more international games to put on their bodies!

This is all because of a decision FIBA made after the 2014 edition of the World Cup.  They didn't want to continue holding their tournament in the same year as the FIFA World Cup, so as to both avoid confusion and raise the prestige of their event.  So they moved the next edition to 2019, putting the World Cup in the summer before the Olympics.  The two biggest international tournaments are in back-to-back years, with an NBA season in between.  And yet players are expected to do both.

I definitely criticize NBA teams for "load management" with their top players during the regular season.  But I do agree that three NBA seasons plus two major international tournaments without any sort of a break in between is too much.  That's why the USA usually has two completely different rosters at the World Cup and Olympics.  Which is a luxury not every country has.

The first time the World Cup and Olympics were scheduled back-to-back was 2019-20.  COVID, of course, changed that.  Instead, there was a very different challenge that summer, with the NBA Finals ending days before the Olympics started, and the Suns' Devin Booker getting literally no break.  He immediately flew from Phoenix to Tokyo and only arrived in Japan something like 36 hours before the USA's first game.  Then, as soon as he got back, the 2021-22 NBA season started.

Because the Tokyo Games were postponed, this will now officially be the first time the World Cup and Olympics are played in consecutive years.  And the NBA schedule has gotten back to normal, so there's at least a few weeks before and after the international tournament between seasons.  But still, that's asking a lot of the players.  Especially those top guys.

Throw in the fact that FIBA also changed the qualifying procedure for both the World Cup and Olympics.  World Cup qualifying in basketball is now essentially the same as World Cup qualifying in soccer, with international windows where teams play a double round robin against the other nations in their qualifying group.  Those international windows are in the middle of the NBA season, which means NBA players aren't available for those qualifiers.  Which doesn't matter for some countries, but makes a 
huge difference for others.

And those nations are a prime example of why FIBA's current schedule doesn't work.  Take France.  They beat the U.S. during the group stage in Tokyo and ended up winning the silver.  With Wembanyama, Joel Embiid and Rudy Gobert, they're one of the strongest teams in the world and would be among the favorites at the World Cup.  Without them, are they even a medal contender?

France at least knows they don't have to worry about qualifying for the Olympics.  Everybody else does.  The top two European countries at the World Cup will join them in Paris.  The others will have to go into Olympic qualifying.  So, there's obviously the incentive to get it done now, when Nikola Jokic will be playing for Serbia, Luka Doncic for Slovenia, etc.  Those guys should be available for the Olympic qualifying tournament, should it come to that, but that would mean more games for all of them to play in!

Throw in the fact that the Tokyo Olympics were postponed a year, and you've got three major international basketball tournaments in the four summers from 2021-24.  Then nothing for the next two years before going back-to-back again in 2027-28.  That's not very spread out, either.  It's a lot of exposure, followed by none for an extended period.  Which isn't ideal.  (Just look at women's soccer, which practically disappears on the international level in those two years following the Olympics and before the next Women's World Cup.)

While I understand their thought process, I think FIBA made the wrong move in pushing the World Cup back a year.  In addition to all the other reasons I've already mentioned, the concerns about the FIFA World Cup seem a bit unfounded.  Seriously, who's going to confuse basketball and soccer?!  Basketball is the second-most popular sport in the world, so I get their desire to give the FIBA World Cup more of a focus.  But, by rescheduling the World Cup, they're putting an undue burden on the players, who also have NBA seasons in between to think about.

So, when you consider all of that, Victor Wembanyama's decision not to play for France this summer is completely reasonable.  I'm sure it was a tough call, but it was the right one for him.  And it's one he wouldn't have had to make if FIBA's schedule was a little more accommodating.  You know, like it used to be.

Missing the Olympic Channel

It's been nearly a year since NBC shut down the Olympic Channel and moved most of their Olympic sports content to USA/CNBC and Peacock.  On the surface, it made sense.  USA and CNBC both have wider distribution, it cost money to keep a linear channel on the air, and they didn't have enough content to broadcast 24 hours a day without repeating stuff (sometimes multiple times).  Plus, they wanted to push Peacock, and they figured that the people who want to watch that content still would on Peacock.

For the most part, it hasn't been as bad as I originally envisioned.  They show stuff live on Peacock, then again on tape delay on either USA or CNBC (with some figure skating on E!).  Or, depending on the event, it'll be live on both Peacock and one of the cable channels (or NBC itself).  So, it's actually very few events that are streaming-only.  However, even though they can theoretically put everything on Peacock, they're actually showing less Olympic sports content than they were before!  And that really gets you missing the Olympic Channel.

I actually first noticed it during the winter.  When the Olympic Channel was on the air, they showed all of the winter sports.  Curling.  Luge.  Bobsled.  Biathlon.  Cross country skiing.  Ski jumping.  Peacock doesn't have any of the those.  The only winter sports shown on Peacock are alpine skiing, snowboarding and figure skating.

The summer sport options are also much more limited.  Among the sports featured on the Olympic Channel at various points were volleyball (both indoor and beach), archery, wrestling, diving, and probably some others I'm missing.  Peacock, meanwhile, is pretty much just the big three--track & field, swimming and gymnastics.

Pretty much every summer sport holds its World Championships in odd-numbered years.  The four-year cycle, of course, got thrown off by the pandemic and the Olympic postponement, which pushed the 2021 World Championships to last year, but we're back on the normal schedule this summer.  Which means World Championships in all of the major summer sports one year before the Paris Games.

In 2019, the last pre-Olympic year, all of those World Championships were on the Olympic Channel.  And not just the marquee events, either.  Swimming is only part of the larger World Aquatics Championships.  They showed all of it.  Diving, open water swimming, artistic swimming, water polo, and, of course, swimming.  The TV/streaming schedule for 2023 isn't out yet, but I'm sure the coverage won't be anywhere near as comprehensive this year.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't show water polo, open water swimming or artistic swimming at all.  And I'm 50-50 on whether I think they'll show any diving.

Which is more than I can say for beach volleyball.  In 2019, they had live coverage every day, showing multiple matches on the main court.  Last year, nothing!  And that was when the Olympic Channel was still on the air!  So, unless somebody else picked up the rights (which I haven't heard, although Tennis Channel has been showing some AVP matches, so it's possible), it'll likely be the same for the 2023 World Championships.

Ditto with volleyball.  The World League and World Championships will determine the first few berths in the Olympic tournaments.  (I think they even had the final Olympic qualifiers in the spring of 2021.)  So, they're important tournaments.  I'm not expecting to see much, or any, of them in this Olympic cycle.

Likewise, the Olympic Channel used to have all kinds of World Cup and smaller European events in gymnastics.  Those were also important for Olympic qualifying, especially with the individual berths available on each apparatus.  We don't get to see those anymore.  Now, it's just the U.S.-based events, as well as the World Championships in October.

Us track & field fans have actually been pretty lucky, so I can't (and shouldn't) complain.  Frankly, NBC's track & field coverage is better outside of the Olympics than during them!  Every Diamond League meet is live on Peacock and also on CNBC (either live or on tape delay), and several U.S.-based meets have been on NBC.  The U.S. Nationals and World Championships will be on NBC and CNBC or USA, as well.  But track & field is really the only sport still getting regular TV coverage.

TV coverage isn't anywhere near as important in the era of streaming.  I get that.  But the exposure these sports got on the Olympic Channel was tremendous!  You actually were somewhat familiar with the athletes (and not just the Americans!) going into the Olympics.  That simply won't be the case in Paris.  Because we won't get to see the World Championships (or these smaller events) in those other sports.

Will it be different next summer, when it's Olympic Trials instead of just U.S. Nationals?  Probably.  I remember two years ago, NBC had primetime coverage of both swimming and track & field virtually every night for like two weeks straight!  And they showed the Olympic Trials in a good number of other sports, too.  But, they also had both NBCSN and the Olympic Channel in 2021.  Now they don't.  Which could definitely change things.

NBC had its reasons for shutting down both NBCSN and the Olympic Channel.  They obviously did what they thought was the best for them as a business.  And I'm sure they based their decision on which sports to continue covering off a number of factors, total viewership most likely being primary among them.  They still show the sports that people watch.  The ones that fewer people do, they don't.  I get it, but it's a shame.

Times like this are why the Olympic Channel was so great.  U.S. Nationals and World Championships leading into the Olympics are a great lead-up for the following summer.  This summer's lead-up will be a little different.  With no Olympic Channel, there'll be fewer Worlds that we're able to watch.  Which is too bad.  Because the summer of 2019 was pretty fun!

Awarding the NHL's Best

Remember last season, when, instead of waiting until the NHL Awards, the NHL decided to announce some of the awards one at a time during the playoffs, while saving the big ones for the NHL Awards?  Yeh, that was terrible, wasn't it?  The whole point of the NHL Awards is to do them all at once!  So, it's good to see the NHL has returned to its senses and the NHL Awards will once again all be presented on the same night (like they should be).

My favorite thing about the NHL Awards is that there are so many, and each has its own named trophy.  The NBA and MLB have put names on their awards, but there are so few of them.  The NFL, of course, has been doing its own awards the night before the Super Bowl for about a decade now.  They somehow stretch that show out enough so that it takes two hours, but they also include the Hall of Fame announcement and have a bunch of stupid awards that are voted on by fans.  And the "trophies" are all the same.  Not so in the NHL!

As for who'll win, you'll have to figure we'll see a lot of Boston Bruins honored after their historic regular season.  The big award, though, the Hart Trophy, seems poised to be presented to the man who has emerged as the best player in the NHL...by a wide margin!

Hart: Connor McDavid, Oilers-With all due respect to the Bruins' David Pastrnak, who absolutely had an MVP-caliber season, his MVP-caliber numbers were nowhere near those put up by McDavid.  He led the league in goals (64), assists (89) and, obviously, points (163).  McDavid is the Oilers' captain, but he's also their best player.  In fact, he might be the best player in the entire league!

Norris: Erik Karlsson, Sharks-This one really is a toss up.  Cale Makar won both the Norris and the Conn Smythe last season and is arguably the top defenseman in the NHL.  But he only played 60 games this season (and is still a finalist!).  Erik Karlsson, meanwhile, played all 82 games and had 101 points.  That's a lot for a forward, let alone a defenseman.

Vezina: Linus Ullmark, Bruins-Boston doesn't put together the regular season it does without Linus Ullmark in goal.  Simply put, he was sensational in 2022-23.  He made 48 starts and had 40 wins, while also leading the league in save percentage (.938) and goals against average (1.89).  If there's any sort of knock on him, it could be that he only played in 48 games, while fellow Vezina finalists Connor Hellebuyck and Ilya Sorokin both started at least 60.  And Ullmark STILL led the league in wins, goals against and save percentage!

Calder: Matty Beiners, Kraken-When Seattle drafted Matt Beiners, the thought was that he'd quickly become the young face of the young franchise.  We're well underway towards that being exactly what happens.  Beiners had 24 goals and 57 points in his first full season, and the Kraken made the playoffs for the first time.

Ted Lindsay: Connor McDavid, Oilers-If, for some reason, McDavid doesn't win the Hart, it would be surprising.  If he doesn't win the Ted Lindsay Award it'll be downright shocking!  This is the NHLPA's MVP, voted on by the players themselves.  And if anyone knows that Connor McDavid isn't just the best, but the most valuable player, in the NHL, it should be the other players.  The Hart Trophy and Ted Lindsay Award usually end up going to the same person, which should be the case again this year.

Selke: Patrice Bergeron, Bruins-It sure seems like Bergeron is a Selke finalist every year, doesn't it?  This is his 12th straight time in the top three of the voting, and Bergeron has won the Selke five times, including last year.  There's no reason to think he won't make it two in a row and six overall.  It's basically Bergeron's award to lose until he finally decides to retire.

Lady Byng: Brayden Point, Lightning-During the playoffs, I'm part of a game with some of my Facebook friends where we predict who'll score the game-winning goal for every game that goes to overtime.  The running joke with Tampa Bay is that I pick Brayden Point so often, it turned into ALWAYS Brayden Point.  He's pretty good during the regular season, too.  Point scored 51 goals, including nine game-winners this year.  But on top of that, and the reason he's up for the Lady Byng, was he took a grand total of one minor penalty this season.  One!  On Nov. 3.  Point played the last 71 games without going to the box (although, he did get a fighting major on Feb. 7).

King Clancy: Darnell Nurse, Oilers-The King Clancy is always a tough one to predict because it doesn't really have anything to do with how they performed on the ice.  It's a humanitarian award.  Looking at the finalists and their resumes, though, the choice is clear to me.  The Flames' Mikael Backlund for his work fighting ALS, as well as everything else he does for children in the Calgary area.

Masterson: Kris Letang, Penguins-Congratulations to Clayton Keller and Alex Stalock for not just making it all the way back and resuming their NHL careers, but for putting up quality numbers this season.  And for being Masterson Trophy finalists.  What they did pales in comparison to what Kris Letang overcome, however.  He suffered a stroke in November and was back on the ice two weeks later!  Then het got hurt and missed a month, and his dad died during that month.  Letang was still among the top 10 in the league in average ice time.  Other players across the NHL have said how inspired they were by Letang.  That's perhaps the biggest compliment of all.

Adams: Jim Montgomery, Bruins-Boston set NHL records for wins and points and ran away with the President's Trophy.  Case closed.  Jim Montgomery is your Coach of the Year.  Dave Hakstol took Seattle to the playoffs for the first time in its second season as a franchise, and Lindy Ruff once again proved he's one of the best coaches in the league by orchestrating the Devils' return to the postseason.  But the Kraken and Devils didn't do what the Bruins did during the regular season.  And, sorry, but that can't be overlooked.  Especially when you consider Montgomery was in his first season with Boston.

GM: Bill Zito, Panthers-They don't present this one at the NHL Awards.  They wait until the Draft.  But I'm including it here anyway.  And I'm giving it to Florida GM Bill Zito.  The Panthers won the President's Trophy in 2021-22, but got swept out of the playoffs in the second round.  This season, they barely got in as the East's No. 8 seed and went all the way to the Stanley Cup Final.  Zito brought in Paul Maurice as head coach, completed a blockbuster trade for Matthew Tkachuk, and reinforced the team with some key free agent signings.  All of them played key roles in Florida beating the East's No. 1, 2 and 3 seeds in the playoffs.

London...and Paris...and Seoul Calling

MLB's London Series returned this weekend for the first time in four years with the Cubs and Cardinals taking their rivalry across the pond.  After the Yankees and Red Sox played two games at London Stadium in 2019, the plan was for it to become an annual thing, with the Cubs and Cardinals set to play in the 2020 edition.  Then our buddy COVID, of course, intervened, putting a halt on London games (for both MLB and the NFL) for a few years.

However, now that we're on the other side of the pandemic, they can go back to the original plan.  In fact, they included it in the CBA that took effect last year.  Games in London this year and next, Paris in 2025, then back to London for two more years.  They've even already announced that next year's London Series will feature the Mets and the Phillies.

The Yankees have expressed an interest in playing the 2025 games in Paris, but MLB is reluctant to give them (and, I'm assuming, the Red Sox) the first games in both London AND Paris.  Instead, they've been talking to the Dodgers about Paris.  Which leads me to believe those games will end up being Dodgers-Giants.

With the way the schedule is set up, international games will almost certainly have to be division matchups.  These are two-game series, and the only teams you can play a two-game series against are division rivals and your interleague partner.  And, for some reason, I don't see them taking Yankees-Mets or Cubs-White Sox or Dodgers-Angels overseas anytime soon.  But even still, they've got plenty of options with just divisional matchups for future international games.

My first thought is Astros-Rangers.  After three straight National League matchups, you'd have to figure it'll be the AL's turn to go to London again in 2026.  And, assuming both Texas teams are still good, that could be a worthwhile rivalry to showcase.  Even if not, we know both teams can hit and we know how small London Stadium can play, so those two games would at least be fun to watch.

Then in 2027, the last year that has already been agreed to, I say you go AL Central.  Why?  Because it'll be the sixth series in Europe and the AL Central is the only division left.  Yes, there are reasons for that, but it doesn't mean it'll still be the case four years from now.  So, the AL Central gets the nod, and White Sox-Guardians is the choice.

It's not just Europe, either.  MLB wants to increase its international exposure in other places, as well.  They've already been to Japan, Australia, Mexico and Puerto Rico (Canada doesn't count), and the Orioles played a pair of exhibition games against the Cuban National Team in the late 90s.  Where else might be on the horizon?  I've heard South Korea mentioned as another possibility for next season, and I can easily see Taiwan and/or China and maybe even Brazil as future sites.

If next year's games were in Japan, the Angels would be an easy choice (well, as long as they still had Ohtani).  But for Seoul, they're not such an obvious call.  In fact, there's only a handful of active Korean players, two of whom play for the Pirates.  Sorry, but I don't think the Pirates have enough appeal for the first regular season MLB games in Korea.  And, Ohtani or not, the Angels will still have Mike Trout.  So I'd send them anyway.  And have them play the Mariners.  (Or, you do A's-Angels with Oakland being the "home" team so that they have two fewer games for fans to not attend in that terrible stadium before they move to Las Vegas.)

While the games in Seoul look like they're a done deal, it's just a matter of when, MLB has given no indication of playing in either Taiwan or China.  That's just me spit balling.  And, if the San Diego Padres remain relevant, I can see them being selected to play in either of those countries.  I'll say against the Diamondbacks since, like the Yankees, they might not want to have the Dodgers play internationally too often.

One team that I haven't mentioned yet that would certainly be a worthwhile one to showcase in an international series is the Atlanta Braves.  Since the Mets and Phillies are already set to go to London, I'm gonna rule them out as the Braves' opponent for now.  Which leaves the Marlins and Nationals.  Neither one is a great option, but we're talking a few years from now, so it's possible Washington will be good (or at least less bad) again by then.  So, let's say Braves-Nationals for a series at the Maracana in Rio de Janeiro.

I'd imagine that games in Mexico and Puerto Rico will be semi-regular things, as well.  Since there isn't really any travel for those, they're pretty much open to everybody.  And, I'm fairly certain those are three-game series, which means the matchups aren't limited to division games, either.  Which opens up all kinds of possibilities!

They've also announced that next year's Field of Dreams Game will be at Rickwood Field in Birmingham, Alabama.  Willie Mays played there as a member of the Birmingham Black Barons, and they'll honor him by having the Giants face the Cardinals at the ballpark.  They couldn't play at the actual Field of Dreams in Iowa this year because of renovations, so I wonder if this means the field won't be available next year, either.  Or, does it mean that we'll have two Field of Dreams games--one in Iowa, one in Alabama--moving forward?

That's a one-game deal, so it's just a matter of choosing the teams.  Same thing with the Little League Classic, which has already been established as an annual event.  The challenge with those two events is having two teams that are playing a series close enough to the site so the day-of travel isn't a big deal (hence, the home teams in the Little League Classic so far being the Phillies, Pirates, Guardians, Orioles and Nationals).  Do we see the Cincinnati Reds and Elly de la Cruz in Williamsport next year?

Regardless of what the matchups are, it does seem like pretty much every team will be given a turn at playing internationally before they start to recycle.  They eventually will, of course.  Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox and Cubs are the biggest draws for a reason.  But, with the number of international and special event games coming up on the docket in the next few years, it sure looks like fans around the world will get to see plenty of different teams.  Which is, by far, the best way to grow the game.

Winter Olympic News On Olympic Day

Happy Olympic Day everybody!  Today is the 129th anniversary of the Olympic Games officially being revived and the formation of the International Olympic Committee.  Two years later, the first Modern Olympics took place in Athens, and next year's edition, of course, will be in Paris, birthplace of Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the Modern Olympic movement.

While the dates didn't exactly correspond with Olympic Day, the latest IOC Session just concluded.  And it was a busy one!  Especially when you consider this isn't an Olympic year, they sure covered a lot.  Most of which have to do with the Winter Games.

Perhaps the biggest change was standardizing the distances in cross country skiing.  There are six cross country events per gender on the Olympic program.  Only the sprint and team sprint covered the same distance.  In all the others, the men's event was longer.  Not anymore.  Starting in 2026, the distances will be the same for both men and women.  Which means the women will also have a 50 km race and both relays will be a 4x10 km.

FIS already made these changes on the World Cup circuit last season, so doing the same thing at the Olympics makes complete sense.  And, frankly, it's long overdue.  Especially having the women ski the 50 km, which is the Winter Games' version of the marathon.  (Ironically, in Beijing, the men's race was shortened to just over 30 km, or slightly longer than the women's distance, because of extreme temperatures.)

It's not just cross country skiing that will see significant changes in Milan Cortina.  In alpine skiing, they've changed the combined from an individual event to a team event.  Previously, it was the same skier completing a run of downhill and a run of slalom.  I actually loved the individual alpine combined since it determined the best all-around skier.  I'm actually excited by the change, though.  Because I think it could make for a really exciting event.

Most alpine skiers either specialize in the speed events (downhill, Super G) or the technical events (slalom, giant slalom).  So, the skiers in the combined would naturally try to excel in their specialty and do good enough in the other to medal.  Now that it's a team event, though, countries will use a speed skier in the downhill portion and a technical skier in the slalom portion.  Instead of one skier trying to do both disciplines, it'll be two skiers, one who specializes in each.  It's essentially become a relay, which I love.

The individual combined has been in the Olympics since 1988, but this year will be the fourth straight season it won't be held on the World Cup circuit.  The new team combined, meanwhile, will be contested in Austria in January.  They haven't said if the individual combined will remain on the World Championships program, but it looks like they've pivoted to making the combined a team event moving forward.

Speaking of team events, there have also been changes to those in Nordic combined and men's ski jumping.  Instead of four-man teams, it'll only be two members per squad.  And, since the skiing portion of the Nordic combined team event is a relay, that'll go from a 4x5 km to a 2x7.5 km (where they'll trade off 1.5 km intervals).  This is being done because of the reduction in quota places for both sports.  (Ski jumping will have fewer men and more women, but the same number of athletes.)

There was also some encouraging news about future Winter Olympics.  Under the old bidding rules, the 2030 host likely would've been chosen at this IOC Session.  The new bid process doesn't have a set timeline, though, which worked out for 2030, since a lack of interested candidates really put the IOC in a bind and resulted in the announcement of a host city having to be delayed.  Now it looks like the 2030 host will be announced next year in Paris right before the Olympics begin.

After Sapporo backed out and Salt Lake City stated its preference for 2034, Sweden stepped in with a bid very similar to their 2026 bid centered around Stockholm.  A majority of Swedes back the bid, and they've entered into the next step of the bid process, the "dialogue phase."  It's still a safe bet that Sweden will host in 2030, but we've since learned that Switzerland has expressed an interest, as well.

Sweden and Switzerland are two of at least six countries that have publicly indicated they'd be interested in hosting a future Winter Olympics.  You'd have to figure the United States, Canada and Japan are three of the other four.  My guess is that the fourth is also in Europe (Austria or Norway maybe?).  But I'd also be willing to bet other countries will also emerge.

That's why I'm not enamored with the idea that's been floating around of several "permanent" Winter Olympic sites that alternate hosting duties.  Global warming and the general lack of interested parties and/or available facilities are usually cited as the reasons why they're considering this.  But, especially now that they have the dialogue phase with potential hosts, that seems unnecessary.  Especially since it would place the burden on the same places while not opening up the Olympics to other areas.

Almaty, Kazakhstan, for example, put together a very good bid for last year's Winter Games that ultimately went to Beijing.  Kazakhstan has never hosted an Olympics.  Neither has Central Asia, for that matter.  Almaty seems like the perfect place to kill two birds with one stone.  And the IOC won't know how suited the city is to host unless they go there and see for themselves.  Likewise, there are other potential first-time hosts that probably wouldn't even be considered if they went to a semi-permanent rotation.

We also know that there should be plenty of interest in both the 2034 and 2038 Winter Games (and likely 2042, as well).  Sapporo was the odds-on favorite to host in 2030 until the bid collapsed (for a number of reasons).  Salt Lake City wanted to wait until 2034 because of LA 2028.  Even if it's just those two in the running, only one can host.  The other can wait until 2038, which would push any potential bidders for that year into 2042, etc.  Especially since the entire point of the dialogue phase is to match prospective hosts with the next available Games that makes sense for both parties.

I'm opposed to the idea of permanent rotating hosts for a few reasons, but those are the main ones.  Rotating hosts may seem ideal from a logistical standpoint, but I think the negatives far outweigh the positives.  It would also take some of the appeal away.  The whole point is to go all over the world.  Going the same places over and over again would get boring for everybody (athletes, broadcasters and fans alike).  Not to mention the fact that it would likely become rather burdensome on those handful of host cities and countries (it would also be unfair to other areas in those same countries that might be interested in hosting somewhere down the line).

They also made a decision on boxing, keeping the sport and affirming its place in LA but ditching the federation.  No decision yet on Russia and Belarus, explaining that there's still enough time before one has to be made regarding the Paris Games.  Those Paris Games will be here before we know it, though.  Because the next Olympic Day will be less than a month before the start of the next Olympics.

Boxing Themselves Out

There's been a lot of behind-the-scenes drama plaguing Olympic boxing over the past few years.  Boxing's international federation has so many problems, in fact, that the IOC stripped it of its official status in the leadup to the Tokyo Games and ended up organizing the boxing tournaments in Tokyo itself.  That will be the case again in Paris.  As for LA and beyond, boxing's in a very precarious position.

When the IBA (International Boxing Association) first had its recognition revoked in 2019, the IOC was basically telling them they needed to get their act together or their place on the Olympic program could be at risk.  Four years later, they still haven't gotten the message.  The IOC claimed it had no other choice and has already recommended the IBA's permanent withdrawal, with the vote set to be taken later this week at the end of the IOC Session.

The IBA obviously hasn't taken the news well, calling the entire process "truly abhorrent and purely political" while also stressing that some of the recommended changes have already been implemented.  They filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport to have the IOC vote delayed, but it was denied and the vote is still set to take place this week.  It does seem likely that CAS will eventually have a full hearing regarding the IBA's status as boxing's official, recognized international federation, though.

In response to the IBA's status being stripped by the IOC, a rival body called "World Boxing" was formed.  The IOC doesn't recognize World Boxing, either, calling it a "rogue organization."  So, like I said, it's a mess.  Without an IOC-recognized international federation to organize and run the tournament, boxing's place on the Olympic program is very much in jeopardy.

Boxing's not the only sport in trouble with the IOC.  While not as disorganized as boxing, weightlifting has had its share of issues, as well.  And weightlifting's place in the Olympics beyond next summer in Paris is also teetering.  So is modern pentathlon's.  They were ordered by the IOC to drop riding as one of the disciplines and are in the midst of trying to figure out what to replace it with, as they desperately try to stay in the Olympics.

All three weren't included on the list of "core" sports for 2028.  Instead, the IOC wants to add skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing in their place.  Since the Olympic Charter stipulates that there are only 28 "core" sports that must be included on the Olympic program, three sports would need to go for skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing to be included.  So, the concern for boxing, weightlifting and modern pentathlon is very real.

Being dropped from the list of Olympic "core" sports would be catastrophic in so many ways.  First and foremost, if you're not a "core" sport, there's no guarantee you'll be included at an Olympics.  It would be entirely up to the host organizers.  More significantly, however, not being a "core" sport would be a massive financial blow.  IOC revenue is only distributed among the 28 "core" sports (on a tiered structure...Tier I sports like swimming and track & field get the most, modern pentathlon gets the least).  For a lot of sports, those funds they receive from the IOC are their lifeblood, and often make up a significant portion of their budget for the entire quadrennium.  

Now, there's still a chance that all three sports can maintain their places in the Olympics.  About a decade ago, the IOC tried to drop wrestling in order to make room for another sport.  The backlash was so great that when the vote on which sport to replace it with took place, wrestling won overwhelmingly and kept its place.  (And, to its credit, wrestling took the IOC's suggestions, did improve itself, and is once again securely on the list of "core" sports.)

Barring a change to the Olympic Charter that expands the list of "core" sports, it seems like it least one, if not all three, of the vulnerable sports will be removed from the program.  The IOC has made no secret that it wants to increase its appeal with the younger demographic.  Skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing all fit the bill in that area, and they all successfully debuted in Tokyo.  So, you can bet that there'll be a push for all three of them to become permanent fixtures starting in 2028.

Which means next summer's Games in Paris very well may be the final Olympic appearance for the three vulnerable sports.  For modern pentathlon, it almost certainly will be.  Frankly, the only reason the sport hasn't been dropped from the Olympic program already is out of respect to Pierre de Coubertin.  The founder of the Modern Olympics also created the modern pentathlon, which hasn't been "modern" in quite some time and is the least-popular Summer Olympic sport among virtually every metric.

Picturing the Olympics without modern pentathlon is actually fairly easy.  Picturing the Olympics without boxing or weightlifting though?  I actually can't!  With the exception of 1912, there's been a boxing tournament at every Olympics since 1904.  Weightlifting was one of the sports contested at the first Modern Olympics in 1896 and has been a regular part of the program since 1920.  Both sports have so much history that it's virtually impossible to think of the Olympics without them.

Unfortunately, the problems plaguing both sports may be too much to overcome.  Boxing's situation is the result of bad governance and financial mismanagement.  Weightlifting's biggest issue is performance-enhancing drugs.  They've done everything they can to keep the sport clean, suspending athletes and entire national teams for doping, but it's still a massive stigma.  Although, they're at least trying, which is more than I can say for boxing and its defiance.

Of course, even if they're dropped from the "core" sports list, there's still a chance that boxing and weightlifting could be added by a host committee for their specific Olympics.  Both sports have a number of weight classes, though, which means a lot of athletes.  And, with the IOC getting stricter about athlete quotas, that would mean a massive reduction in the number of weight classes/athletes.  Not to mention no Olympic guarantee moving forward (just ask baseball/softball and karate about that).

However, while it would be sad and jarring to see boxing and/or weightlifting removed from the Olympic program, they'd have nobody to blame for their respective fates but themselves.  Boxing was given a chance to clean up its mess and chose not to.  So, should the sport be dropped from the list of "core" sports (or even out of the Olympics entirely), it would be boxing's own fault.

Best Father/Son Combos

The hits just keep on coming!  Now we've reached the first Father's Day without my dad.  But that doesn't mean I can't celebrate the 41 Father's Days I had with him.  Besides, Father's Day is always a special day on the sports calendar simply because of the bond fathers and sons share, often through sports.

Just think about all the stories of kids growing up in a Major League clubhouse only to become Major Leaguers themselves.  Or just look at the Toronto Blue Jays, who have three second-generation Major Leaguers on their roster, two of whom are the sons of Hall of Famers!  They're not the only ones.  From Kody Clemens to Tyler Nevin, they're everywhere you look!  And that's just in baseball!  There are plenty of examples in other sports, too.  That doesn't even include LeBron and Bronny James, who could end up becoming the best father/son of all-time. 

As it is, LeBron and Bronny don't currently make this list.  I could easily do four separate ones for each of the four major league sports, but it's almost more exclusive to combine them into one.  Because of that, families like the Ripkens, Alous and Tkachuks didn't make the cut.  So who did?

10 (tie). Ray/Bob/Bret/Aaron Boone: Baseball's only three-generation Major League family absolutely deserves a place.  Ray was a two-time All-Star in the 50s and was on Cleveland's last World Series championship team.  Bob had an outstanding 20-year career as a catcher primarily for the Phillies and Angels.  Bret won three Gold Gloves at second base and Aaron hit one of the most famous home runs in the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry before going on to become Yankees manager.  Bob also managed in the Majors with the Royals and Reds.

10 (tie). Clay Matthews, Sr./Jr./III: I'll be honest.  I had no idea there were three Clay Matthews who played in the NFL!  We all know about Clay III and his outstanding decade with the Packers.  And his dad, Clay Jr., who played linebacker for 19 years mainly for the Browns.  We also know about Hall of Fame offensive lineman Bruce Matthews, Clay Jr.'s bother and Clay III's uncle.  Clay Sr., however, also had a brief NFL career, playing four seasons with the 49ers between a stint serving in the Korean War.

9. Marv/Kenny Albert: Is this cheating?  Maybe.  But any list of sports' greatest father/son duos wouldn't be complete without Marv & Kenny Albert.  Marv is considered the "voice of basketball," but he's also called boxing, football and hockey (among other sports).  Kenny followed in his father's footsteps and is the No. 1 play-by-play announcer for the NHL on TNT and FOX's No. 2 guy for the NFL.  He's also done every Olympics since 2002.  No matter the sport, no matter the network, there's a good chance Kenny Albert is there!

8. Gordie/Mark/Marty Howe: Hockey's Holy Trinity is Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr.  You can debate which of the three is the best all you like, but it's hard to say Gordie isn't the best ever.  He played 25 years for the Red Wings, retired, then came back to play for the Houston Aeros of the WHA specifically so he could play with his sons, Mark and Marty.  He ended up playing until he was 52 (a record the ageless Jaromir Jagr is trying to beat!).  Mark and Marty are nowhere near as accomplished as their father, but the sheer fact that the three of them played together on the same line for three years gets them on the list.

7. Dell/Stephen/Seth Curry: Dell Curry was one of the best three-point shooters of his day and is the Charlotte Hornets' all-time leading scorer.  Now he's best known as the father of Steph and Seth.  And, no offense to Seth, who's had a solid NBA career, but he's not his brother.  Not even close.  Stephen Curry isn't just one of the premier NBA players of this generation.  He may go down as the greatest three-point shooter in history.  Not to mention the greatest player ever to wear a Golden State Warriors jersey.

6. Vladimir Guerrero, Sr./Jr.: Vlad Sr. is a Hall of Famer.  He played 16 seasons, primarily for the Expos and Angels, finishing with 449 home runs.  And, back before he became exclusively a DH later in his career, had a cannon for an arm from right field.  Vladito may end up being a better hitter than his father.  He's only 24 and already has 113 career home runs, as well as a Gold Glove at first base, and his 2021 season, when he was the MLB home run leader, was exceptional.  The coolest part is that Vlad Sr. made his name in Montreal, while Vlad Jr. is currently the face of the Toronto Blue Jays.

5. Jack/Joe Buck: Yep, I snuck another pair of father/son broadcasters in there!  The venerable Jack Buck is in the broadcasters' wing of both the Baseball and Pro Football Halls of Fame.  He called 18 Super Bowls and 11 World Series on radio, and a pair of World Series on TV (including his iconic calls in Games 6 & 7 in 1991).  Joe called all but two World Series from 1996-2021 and took over as FOX's No. 1 NFL play-by-play announcer, as well, in 2002 and called six Super Bowls for the network before he and partner Troy Aikman left to do Monday Night Football on ESPN.

4. Bobby/Barry Bonds: They have more home runs (1,094 between them) than any other father/son combo in baseball history.  Barry has most of those.  He's the all-time leader with 762, but Bobby wasn't exactly a slouch, hitting 332 of his own!  If not for the steroid allegations that have tainted his legacy, Barry Bonds would be considered one of the greatest players ever.  As it is, he's still one of the defining players of his era.  Bobby's career is a bit underrated, but he was a tremendous leadoff hitter for eight teams (primarily the Giants) throughout the 70s.  In addition to the combined power numbers, the Bondses are the only two players in MLB history with five 30/30 (home run/stolen base) seasons.

3. Ken Griffey, Sr./Jr.: We all know the coolest stat about the Griffeys.  That game in 1990 when they not only both started in the same Mariners outfield, they both homered!  Senior was a key member of the Big Red Machine in the 1970s.  Junior is one of the best players of all-time (and my favorite player growing up).  When his name first appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot in 2016, he received all but three votes, setting a record for percentage until Mariano Rivera's unanimous election.  He hit 630 home runs, and he made it look effortless with that gorgeous left-handed swing.  He also made playing center field look effortless, winning 10 career Gold Gloves.

2. Bobby/Brett Hull: Bobby Hull is widely considered one of the greatest players of all-time.  He was named one of the "100 Greatest NHL Players" during the league's centennial celebration in 2017 and was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1983.  Brett was also named one of the "100 Greatest NHL Players" but, surprisingly, hasn't been elected to the Hall of Fame yet.  When he is, they'll become the first father/son combo to both be elected to their sport's Hall of Fame as players.  They're also both arguably the greatest player in the history of their respective primary franchises--Bobby with the Blackhawks, Brett with the Blues.

1. Archie/Peyton/Eli Manning: One family, three quarterbacks, two No. 1 overall picks, four Super Bowl titles, three Super Bowl MVPs.  Archie was a fine NFL quarterback in his own right, playing for really bad New Orleans Saints teams in the 70s.  And he's the third-best of the three!  Now let's talk Eli and his 210 consecutive starts, two Super Bowl upsets of the Patriots and two Super Bowl MVP awards for the Giants.  He's No. 2 behind his brother, who's on the shortlist of greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.  I could go on all day about Peyton's 18 brilliant seasons.  I'll limit it to this.  His five MVP awards are a record, he was the first quarterback to win the Super Bowl with two different teams, and his first-ballot Hall of Fame election in 2021 was obvious the second he retired after Super Bowl 50.

Gotta Keep So Cal

In a move that was very unsurprising, San Diego State has informed the Mountain West of their intent to leave the conference at the end of the 2023-24 academic year.  Which, not coincidentally, is the year UCLA & USC will leave the Pac-12 for the Big Ten and Texas & Oklahoma will go from the Big 12 to the SEC.  The interesting thing about San Diego State's move, though, is that they haven't received an invitation to join another conference, yet they sent the paperwork to the Mountain West anyway.

Does that mean San Diego State will end up becoming an independent, if only temporarily?  Almost certainly not.  They're the hottest commodity of any school not currently in a Power 5 conference and the Pac-12 and Big 12 are reportedly both interested in adding the Aztecs.  So, it might just be a matter of where they end up going.

The Pac-12 has been adamant about the fact that San Diego State has not received an offer to join the conference (at least not yet).  Although, the reason for that could simply be the Pac-12 waiting to get its new TV deal done first.  Either that or the Pac-12 potentially losing another member (Colorado back to the Big 12), which San Diego State would then, presumably, replace.

While San Diego State going to the Pac-12 is still the most logical thing, the fact that the conference is waiting (for whatever reason) is dumb.  Because not only does everyone know San Diego State is the perfect fit, it's been rumored for so long that everybody's just assuming it's a done deal.  Which is why waiting is stupid.  Because the Big 12 could easily set its sights on becoming a 16-team superconference itself and steal San Diego State from right under the Pac-12's noses.

Losing San Diego State to the Big 12 because they dragged their feet would be the worst possible outcome for the Pac-12.  Not as bad as UCLA & USC leaving, but pretty close.  Because, frankly, the Pac-12 needs San Diego State more than San Diego State needs them.

Los Angeles isn't just the second-biggest city in the country, it's also by far the largest media market on the West Coast.  Come 2024, the only Power 5 conference based on the West Coast won't have a school in that market.  San Diego, while not as big as LA, is still a major market in Southern California.  And they can't not have a team in Southern California!

I'm not just looking at it from the obvious TV perspective, although that can't be ignored.  Not having a team in LA (let alone two) is a huge loss.  Replacing it with San Diego is at least another major market in the same footprint.  San Diego is two hours from LA.  That's nothing!  Especially since Pac-12 teams fly everywhere anyway!  Beyond that, though, there aren't many major markets left on the West Coast that aren't already represented by a Pac-12 school.

More importantly, Southern California is a hotbed for high school sports.  Always has been, always will be.  The Pac-12 needs San Diego State to keep that recruiting foothold in an incredibly fertile area!  And, seriously, how bad would it look if a conference that has "Pacific" as part of its name is getting out-recruited on the Pacific Coast simply because of a lack of presence?  Especially if San Diego State ends up going to the Big 12 instead, which would give both the Big 12 and Big Ten a presence in what should be the Pac-12's backyard!  That applies to all sports, but especially football, which we all know is the money-maker that drives all of these decisions.

Now let's look at it from a competitive standpoint.  San Diego State is more than capable of holding its own in the Pac-12.  It was less than three months ago that their men's basketball team played in the National Championship Game, after all.  And they just built a 30,000-seat stadium for a football team that went 12-2 two seasons ago. 

It's not an exaggeration to say San Diego State has the strongest all-around athletic program in the Mountain West.  All the more reason for the Pac-12 to seek them out as a UCLA/USC replacement.  And, if they were smart, they'd strike while the irons are hot.  Because somebody's gonna swoop up San Diego State, and the Pac-12 can't let that be another conference.

Frankly, I don't know what they're waiting for!  I'd understand about wanting everything with the TV deal squared away if San Diego State didn't add to the Pac-12's value as a TV property!  Locking in the Aztecs, who, again, are strong in both of the two sports broadcasters care about (they also made the Super Regionals in softball) would figure to make the number the conference gets from a TV network increase.  Not to mention the fact that an 11th team would help make up for some of the lost game inventory that comes with UCLA and USC's departures.

San Diego State knows its value.  That's why they're trying to negotiate their Mountain West exit fee.  Their argument is actually a pretty good one, too.  They earned the Mountain West a lot of money with their run to the National Championship Game (this year's March Madness shares are estimated to be around $10 million each).  By leaving the conference, they won't see a penny of it.  

There's also some confusion about whether San Diego State actually withdrew from the Mountain West or not.  The conference took the school's letter as "We're leaving," while San Diego State insists it's simply "exploring its options."  They also asked for a one-month extension to the June 30 deadline that would increase their exit fee, citing "unforeseen delays involving other collegiate athletic conferences beyond our control."  (Translation: We're still waiting for the Pac-12 to invite us, but they haven't yet.)

Ultimately, San Diego State will end up leaving the Mountain West, most likely in the fall of 2024.  There are very few, if any, people who don't see that as inevitable...including those in the Mountain West.  The only question is Pac-12 or Big 12?  The answer should be obvious.  Which is why the Pac-12 needs to get it done before it's too late.

You Have No Rival

That's essentially the message the Big Ten gave to Penn State when they released their football schedule for 2024, the first year UCLA and USC will be members of the conference.  Preserving rivalries was important, but they also didn't want teams playing the same opponents every year, so they took a mix-and-match approach.  Some teams have multiple permanent rivalry games (Michigan has both Michigan State and Ohio State).  Others, like Penn State, have none.

According to Big Ten officials, that's actually a good thing.  Since Penn State won't have any permanent opponents (let alone multiple ones), they'll theoretically play everybody more often.  Which, if you think about it, they will.  A nine-game schedule against 15 opponents means they can play three games against everyone in a five-year period (and they can probably make the trip to LA an annual thing).  It'll take everybody else at least six years to play each non-permanent opponent a third time.

Still, though, college football is built on rivalries, so you've got to feel for Penn State on some level.  Especially since they've been playing both Michigan and Ohio State annually ever since they joined the Big Ten.  Now, they're not guaranteed to face either of the conference's marquee programs.

I get and appreciate what the Big Ten is trying to do.  They didn't want teams to lose their rivalries, but also wanted to make sure they weren't playing the same schedule every year.  Most importantly, they wanted to make sure everybody goes to everybody else's stadium at least once in a four-year period.  Not having divisions gives them the flexibility to do just that.

So, they came up with a compromise.  They preserved 11 rivalry games: Michigan-Ohio State, Michigan-Michigan State, Illinois-Northwestern, Purdue-Indiana, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Minnesota-Iowa, Wisconsin-Iowa, Illinois-Purdue, Nebraska-Iowa, Rutgers-Maryland, and UCLA-USC.  Everything else will rotate every year.  Which means everyone has different number of rotating opponents.  Iowa will have six.  Penn State has all nine.

To me, there's a very simple solution that would also achieve both goals.  I've been a big advocate of the 3-6-6 model for the SEC.  It would work just as easily in the Big Ten.  And they're already playing the nine-game conference schedule, so it would be very easy to implement.  With the 3-6-6 model, you'd have your six permanent opponents, then the others would be six on, six off in a two-year cycle, then they switch.

For the Big Ten, here's how it might look:

Indiana: Maryland, Northwestern, Purdue
Illinois: Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Maryland: Indiana, Ohio State, Rutgers
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
Minnesota: Iowa, UCLA, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Illinois, Iowa, USC
Northwestern: Indiana, Illinois, UCLA
Ohio State: Maryland, Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State
Rutgers: Maryland, Michigan, Penn State
UCLA: Minnesota, Northwestern, USC
USC: Nebraska, UCLA, Wisconsin
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, USC

Over in the SEC, meanwhile, they're sticking with the eight-game conference schedule for 2024, in part because of the schools' existing non-conference commitments.  And I thought the way they made the 2024 schedule was just funny.  The headline is "every SEC team will play either Texas or Oklahoma," when really all they did was take the 14 existing SEC teams and split them between the two new members, with half playing Texas and the other half playing Oklahoma.  Texas and Oklahoma's eighth game, of course, will be their annual matchup in Dallas.

Because of the SEC's division structure, teams went a LONG time between matchups against opponents from the opposite division.  A lot was made about Georgia's first visit to Texas A&M (the Aggies joined the conference in 2012), and the Bulldogs' 2024 game at Alabama will be just their fifth regular season meeting in 20 years (most of the recent Georgia-Alabama meetings have been in either the SEC Championship Game or College Football Playoff).

What the SEC did that was clever was take advantage of the fact that there will no longer be divisions.  They preserved some of the matchups that were important to schools (LSU-Alabama, Florida-Tennessee, Georgia-Auburn), as well as the untouchable annual games (Florida-Georgia, Auburn-Alabama, Texas-Oklahoma, etc.).  But, otherwise, they're mixing and matching.  Alabama, for example, is playing five teams from the current East Division in 2024. 

Meanwhile, they're bringing back the Texas-Texas A&M game, which hasn't been played since the Aggies joined the SEC, and figures to be one of THE marquee matchups of the 2024 season.  So will Alabama-Oklahoma.  And Florida-LSU.  And Georgia-Texas.  Games that simply weren't played that often (or at all) under the divisional structure.

As of now, this is a one-year bridge schedule while they come up with a more permanent solution.  SEC teams are required to play at least one non-conference game against an opponent from another Power 5 league or Notre Dame, so some are hesitant to drop a non-conference game (aka. an easy win) for a conference game against an opponent that will be significantly better.  I do think they'll eventually go to the nine-game schedule, though.

Part of that is figuring out who the permanent opponents for every team will be.  As I've been saying, I think the SEC would be wise to adopt the 3-6-6 model moving forward.  The tough part with that is getting the teams to agree on who their permanent opponents will be.  Which will be tough.  Since they'll want to preserve rivalries, but also want to make sure they get marquee games and still have a chance to win.

Here's what I would go with when and if the SEC goes to a nine-game conference schedule and 3-6-6 model (everybody has one obvious permanent opponent, which makes it a little easier than the Big Ten):

Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Texas A&M
Arkansas: Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
Florida: Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, Tennessee
Kentucky: LSU, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
LSU: Alabama, Kentucky, Texas A&M
Mississippi: Auburn, Mississippi State, Missouri
Mississippi State: Mississippi, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Missouri: Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Arkansas, Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi State
Tennessee: Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Alabama, LSU, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Surprises So Far

We're about two weeks away from the midway point of the MLB season.  And, I've gotta admit, a lot of what we've seen this season has been surprising.  Not the A's being horrible.  We all knew that would happen!  This bad?  Maybe not.  But we knew they wouldn't be any good either way.  Not the entire AL Central being worse than the entire AL East.  Again, something we all probably could've seen coming.

There have been surprise teams on both ends of the spectrum.  The teams that would be in the playoffs right now certainly aren't those you'd expect.  Of course, we're still a long way away.  The Atlanta Braves were 55-55 in early August two years ago.  They finished 33-18 and won the World Series.  So, there's a lot of season left, and a lot can still happen.

Which is why I'm not overly concerned about the teams that have underachieved so far.  I can easily see one of them still making a run.  Especially if they address their needs at the trade deadline.  Likewise, the teams that have exceeded expectations so far are one key injury away from being completely out of contention.  But that doesn't change what's happened over the season's first 10 weeks. 

Here are the teams that have been the biggest surprises in 2023, five good, five bad.  Can the surprisingly good teams keep it up?  And can those whose 2023 season hasn't quite gone as expected yet turn it around?  If not, do they become sellers at the deadline?

Pleasant Surprises
Los Angeles Dodgers: This was supposed to be the season in which the Dodgers' long run of NL West supremacy was challenged.  They lost a bunch of free agents, didn't really sign anybody, and the Padres loaded up.  It was supposed to be San Diego's turn.  Instead, the Dodgers have gotten major contributions from unheralded players both on the mound and at the plate.  As a result, they're sitting in second place (behind surprising Arizona) and a wild card position.

Miami Marlins: Maybe some of that South Florida mojo has carried over to the Marlins.  Because in a division that includes three playoff teams from last season, all of whom made moves to get better (with varying degrees of success), the best anyone had Miami pegged was fourth place.  But here they are, eight games over .500 and in second place, ahead of both the Phillies and Mets.  They've also got Luis Arraez chasing .400, which sure looks like it could go on all season.

Tampa Bay Rays: It sure seems like the Rays win every single night, doesn't it?  Their home record, especially, is insane!  And they're threatening to turn the best division in baseball--the AL East--into a runaway.  Although, this is the exact same thing they seem to do every year, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised that the Rays are doing it yet again.

Arizona Diamondbacks: Where did the Diamondbacks come from?!  If somebody other than the Dodgers was gonna lead the NL West, it was surely gonna be San Diego, right?  Nope!  It's Arizona that doesn't just have the NL West lead.  The Diamondbacks have the best record in the National League and the second-best in all of baseball.  This despite the fact that likely the only people who can name anybody on the 26-man roster are hardcore Diamondbacks fans.

Pittsburgh Pirates: Pittsburgh is usually the team that the contenders raid at the trade deadline.  It sure seemed like that would be the case again this year.  Closer David Bednar would almost certainly be shipped out of town in late July.  Now?  Maybe not.  A great start by the Pirates coupled with terrible starts by some other NL Central clubs (*cough* Cardinals *cough*) has Pittsburgh in first place.  That doesn't seem likely to last, but the Pirates can absolutely stick around in the wild card race.

Unpleasant Surprises
St. Louis Cardinals: I can't remember a season when the Cardinals were ever this many games under .500!  Especially in a year when they were supposed to be good!  I really don't get it.  The Cardinals are ubertalented and have of the top three vote-getters in last season's MVP race (Nolan Arenado and winner Paul Goldschmidt).  Instead, they're a last-place team with the worst record in the National League.  For a team that, again, was supposed to run away with the division.

New York Mets: Steve Cohen pays an awful lot of money for the Mets to not be the Mets, but that's exactly what they've been so far this year.  Despite their high payroll, the Mets can't get out of their own way and have had their share of injuries (as usual).  They've got so much talent that it's easy to see them turning it around.  But, in the NL East, it's also conceivable that they don't just miss the playoffs, they struggle to hang around .500.

New York Yankees: The best laid plans of mice and men...  Entering the season, the Yankees knew exactly what their team looked like on paper.  That team is yet to take the field, as injuries and inconsistency have once again plagued the Yankees so far this year.  They were in last place (albeit with a winning record) earlier in the season, much to Yankees haters' delight, and the fact that they're still winning games despite the team they've been putting out there is actually impressive.  This isn't where anybody wanted to be, though.  And it doesn't look like the Rays will be letting anyone close the gap.

Chicago White Sox: Maybe I just think the White Sox are better than they actually are.  Because this is the second straight year they've significantly underachieved after winning the division in 2021.  And the fact that they play in the AL Central, where the team that ultimately wins the division will probably be hovering around the .500 mark, there's really no excuse for either the White Sox or Guardians to not be making this a race.  If they get hot and go on a run, though, they can make the division race a blowout in their favor.

San Diego Padres: After last year's run to the NLCS, signing Xander Bogaerts to a massive contract, and the Dodgers losing some key players, this season was supposed to be the Padres' chance.  And it very well still might be.  So far it hasn't been, though.  San Diego has been a huge disappointment, sitting below .500 more than 60 games in.  They've got the talent and can easily go on a run when/if everybody's healthy.  Will that be too late, though?

The Greatest Ever

We've been living through the greatest era in the history of men's tennis.  That's not a secret.  The Big Three aren't just three of the all-time greats, they're the three winningest players in men's Grand Slam tennis history.  Roger was the first to 20.  Then Rafa passed him and got to 22.  And now Novak is the all-time men's leader with 23 Grand Slam titles, one behind Margaret Court's all-time record for total Grand Slam singles titles (men or women).  There's no reason to think he won't get there at Wimbledon, either.

Those combined numbers are staggering!  Not only are they the only three men with 20 Grand Slam titles, they've combined to win 65!  That's more than 16 years' worth of Grand Slam tournaments.  Federer was the first to win one, at Wimbledon in 2003.  There wasn't a Wimbledon in 2020, so there's been 79 Grand Slam tournaments over the past 20 years since Roger's first win.  Those three have won more than 82 percent of them!  It's, frankly, ridiculous.  (Throw in Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka with three each and that's 71 of 79 between five players!)

Here's the crazy thing about it, too.  It could easily be more!  I'm not talking about the numerous Grand Slam finals where one of the Big Three played another.  I'm talking about the Grand Slams where other circumstances came into play.  Had things been different, Djokovic would've become the record-holder a lot earlier than now!

Think about just the past few years alone.  In 2020, there was no Wimbledon (where he was the two-time defending champion) and he got defaulted at the US Open after accidentally hitting a linesperson with a ball.  Then last year he had the Australian Open visa saga and wasn't allowed to enter the U.S., thus making him ineligible for the US Open.  He also missed the 2017 US Open due to injury and wasn't back to being "Novak Djokovic" until mid-2018.

In 2015-16, he had his "Djoker Slam," which he capped by filling winning his first French Open title.  Then in 2021, he finally beat Nadal at the French and came within a loss in the US Open final from winning the first calendar-year Grand Slam since Steffi Graf in 1988 (and the first by a man since Rod Laver in 1969).  There was even potential for a Golden Slam that year, but Djokovic lost in the semifinals at the Tokyo Olympics.

Olympic gold is the only thing he's missing.  In fact, his only Olympic medal was a bronze in 2008.  (He lost the bronze medal match in 2021 and withdrew from the mixed doubles after losing the semifinals, thus conceding the bronze, in Tokyo.)  His last chance to change that will most likely be right back at Roland Garros next year.  (If you're wondering about Davis Cup, Serbia won it for the first time ever in 2010.)

Consider this, too.  Djokovic hasn't lost a match at the Australian Open since 2018.  In the past five years, he's won the title four times and wasn't allowed to play in 2022.  It's been six years since his last loss at Wimbledon!  Four straight titles with the not-held 2020 tournament mixed in.  He holds the record for championships at both tournaments (10 in Australia, 7 at Wimbledon--tied with Federer).

He's "only" won three US Opens...where he's also lost the final six times!  Ditto at Roland Garros.  "Only" three titles, but also four final losses (three of which were against Nadal).  In total, Djokovic has been to 34 career Grand Slam finals, which is, you guessed it, an all-time record!  

Djokovic isn't anywhere near done, either.  He's 36, so he's not exactly young, but he's the youngest of the Big Three.  Federer is already retired, while Nadal, who's indicated he'll retire in 2024, will miss most (if not all) of the remainder of this season.  Djokovic shows no signs of slowing down, so it's reasonable to think he'll get to 25 (maybe even this year).  And 30, ridiculously, isn't out of the question!

Twenty-three Grand Slam titles and 34 Grand Slam finals are staggering enough numbers!  Then think about this: Over the first six years of his career (2005-10), Djokovic had a grand total of one Grand Slam title (the 2008 Australian Open) and two other Grand Slam finals (the 2007 & 2010 US Opens).  In his 46 Grand Slam appearances since then, Djokovic has won nearly half of them!  Twenty-two to be exact!  To call that "absurd" would be an understatement!

During his prime, Roger Federer had a streak of 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals (he also made at least the quarterfinals of every Grand Slam tournament for nine straight years, which is equally insane!).  Djokovic's longest streak of consecutive finals is six (2015 Australian-2016 French).  That makes all the Grand Slam finals almost more impressive.  (He had a seven-year quarterfinal streak from 2009 Wimbledon-2016 French, which, while not Roger's nine straight years, is still impressive in its own right.)

It's already widely accepted that he's the greatest hardcourt player in history.  He's making an argument as the greatest grass court player, too.  And, let's not forget, he's won three French Open titles on his "weakest" surface.  Simply put, there really isn't much of an argument.  Novak Djokovic is the greatest men's tennis player in history.

I'll always be first and foremost a Roger guy, so no disrespect to Federer.  Not by a longshot!  In fact, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are the reason why Novak Djokovic is the greatest player ever.  We've never seen anything like the Big Three.  And it took Djokovic a while to catch up to Roger and Rafa.  He didn't just catch up.  He surpassed both of them!  The three of them made each other better.  And Novak is the best of the three.

When we look back at the Big Three Era, we'll do so fondly.  We got to see three of the greatest players in history...all in their primes...as contemporaries!  But the greatest of them all is Novak Djokovic.  The all-time leader with 23 career Grand Slam titles (so far!).

Canada's Next Cup

When Lord Stanley first donated a championship trophy in 1892, the original idea was that it would go to "Canada's top-ranking amateur hockey club."  Professional teams weren't eligible to compete for the Stanley Cup until 1906, although it, of course, eventually became a strictly professional prize and has been awarded to the NHL champion for nearly a century.

In those early years, it was also a strictly Canadian prize.  The first American team to play for the Cup was also the first to win it--the 1916-17 Seattle Metropolitans.  After that, an American team wouldn't win again until the 1927-28 Rangers, and the first all-American Stanley Cup Final was the next year, when the Rangers played the Bruins.

As the NHL has expanded and the number of American teams has grown, the Stanley Cup has spent plenty of time on both sides of the border.  The Montreal Canadiens have won the Stanley Cup 24 times, more championships than any team in North American pro sports except the Yankees.  And the Toronto Maple Leafs have the second-highest number of Cup wins at 13.  That's 37 total Cups between two of the NHL's marquee franchises, plus another five for Edmonton and one for Calgary, making it 43 Stanley Cup championships between the NHL's current Canadian teams.

The Canadian teams actually had a pretty good decade-long run in the 80s.  The Oilers won five Cups in a seven-year span from 1984-90, and in the two years they didn't win (1986 & 1989), the Final was Montreal vs. Calgary, with the Canadiens and Flames winning once each.  Then, after back-to-back Cups by the Penguins, Montreal won again in 1993, making it eight in 10 years for Canadian franchises.

Since then, though, nothing.  Incredibly, Montreal's Cup win in 1993 is still the most recent for a Canadian team.  We even went 10 years without a Canadian team even in the Final between the Canucks in 1994 and the Flames in 2004, and (five different) Canadian teams are 0-6 in the Final since Montreal's most recent Cup.

While there are plenty of theories why the Canadian teams have been in a collective 30-year drought, it would be foolish to think that it'll continue indefinitely.  We'll eventually see a Canadian team win the Cup again.  There might even be another late 80s-type run.  I'll even make the crazy suggestion that we may one day actually see the Maple Leafs hoist the Cup for the first time since 1967.

There are only seven Canadian teams (compared to 25 American teams), so the odds of them winning the Cup going into the season are already smaller.  But some of the seven are definitely closer to being Stanley Cup contenders than the others.  Which one is the closest though?  Well, let's rank 'em and find out...

7. Vancouver Canucks: Vancouver's actually come the closest of anybody to ending Canada's drought, twice losing in Game 7 of the Final, both times to a superior team (the 1993-94 Rangers and 2010-11 Bruins).  Unfortunately, the Canucks are a long way from the days of Roberto Luongo and the Sedin brothers.  Right now, they seem like the furthest away from Cup contention of the seven Canadian teams.

6. Ottawa Senators: Ottawa isn't much closer to the Cup than Vancouver is.  Especially when you consider what division the Senators play in.  They're also in the process of being sold.  Maybe after the sale is complete, the new owner will make the necessary investment.  Because, frankly, they aren't really that far.

5. Montreal Canadiens: After an unexpected run to the Final in 2021 (when the temporary realignment put all the Canadian teams together in the North Division), Montreal has been downright bad over the past two seasons, finishing last in the Atlantic Division both times.  Things may seem a little dire, but I don't think it can continue.  At the very least, they'll move out of cellar.  It may take a few years for them to get back to Cup contention, but it'll happen.

4. Calgary Flames: Last season, Calgary actually finished second in the Pacific Division.  That was when they still had Johnny Gaudreau, though.  This season, without Gaudreau, they missed the playoffs.  Still, they've got enough talent there and their division is quirky enough to think that a run next season isn't out of the question.

3. Winnipeg Jets: Fun fact: neither incarnation of the Winnipeg Jets has ever reached the Stanley Cup Final.  The only other teams in the NHL with that distinction are the Blue Jackets and Kraken, but Seattle's only been around two years.  Anyway, the Jets aren't that far away from being a serious Cup contender.  They made the playoffs this season and have Connor Hellebuyck in goal.  And we all know how much of a difference a good goalie can make.

2. Toronto Maple Leafs: It's not even funny anymore.  Every year, for 82 games during the regular season, the Maple Leafs are one of the best teams in the NHL.  Then they get to the playoffs and fall apart.  This season they at least made it to the second round!  There's no reason to think it won't continue being more of the same.  Loads of talent, lots of promise, talk of being a Cup contender, the season ending in disappointment.

1. Edmonton Oilers: If the Leafs weren't the Leafs, they'd be an easy call for No. 1.  Instead, the top spot goes to Edmonton.  You wanna talk a team with a ton of talent?  Leon Draisaitl is one of the top 10 players in the NHL and is the second-best player on the Oilers!  When they played the Golden Knights in the second round of the playoffs, I said, "the winner of this series is going to the Final."  Edmonton, of course, lost that series.  Next year, it might be a different story.  Edmonton is GOOD!  And the most likely team to end Canada's Stanley Cup drought right now.

That Didn't Take Long

We knew when the LIV Golf Tour was formed two years ago, that some sort of truce with the PGA Tour would eventually be reached.  And that the PGA would ultimately end up being the winner.  After all, the PGA is the established, globally-recognized brand with the rich history.  It also stood to reason that Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), the main benefactor of LIV Golf, would eventually either run out of money or get tired of losing it.

The fact that it only took two years, however, is shocking.  The wounds are still fresh from the bitter divorce between the PGA Tour and the players who left to join LIV, and it looked like a reconciliation might not even be possible.  But that reconciliation will happen.  And it'll happen sooner than probably anyone expected.

In the end, you could call the PGA Tour the "winner."  As has been the case with every merger in the past (NFL/AFL, NBA/ABA, NHL/WHA), the bigger, established entity is the one that prevailed.  But, like those mergers, this one also brings about some fundamental changes that will come over from the organization being absorbed.  So, I guess you could say the players who left for LIV, only to be welcomed back into the PGA, are winners, too.  Those who stayed with the PGA, though?  They've got to feel like they drew the short straw.

There were, in fact, a lot of players on both tours who were unhappy about these developments.  Most of them didn't even know about it until the deal was announced.  It wasn't even brought up at a meeting between players and PGA Tour executives over the weekend.  So, needless to say, they were caught off guard.  And they also made their feelings known.

One unnamed PGA player called it "insanity."  He said that LIV Golf was "dead in the water" and "wasn't working," but the PGA offered them a "life jacket" anyway.  Another wondered why the merger even needed to happen when the PGA was winning the battle, both in the court of law and the court of public opinion.  Mostly, though, the PGA members were angry that they looked like idiots for defending the PGA Tour this entire time, only to get nothing in return for their loyalty.

Meanwhile, players who defected the PGA for LIV's nine-figure salaries, will be welcomed back next year.  So will those who sued the PGA Tour in federal court last year, accusing the tour of being a monopoly.  The reinstatement process hasn't been outlined, and will be "complicated," but there's no doubt that everyone resigned their PGA membership to join LIV Golf will regain their tour cards in 2024.  So, can you really blame the guys who stuck with the PGA for wondering if it was even worth it when the LIV guys will essentially face no consequences?

Especially when there are players who turned down LIV's offer to stay with the PGA.  Tiger Woods reportedly declined $800 million, and more than $2 billion combined was left on the table.  So, while LIV defectors like Phil Mickelson are calling this an "awesome day," those who stuck with the PGA understandably don't feel the same.

Most of that anger is directed at PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan.  The players are calling him a hypocrite for taking LIV's money after holding such a hardline stance in defense of the PGA for the last two years.  They also didn't like that they had absolutely no input on the merger.  Or the fact that Monahan will essentially be promoted to CEO of the new combined tour.

It's not hard to find the root of LIV Golf's troubles.  They obviously spent a lot of money attracting top players, but had major issues drawing sponsors.  And, let's not forget, they played their entire first year without a TV deal because none of the networks wanted to jeopardize their relationship with the PGA.  And the last-minute deal they signed this year with the CW has been full of problems.  So, it seems pretty evident that LIV wasn't going to last much longer regardless.  Which means the merger benefits them far more than the PGA, even if it means giving up the LIV Golf name. 

But the Saudis still had money to spare, so the PIF will become one of the key corporate sponsors in the combined venture.  Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund, will also become the chairman of the tour and have a seat on the PGA's policy board.  Sounds like a pretty good deal.

While the animosity between the PGA Tour and LIV Golf makes them the two headliners in the merger, the DP World Tour is also a partner, bringing all of the world's major golf tours together under the same umbrella.  That part of the agreement is a very good thing.  Starting in 2024, the three tours will merge into a single, combined for-profit business which will incorporate elements of all three tours into its tournaments.

How exactly that'll happen is among the details that need to be figured out in the coming weeks and months.  LIV Golf's team concept, for example, is something you'd think will work its way into the new model in some form.  The board of directors will come together to make the schedule, and it seems like the PGA will still be responsible for organizing and administering competitions and overseeing the rules.

Ultimately, it does seem like this merger is a good thing for golf.  It's been two years of infighting and lawsuits and bad PR.  No one has looked good.  So, even if the merger doesn't necessarily bring peace, it at least unifies the game and brings all of the top players back together again.  And all of the best players playing against each other in the same tournaments is absolutely what's the best for all involved.

Which doesn't mean there won't be some hard feelings and underlying tension once the PGA Tour and LIV Golf players reunite next year.  The merger took everyone by surprise.  And, while it's being dubbed as a "win-win," it isn't necessarily a win for everybody.  Not yet anyway.

A First-Time Champion

Well, this certainly wasn't the Stanley Cup Final anyone was expecting!  The Golden Knights aren't much of a surprise.  They were the top seed in the West, after all.  But the Panthers?  To say their being here is "unexpected" would be an understatement.  Yet here they are.  Four wins away from their first Stanley Cup.  As are the Knights.  Which means we're guaranteed to have a first-time champion for the first time since 2018 (which was the last time Vegas was in the Final).

Last year, Florida won the President's Trophy, only to get swept in the second round by Tampa Bay.  This season, they barely made the playoffs!  Think about that for a second.  The Panthers only got in because Pittsburgh lost to Chicago in its second-to-last game of the season.  Had the Penguins beaten the Blackhawks, they get in and Florida doesn't.  Now the Panthers are playing for the Cup.

Their run is made even more remarkable when you consider who they've played.  In the first round, they played the record-setting Bruins and fell behind 3-1...only to win the next three straight, two of them in Boston, and both of those in overtime!  With the Bruins out, Toronto (who learned there is a second round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs this season) became the favorites.  The Panthers beat them, too.  In five.  Then the favorites became Carolina, the team with the second-most points in the league behind only Boston.  Florida won the opener in quadruple overtime en route to a series sweep.  So, since going down 3-1 to the best team in the league, the Panthers are 11-1!

Has luck been on their side?  Absolutely!  Florida's 5-0 in overtime, with four of those overtime wins coming on the road!  Every game of the Eastern Conference Final was decided by one goal, and nine of the Panthers' 12 playoff wins have been by one goal.  However, they're also 8-1 on the road in the postseason, so it's certainly been more than just luck going their way.

There's that old saying about how a hot goalie is all you need to make a deep playoff run.  (We saw the Kings win a Stanley Cup in 2012 almost entirely because of Jonathan Quick.)  Sergei Bobrovsky is proving that.  He's been outstanding throughout the playoffs!  Along with Matthew "Mr. Overtime" Tkachuk, he's probably the Panthers' leading candidate for the Conn Smythe.  And they definitely would NOT be in this position without Bobrovsky (which is exactly why they got him as a free agent last year).

With Vegas, meanwhile, you saw it coming the second they finished off Edmonton.  As soon as they went up 3-0 in the Western Conference Final, I said, "they ain't losing four straight."  I still thought that even after Dallas won Games 4 & 5.  And the Knights showed early in Game 6 that they had no interest in having that series go back to Sin City.  They dominated the Stars to the tune of 6-0 and advanced to the Final for the second time in franchise history.

The Knights have proven throughout these playoffs that they're one of the most talented offensive teams in hockey.  Jack Eichel is making the most of his first career playoff experience, and he and Jonathan Marchessault are such a good tandem, you'd think they've been playing together for years!  Throw in Carrier, Karlsson, Smith and Stone (among others), and is there any question about their depth?  Their fourth line is just as capable of scoring as their top line!

It's a good thing that they have so much firepower.  Those guys will need to figure out how to get it past Bobrovsky, though.  Which might be easier said than done.  I can easily see him stealing at least one game, maybe more.

For the Golden Knights, though, this is the culmination of what they've been building ever since they joined the NHL six years ago.  The league wanted them to be good right away, but I don't think anybody expected this!  They aren't just the model all future expansion teams will strive to become, they've also been one of the best teams in the league throughout their existence.  Making the Final in their expansion season was unexpected.  This season, it was not.  Vegas not only expected to be here, they expect to win.

And I'd have to classify the Golden Knights as the favorites coming in.  But only a slight favorite.  Because the Panthers definitely have the advantage in goal, and if Bobrovsky continues playing the way he has in the first three rounds, he won't just steal a game or two.  He could end up stealing the Cup!

Florida is far more than just their goaltender, though.  They might've backed into the playoffs, but they've taken the opportunity and run with it.  Being the underdog hasn't fazed them.  Playing on the road hasn't fazed them.  And, let's not forget, this team had the best record in the league last season.  They've shown us why since Game 5 of the Boston series.  Whether they win the series or not, I feel fairly confident in saying they'll at least pick up the first Stanley Cup Final win in franchise history.

Winning the series isn't out of the question, but it does seem like a tall order.  Vegas is just better than Florida and has too much firepower.  I said the same thing about the Bruins, Maple Leafs and Hurricanes, though.  And the Panthers have that South Florida mojo on their side, too, so that can't be discounted.

Speaking of South Florida mojo, it's crazy that the basketball and hockey teams have never won the Stanley Cup and NBA Finals in the same season!  We've come close a few times (in 1994, the Rangers won the Cup and the Knicks lost the Finals in seven), but it still hasn't happened!  Unfortunately, I don't think it will this year either.  In fact, I think both the Panthers AND Heat will lose.

Vegas has taken us on a wild ride since the Golden Knights joined the NHL.  They've quickly become the gold standard.  Although, I'm sure they'd be perfectly fine with trading that gold for the silver of the Stanley Cup.  Before the Super Bowl comes to Las Vegas in February, the Stanley Cup will make a pit stop there first.  Golden Knights in six.